LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 OF" 
 
 Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. 
 
 Received October, 1894. 
 ^Accessions No. Si: tf02j. Class No. 
 

 3S<D>3B,<3ffll 
 
LECTURES 
 
 
 
 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON * CO. 
 
 1845. 
 
LECTURES 
 
 ON 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE CHRISTIAN KNAPP, D.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOaY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE. 
 
 TRANSLATED BY 
 
 LEONARD WOODS, JUN. D.D. 
 
 PRESIDENT OF BOWDOIN COLLEGE, BRUNSWICK, MAINE. 
 
 SECOND AMEKICAN EDITION, 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE LAST LONDON EDITION. 
 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 THOMAS WARDLE, 144 CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON ft CO. 
 
 1845. 
 
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1845, by THOMAS WARDLE, in the clerk's office of the 
 District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 PRINTED BT C. SHERMAN, 
 
 19 St. James Street. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Translator's Preface p. 9 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 1. Of Religion and Theology, and the difference be- 
 
 tween them 23 
 
 2. Of religion as the means of the moral improve- 
 
 ment and perfection of men 27 
 
 3. Of natural and revealed religion 28 
 
 4. Is the knowledge of God innate 1 32 
 
 5. Of the articles of faith, and the analogy of faith 33 
 
 6. Of the mysteries of religion 35 
 
 7. General observations on the use of the holy scrip- 
 
 tures, reason, and tradition, as sources of 
 Christian doctrines 37 
 
 8. Of the object, different degrees, principal periods, 
 
 and biblical appellations of divine revelation 40 
 
 9. Of the scientific treatment of Christian theology 43 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AS THE SOURCE OF OUR 
 KNOWLEDGE IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 1. Names and divisions of the books belonging to 
 
 the holy scriptures 47 
 
 2. Of the authenticity or genuineness of the books 
 
 of the New Testament 47 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 3. Of the authenticity of the books of the Old Tes- 
 
 tament 48 
 
 4. Of the canon of the Old Testament, or the collec- 
 
 tion of the books of the Old Testament into a 
 whole 50 
 
 5. Of the canon of the New Testament, or the col- 
 
 lection of the books of the New Testament 
 into a whole 53 
 
 6. Of the unadulterated correctness and integrity of 
 
 the Old and New Testament scriptures. ... 56 
 
 7. Of the truth and divinity of the doctrines taught 
 
 by Christ and his apostles 57 
 
 8. Of the inspiration of the scriptures of the Old 
 
 and New Testament, or the higher divine in- 
 fluence enjoyed by the sacred writers .... 62 
 
 9. Historical observations comparing the concep- 
 
 tions and expressions of the ancient world 
 respecting immediate divine influence .... 66 
 
 10. Of the various theories respecting the manner 
 
 and the degrees of inspiration 68 
 
 11. Of some of the principal attributes of the holy 
 
 scriptures 71 
 
 12. Of the use of the Bible as the source of the doc- 
 
 trines of revelation 74 
 
 13. Of the reading of the holy scriptures 78 
 
 BOOK I. DOCTRINE OP GOD. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 THE EXISTENCE AND THE NOTION OF GOD. 
 
 14. Of the notion of God 85 
 
 15. Of the proofs of the divine existence 8C 
 
 16. Of the unity of God flO 
 
 17. Of the scriptural names of God 93 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF OOD. 
 
 18. Introduction to the doctrine respecting the na- 
 
 ture and attributes of God 94 
 
 19. Of the spirituality of God 98 
 
 SECT. 
 
 20. Of the eternity and immutability of God .... 99 
 
 21. The omnipotence of God 101 
 
 22. Of the omniscience of God 103 
 
 23. Of the omnipresence of God 105 
 
 24. The wisdom of God 108 
 
 25. Introductory remarks respecting the nature and 
 
 perfections of the divine will 109 
 
 26. Of the freedom, immutability, and efficacy of the 
 
 divine will HI 
 
 27. General remarks on the moral attributes of the 
 
 divine will 113 
 
 28. Of the veracity and the goodness of God . . . . 114 
 
 29. Of the holiness of God 116 
 
 30. Of the justice of God H7 
 
 31. Of the justice of God (continued) 120 
 
 32. Of the decrees of God (Appendix) 124 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF FATHER, SOU, AND HOLY GHOST. 
 
 PAGE 
 . 130 
 
 33. Introductory remarks 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 34. Is this doctrine taught in the Old Testament 1 131 
 
 35. Of those texts in the New Testament in which 
 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned 
 
 in connection 133 
 
 36. Of those texts in which the Father, Son, and 
 
 Holy Ghost are separately mentioned, and in 
 which their nature and mutual relation are 
 taught 135 
 
 37. Of the texts in which divine names are given 
 
 to Christ 136 
 
 38. Of the texts in which divine attributes and 
 
 works are ascribed to Christ, and in which 
 
 divine honour is required for him 138 
 
 39. Of the Holy Spirit, and his personality . . . . 140 
 
 40. Of the divinity of the Holy Spirit 142 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 41. Are there in Jewish or heathen writings any 
 
 traces of the doctrine of the Trinity which 
 were not derived from Christian sources ? . . 144 
 
 42. History of the doctrine of the Trinity during the 
 
 second and third centuries, before the Nicene 
 Council 148 
 
 43. History of the doctrine of the Trinity during 
 
 the fourth century, and of the distinctions 
 established at the Nicene Council, and since 
 adopted in the orthodox church 
 
 44. History of the doctrine of the Trinity since the 
 
 time of the Reformation 
 
 152 
 
 158 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE WORKS OF GOD. 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 
 
 45. Of the meaning of the word World," and of 
 
 synonymous words .............. 161 
 
 46. What we mean when we speak of the creation 
 
 of the world ; the proof of a creation ; the 
 material from which it was made; with a 
 sketch of the various opinions entertained 
 on this subject ................ 163 
 
 47. The doctrine and language of the Biblical 
 
 writers respecting the creation in general, 
 and how they are to be understood ...... 166 
 
 48. The work of creation twofold; different classes 
 
 of creatures; our knowledge of them; and 
 of God in the creation of the world; the best 
 
 169 
 
 49. Of the Mosaic account of the creation ; its ob- 
 
 ject ; and the various hypotheses adopted to 
 explain it .................. 171 
 
 50. Explanation of the Mosaic history of the creation 176 
 
 ARTICLE VI. 
 
 CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION OF MAN. 
 SECT. PAGB 
 
 51. Of the nature of man, especially of the soul of 
 
 man, and of his destination 180 
 
 52. Of the Mosaic account of the origin of the hu- 
 
 man race .. .. 184 
 
 53. Of the image of God in which man was created 189 
 
 54. Of the primitive state of man ; his mental and 
 
 moral perfections 192 
 
 55. Of the primitive state of man ; his bodily excel- 
 
 lences, and speech 195 
 
 56. Of the primitive state of man; his external ad- 
 
 vantages ; and the notion of a golden age . . 197 
 
 57. Of the propagation of the human race 200 
 
 ARTICLE VII. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING ANGELS. 
 
 58. Of the importance of the doctrine concerning 
 
 angels, and some introductory historical re- 
 marks 202 
 
 59. Of the appellations of angels ; their nature ; 
 
 proofs of their existence ; their creation and 
 original state; and the classes into which 
 they are divided 207 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY ANOELS. 
 
 60. Of the present state and employment of holy 
 
 angels 209 
 
 61. Of the classes of good angels ; their names ; and 
 
 the worship rendered them 212 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 THE FALLEN ANGELS, OR EVIL SPIRITS. 
 
 62. Of the existence of evil spirits, and their apos- 
 
 tasy 215 
 
 63. Of the nature and attributes of evil spirits ; 
 
 their present and future condition; their 
 number, classes, and names 219 
 
 64. Of the employments and the effects of evil spirits 222 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 POWER OF SATAN OVER THE HUMAN BODY AND THE 
 MATERIAL WORLD. 
 
 65. Of the bodily possessions recorded in the New 
 
 Testament 226 
 
 66. Of magic and spectres 231 
 
 ARTICLE VIII. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 
 
 67. What is meant by the providence of God, and 
 
 historical remarks respecting this doctrine ? 235 
 
 68. Of the proof of the doctrine of divine provi- 
 
 dence, and of the divisions under which it 
 has been treated 238 
 
 69. Of the preservation of the existence and of the 
 
 powers of created beings and things . . . . 241 
 
 70. Of the government of God 245 
 
 71. The government of God in relation to the free- 
 
 dom of man, and to the evil existing in the 
 world 247 
 
 72. Of the nature and attributes of Divine Provi- 
 
 dence 252 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 BOOK II. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY 
 THE FALL. 
 
 ARTICLE IX. 
 
 OF SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 73. What is meant by sin ; the different words used 
 
 in the Bible to denote sin, and the meaning 
 
 of them .................... 259 
 
 74. What does reason, without the use of the Bible, 
 
 teach us respecting the sinful state of man, 
 and the origin of it? And how far do the 
 results of reason on this subject agree with 
 the Bible? .................. 261 
 
 75. Mosaic account of the sin of our first parents 
 
 266 
 
 76. Of the imputation of the sin of our first parents 273 
 
 77. In what the natural depravity of man consists ; 
 
 its appellations in the Bible; when it has 
 its principal seat in man; and how its ex- 
 istence may be proved from the holy scrip- 
 tures .................... 277 
 
 78. Of the nature and attributes of this corruption ; 
 
 its propagation ; its punishableness ; also of 
 the origin of sinful desires among men, and 
 their punishableness ............ 284 
 
 79. Of the representations of the ancient church- 
 
 fathers respecting human depravity, and the 
 manner in which the ecclesiastical phrase- 
 ology on this subject and the various forms 
 of doctrine were gradually developed . . . . 289 
 
 80. Results of the foregoing discussion respecting 
 
 the doctrine of natural depravity, and ob- 
 servations on the mode of teaching this doc- 
 trine .................... 293 
 
 81. Explanation of the idea which is commonly 
 
 connected in theology with the expression 
 "Actual Sins," and of the different degrees 
 of sin .................... 297 
 
 82. Divisions of sin in respect to the law, to the 
 
 knowledge and purpose of him who commits 
 
 it, and to the action itself ....... , . . 299 
 
 83. Of some other divisions of sin, and sins of par- 
 
 ticipation ................. 
 
 303 
 
 84. Of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or the 
 
 sin against the Holy Ghost .......... 305 
 
 85. Of the state into which men are brought by the 
 
 commission of sin, and the different kinds 
 and names of it ................ 308 
 
 86. What punishment is, and what is the object of 
 
 it; how the divine punishments are named 
 in the Bible, and what we are there taught 
 respecting their nature ; also the various di- 
 visions of the divine punishments .. .. .. 311 
 
 87. Some remarks on positive divine punishments 314 
 
 PART II. 
 
 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY 
 THE REDEMPTION. 
 
 ARTICLE X. 
 
 OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOB THE RESTORATION OF 
 MEN, IN A GENERAL VIEW; THE EXPECTATIONS, PRE- 
 DICTIONS, AND TYPES OP THE MESSIAH, AND THEIR 
 FULFILMENT IN JESUS OF NAZARETH. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 88. Of the institutions established by God for the 
 
 moral recovery and the salvation of the 
 human race, in a general view ; the scrip- 
 tural doctrines and representations on this 
 subject; as a general introduction to what 
 follows 317 
 
 89. Formation and development of the idea of Mes- 
 
 siah among the ancient and modern Jews 
 their opinions respecting him; and the proof 
 that Jesus was the Messiah 321 
 
 90. Of the principles on which we are to interpret 
 
 the literal and figurative predictions con- 
 tained in the Old Testament respecting the 
 Messiah, and the new institute founded by 
 him 325 
 
 91. Of the successive degrees of the revelations and 
 
 predictions contained in the Old Testament 
 respecting the Messiah 328 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 HISTORY OF JESUS IN HIS TWO STATES OF HUMILIATION 
 AND EXALTATION. 
 
 92. The scriptural representation of the two prin- 
 
 cipal periods in the life of Jesus ; the scrip- 
 tural names of these periods ; the proof texts ; 
 and some conclusions 331 
 
 93. Of the origin, conception, birth, and youth of 
 
 Jesus ; his true humanity, and the excel- 
 lences of it 33-1 
 
 94. Of the doctrine of Jesus, and his office as 
 
 teacher . . , .. 337 
 
 95. Of the hardships and sufferings of Jesus . . .. 341 
 
 96. Of Christ's descent into hell 343 
 
 97. History of Christ considered as a man, in his 
 
 state of exaltation 346 
 
 98. Wherein the heavenly glory or majesty of Christ, 
 
 as a man, consists ; and the scriptural idea 
 
 of this kingdom and dominion of Christ. ... 350 
 
 99. Remarks on the form and sense of the scrip- 
 
 tural representation respecting the kingdom 
 of God and of Christ; and on the signification 
 of the phrase, to sit on the right hand of God, 
 as applied to Christ 352 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 100. The higher nature of Christ, and how it is 
 
 proved 355 
 
 101. Of the connection between the deity and huma- 
 
 nity of Christ according to what the Bible 
 directly teaches, and the consequences which 
 may be deduced from its instructions . . . . 357 
 
 102. Historical observations explanatory of the origin 
 
 and progressive development of the eccle- 
 siastical system respecting the person and 
 the two natures of Christ, until the eighth 
 century 361 
 
 103. Historical observations continued; the ancient 
 
 terminology respecting this doctrine ex- 
 plained 366 
 
 104. A brief exhibition of the ecclesiastical system 
 
 respecting the person and the two natures 
 of Christ ; an explanation of the ecclesias- 
 tical phraseology now in use in the doctrine 
 de communicatione idiomatum j and a critical 
 judgment upon the same 369 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 THE WORK OF CHRIST, AND WHAT HAS BEEN 
 EFFECTED BY IT. . 
 
 105. Scriptural names and descriptions of the works 
 
 of Christ, and their salutary effects; also, 
 the names of Christ as the Saviour of the 
 world 372 
 
 106. What is considered in the scriptures as properly 
 
 belonging to the work which Christ per- 
 formed for the good of men ; explanation of 
 the word "redemption," as used in the 
 Bible ; and what is the most convenient and 
 natural order and connection for exhibiting 
 the doctrine of the entire merits of Christ . . 374 
 
 107. Of the method formerly adopted of considering 
 
 the work of Christ as consisting of the pro- 
 ohetic, priestly, and kingly offices 377 
 
 PART I. OF CHAP. IV. 
 
 On redemption from the punishment of sin; or, the 
 Atonement of Christ, and the Justification of Men 
 before Ood,the Consequence of the Atonement. 
 
 108. Of the various opinions respecting the forgive- 
 
 ness by God, and the conditions on which 
 forgiveness may be granted ; and an applica- 
 tion of this to the scriptural doctrine of the 
 atonement 380 
 
 109. Scriptural doctrine respecting the necessity of 
 
 the forgiveness of sin; what is meant by 
 forgiveness, pardon, justification; and the 
 scriptural terms by which they are desig- 
 nated 385 
 
 110. Illustration of the scriptural statement, that 
 
 men owe it to Christ alone that God justifies 
 them or forgives their sins 388 
 
 111. Of the sufferings and death of Christ ; how far 
 
 we are indebted to them for our justification 
 or pardon ; together with observations on 
 some of the principal attributes (affections) 
 of the death of Christ 390 
 
 112. Of the influence which the resurrection of Christ, 
 
 and his subsequent exaltation and inter- 
 cession, have upon our forgiveness or justifi- 
 cation .305 
 
 113. The scripture doctrine of pardon or justification 
 
 through Christ, as an universal and unmerited 
 favour of God 397 
 
 114. Of the various theories respecting the nature and 
 
 manner of the atonement of Christ ; and a 
 notice of some of the most important works 
 on atonement and justification 400 
 
 115. Of the active obedience of Christ . . 405 
 
 PART II. OF CHAP. IV. 
 
 On Redemption from the Power or Dominion of Sin. 
 
 116. Of the importance of this doctrine; its con- 
 
 formity with scripture, and the manner in 
 which we are freed from sin through Christ 408 
 
 117. Of the deliverance from the power and dominion 
 
 of sin, for which we are indebted, under di- 
 vine assistance, to the instruction and ex- 
 ample of Christ 410 
 
 PART III. OF CHAP. IV. 
 
 On the present and future consequences of the work 
 of Christ. 
 
 118. Scriptural titles of the salvation procured by 
 
 Christ for men ; its general nature ; the doc- 
 trine of the New Testament respecting the 
 abolition of the Old Testament dispensation 
 by Christianity, and the advantages resulting 
 from it to the world 412 
 
 119. The happiness which Christians obtain in this 
 
 life from Christ 415 
 
 120. The happiness which Christians obtain through 
 
 Christ in the future life 418 
 
 ARTICLE XI. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION. 
 
 121. Of the Christian doctrine of faith, as the only 
 
 condition of salvation, together with remarks 
 respecting the salvation of the heathen and 
 of infants 420 
 
 122. Of the various significations of the word "faith" 
 
 as used in the Bible ; some of the principal 
 passages relating to faith; the parts of which 
 faith is made up ; and some of the most im- 
 portant theological divisions of faith .. .. 423 
 
 123. Of the different objects of Christian doctrine to 
 
 which faith refers ; and the relation of faith 
 
 to the same 427 
 
 124. Of the connection of the parts of which faith is 
 
 composed ; the characteristics and degrees 
 of faith ; and the conditions on which it is 
 saving 431 
 
 125. Of the nature of Christian good works or virtues ; 
 
 the relation in which they stand to salvation ; 
 and their meritoriousness 
 
 435 
 
 126. Explanation of the terms which are used in the 
 
 scriptures to denote both the external pro- 
 fession of Christianity (fides externa) and 
 internal moral improvement and sanctifi- 
 cation 439 
 
 127. Statement of the doctrine of moral reformation; 
 
 its commencement ; on putting off repent- 
 ance, and on late conversions 442 
 
 128. Remarks on the false opinions and perversions 
 
 concerning the doctrine of repentance, which 
 have been gradually adopted in the Christian 
 church 447 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 
 ARTICLE XII. 
 
 THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE; OR THE DIVINE INSTITU- 
 TIONS FOR PROMOTING REPENTANCE AND FAITH. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 129. Explanation of the terms "grace," "operations 
 
 of grace," "means of grace," and other 
 phrases employed in theology on this sub- 
 ject; and the connection of this doctrine with 
 the preceding 449 
 
 130. What are the operations of divine grace for pro- 
 
 moting the repentance and salvation of those 
 who live in Christian lands ; and what meana 
 does God employ in exerting these influences 
 on their hearts ? 451 
 
 131. How is the divine origin of these gracious renew- 
 
 ing influences proved from the holy scrip- 
 tures? and remarks in explanation of the 
 scriptural phraseology on this subject . . . . 454 
 
 132. A sketch of some of the principal theories re- 
 
 specting the operations of divine grace, and 
 the freedom (or ability) of man in spiritual 
 things ; and the controversies on this subject 
 in the Christian Church 458 
 
 133. Exhibition of the modern theory respecting the 
 
 divinity of the operations of grace, and the 
 power of the word of God 462 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 Of prayer as a means of grace 467 
 
 ARTICLE XIII. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY OR 
 CHURCH. 
 
 134. What is meant by the Christian church ; its ob- 
 
 ject; its names; and the divisions of the 
 church common in theology 469 
 
 135. Attributes of the Christian church ; the ecclesi- 
 
 astical terms commonly employed to desig- 
 nate them, and their signification 472 
 
 136. Of the head of the Christian church; and of the 
 
 institutions established to maintain and ex- 
 tend it, especially through the office of public 
 teaching 475 
 
 ARTICLE XIV. 
 
 THE TWO SACRAMENTS BAPTISM AND THE 
 
 LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 137. The sacraments in general 479 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 138. Names, institution, and origin of Christian 
 
 baptism; with observations on John the 
 Baptist and the Jewish baptism of prose- 
 lytes 483 
 
 139. How and by whom baptism is to be adminis- 
 
 tered; and respecting the optional and un- 
 essential things attending the observance of 
 this rite 485 
 
 140. Object, uses, and effects of Christian baptism . . 488 
 
 141. The necessity of baptism, and whether it may be 
 
 repeated 491 
 
 142. The baptism of infanta 494 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 143. The names of the Lord's Supper ; and the oc- 
 
 casion and objects of its institution 496 
 
 144. The distinction between what is essential and 
 
 unessential in the celebration of the ordi- 
 nance of the Supper 500 
 
 145. The uses and efficacy of the Lord's Supper; and 
 
 inferences from these 505 
 
 146. The various opinions and forms of doctrine re- 
 
 specting the presence of the body and blood 
 of Christ in the Lord's Supper, historically 
 explained, and also a critique respecting them 508 
 
 ARTICLE XV. 
 
 ON DEATH, AND THE CONTINUANCE AND DESTINY OF 
 MEN AFTER DEATH ; OR THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING 
 THE LAST THINGS. 
 
 147. Death 514 
 
 148. The Christian doctrine of the continuance of the 
 
 human soul, and its state after death . . . . 516 
 
 149. Historical illustrations of the various opinions 
 
 which have prevailed in ancient and modern 
 times respecting the continuance of the soul 
 after death ; and the proofs drawn from rea- 
 
 son in favour of it 519 
 
 160. Some of the most important of the various 
 opinions respecting the place of departed 
 souls, and their condition there 523 
 
 151. What is understood by the resurrection of the 
 
 dead ; the meaning of the word " resurrec- 
 tion;" and what is taught respecting it by 
 the Jews 527 
 
 152. The Christian doctrine respecting the resurrec- 
 
 tion of the body 531 
 
 153. Doctrine of the New Testament respecting the 
 
 nature of the body which we shall receive at 
 the resurrection ; and the opinions of theolo- 
 gians on this point 534 
 
 154. The last appearing of Christ before the end of the 
 
 world ; the various opinions on this subject ; 
 also respecting the Millennial kingdom, and 
 the universal conversion of Jews and Gentiles 538 
 
 155. The general judgment, and the end of the pre- 
 
 sent constitution of the world 541 
 
 156. The punishments of hell, or eternal condemnation 545 
 
 157. Duration of future punishments ; reasons for and 
 
 against their eternal duration 549 
 
 158. Result drawn from comparing and examining 
 
 the different arguments for and against the 
 eternal duration of future punishment ; and 
 a sketch of the history of this doctrine .. .. 558 
 
 ON ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS. 
 
 159. Introduction to this doctrine; and explanation 
 
 of the scriptural phraseology with regard 
 
 to it 555 
 
 160. What do reason and scripture teach, and lead us 
 
 to expect, in a general view, as to the real 
 nature of future blessedness 558 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 AM happy in being able to 
 present to the friends of bibli- 
 cal theology the translation of 
 DR. KNAPP'S LECTURES. The 
 prevailing preference of the 
 method adopted by this author 
 above other methods of pur- 
 suing theological study, leads me to 
 hope that this work will be an accept- 
 able offering to the public. It was the 
 ultimate object of that eminent servant 
 of Christ who composed these lectures, 
 to promote vital piety and practical religion 
 even by his more theoretical writings. If the 
 translation of these lectures may conduce to the 
 same end, the translator will feel abundantly 
 rewarded for his labour. 
 
 On opening a book we naturally feel a desire 
 to know something of the author; and if he 
 treats on controverted points, to know on what 
 principles he wrote, and with whom he stood 
 connected. I shall endeavour to satisfy this cu- 
 riosity, by giving some account of the school of 
 Biblical Theology in Germany, to which our 
 author belonged, together with an outline of his 
 life and character. I cannot expect, however, 
 within the narrow limits of a preface, to do full 
 justice to either of these subjects. 
 
 The school of Biblical Theology was esta- 
 blished by Spener at Halle, in 1694, for the 
 avowed purpose of having theology taught in a 
 different manner from that common in the Ger- 
 man universities. Spener states that it was usual 
 for persons to spend five or six years at the uni- 
 versities without hearing, or caring to hear, a 
 single book, chapter, or verse of the Bible ex- 
 plained. In the few cases where exegetical 
 lectures were commenced by such teachers as 
 Olearius and Carpzov, they were soon aban- 
 doned. The Bible was perhaps less used before 
 the time of Spener in Protestant universities than 
 it had been, under penalty of excommunication, 
 by pious Catholics before the Reformation. In 
 place of the Scriptures, the different symbols 
 established by the Protestant church were taught 
 and studied. The minutest distinctions esta- 
 blished by them were contended for with the 
 greatest zeal, and the least deviation from them 
 was pronounced heresy as decidedly as if they 
 had been given by inspiration of God, and was 
 
 punished accordingly with the greatest severity. 
 The spirit of Protestantism seemed to have 
 thrown off the hierarchal yoke, only to assume 
 another and perhaps a more degrading form of 
 bondage. In explaining and defending these 
 symbols, the Aristotelian dialectics were em- 
 ployed, and in the use of them the students were 
 thoroughly exercised. As to the practical effect 
 which the doctrines of Christianity should have 
 upon their own hearts, and the manner in which 
 they should exhibit them for the benefit of others, 
 nothing was said to them by their teachers. 
 Thus disciplined, they went forth to repeat from 
 the pulpit what they had learned at the university, 
 and fought over their idle battles, in which their 
 own learning and skill were carefully displayed, 
 to the neglect of every thing which might arouse 
 the careless, persuade the doubting, or satisfy 
 the deep desires and assuage the sorrows of the 
 heart. 
 
 This was a state of things which Spener de- 
 plored. Others before him, especially pious lay- 
 men, had noticed these evils, but had withdrawn, 
 like the mystics of a former period, and sought 
 in private contemplation that satisfaction of their 
 spiritual wants which they could not obtain from 
 the learned jargon of the pulpit; or if, like An- 
 dreas and Arndt, they had lifted up a voice of 
 remonstrance against the prevailing disorders, it 
 had been drowned in the noise of angry pole- 
 mics. But the reputation and influence of Spener 
 were too great to allow his remonstrances to 
 pass unnoticed. Without aiming at the name, 
 he performed the work of a reformer. In the 
 unpretending form of a preface to an edition of 
 Arndt's Sermons, he published in 1675 his Pia 
 Desideria, in which he urged the necessity of 
 amending the prevailing mode of instruction 
 and preaching. It was his great object to divert 
 attention from the symbols, and direct it to the 
 scriptures. He wished every student to derive 
 his system for himself directly from the Bible; 
 and to feel and enjoy the truths thus learned, 
 rather than contend about them ; and especially 
 he wished the teachers in the universities, and 
 the preachers in the desk, abandoning for ever 
 their foolish questions and subtle dialectics, to 
 labour to promote the solid instruction and the 
 true piety of those committed to their charge. 
 This was the object which more and more en- 
 
 9 
 
10 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 grossed his attention, as he saw more of the 
 deadening influence of scholastic theology ; and 
 he at length pursued it with such zeal that 
 he awakened the jealousy and hatred of those 
 who loved the letter more than the spirit, the 
 form of godliness more than its power. After 
 removing from place to place, and being at 
 length driven from Dresden by the violence of 
 the opposition against him, he found refuge and 
 rest in Berlin. He there exerted his influence 
 with Frederick III. to procure the establishment 
 of a new university at Halle. For various rea- 
 sons, political and religious, his proposal was 
 adopted, and to Spener was committed the or- 
 ganization of the Theological Faculty. He 
 selected for this purpose Anton, Breithaupt, and 
 Franke, men of congenial spirit with himself, 
 who had visited him in Berlin, imbibed his 
 views, and were then labouring in different 
 places, and under great discouragements, to 
 promote the revival of scriptural knowledge and 
 practical Christianity. They were now united 
 in the new university at Halle ; and though de- 
 nounced by the theologians of the sister univer- 
 sities, and especially those of Wittemberg, as 
 pietists, innovators, and heretics, they were not 
 to be hindered from appointing a new course of 
 studies, nor from pursuing a new method in 
 teaching. 
 
 The establishment of the Theological Faculty 
 at Halle forms an epoch in the history of theo- 
 logical science ; and to those who founded and 
 composed it, especially to Spener and Franke, 
 are Protestants indebted for the revival and per- 
 petuation of the spirit of the Reformation. They 
 entered a new protest against the reign of eccle- 
 siastical authority, and asserted anew the right 
 of Christians in matters of faith. That we are 
 free to judge for ourselves as to what we shall 
 believe, in opposition to the decretals of Popes 
 or Councils, whether Catholic or Protestant; 
 that the holy scriptures are the pure source 
 whence we must draw our religious knowledge, 
 and not symbols, confessions, or systems framed 
 and established by men ; and that the doctrines 
 of the Bible are to be used, by the learned as 
 well as the unlearned, to promote holiness of 
 heart and life, rather than merely as objects of 
 speculation, these were the great principles 
 upon which Luther and Melancthon, Spener 
 and Franke, alike proceeded. 
 
 It is not uncommon to see the founders of this 
 school classed with those narrow-minded and 
 bigoted enthusiasts who regard learning and 
 science with hatred and contempt, and presume 
 upon a miraculous illumination, superseding the 
 necessity of studying divine truth. But to this 
 class Spener and Franke did not belong; and 
 decided as was the stand which they took 
 against the scholastic learning of the times in 
 which they lived, they were far from falling 
 
 into the opposite and equally dangerous extreme. 
 Their principles respecting the study of theo- 
 logy are so often misstated that I feel induced, 
 after a perusal of some of their own writings, 
 to exhibit them here more at length. 
 
 I. They believed that God had revealed him- 
 self directly to men, and that this revelation is 
 contained in the books of the Old and New Tes- 
 tament, which are the only source of our reli- 
 gious knowledge, to the exclusion of those pre- 
 tended revelations of which theosophy boasts. 
 To obtain the meaning of these scriptures they 
 made therefore the first duty of the theological 
 student. In scripturis theologus nascitur, was 
 their constant maxim. They did not, like their 
 contemporaries in the other universities, suffer 
 the student to rely indolently on the traditionary 
 interpretation of the word of God, nor to adduce, 
 without examination, exactly the same proof- 
 texts, neither more nor less, as had been used 
 in every preceding system ; nor did they suffer 
 him to expect, like some ancient and modern 
 visionaries, that a culpable ignorance would be 
 removed by supernatural illumination. On the 
 contrary, they insisted upon the importance of 
 his becoming acquainted with the original lan- 
 guages in which the holy scriptures were writ- 
 ten, and diligently using the whole apparatus 
 of hermeneutical helps, (then indeed compara- 
 tively small,) in oraer to ascertain the very sense 
 in the mind of the inspired writer. 
 
 II. By these means, however, important as 
 they are, the student attains only to what they 
 called a natural, human, and literal knowledge, 
 in distinction from a spiritual and divine percep- 
 tion of the doctrines of revelation. The sacred 
 writers did not invent new words and expressions 
 to designate the new relations to God into which 
 men were brought by Christianity, and the. feel- 
 ings belonging to those relations; but rathei 
 employed language used to designate relations 
 and feelings previously known, analogous tc 
 those intended. To every man, therefore, theii 
 language, even with respect to the peculiar 
 states of which the Christian is conscious, con- 
 veys a general meaning viz., the notion of 
 something in the thing intended, answering to 
 something in the analogous relation or feeling 
 from which the representation is taken. But 
 what is the very thing, among the many things 
 in this new relation, which would justify the 
 metaphor, what is the very thing intended by 
 the evangelist or the apostle in the use of it, can 
 be understood only by one who has in reality 
 been brought into this new relation, and expe- 
 rienced the feelings belonging to it. To be more 
 definite: the new relation instituted by Chris- 
 tianity is most frequently denoted in the sacred 
 writings by the words sonship, adoption, and 
 those of a similar import, which clearly convey 
 to every reader a general notion of what this 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 11 
 
 new relation is ; and this general notion is th 
 literal knowledge of the subject which the na 
 tural man may possess. But there are man] 
 things in the human relation of a son to a fathe 
 which might be the foundation of the metapho 
 employed. Resemblance, imitation, obedience 
 love, or actual descent and possession of th 
 same nature, and many other things which 
 might be mentioned, would furnish a prope 
 foundation for the metaphor of sonship anc 
 adoption. And so these have all been made by 
 different commentators the point of analogy be- 
 tween this common and this Christian relation 
 v But what is the very thing in this new relation 
 which the evangelists and apostles had in view 
 when they called it sonship, he only can under- 
 stand who, by believing in Christ, has had the 
 power given him to become a son of God. And 
 even he will understand it better in proportion 
 to the depth and liveliness of his Christian ex 
 perience, and then only attain to its full import 
 when, in the world of glory, what is here begun 
 in him shall be perfected. This is the spiritual 
 perception spoken of, arising from the personal 
 experience of the things signified in the holy 
 scriptures; and this experience results from 
 faith, which receives the doctrines of revelation 
 in their sanctifying and enlightening power. 
 Faith, therefore, has the same relation to divine 
 things that sense has to natural things ; and it is 
 equally true in one case as in the other, that 
 sense or experience is the only foundation of 
 knowledge, sensus est principium cognoscendi. 
 This seems to be the meaning of Spener and 
 Franke when they say so often that the Holy 
 Spirit is indispensable to the study of theology. 
 That this personal experience, or feeling percep- 
 tion, must precede all true knowledge of the 
 things of revelation, in other words, that the 
 doctrines of the Bible must be felt, in order to 
 be truly understood, have root in the heart before 
 they can be rightly apprehended by the under- 
 standing, though often deemed an exploded 
 proposition, and in the ears of many perfectly 
 paradoxical, is yet as philosophically just as it 
 is conformed to scripture. This view cannot 
 be better expressed than in the following re- 
 markable words of Pascal : " Les verites di- 
 vines sont infiniment au-dessus de la nature. 
 Dieu seul peut les mettre dans Tame. II a 
 voulu qu'ils entrent du cffiur dans 1'esprit, et 
 non pas de 1'esprit dans le cceur. Par cette 
 raison, s'il faut connaitre les choses humaines, 
 pour pouvoir les aimer, il faut aimer les choses 
 divines, pour pouvoir les connaitre. 11 u Divine 
 things are infinitely above nature, and God only 
 can place them in the soul. He has designed 
 that they should pass from the heart into the 
 head, and not from the head into the heart; 
 and so, as it is necessary to know human 
 things in order to love them, it is necessary to 
 
 love divine things in order to know them." Let 
 not the student, then, who would penetrate into 
 the real meaning of the sacred text, rely upon 
 the Grammar and the Lexicon, upon Commen- 
 taries and Institutes of Interpretation, which 
 cannot lead beyond the letter. Ml true know- 
 ledge of the scripture must proceed from the life 
 of faith ; we must believe in order to experience, 
 and experience in order to understand. Such is 
 the import of the following words of Anselmus, 
 which have been chosen by Schleiermacher, one 
 of the profoundest theologians in Germany, for 
 his motto, and which deserve to be engraven on 
 the memory of every student in theology : 
 " Non enim qusero intelligere ut credam, sed 
 credo ut intelligam. Nam qui non crediderit, 
 non experietur, et qui expertus non fuerit, non 
 intelliget." 
 
 III. When the literal sense of scripture has 
 been ascertained by grammatical and historical 
 interpretation, and when the hidden meaning of 
 the sacred hieroglyphics has been unlocked by 
 a believing experience of the things signified, 
 then are the materials provided for theological 
 science ; as yet, however, confused and disor- 
 ganized. With these insulated experiences, and 
 the direct processes of the spiritual life, many 
 would have us remain contented, and are jealous 
 of the reflective and systematizing acts of the 
 mind. This is the mistake of the Mystici im- 
 puri, and of many sincerely pious, but less en- 
 lightened Christians in modern times. They 
 justly ascribe much of the coldness, contention, 
 and heresy that has disturbed and corrupted the 
 church, to the influence of speculative reason, 
 and would gladly exclude it wholly from the 
 province of faith. But they overlook the im- 
 perfections of religion when it exists merely as 
 feeling, and the darkness, confusion, and extra- 
 vagance which result from the want of strict 
 science in the doctrines of Christianity. These 
 evils are not merely incidental to simple faith, 
 jut almost inseparable from it; for what can 
 prevent that exaggeration of its particular ob- 
 jects, to which feeling always tends, and give 
 o each its due importance, but that view of the 
 whole which science alone can furnish 1 These 
 evils were not overlooked by Spener ; and he 
 contended for the proper use of system and 
 science in religion with a zeal only inferior to 
 hat with which he contended against their 
 abuse. He held the just medium between the 
 ious enthusiast and the cold speculator; and 
 vished that the system might proceed from a 
 iving faith and be pervaded by it, and that faith 
 night be regulated and rectified by thorough 
 ystem; and he thus aimed to secure to Chris- 
 ianity, what it may justly claim, the whole man; 
 he powers of the understanding and the feelings 
 f the heart. 
 The effort to attain to an insight into the in- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 ternal connection of the various objects of our 
 experience, to attain to the one principle under 
 which the phenomena we witness may be class- 
 ed, the effort, in short, which lies at the foun- 
 dation of science in every department, is one of 
 the original and higher efforts or instincts of the 
 human soul; and though in some periods, and 
 in individual minds, it is less predominant, at 
 other times, and in other minds, it is wholly 
 irrepressible. Its utility in reducing to order 
 the disconnected elements of human knowledge, 
 and in constructing from them an organized 
 whole, cannot be questioned ; and why should 
 not this systematizing, organific instinct of the 
 mind be suffered to employ itself upon the no 
 bier elements of religious knowledge, scattered 
 over the page of revelation and of experience, 
 collecting and classifying them, and from them 
 constructing an harmonious system of religious 
 truth ? 
 
 Here it must be remarked, that a believing 
 experience is equally essential to a truly scien- 
 tific combination of all the doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity as to an adequate understanding of each 
 particular one. In every scientific system, the 
 parts should have a real relation to one great 
 object, for which the whole is constructed ; and 
 if we would have it a living, and not a lifeless 
 organization, we must have this great object 
 within ourselves. The name of science cannot 
 justly be applied to a mere artificial collocation 
 of particulars, wanting internal unity, and desti- 
 tute of a pervading soul. Hence it may be safely 
 affirmed, that true theological science is possible 
 only on condition of personal Christian expe- 
 rience ; this alone can furnish the last end, the 
 point of unity, the living spirit of the whole. 
 Where this does not exist, combining the re- 
 sults of the mere philological study of the Bible 
 furnishes at best a piece of lifeless mechanism, 
 where the parts cohere, as the cards in the pup- 
 pet, and not as the limbs in the body. It was 
 from the exegetical school in Asia Minor, and 
 from the feet of the philologist Lucian, that the 
 heresiarch Arius proceeded ; and his error arose, 
 in a great measure, from his making the Bible 
 grammatically interpreted, separately from the 
 light of experience, the foundation of theology.* 
 The elements of theological science should not, 
 therefore, be drawn solely from the written page 
 of revelation ; the contents of this page must be 
 first transferred to the tablets of the heart; these 
 inward tablets must then be studied, and strictly 
 compared with the outward letter ; and from this 
 faithful and living transcript, corresponding 
 with the original revelation, and from this reve- 
 lation thus transferred to the heart, the elements 
 of the system must be derived. The direction 
 here given, to make the results of Christian ex- 
 
 * Vide Neander, Allgem. Kirchengeschichte, b. 
 n. Abth. 2, s. 770. 
 
 perience, derived from and regulated by the 
 written word, rather than the mere fruits of the 
 exegetical study of the Bible, the elements of 
 theological science, is, I believe, in the spirit 
 of the founders of this school of biblical and 
 practical Christianity. Theological study is 
 happily turning more and more to the inward 
 scroll of experience ; and instances might easily 
 be mentioned, did my limits permit, in which 
 the established ecclesiastical system has been 
 rectified, by being made to answer more entirely 
 to the demands of pious feeling.* When Chris- 
 tian faith shall receive and hold the pure and 
 unadulterated truths of revelation, and Christian 
 theology shall wholly correspond to Christian 
 faith, then will the science of Christianity attain 
 its highest perfection. 
 
 IV. The system of truth which was adopted 
 by the founders of this school agreed substan- 
 tially with that of their contemporaries, although 
 the eagle-eyed malignity of Deutschmann of 
 Wittemberg espied no less than two hundred 
 and sixty heresies in a single writing of Spener. 
 The latter, however, and his associates, professed 
 to hold the doctrines contained in the established 
 symbols, and differed from the theologians of 
 the other universities only with respect to the 
 grounds on which they believed them, and the 
 ends for which they employed them. While 
 their contemporaries believed in these doctrines 
 because they were contained in the symbols, the 
 theologians of Halle believed them because, 
 after independent investigation, they found them 
 contained in the word of God, and confirmed by 
 their own experience. And while their con- 
 temporaries employed these doctrines for no 
 other purposes than speculation and contention, 
 they insisted that the doctrines of revelation should 
 be taught in the universities, as well as exhibited 
 in the pulpit, with the ultimate design of promot- 
 ing personal piety \ This was their fourth gene- 
 ral principle respecting the study of theology, 
 and that which procured for their school the 
 honourable distinction of a school of practical 
 theology. They regarded it as almost certain 
 that students in theology would treat the doc- 
 trines of Christianity as public teachers very 
 much as they had been accustomed to hear them 
 treated at the university, that if they had been 
 taught theology in a scholastic method, they 
 would probably fall into the same method in 
 preaching. Such had really been the effect of 
 the speculative turn given to theological instruc- 
 tion. Students of theology had come from the 
 university expert and disputatious metaphysi- 
 cians, rather than evangelical pastors, well 
 qualified by their own experience of divine truth 
 to impart it with sincerity and earnestness to 
 thers ; and the piety of the church wanting its 
 
 * Vide Schleiermacher, in the last article in his 
 ' Zeitschrift," s. 29, and especially s. 299304. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 proper nutriment, the simple truth of the gospel 
 had long been declining. The first theologians 
 at Halle sought to remedy these evils at their 
 very source, to apply the doctrines of salvation 
 to their own case, and keep their own hearts 
 alive to the practical influence of revealed truth ; 
 and then to induce their hearers to abstain from 
 useless questions, and see to it that they them- 
 selves were builded upon that foundation, which 
 it would be their duty to point out to others, and 
 to show them how the doctrines of the Bible 
 should be exhibited in order to answer the ends 
 for which they were given the conviction and 
 conversion of sinners, and the consolation and 
 encouragement of believers. It was in pursu- 
 ance of these objects that Franke delivered his 
 " Lectiones Paraeneticae," which were followed 
 by more real and lasting benefit than any other 
 part of his academical labours. They were first 
 delivered by him in his own study, and after- 
 wards in the public hall of the theological fa- 
 culty, one hour a week viz., from 10 to 11 
 o'clock on Thursday, when other exercises were 
 suspended, that all the students in the theologi- 
 sal department might be at liberty to attend. 
 En the preface to the first collection of these 
 lectures, Franke gives the following account of 
 them : " I have not been accustomed to follow 
 my particular method in these lectures, but 
 tiave made it my rule to say on each occasion 
 what I saw then to be most necessary to the 
 students in theology, either to promote their 
 thorough conversion and Christian walk, or the 
 wise and orderly prosecution of their studies, 
 that they might be at length sent forth as faith- 
 ful, wise, and useful labourers in the vineyard 
 }f the Lord, each according to the gift granted 
 to him by God." 
 
 Such were the principles of the founders of 
 the university at Halle respecting the study of 
 theology; and it deserves to be remarked that 
 Dn these principles, and these alone, theology is 
 i distinct and independent science. On these 
 principles, it is the science of truths revealed by 
 God and received by faith, and is thus, in a two- 
 fold sense, divine viz., as to the original source 
 Df its truths, and the organ through which they 
 are transmitted to the reflecting mind ; that faith 
 which the Holy Spirit produces in the heart. 
 It is in this way distinguished from all human 
 sciences ; not that the scientific effort of the 
 mind (the effort to bring connexion and unity 
 into our various experiences) is different in the 
 two cases, for this is not supposed ; but that the 
 materials about which this scientific effort is 
 employed are different in theology and in human 
 sciences. This is a distinction which the im- 
 mortal Bacon acknowledges in a passage which 
 deserves careful consideration at the present 
 time : " Scientia aquarum similis est ; aquarum 
 aliae descendunt ccelitus, alise emanant e terra. 
 
 Etiam scientiarum primaria partitiosumendaest 
 ex fontibus suis; riorum alii in alto siti sunt; 
 alii hie infra. Omnis enim scientia duplicem 
 sortitur informationem. Una inspiratur divini- 
 tus; aliter oritur a sensu. Partiemur igitur 
 scientiam in theologiam et philosophiam. Theo- 
 logiam hie intelligimus inspiratam, non natura- 
 lem."* By this division of the sciences accord- 
 ing to their sources, a perfect independence of 
 all others is secured to theology. The believer 
 in revelation draws the doctrines of his creed 
 from a higher source, and so holds them with 
 perfect certainty, without waiting for the results 
 which may be attained in the lower sphere of 
 philosophy. Indeed, he considers them not only 
 as true, but as the test and standard of all truth, 
 and so he looks without fear for the stability of 
 his faith upon the highest advances of light and 
 knowledge. Are any discoveries alleged, or 
 any hypotheses maintained in opposition to the 
 truths of revealed religion, he presupposes the 
 latter to be true, and concludes that the former, 
 however plausibly supported, are false. In short, 
 he acknowledges the correctness of the princi- 
 ples of science and philosophy only so far as 
 they admit a source and order of truth above 
 their measure ; and the validity of their results 
 only so far as they illustrate and confirm, or at 
 least are consistent with, the doctrines and facts 
 of revelation. This is indeed an elevated stand, 
 but one which the believer in revelation is en- 
 titled to assume, and has always been able to 
 maintain. Where is the declaration of Scripture 
 which has been fairly disproved by philosophy, 
 or by any of the sciences, most of which have 
 begun to exist since the Bible was written 1 ? On 
 the other hand, how universally have the theo- 
 ries and alleged discoveries, which were sup- 
 posed to invalidate the Scriptures, proved in the 
 end false and imaginary. From every attack 
 of an infidel philosophy the truth of revelation 
 has come off triumphant, justifying the confi- 
 dence of those who implicitly receive it, and 
 putting to shame the exultation of unbelievers. 
 So far from bringing up the rear, the science of 
 revelation has led the van in this general march 
 of knowledge and improvement, and has in many 
 cases from the first held forth truths which phi- 
 losophy afterwards adopted when it became 
 more enlightened. ^ 
 
 How unworthy, then, of the dignity and inde- 
 pendence of the true theologian is the procedure 
 of some of the modern professors of theological 
 science, who are ready to relinquish the clearest 
 doctrines of the Bible on the first semblance of 
 discrepancy between them and a philosophy 
 which acknowledges no revelation. There are 
 
 * De dignit. et augm. Scientia. 1. iii. cap. 1. 
 
 t Consider e. g., the doctrine of creation from 
 nothing, long a doctrine of theology, but only lately 
 of philosophy. 
 
 B 
 
14 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 of 
 
 corruption, TJ 
 
 Bat they forget that 
 and the kindred 
 
 not subject to human revision. By their gra- 
 
 teitMM cftt^f^aaewm in nhilfMOTnhv HIM! iuaRimp 
 
 they depnve Christian theology of its proper 
 ekmeats, and Christian faith of the ground of 
 hs reliance. They make the great truths upon 
 
 We are thus left to drift 
 sea, while the holy 
 lifted our eyes, and 
 them kindled with the revealed glory of 
 
 t: psMl u? en tm ri*5i^ liMlIk, MV 
 i fires of this modern 
 
 but we are told they are irritable. 
 Theologians, it is said, haTe no choice left them, 
 and most adopt the splendid results which are 
 every day disclosed in all departments of know- 
 ledge; and if they would not srfer theology to 
 Hi 
 
 doctrines and the rapid 
 
 R: 
 
 ,::- 
 
 to restore the interrapt- 
 theology and human sci- 
 r product of the scien- 
 Bot whence 
 
 of this compromise! It is a ne- 
 cessity with which the believer in revelation 
 can never be pressed, and which certainly was 
 was not felt by theologians of the old stamp. 
 They had not asserted their independence of the 
 the schoolmen only to yield it again 
 
 to the empiric; and as to the ad vantages of this 
 compromise, what has really been accomplished 
 by this far-famed rationalism after all its pro- 
 mises! It professed friendship for Christianity, 
 but has proved its deadly foe; standing within 
 the pale of the church, it has been in league 
 with the enemy without, and has readily adopt, 
 ed every thing which infidelity could engender, 
 
 philosophy has done to confirm the truths of re- 
 Telation. It promised to save theology from 
 
 and how has this promise been per- 
 formed ! In the days of Spener, theology was 
 the qoeen of sciences, so acknowledged by the 
 month of Bacon, Leibnitz, Haller, and others, 
 their chosen oracles. She wore the insignia of 
 divinity, and * filled her odorous lamp" at the 
 very original fountain of light ; but, in an evil 
 hour, she took this flattering rationalism to her 
 bosom. Now, stripped of every mark of divi- 
 nity, cut off from her native sources of light, and 
 thrust out into the dark, this foolish virgin is 
 compelled to say to her sister sciences, ** Give 
 me of your oil, for my lamp has gone out." 
 
 The establishment of the school of theology 
 at Halle forms, as was above remarked, an epoch 
 in the history of this science. It gave an im- 
 pulse which is still felt both for good and for evil, 
 and which will probably be still felt for many 
 ages to cone. To the direct influence of this 
 i as reviving and perpetuating 
 
 the spirit of the Reformation, may be attributed 
 all the favourable results of free and unshackled 
 inquiry in matters of faith. To its indirect in- 
 floence to the abuse of the principles upon 
 which it was established most be ascribed 
 those unprecedented evils which have been 
 lately inflicted upon the German church. In one 
 way or another, this school stands connected 
 with those great diverging tendencies, whose 
 violent conflict have made the last period of 
 theological development more interesting and 
 important than any which have preceded. The 
 principles of Spener, made effective by the la- 
 bours of his faculty at Halle, are the secret 
 leaven which has wrought all this commotion in 
 the once lifeless mass of orthodoxy. It would 
 be highly interesting to follow down the history 
 of this school, and trace minutely the salutary 
 influence of its principles, as far as they have 
 been observed, and the evils resulting from the 
 abuse of them. My narrow limits, however, 
 will permit me only to describe very briefly the 
 iscaco of these principles in pietitm on the one 
 hand, and rafionalt'tm on the other, and to show 
 in what points these two opposing directions 
 deviate from the just medium of this Protestant 
 school of biblical and practical theology, to 
 which they both claim to belong. 
 
 We have seen, that according to the principles 
 of this school, failh and sctenec, *t0*>t$ and y- 
 0($, are made essential to the theologian. And 
 in the early teachers of this school, and some 
 of their immediate successors, we have fine ex- 
 amples of the just balance and mutual influence 
 of piety and learning. Their piety was regular, 
 enlightened, and uniform, through the influence 
 of their knowledge of religious tiuth ; while 
 their knowledge was humble, vital, and sound, 
 through the influence of faith and piety. Bat 
 one acquainted with the imperfection of human 
 nature, and with the history of the church, could 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 15 
 
 hardly expect that this happy combination 
 would long continue. Piety, which has its seat 
 in the feelings, has ever tended to shun the 
 restraints and regulations which reflection- and 
 system i mpose ; and speculation has been equally 
 prone to dissociate itself from piety, and to 
 abandon the Word of God and Christian faith 
 as the only foundation of religious knowledge. 
 At an early period of the church, we see the 
 practical and theoretical spirit in violent oppo- 
 sition, under the peculiar forms and names of 
 montanism and gnosticism. At a later period in 
 the western church, the elements of fttatis and 
 yvcotft? were again separated and in conflict, 
 assuming the new type of mysticism and scholas- 
 ticism. And in the period now under conside- 
 ration, the same contention again exists, under 
 the still different aspect of ascetic pietism and 
 rationalism. The practical tendency of the 
 founders of this school, being unaccompanied 
 in some of their successors by the theoretical 
 tendency, degenerated into a dark, ascetic, 
 bigoted pietism. Their theoretical tendency, 
 being in others of their successors separated 
 from the practical, the head divorced from the 
 heart, degenerated into that cold and malignant 
 form of speculation known by the name of ra- 
 tionalism. 
 
 The first instance in the latter period in which 
 we discover the incipient alienation of the prac- 
 tical from the theoretical direction of rnind, is 
 the opposition which arose at Halle to the phi- 
 losophy of Wolf. It was very natural for theo- 
 logians to feel, that Wolf allowed too much 
 scope to speculative reason when he attempted 
 to demonstrate the highest problems of meta- 
 physics, the existence of God, the immortality 
 of the soul, the freedom of the will, &c., with 
 mathematical precision and certainty. And in 
 condemning these assumptions of reason re- 
 specting matters of faith, the theologians of 
 Halle only anticipated the sentence which Kant 
 and his followers afterwards pronounced upon 
 the dogmatism of the earlier philosophy. The 
 jealousy in guarding the province of faith against 
 the invasions of speculative reason thus excited, 
 was heightened by the writings of the English 
 and French deists and free-thinkers, then begin- 
 ning to be known and circulated in Germany. 
 Upon these writings they looked with abhor- 
 rence ; and at length the thought naturally arose, 
 that if such were the results of philosophy, it 
 was the foe of religion, and should be wholly 
 discarded. But when they arrived at this partial 
 and rash conclusion, and acted according to it, 
 they fell into the excesses with which the same 
 mistake has always been attended. From the 
 neglect and contempt of scientific cultivation, 
 their views of divine truth soon became super- 
 ficial. Their piety became more and more a 
 matter of mere feeling, and, wanting the re- 
 
 straints of reflection, degenerated into wild en- 
 thusiasm, or dark, severe, and ostentatious 
 bigotry. These results have almost invariably 
 followed an undue jealousy of learning in mat- 
 ters of faith, and teach, in a language too loud 
 and distinct to be disregarded, the importance 
 of a thorough acquaintance with systematic the- 
 ology. Too much practical religion we cannot 
 have ; but that the highest purity and safety of 
 the church demand more attention than is usu- 
 ally paid in this country to the science of the 
 Christian religion, can hardly be questioned. 
 It should be remembered, that it was upon this 
 degenerate and corrupt pietism, which began to 
 infect the body of the church when the science 
 of religion was neglected, that the corrosive 
 poison of infidelity first seized and fed. Had 
 the ardent and practical piety of all the succes- 
 sors of the first teachers at Halle been associated 
 with the theoretical spirit, as it was in Freyling- 
 hausen, Baumgarten, and a few others, infidelity 
 could never have made such ravages in the 
 church. 
 
 Far- more fatal, however, is the other of the 
 above-named divergences from the principles of 
 the biblical school of theology. Speculation on 
 the subject of religion, where living faith is not 
 associated with it, is attended with a twofold 
 danger. The true spiritual understanding of the 
 truths of religion being dependent upon the 
 principle of faith, where this does not exist, error 
 in doctrine is almost inevitable. But, what is 
 more important to be considered, the only anti- 
 dote to the pride and blindness of natural reason 
 is the corrective, sanctifying influence of faith 
 as a living principle in the heart. "Where reason 
 is unhumbled, and its disorders are unrectified 
 by the pervading influence of true piety, its ex- 
 ercise on the subjects of religion cannot be salu- 
 tary, or even safe. The unbeliever is therefore 
 doubly disqualified for forming a right judgment 
 upon the particular doctrines of religion, and for 
 combining them into a correct system ; he wants 
 that experience by which alone he can truly un- 
 derstand them, and that humility and reverence 
 for the deep things of God, which is the only 
 spirit of inquiry congenial with the truths of the 
 gospel. 
 
 The nature and effects of rationalism, the 
 great object of which is, to deny that the Holy 
 Scriptures and Christian faith are the only and 
 essential foundation of religious science, and to 
 proclaim the reason of man as the source and 
 arbiter of the truths of religion, has been already 
 briefly described. A few words in addition, re- 
 specting its relation to this protestant school of 
 theology, will be sufficient for my present object. 
 It is well known that rationalists profess to act 
 in accordance with the principles of protestant- 
 ism, when they carry their freedom of investi- 
 gation even to the point of denying alike the 
 
16 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 fact and the possibility of revelation. But this 
 freedom is entirely different from that for which 
 the protestants contended. In performing their 
 work as protestants, they assumed both the fact 
 and authority of revelation. They had, indeed, 
 in the legitimate use of reason, well investigated 
 these points, and did not receive the Scriptures 
 as the word of God without conclusive evidence. 
 But they contended only for entire freedom from 
 ecclesiastical authority in determining what the 
 Scriptures, admitted to be a revelation from God, 
 really taught to men. They asserted the right 
 of the Christian believer to derive the truths of 
 Christianity from revelation itself, in contradis- 
 tinction to the authority of any uninspired men ; 
 but by no means the right of any man to receive 
 or reject at option the fact or the authority of a 
 revelation. This right, by whomsoever claimed, 
 is not the right which Luther or Spener advo- 
 cated. In performing their work as reformers, 
 they thus assumed the principles which ration- 
 alists deny. They came forward appealing to 
 the testimony of Christ, of prophets and apos- 
 tles, against the errors and abuses of the church. 
 Rationalists claim fellowship with them, while 
 they question and deny the validity of this very 
 testimony. The protestants did not undertake 
 to lay another foundation than that which is laid ; 
 and wished only to prove the work of every man 
 who builds thereon. But rationalists strike at 
 the foundation itself; they set aside the whole 
 historic basis of Christianity, and would sub- 
 stitute for the unerring word of God and Chris- 
 tian faith, which are the same in every age, the 
 fallible, unsanctified, and changing reason of 
 man. The protestants were reformers only, but 
 rationalists are innovators and revolutionizers, 
 aiming to overturn the whole Christian system. 
 The protestants, in short, protested against the 
 errors of the Romish church ; rationalists, against 
 the truth of the gospel. It must be obvious, 
 then, that rationalism can claim but little kin- 
 dred with the true spirit of protestantism, and 
 bears a much nearer affinity to that wild, revo- 
 lutionary, infidel spirit, which arose at nearly 
 the same time in France, and swept over the 
 face of Europe. 
 
 It would be a mistake also to suppose, that 
 rationalism, like the Alexandrine Gnosis, or the 
 scholasticism of the middle ages, is objection- 
 able only in the excess to which it carries spe- 
 culation on subjects of faith. This excess is 
 indeed contrary to the maxims which we have 
 been considering, which require a just propor- 
 tion between faith and knowledge. It is not so 
 much, however, the quantity as the quality of 
 speculation, which constitutes the malignity of 
 rationalism. It is speculation without the cor- 
 rective influence of a sanctified heart ; it is rea- 
 son in all its natural pride and darkness, un- 
 humbled and unenlightened by divine influence; 
 
 it is science wanting that heavenly CHARITAS, 
 cujus mixtio, says Bacon, temperat scientiam* 
 eamque saluberrimam efficit, and without which, 
 omnis scientia malignum quid habet venenosum- 
 que, Jlatuosis syrnptomatibus plenissimum , it is 
 this character and quality of speculative reason, 
 and not its mere excess, which makes rational- 
 ism the terror and abhorrence of religion. 
 
 These diverging tendencies had already be- 
 come distinct when our author appeared upon 
 the stage, and the theologians of Halle were 
 then divided into different schools, according as 
 they adhered more closely to the principles of 
 Spener and Franke, or fell in either with the 
 more ascetic or the more free and liberal princi- 
 ples then prevailing. His father had been elect- 
 ed in 1737 to the theological faculty at Halle, 
 and was associated with the younger Franke in 
 the direction of those institutes of learning and 
 charity which are generally known by the name 
 of the Orphan House. He had seen the exam- 
 ple, and heard the instructions, of the founders 
 of the university, and was one of the few who 
 had walked in their footsteps. He laboured, 
 though with a mildness and moderation which 
 won the praises even of his opponents, to pro- 
 mote practical Christianity, in opposition to the 
 bold and reckless speculations of some of his 
 colleagues. His only son, the author of these 
 lectures, George Christian Knapp, was born in 
 the Orphan House at Glaucha in Halle on the 
 17th of Sept., 1753, and received his early educa- 
 tion in the Royal Psedagogium, one of the cluster 
 of institutes there established by Franke.* In a 
 brief account which he himself has given of his 
 early life, he mentions a fact not a little credit- 
 able to the personal character of his father. 
 Nee tamen acquievit pater," says he, " in pub- 
 lica ilia, qua in scholis fruebar institutione ; sed 
 ubi vacuus a negotiis erat, ipse me instituit; et 
 quid in schola profecissem percunctando cogno- 
 vit, variis que exercitationibus, ingenium exci- 
 tare et judicium acuere studuit." 
 
 He entered the university at Halle, Sept. 1770, 
 in the 17th year of his age, and there attended 
 the lectures of Semler, the first herald of the 
 alse illumination then breaking upon the world, 
 and of Noesselt, Gruner, and others, who were 
 one in feeling and action with Semler. During 
 the first year of his course, he sustained a great 
 oss in the death of his father. But in pursuance 
 of his counsels, and in the very spirit of those 
 early teachers at Halle whom he had been 
 taught from his youth to venerate, he devoted 
 limself to the study of the original Scriptures; 
 and made it his great object to become thorough- 
 y acquainted with the language, the facts, and 
 the doctrines of the Bible. With what unusual 
 success he prosecuted these exegetical studies, 
 
 * For an account of these institutes, vide Biblical 
 K-epcrsitory, vol. i. No. I. p. 30. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 17 
 
 maybe inferred from his programm, "Ad Vatici- 
 nium Jacobi," Genesis, xlix. 127, and from 
 his disputation, " De Versione Alexandrina," 
 both contained in his " Scripta Varii Argumen- 
 ti ;" and also from his translation of the Psalms, 
 all of which were composed and published, 
 either during; his pupilage at Halle, or shortly 
 after its completion. 
 
 While at the university he also pursued the 
 study of the Latin and Greek classics with great 
 zeal. Of the value of this study to the theolo- 
 gian there can be little doubt. It not only pre- 
 pares him to understand the language, and relish 
 the beauties of the sacred classics, but furnishes 
 him with those analogies of feeling and opinion 
 which are highly important in the illustration of 
 revealed truth. The writings of Dr. Knapp are 
 everywhere enriched by the various illustrations 
 of scriptural ideas, which he draws from Grecian 
 and Roman literature. 
 
 He completed his studies at Halle, in April r 
 1774 ; and after an absence of a few months, 
 which he spent in study at Gottingen, in visit- 
 ing the most celebrated cities in Germany, and 
 forming acquaintances with the most distin- 
 guished men, he returned, and in 1775 began to 
 lecture upon Cicero, and also upon the New 
 Testament, and some of the more difficult por- 
 tions of the Old. He was at that time in feeble 
 health, and probably could hardly have believed 
 that he should be continued half a century in 
 the employment which he then commenced. 
 The unusual approbation with which he was 
 heard in these courses obtained for him the 
 appointment, first of Professor Extraordinary 
 (1777), and then of Professor Ordinary (in 1782). 
 In addition to his exegetical courses, he now 
 lectured on church history and Jewish and 
 Christian antiquities. But he was not, like the 
 great majority of the professors in the German 
 universities, employed merely in academical 
 labours. On the death of Freylinghausen ( 1785), 
 he and Niemeyer were appointed Directors of 
 Franke's Institutes, and continued jointly to 
 superintend these noble and extensive establish- 
 ments for more than forty years. In the division 
 of duties, the oversight of the Bible and mis- 
 sionary establishment fell to Dr. Knapp, and 
 he was thus brought into connection with the 
 Moravian brethren. 
 
 It was in the summer of the same year in 
 which he received this appointment, and after 
 he had often lectured on subsidiary branches, 
 that he commenced the composition of the lec- 
 tures on theology now presented to the public. 
 As he continued his regular courses in exegesis 
 and history, was occupied partly in the concerns 
 of the institutes, and was moreover often inter- 
 rupted in his studies by severe illness, he did 
 not complete them before the summer of 1789, 
 when he first read them before a class of 186. 
 3 
 
 After this time he continued to lecture on theo- 
 [ogy (though latterly in shorter courses) until 
 near his death, and always to numerous audi- 
 tories. 
 
 But while his life passed away in these pur- 
 suits so congenial to his taste, he was not freed 
 from those pains and sorrows which are the 
 common lot of man. His peaceful professional 
 career was frequently interrupted by the poli- 
 tical disorders of the times, and the repeated 
 occupation of Halle by foreign troops. His do- 
 mestic peace was also invaded by the long-con- 
 tinued illness of his wife, and by the violent 
 sickness with which he himself was often at- 
 tacked, and the constant infirmity under which 
 he laboured. These evils, however, great as 
 they might be, must have appeared trivial in 
 comparison with those with which he saw the 
 church afflicted. He was called to behold new 
 principles, which he regarded as false and dan- 
 gerous, rapidly supplanting those in which he 
 had been educated, and to which, from his own 
 conviction, he was attached. He was compelled 
 to hear the truths which he held most sacred 
 and precious treated with profane levity. He 
 found himself, at last, the only decided advocate 
 of evangelical religion among the professors at 
 Halle, and exposed to ridicule and contempt for 
 teaching the very doctrines in which Spener 
 and Franke had most gloried. These were trials 
 under which his natural firmness and composure 
 must have failed him, and in which he could be 
 supported only by a pious confidence in God. 
 He cherished this confidence, and through its 
 influence remained unmoved during times of 
 unparalleled darkness and danger. Nor was his 
 confidence misplaced. Towards the close of his 
 life the prospect seemed to brighten. The letter 
 times which Spener thought so near, but which 
 had been long delayed, seemed again approach- 
 ing, and it was not difficult to discern the signs 
 of a new epoch at hand. On the third centennial 
 festival in commemoration of the Reformation, 
 which occurred in the year 1817, the slumber- 
 ing spirit of the evangelical churches was 
 awakened. In a programm which our author 
 delivered on that occasion, and which is inserted 
 in his " Scripta Varii Argument!," he poured 
 forth his pious supplications in behalf of the 
 German church and his beloved university in a 
 strain of unusual eloquence. From that time 
 he had the joy of beholding the cause which he 
 held most dear gradually gaining ground. His 
 own reputation, too, increased with his declining 
 years. And among the most cheerful passages 
 in his life, is that which occurred just before its 
 close. On the first of May, 1825, he had been 
 fifty years connected with the theological faculty 
 of the university, and , according to an established 
 custom, a jubilee festival was then held in his 
 honour ; and many were the marks of personal 
 9 
 
18 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 affection and esteem, as well as the civic and 
 academic honours, then heaped upon the vene- 
 rable and happy jubilar. 
 
 Not long after this, while he was continuing 
 his summer course of theology, he was seized 
 with a violent illness, from which he never re- 
 covered. He died in peace and Christian con- 
 fidence, on the 14th day of October, 1825, in the 
 73d year of his age. According to his particular 
 direction, his remains were interred privately, 
 early on the third morning after his decease, in 
 his family tomb, by the side of his wife, who 
 had died eight years before. He requested, with 
 that genuine modesty for which he was always 
 distinguished, that in the public notices of his 
 death nothing should be said to his honour, and 
 that it should only be witnessed of him that he 
 lived by faith in the words, " I know that my 
 Redeemer liveth." 
 
 Few are the men whose lives are so uniform, 
 happy, and useful. Born and educated in the 
 midst of those noble institutes which stand a 
 living monument of the faith of their founder 
 blessed with the example and instructions of a 
 father, high in office and eminent for excellence 
 and learning, the inheritor of his virtues, and 
 called afterwards by Providence to succeed him 
 both as director of Franke's Institutes and as 
 theological professor, richly provided with the 
 means of improvement, and freed from the em- 
 barrassments with which the acquisition of 
 learning is often attended, received with fa- 
 vour at the very commencement of his profes- 
 sional duties, and through all the variations of 
 public opinion and feeling thronged by pupils 
 who loved and revered him, encircled in his 
 family with children and friends, by whom he 
 was fondly cherished, in his old age permitted 
 to witness the brightening prospects of the cause 
 which was nearest his heart, and honoured with 
 every mark of public confidence and esteem ; 
 he was indeed signally favoured of God. He 
 was faithful in the trust committed to him, and 
 found God faithful to his promises. His labour 
 was not in vain in the Lord ; he was blessed 
 during his life, and in death his remembrance 
 does not perish. "Wherever the news shall 
 reach," says Niemeyer, his colleague and eulo- 
 gist, " that this gifted teacher is for ever re- 
 moved from the sphere of his labours, there will 
 witnesses arise who will acknowledge how much 
 they owe to his instructions ; and even beyond 
 the sea his memory will be cherished and his 
 name not forgotten." 
 
 I shall close these prefatory remarks with a 
 general view of the character of Dr. Knapp, and 
 with some more particular information respect- 
 ing the Lectures .now offered to the public. 
 
 His bodily constitution was frail and sickly, 
 even from his childhood. He had a complica- 
 tion of disorders, which would have consigned 
 
 one less zealous for a life of usefulness, and less 
 resolute in adopting and pursuing the means 
 necessary to attain it, to an indolent and unpro- 
 fitable existence, or to an early grave. That 
 sickness and bodily infirmity had not this effect 
 upon him, must be attributed to the exact course 
 of discipline which he pursued. In all things he 
 practised the most rigid temperance, and daily 
 took bodily exercise in the open air, measured 
 almost by the minute, and uninterrupted by any 
 severity of weather. " We could hardly have 
 thought," says Niemeyer, in his funeral address, 
 " when we saw him, weak and exhausted, con- 
 tending with the rude elements, supported by 
 his pilgrim staff, that his frail earthly tabernacle 
 could endure so long." Such was the effect, 
 however, of the rigid discipline which he main- 
 tained, that he reached an advanced age, in the 
 midst of arduous public duties, in which he was 
 rarely interrupted, and died at length without 
 having kept his bed for a single day an exam- 
 ple worthy of the consideration of the irresolute 
 hypochondriac who broods over his ailings, and 
 lives a burden to himself and those about him. 
 
 In his personal character he was rather amia- 
 ble than commanding. He possessed in an 
 unusual degree that mildness, benignity, and 
 gentleness of disposition which wins affection, 
 and that integrity, guilelessness, and perfect 
 simplicity of heart which secures confidence. 
 In his intercourse with others he was unassum- 
 ing, and entirely free from suspicion and jea- 
 lousy. He was distinguished for punctuality 
 in the fulfilment of all his engagements, and 
 was one of the few men who do every part of 
 duty in its proper time and place. His personal 
 faults were those which almost invariably ac- 
 company the excellent attributes of character for 
 which he was distinguished a degree of timid- 
 ity, too great desire to please, and fear to offend, 
 and pliability in trying emergencies, where the 
 highest degree of energy is required. 
 
 As to the religious character of Dr. Knapp, 
 the evidence in favour of his strictly evangelical 
 piety is clear and decisive. There is no proof of 
 any sudden alteration in his views and feelings 
 on the subject of personal religion, and there are 
 no means, therefore, of ascertaining the precise 
 period when his spiritual life commenced. His 
 is one of the thousand cases in which early pa- 
 rental instruction, by exciting the religious sen- 
 sibilities of the soul, prepares the way, through 
 the divine blessing, for the higher life of faith. 
 The influence of these early parental instructions, 
 in restraining from hardening vices, and in awa- 
 kening the moral impulses of the soul, cannot 
 be better described than by his .own words : 
 " Vitae morumque praecepta, quse mihi puero et 
 juveni a. b. parente graviter quidem, sed tamen 
 peramanter, inculcabantur, crebraeque exhorta- 
 tiones ad studium pietatis in Deum ac veri 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 19 
 
 rectique amorem, menti meas tarn alte infixae 
 heeserunt, ut earum memoria nunquam deleri 
 poterit. Nam post ejus obitum quoque, si forte 
 adessent peccandi illecebrse, quibus tentari ju- 
 venilis setas solet, statim ejus imago animo meo 
 obversabatur, simulque in memoriam revocabam 
 cohortationesomnemqueinstitutionempaternam, 
 qua juvenilis animus mature erat imbutus. Hac 
 cura ac diligentia parentum effectual est unice, 
 ut varia pericula atque incitamenta ad peccan- 
 dum, quibus multos aequalium, optimae spei ju- 
 venis, in academia prsesertim, succumbere vidi, 
 feliciter superarem." 
 
 The good effect of these pious counsels was 
 in some degree counteracted for a time by the 
 extremely dangerous circumstances in which he 
 was placed at the university, and especially by 
 the instructions of the neological professors, 
 which were as unfavourable to vital piety as 
 they were to sound doctrine. He was naturally 
 somewhat affected by the spirit of the times, 
 though he was never carried so far as to lose his 
 confidence in the authority of the Scriptures, or 
 to join with the scoffers by whom he was sur- 
 rounded in deriding things sacred. Through 
 the blessing of God he was speedily recovered 
 from this temporary aberration, and became 
 more and more in earnest about his salvation. 
 About the time he was chosen ordinary profes- 
 sor, he began to keep a diary, on the first leaf 
 of which he wrote as follows :- "I have re- 
 solved to-day, with the help of God, to write 
 something from time to time respecting my spi- 
 ritual condition. It is my hope that by this 
 means I shall render myself more observant of 
 my whole character and conduct than, as I must 
 confess to my shame, I have hitherto been. If 
 by the grace of God I succeed in this, oh, how 
 shall I bless this day !" It was not, however, 
 until eight or ten years after this period that he 
 gave that clear evidence of evangelical piety 
 which he exhibited during the latter part of his 
 life. In 1794 he became more decided in oppo- 
 sition to the prevailing unbelief, and in the love 
 and defence of truth ; and it is at this period that 
 one of his eulogists* dates his conversion. The 
 fact, however, probably was, that at the time 
 specified the inward life of God in his soul, 
 before hidden, and by adverse influences almost 
 extinct, became more evident and vigorous. As 
 the ways of God in leading men to Christ are 
 often secret and unknown, so too is the operation 
 of the Spirit dwelling in believers. Its presence 
 is often undiscovered; and while it secretly 
 works the mortification of sinful nature and con- 
 formity to Christ, the believer himself may be 
 unconscious of the inward mystery of grace; 
 and to others certainly it is wholly impercepti- 
 ble. 
 
 
 Dr. Scheibel. of Breslau. 
 
 The question when his spiritual life com- 
 menced is, however, of little interest compared 
 with the question, how it was exhibited, what, 
 were, its principal characteristics ? It has been al- 
 ready remarked, that in place of the enlightened 
 and scriptural piety of the first teachers of theo- 
 logy at Halle, some of their successors exhibited 
 a gloomy, exclusive, pharisaical religion, the 
 principal marks of which were an ostentatious 
 display of sanctity, and total abstinence from the 
 innocent enjoyments of life. Very far from this 
 was the character of Knapp's piety. With the 
 deep feeling of his own unworthiness he always 
 associated the genuine evangelical enjoyment 
 arising from the consciousness of the Divine 
 forgiveness and favour. This consciousness 
 diffused a peace and composure within which 
 influenced his external deportment, and made 
 his religion attractive to beholders. Nor was 
 the piety of Knapp of that high-toned mystical 
 cast which appears in many of the speculative 
 theologians of modern Germany. So intense is 
 the process of sublimation to which they some- 
 times subject their religious feelings, that the 
 solid substance of their piety seems the while 
 to be quite evaporated. To any thing like this, 
 Knapp was wholly indisposed by the natural 
 plainness and simplicity of his character. 
 Among the most prominent characteristics of 
 that piety which he exhibited is the sense of 
 unworthiness, and of dependence on the grace 
 of God. When on the day of his jubilee his 
 merits were largely recounted, he frequently 
 spoke of what he had omitted to do, and was 
 prone to confess himself an unprofitable servant. 
 He gratefully ascribed his success in whatever 
 he undertook to the blessing of God, and espe- 
 cially acknowledged him as the author of every 
 good thought, word, and work. His piety was 
 in a high degree active ,- he was unwearied in 
 his efforts to promote the prosperity and en- 
 largement of the kingdom of Christ. By his 
 practical writings he contributed much to revive 
 the declining flame of piety in the German 
 church, and by his exertions in behalf of mis- 
 sions to spread the gospel over the earth. In 
 the severe pains and heavy afflictions which he 
 was called to endure, he honoured religion by 
 his quiet submission to the will of God. His 
 private walk was strictly conformed to the pre- 
 cepts of the gospel; and to all with whom he 
 was associated it was evident that his conver- 
 sation was in heaven ; and this it was which 
 gave to his explanations of the Bible, his lec- 
 tures on theology, and all his religious instruc- 
 tions, an energy and effect unknown in the la- 
 bours of those whose lives do not bear witness 
 to their sincerity. 
 
 But we are here concerned with Dr. Knapp 
 principally as a teacher and theological profes- 
 sor. For this office he was eminently qualified, 
 
20 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 both by the natural endowments of his mind 
 and by his acquisitions. His thoughts on the 
 different subjects to which he turned his atten- 
 tion were plain, natural, and solid. His know- 
 ledge was deep and thorough; and he always 
 cautioned his pupils against whatever was 
 showy or superficial in their attainments, as 
 tending to foster that pride of learning which 
 from his very soul he abhorred. To know a 
 little well, rather than a great deal imperfectly, 
 was his invariable direction. The clearness and 
 distinctness of his conceptions rendered his style 
 uncommonly lucid and perspicuous. His hear- 
 ers were never left in doubt as to his meaning 
 by any vagueness or indefiniteness in his ex- 
 pressions. These were the qualities which 
 made him so highly popular as a teacher. Al- 
 though he by no means fell in with the prevail- 
 ing taste of theological study, his lecture-room 
 was always thronged. Students who are really 
 in pursuit of the truth prefer to follow the slow, 
 but certain steps of a teacher, who proceeds 
 in the orderly demonstrative method, rather 
 than of one who is hasty and headlong in his 
 decisions. No teacher was ever more popular 
 in Germany than Baumgarten, and none ever 
 more logical, or painfully slow and moderate in 
 his delivery. In judging of the opinions of 
 others, Knapp was distinguished for fairness and 
 candour. He allowed the full weight of their 
 arguments ; and while he never spared that pro- 
 fane trifling and contempt with which the doc- 
 trines of religion were treated by many of his 
 contemporaries, he did not assume to condemn 
 those who differed from him merely in opinion. 
 Through the exercise of this Christian candour 
 and charity, he was enabled to live in perfect 
 harmony with colleagues whose system of be- 
 lief and manner of instruction were directly op- 
 posite to his own. 
 
 The Lectures on Theology now offered to the 
 public were composed, as has been already re- 
 marked, between the years 1785 and '89, and 
 first publicly read during the latter year. Al- 
 though often repeated after that time, and at 
 each reading corrected in minor particulars, 
 they remained, in all their essential features, the 
 same as when first written. This will appear 
 less strange, when it is considered that the au- 
 thor came to the composition of them well versed 
 in all the branches of subsidiary theology. But 
 there is another reason which will perfectly 
 account for the stability of Knapp's theological 
 system, during a period distinguished above all 
 others for rapid fluctuations of opinion, and the 
 rise and fall of philosophical theories. It was 
 built on the sure foundation of the Holy Scriptures, 
 and therefore fell not, though the rains descend- 
 ed, and the floods came, and the winds blew. 
 He assumed at the very outset of his theological 
 course, the principle, that lead where they may, 
 
 the decisions uf inspiration are to be fearlessly 
 followed. In the truth of this principle he be- 
 came more and more confirmed, the more he 
 saw of the uncertainty, pride, and blindness of 
 human reason, in the speculations of contempo- 
 rary philosophers. And most of the few changes 
 which he made in his lectures were owing to 
 the stricter application of this essential principle 
 in cases where he had before hesitated to apply 
 it, under the influence of the very different prin- 
 ciples respecting the word of God which he had 
 learned in the school of Semler. In his earlier 
 statements respecting the doctrines of the Tri- 
 nity, demoniacal possessions, the prophecies 
 relating to the Messiah, the endlessness of future 
 punishments, &c., as they are given by his 
 German editor Thilo, he was more conformed to 
 the loose and arbitrary principles of his neolo- 
 gian associates, than in his later statements, 
 which the reader will find in the following pages. 
 
 In the composition of these lectures, Dr. Knapp 
 followed strictly the principles of the school of 
 Spener and Franke. The Holy Scriptures and 
 Christian experience were the source from which 
 he derived the elements of his system. He en- 
 deavoured to illustrate the doctrines of revelation 
 by analogies from classical writers, by showing 
 to what ideas in the human mind they corre- 
 spond, and what wants of our nature they are 
 intended to meet, and by giving a history of the 
 opinions entertained, and the various learned 
 distinctions adopted respecting them in ancient 
 and modern times. He then endeavoured to 
 combine these doctrines, thus illustrated, into a 
 thorough system. The philosophy which he 
 adopted, and by which he was influenced as far 
 as by any, is that popular eclectic system which 
 prevailed between the downfall of Wolf and the 
 ascendency of Kant. But he was especially 
 faithful to the requisition, that impractical effect 
 of the doctrines of revelation should be ever kept 
 in view by theological teachers. Under each 
 of the important doctrines he gave directions 
 respecting the best mode of presenting them in 
 popular discourse; and these directions consti- 
 tute a very considerable part of the value of this 
 work. 
 
 I will only add a word respecting the transla- 
 tion of these Lectures. I undertook it at the 
 commencement of my theological studies, at the 
 suggestion and with the approbation of my in- 
 structers, and soon completed a hasty translation 
 of most of the Articles. In correcting the copy 
 and preparing it for the press, I felt myself 
 tempted to relieve the tediousness of simple re- 
 vision by entering upon the wide field of theo- 
 logical investigation to which I was pointed by 
 the references of the author, and for which the 
 library in this seminary furnishes ample means. 
 This was in many cases necessary to enable me 
 to understand fully the meaning of the author 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 21 
 
 These collateral studies have occasioned an un- 
 expected delay in the publication of this work, 
 though I hope they will contribute to render it 
 more complete. I have endeavoured to bring 
 down the literature of the more important Arti- 
 cles to the present time, and in doing this have 
 made use of the excellent Manual of Hahn of 
 Leipsic, and of Bretschneider's " Dogmatik." 
 I have frequently introduced important passages 
 from authors referred to by Knapp, but not ac- 
 cessible to readers in general. In some cases 
 in which Knapp differs from the opinion com- 
 monly received by theologians in this country, 
 as in the doctrine of decrees ; or in which his 
 statements have been corrected or mended by 
 later investigations, as in some portions of the 
 history of the Trinity ; I have either stated the 
 opposite opinion, with the reasons for it, or re- 
 ferred to authors where different statements can 
 be found. It must not be inferred, however, 
 that whenever this is not done, the author's 
 opinions are considered to be unexceptionable. 
 It should be distinctly stated, that neither the 
 translator nor the gentlemen by whose advice 
 this work was undertaken, are vouchers for the 
 exact truth of all its doctrines. Of its general 
 correctness they are well satisfied, and this is 
 all for which they are responsible. 
 The additions made by the translator are in- 
 
 cluded in brackets, and are sometimes printed 
 uniformly with the text, though more generally 
 thrown into notes; they are in most cases, 
 though not always, designated by the abbrevia- 
 tion TR. 
 
 The translation which I have given will be 
 found, if compared with the original, to be some- 
 what free. I have endeavoured to express the 
 meaning of the author, as he himself would have 
 expressed it in English, rather than to follow 
 the German, to the violation of the purity of our 
 own language. The imperfect state of the ori- 
 ginal text justifies a greater freedom of version 
 than would otherwise be allowable. These 
 lectures were published after the death of their 
 author, without any alteration, from manuscripts 
 which he had never prepared for the press. 
 Many passages are therefore quite incomplete, 
 and could be intelligibly rendered only by a 
 copious paraphrase. 
 
 I embrace this opportunity to express my 
 thanks to the gentlemen who have rendered me 
 assistance; and especially to my honoured 
 father, to whose careful revision much of the 
 correctness of this work is to be attributed. 
 , LEONARD WOODS, JUN. 
 
 Theological Seminai 
 Sept. 26, 1 
 
 f, Andover, 
 31. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 23 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 OF RELIGION AND THEOLOGY ; AND THE DIFFER- 
 ENCE BETWEEN THEM. 
 
 I. Of Religion. 
 
 ELIGION, understood sub- 
 'jectively, and in the widest 
 sense, is commonly defined, 
 reverence for God, or piety to 
 him. The objection which 
 Staudlinand some other mod- 
 ern writers have urgedagainst 
 this definition is not important enough 
 to require us to abandon it. We say 
 of one who performs what he acknow- 
 ledges to be agreeable to the will of 
 God, that he reverences God, or is pious, 
 (colere deum, cultus dei.) Thus Kant defines 
 religion to be, the acknowledgment of our duties- 
 as divine commands. It is clear that two things 
 are essential to piety to God viz., (1) The 
 knowledge of God, as to his nature, attributes, 
 &c.; of his relation to men, and his disposition 
 towards them; and also of his will. (2) Affec- 
 tions and conduct correspondent with this know- 
 ledge; or the application of this knowledge. 
 The science of religion, then, is that science 
 which comprises every thing relative to the 
 knowledge and reverence of God. The hu- 
 man understanding is employed about the for- 
 mer, which is called the theoretic part of reli- 
 gion, (yrtutfis, rtttfT'cj, t'o TtKjT's'UEtv.) The hu- 
 man will is employed about the latter, which is 
 called the practical part of religion, (ra tpya, to 
 Ttotstv.) These two parts must coexist. One 
 is equally essential with the other. They are, 
 therefore, always connected in the discourses of 
 Christ and the writings of the apostles. Vide 
 John, xiii. 17; Titus, i. 1; Jas. i. 2227. 
 Vide Morus, p. 2, biblica nomina religionis, 
 <J>6i3o$ iov, x. *. h. 
 
 The correctness of this knowledge of God is 
 very important in regard to our conduct. The 
 human mind is compelled to conceive of God as 
 the great ideal of moral perfection, and conse- 
 quently, to make him the pattern for imitation. 
 False notions, therefore, respecting his nature, 
 attributes, and commands, are in the highest 
 degree injurious to morality. 
 
 But religion is often used in a more limited 
 sense, denoting either the theoretic or the prac- 
 tical part merely. And in either of these re- 
 4 
 
 spects a man is called religious. Religion is a 
 name which is also very frequently given to the 
 xternal rites of divine service. And thus a man 
 who lives devoutly, frequents public worship, 
 and observes the ordinances, is called a religious 
 man. But this is a perversion of the word, 
 which has bad consequences. Vide Morus, s. 2, 
 not. extra. 
 
 Thus far we have considered religion subjec- 
 tively i. e., in respect to those who possess it. 
 But, 
 
 (6) The word religion is often used objectively, 
 to designate the whole sum of doctrines respecting 
 God and his will. But since the notions of men 
 respecting God, and accordingly their piety to 
 him, are very different, religion frequently sig- 
 nifies in common language the manner in which 
 God is regarded, according to these preconceived 
 opinions. Thus we speak of the Christian, 
 heathen, and Mahommedan religion i. e., the 
 manner in which God is regarded according to 
 the ideas of Christians, heathen, and Mahomme- 
 dans. We also speak of changing, professing, 
 denying, embracing, renouncing one's religion, 
 using religion in the same sense. 
 
 Note. The Latin word religio is derived from 
 the old word religere, and from the derivative re- 
 ligens, synonymous with diligens, careful, strict. 
 Cic. De Nat. Deor. II. 28, and Gell. Noct. Att. 
 IV. 9. It signifies, literally, strictness, punctual 
 care, conscientiousness. Those who exhibited 
 zeal and earnestness in the service of God, as the 
 most important concern, were therefore called 
 xii* 1 |o^^i/, religiosi; and their conduct was 
 called religio (the name of the Deity being fre- 
 quently annexed) dei, or erga deum. The word 
 religio, however, and especially the plural re.li- 
 giones, was most commonly used in reference to 
 external worship, rites, and ceremonies. Vide 
 Jerusalem, Betrachtungen iiber die Wahrheiten 
 der Religion, Th. I. Vide especially, die achte 
 Betrachtung. 
 
 II. Of Theology. 
 
 Theology is properly 7.0705 rtfpt eov, (like 
 acr-r'poXoyta,) and this is either narratio de de.o, 
 or doctrina de deo. The most ancient heathen 
 Greeks used it in the first sense. Those who 
 wrote the history of the gods, their works (e. g., 
 cosmogony) and exploits, in short, the mytho- 
 logists, were called ^oxoyta. Pherecydes of 
 Scyros, who wrote a work entitled so>,oy(,'a, was 
 C 25 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the first who was so called. Homer and Hesiod, 
 too, were theologians in this sense. Moses is 
 said by Philo ^tohoyeiv, when he gives the his- 
 tory of the creation. The fathers of the church 
 use the same word, sometimes in reference to 
 the doctrine concerning God as a part of all re- 
 ligion, and sometimes in reference to the doc- 
 trine of the divine nature of Christ, in opposition 
 to oi,xovop.ia, the doctrine of his human nature. 
 Whence the phrase, ^fohoyuv Xpttji'ov or ttvtv- 
 pa aywv i. e., to acknowledge Christ or the 
 Holy Spirit as God. Vide Suicer, Thes. Eccles. 
 in verb. 
 
 But in the twelfth century, Peter Abelard 
 began to employ this word to denote, particu- 
 larly learned and scientific instruction in reli- 
 gion. He wrote a system which he called theo- 
 logia; in which respect he was followed by 
 most of the schoolmen. This use was preserved 
 by most of the succeeding theologians. In the 
 seventeenth century, many in the protestant 
 church varied from it, and gave the name theo- 
 logia to any knowledge respecting God and 
 divine things, using the word in its etymologi- 
 cal sense. So Musaeus, Baier, and others. But 
 in later times, Mosheim, Semler, and others, 
 have endeavoured to revive the ancient use of 
 the schoolmen. Accordingly, when theology 
 is taken in abstracto, as synonymous with divi- 
 nity, we understand by it learned or scientific 
 instruction respecting God, subtilior modus dis- 
 cendi doctrinam de deo. Moms, p. 11. 
 
 In general, therefore, theology is the know- 
 ledge of God carried to the highest degree of 
 perfection in respect to correctness, clearness, 
 and evidence of which it is susceptible in this 
 world. And a theologian or divine is one who 
 not only understands himself the doctrines of 
 religion, but is able thoroughly to explain, prove, 
 and defend them, and teach them to others. 
 
 There is nothing in itself objectionable in 
 using theology and divinity (Gottesgelehrsam- 
 keit) as synonymous. But, as Morus observes, 
 p. 11, s. 1, it is inconvenient, to say the least, to 
 oppose theology to religion, and to understand 
 by the latter, as many modern writers do, a 
 knowledge of God which is not learned and 
 scientific. Theology is employed about religion, 
 and has the truths of religion for its object. The- 
 ology, then, should not be opposed to religion; 
 but theological instruction and the theological 
 knowledge of religion, to the popular or catecheti- 
 cal instruction and knowledge of religion. The 
 latter is suited to men at large ; the former, only 
 to the learned, or those wishing to become so. 
 
 What we call divinity was frequently called 
 by the fathers yvuGis, who accordingly called 
 divines yvucctixoi,. Morus, p. 11, n. 2. Divinity 
 is also called theologia scholastica, because it is 
 designed for the school, or for learned instruc- 
 tion ; also, theologia acroamatica, or academica, 
 
 in opposition to popularis and catechetica, reli- 
 gious instruction suited to the comprehension 
 of common people. In the latter, the language 
 of the school and of the science must be avoided ; 
 but it cannot be in the former without the sacri- 
 fice of thoroughness and distinctness. The 
 terminology of this science and the mode of 
 treating it have always been influenced by the 
 prevailing character of the age, and the current 
 philosophy. Vide s. 9. In the present state of 
 the church a systematic knowledge of religion 
 is indispensable even to the popular teacher. 
 Morus, p. 12, s. 2, and Praef. ad Mori Epit. 
 especially p. xiv. seq. He needs it, as an edu- 
 cated man, for the establishment and confirma- 
 tion of his own faith, and for the instruction of 
 others. He should only be careful to avoid the 
 systematic or scientific tone in the instruction 
 of the common people and of the young, and to 
 speak in an intelligible, catechetical, and popu- 
 lar manner. The various abuses of the scien- 
 tific language of theology do not disprove its 
 utility, or decide against its proper use. Vide 
 Steinbart, Griinde fur die ganzliche Abschaffung 
 der Schulsprache in der Theologie, 1776, 8vo; 
 and the answer, Brackmann, Apologie der 
 theologischen Systemsprache ; Braunschweig, 
 1778, 8vo. 
 
 Theological or 4cientific religion consists, as 
 well as popular religion, of two principal parts : 
 viz. (1) The theoretic part, or theoretic theology, 
 (Glaubenslehre,) because it proposes dogmas, 
 ^Bupr^ata, theses, propositiones de religione, 
 which are discovered and established by reflec- 
 tion and investigation. Vide Morus, Praef. p. v. 
 seq. It is also called theologia dogmatica, (dog- 
 matik.) For the explanation of this term, let 
 it be observed that 6077*0, has various significa- 
 tions viz., a resolve, decree, determination, or- 
 dinance; then, in the philosophic sense, (a) an 
 opinion which we have respecting any doctrine 
 or principle, Col. ii. 14; (6) the principle or doc- 
 trine (doctrina) itself. Hence Pliny expresses 
 it by plac.itum, and Cicero by decretum; as, de- 
 er eta phi losophorum, Acad. II. 9. Many of the 
 old fathers, as Origen, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, 
 employed Soy/jut in this sense viz., to desig- 
 nate not merely an opinion respecting certain 
 principles and theoretic doctrines; but these 
 principles and doctrines themselves. Used in the 
 former sense, theologia dogmatica is properly 
 theologia historica, a relation or exhibition of the 
 opinions of theologians respecting particular 
 doctrines. So, for the most part, it was used 
 in the Romish church. Thus we have Petavii 
 opus de DOGMATIBUS theologorum i. e., concern- 
 ing the opinions of the fathers, &c. In this 
 sense, too, it was commonly employed by pro- 
 testants until the commencement of the eigh 
 teenth century. Employed in the latter sense, 
 theologia dogmatica is the same as theoretic, in 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 27 
 
 opposition to practical or moral theology. In 
 the same way, Seneca, Ep. 95, and others of the 
 ancient stoics, divided philosophy into theoretic 
 (dogmatica) and practical (paraenetica). This 
 name of the theoretic part of theology was intro- 
 duced into the protestant church principally by 
 Pfaffand Buddeus, who, in 1721 23, published 
 their manuals under the title, Theologia dogma- 
 tica et moralis. Vide Stange, Symmicta, I. 156. 
 (2) The practical part, morals, ethics. This was 
 formerly always united, even in scientific in- 
 struction, with the theoretic part of religion. So 
 it was in Melancthon, (Loc. Theol.,) in Chem- 
 nitz, and in all the systems of the sixteenth 
 century. These two connected sciences were 
 called theologia thetica, and the doctrines con- 
 tained in them, theses, in opposition to theologia 
 antithetical* or polemica, (critical theology.) Ca- 
 lixtus of Helmstadt, in the seventeenth century, 
 was the first who undertook to separate doctrinal 
 from moral theology in scientific instruction. 
 Since his time this division has remained. 
 
 Cf. Moms, Epitome Theologiae Christianse, 
 p. 13, s. 14. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 OF RELIGION, AS THE MEANS OF THE MORAL 
 IMPROVEMENT AND PERFECTION OF MEN. 
 
 1. IT is an established point that men can 
 become morally better than they actually are. 
 Each individual must acknowledge that he him- 
 self can become morally better than he actually 
 is. He thus confesses that there is a possibility ', 
 an internal capacity (Anlage) in his nature for 
 becoming better than he is. Now this capacity 
 of human nature for moral advancement is an 
 incontrovertible proof that man is designed for 
 a higher moral perfection than he commonly 
 possesses or attains; for, from the internal 
 capacity which we perceive in a thing we al- 
 ways must determine its destination. From the 
 nature of the seed, we conclude that it was de- 
 signed to develope the germ ; from the nature 
 and properties of the foot, that it was designed 
 for walking, &c. It is exactly the same in re- 
 spect to the whole intellectual constitution. 
 Man was designed for all that for which he has 
 an original capacity, and God can require of 
 him no less perfection than that for which he 
 has designed him. 
 
 Note. The true destination of man, as a rea- 
 sonable being, is, ever progressive moral perfec- 
 tion, (holiness, as the Bible calls it,) and the 
 happiness proportionately connected with it. The 
 
 * Refutation (antithetik) is called in the Scrip- 
 tures IK^XSS, 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; Tit. i. 9. Hence the 
 phrase theologia elenctica, ixs^xTWH, (elenktik,) 
 which Turretin uses. Friedmann Bechmann, a 
 theologian of Jena, in the seventeenth century, 
 first used the phrase, theoJogia polemica, and wrote 
 a book under that title. Stange, ubi supra, p. 161. 
 
 moral feeling by which we determine what is 
 right or wrong, morally good or evil, is essen- 
 tially founded in our very natures. Every thing 
 which opposes the great end of man, or inter- 
 feres with his higher destination, is morally 
 evil ; and every thing which promotes this des- 
 tination, or leads to this end, is morally good. 
 Vide infra, sec. 51. II. 
 
 2. Many, however, do not attain that moral 
 perfection for which they were designed by God 
 in the constitution which he has given them. 
 In all men, without exception, in their natural 
 state, we find bodily appetite predominant, and 
 far more strong than moral principle. Men are 
 either deficient in the power requisite to govern 
 their appetites, and to perform what is good, or 
 they do not properly employ the power which 
 they possess. In either case the result is the 
 same; for if the powers which man possesses 
 sleep unemployed, a new power is necessary to 
 move, animate, and strengthen them. 
 
 3. But man must be able to attain to that for 
 which God has designed him. His destination, 
 as learned from his constitution, is to increase 
 continually in moral perfection. He must then 
 be able to attain to this end. But man has not 
 the power in himself of increasing in moral 
 worth ; he must consequently obtain it else- 
 where. God must have appointed a means, the 
 employment of which has an efficacy in promot- 
 ing the moral improvement of men,* since he 
 cannot be supposed to have designed them for 
 an end which is absolutely unattainable. 
 
 4. It might seem, perhaps, that this means 
 should be sought in a merely philosophical 
 knowledge and belief of the duties which natu- 
 ral law prescribes, or in the clear and lively 
 perception of moral truths. Many have held 
 that man could in this way be made morally 
 perfect and virtuous without religious motives. 
 When men, they say, are convinced of the ne- 
 cessity of obedience to the precepts of natural 
 law, and believe that rewards and happiness are 
 inseparably connected with obedience, they will 
 find this conviction, and this hope of the reward 
 which virtue always bestows, sufficient to impel 
 and empower them to the practice of goodness. 
 
 This theory might be true in application to a 
 being purely rational, such as man is not. But 
 it is wholly untrue in application to a being 
 composed, as we are, of reason and sense. This 
 philosophical reward of virtue, and consequently, 
 this merely philosophical conviction, are insuf- 
 ficient to prompt the more noble virtues, such 
 as the sacrifice of one's own interest to the 
 happiness and advantage of others. 
 
 Experience, too, speaks clearly against the 
 sufficiency of this means. It teaches that the 
 fullest conviction of duty is far from giving men 
 the power to overcome their sinful inclinations 
 and desires. Let every one question himself on 
 
28 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 this particular. Let him carefully examine one 
 single day of his life. Besides, does it appear 
 that the great multitude of the philosophical 
 teachers of morals, in Christian and heathen 
 lands, at present and formerly, are actually 
 better and more virtuous, with all their clear 
 light and conviction, than the great mass of 
 other men 1 Vide Flatt, Magazin fur Dogm. und 
 Moral. St. I. s. 240. f. Tubing. 1796. 
 
 As this means, considered separately, is in- 
 sufficient, it cannot be the only one appointed 
 by God. For God cannot be supposed to have 
 indicated to men an insufficient means. The 
 knowledge and belief of the requisitions of na- 
 tural law and of moral truths are, in themselves, 
 very good and necessary. But from what has 
 been said, it follows that some quickening power 
 is needed to give this knowledge an influence 
 upon the human will, and a power to overcome 
 the appetites of our animal nature. 
 
 5. This power to overcome moral evil, and to 
 perform what is morally good, is to be sought 
 and found only in religion, or in our relation to 
 God, or in belief in God as our supreme govern- 
 or, lawgiver, and judge. This power operates 
 by means of that lively conviction and assurance 
 which religion imparts respecting the will of 
 the supreme lawgiver, and the reward of virtue 
 and punishment of vice, depending upon him. 
 We neither possess, nor are acquainted with, 
 any stronger power than this for promoting the 
 moral perfection of the human race. This, then, 
 must be the divinely appointed means, in the 
 use of which men may obtain the strength which 
 they need. 
 
 In respect to religion, we find that the whole 
 human race proceed in one and the same path. 
 Some, indeed, deviate from it for a time, but, 
 in adverse circumstances, in those hours when 
 they need consolation for themselves and others, 
 they soon feel the necessity of returning. It 
 must, then, be according to the nature of man, of 
 which God is the author, to proceed in this path. 
 
 Let not the great variety of religions which 
 frequently stand in opposition to one another, 
 be objected against us. Subtracting from all 
 these different religions whatever in them is 
 false or incidental, there will always be left the 
 idea of piety to God, and of a righteous retribu- 
 tion to be expected from him, as supreme law- 
 giver and judge. This idea appears among all 
 people and nations, as soon as they begin to 
 exercise their reason. It is, indeed, very differ- 
 ently modified and developed, according to the 
 difference of the circumstances and of the intel- 
 lectual and moral capacity of each. But, as to 
 all which is essential, the whole human race are 
 agreed. And it is just this essential part of re- 
 ligion which is the very best spring of real or 
 supposed virtues, and therefore the means ap- 
 pointed by God for the moral improvement of 
 
 men. And since religion is appointed to mar 
 as the means of fulfilling his destiny, it mus1 
 have truth for its foundation ; for it cannot be 
 supposed that God would deceive man by the 
 appointment of a false and unsuitable means. 
 Cf. Moms, s. 4, et passim. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION. 
 
 THE knowledge of God, his moral govern- 
 ment over the world, and his will, can be ob- 
 tained in two ways. Firnt, by means of nature, 
 Vide Morus, p. 3, 4. s. 5, 6. This is a source 
 of knowledge which even the heathen possess. 
 and for the neglect of which even they have nc 
 excuse, Rom. i. 20. Secondly, by means of an 
 immediate or direct revelation from God. Vide 
 Morus, p. 7, seq. In reference to this twofold 
 source of knowledge, religion has been divided 
 into natural and revealed. This distinction is 
 made by Paul, Rom. ii. 12, seq., coll. i. 19, seq. 
 He calls the direct divine revelation vop.o$; and 
 those who do not enjoy it, and know God mere- 
 ly from nature, avopot and v6p.ov pri t%ovt$. Cf. 
 Ps.xix. 1 6. Here belongs Acts, xiv. 16, seq., 
 coll. xvii. 26, seq. 
 
 But when nature is spoken of as a source of 
 the knowledge of God, external nature alone is 
 not meant, as is often supposed ; but also oui 
 internal, moral nature, our moral consciousness. 
 Every man capable of reflection finds (1) one 
 source of the knowledge of God in surrounding 
 nature, which, when he reflects upon it, invites 
 and conducts him to a knowledge of its author, 
 Ps. xix. 1 6; Rom. i. 20; Acts, xiv. 17; coll. 
 xvii. 24, seq. He finds (2) another source of 
 the knowledge of God in himself, in his own con- 
 science, which distinctly acquaints him with a 
 supreme and invisible judge of his thoughts and 
 actions, Rom. ii. 12 16; Acts, xvii. 27 31. 
 
 The following remarks may serve to illustrate 
 this division: 
 
 1. We have before proved that the strong 
 belief and assurance of the will of God, the 
 supreme lawgiver, and of a retribution to be 
 expected from him as governor and judge, are 
 the means of our moral perfection. Vide s. 2, 
 No. 5. We might hence conclude that God 
 would give certainty to both of these particu- 
 lars by a direct revelation. The results to which 
 natural religion leads the few who have oppor- 
 tunity and ability to understand it in its best 
 state, are indeed important, in themselves con- 
 sidered. Yet even the natural knowledge of 
 God of this purer kind, leaves men in perplexing 
 doubt on many very important points, as soon 
 as they begin rightly to feel their wants. It 
 cannot, therefore, afford them all that assistance 
 which they need for their moral improvement 
 and perfection. What Pliny said (Hist. Nat. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 29 
 
 XXX. 1) of his own and earlier times still holds 
 true ad religionem maxime etiamnum caligat 
 humanum genus. Gesneri Chr. Plin. 757. 5, 
 cf. 760, not. We should therefore naturally 
 expect that God would supply these defects in 
 natural religion by means of direct revelation. 
 
 We must not, however, found our belief in a 
 direct revelation upon and priori demonstration. 
 The simple question is, Has a revelation actually 
 been made? This is a question of fact, the an- 
 swer to which must, of course, be sought from 
 history. That a revelation has not been made, 
 or is not possible, can by no means be proved d 
 priori. If the fact can be historically proved, 
 all reasoning to the contrary amounts to nothing. 
 Now, Christians believe that the holy scriptures 
 of the Old and New Testament are the records 
 of the true divine revelation. In the article on 
 the holy scriptures we shall inquire whether this 
 opinion is historically true. In the remarks 
 which here follow we shall discuss some sub- 
 jects by way of introduction to this inquiry. Cf. 
 Jani, Versuch einer Beantwortung der Frage : 
 Ob eine allgemeine reine Vernunftreligion in 
 dieser Welt moglich, und von der Umschaffung 
 oder Abschaffung der christlichen Religion zu 
 erwarten seyl Berlin, 1804, 8vo. 
 
 2. All history shows that men have deeply 
 felt the necessity of a direct revelation. Those 
 institutors of religion who have pretended that 
 their whole system was revealed from heaven 
 and positively prescribed, have always been the 
 besf received, and have succeeded best in their 
 object. Some pretended, deceitfully, that they 
 were the confidants of God; others doubtless 
 believed themselves to be such, and supposed 
 that God spake and taught by their instrumen- 
 tality. It does not concern our present purpose 
 to determine whether they were in the right or 
 wrong, but only how it happened that their 
 claims were so readily and willingly admitted 
 by their hearers. It was because they answered 
 the wishes and expectations, and satisfied the 
 wants, of the multitude. 
 
 Besides, nothing but positive injunction and 
 prohibition produces a deep and lasting impres- 
 sion on the great mass of mankind. The voice 
 of natural law alone is altogether too feeble to 
 control the most numerous class of society. Na- 
 tural law does not sufficiently compel the atten- 
 tion of men when left to themselves. And even 
 if they should reflect upon it, they would find it 
 destitute, in many cases, of that evidence and 
 certainty which quiets the mind. They will find, 
 therefore, positive commands, which give them 
 this certainty after which they long, in the 
 highest degree welcome. The conviction of 
 having the authority and direct command of God 
 ' for any course of conduct has more effect than 
 the strongest arguments on the duty and end of 
 man which the greatest sage could offer. For but 
 
 few are capable of understanding the grounds 
 of moral reasoning ; and they will often at least 
 suspect that the truth may be different from 
 their system, and perhaps will discover solid 
 objections to their own views. But one who is 
 firmly convinced that God has directly com- 
 manded a certain course of conduct, will obey 
 the requisition, although he may not understand 
 the reason and internal necessity of it; he will 
 comply with the requisition because it comes 
 from God, and therefore must be right and good. 
 Experience, too, teaches that a merely natural 
 religion is not suited to be the religion of the 
 people at large. It has far too little evidence and 
 power, and soon becomes corrupt, even among 
 civilized nations. Let a merely natural religion, 
 independent of authority, once become the reli- 
 gion of the great mass of mankind, and social 
 order and morality are at an end. 
 
 Since the necessity of a direct revelation is 
 felt so universally, the bestowmentof it by God, 
 in condescension to our wants, cannot appear to 
 the unprejudiced inquirer either inconsistent or 
 incredible. We shall hereafter inquire whether 
 there is one, among all the pretended revelations, 
 which is really of divine origin. This is a 
 question of fact. In the mean time, so much 
 we may boldly assert, that the scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testament have a decided prefer- 
 ence to the sacred books of all other nations and 
 religions. The best among these is the Koran, 
 to which our scriptures are certainly superior. 
 We may therefore establish this as an axiom : 
 if a divine revelation has ever been committed to 
 writing, it is contained in our holy scriptures. 
 
 3. All will admit that God has, as a matter 
 of fact, made use of the doctrines contained in 
 the holy scriptures, and of the holy scriptures 
 themselves, in the benevolent work in which he 
 is engaged of extending the knowledge of truth, 
 and of diffusing over the earth just ideas respect- 
 ing his character and our destination. Many of 
 the truths contained in these books are, indeed, 
 perfectly discoverable and demonstrable from 
 nature. But these same truths were discovered 
 sooner, and were diffused more rapidly, than 
 they would otherwise have been, by,means of 
 these books, possessing, as they do, the autho- 
 rity of a divine revelation. This is proved by 
 the example of nations unacquainted with these 
 books and the doctrines contained in them. 
 How ignorant and unenlightened on religious 
 subjects were the Egyptians, Greeks, and Ro- 
 mans, in the midst of all their intellectual cul- 
 tivation ! The peculiar privilege of the Israel- 
 ites that which made them, in an eminent 
 sense, the people of God is represented by 
 Moses and the prophets to be this : that God had 
 taught them his word, his statutes, and judg- 
 ments, as he had not taught any other people at, 
 that time, Deut. iv. 7, 8; Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. 
 c2 
 
30 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 So the New Testament everywhere; as Rom. 
 iii. 2; coll. ix. 4; and i. 19, 32; which show 
 how the light of nature given to the heather 
 had been misimproved by them. 
 
 The studious and learned among the Greek 
 and Romans retained almost the sole possession 
 of all that was valuable in the schools and in 
 the writings of the enlightened philosophers 
 Resting, as their doctrines did, upon long, arti 
 ficial, speculative, and abstruse reasonings, the 1 ' 
 accomplished very little for the religious am 
 moral improvement of the most numerous class 
 of society; though this class stood most in nee( 
 of instruction. Add to this the observation, tha 
 it is easier to find proofs for a truth when once 
 discovered than to discover the truth itself in 
 the first instance. The nations of Europe and 
 other parts of the world were destitute of jus 
 ideas of religion before they embraced Christi- 
 anity; but no sooner had they learned the truths 
 of religion from Christianity than they began to 
 prove and establish them by reason, which they 
 could now do in a more convincing manner than 
 any of their predecessors could have done with- 
 out the light of revelation. Hume said, very 
 justly, that the true philosophy respecting God 
 was only eighteen hundred years old. Respect- 
 ing the partial diffusion of divine revelation, 
 vide s. 121. Cf. Morus, s. 8, seq. p. 4 6. 
 Vide Reimarus, Abhandlung von den vornehm- 
 sten Wahrheiten der natiirlichen Religion ; Zieg- 
 Jer, Theol. Abhand. Num. I., iiber Naturalis- 
 mus und positive Religion, Gb'tt. 1791, 8vo; 
 and Staudlin, Ideenzueiner Kritik des Systems 
 der christlichen Religion, Gott. 1791, 8vo. 
 
 4. But although natural religion must appear, 
 from what has been said, to be defective and 
 imperfect, it should not be despised or under- 
 valued. Notwithstanding all its imperfections, 
 it is, in itself considered, a true religion. As 
 Paul teaches us, Rom. i. 20, we acquire even 
 from nature a knowledge of the invisible things 
 of God. In ver. 19 of the same chapter, he 
 says, God has revealed him self even in nature 
 i. e., in the wise constitution which he, as Cre- 
 ator, has given to our minds and to the external 
 world. Vide supra, No. 1. Through this wise 
 constitution, according to the express testimony 
 of scripture, God addresses himself to all men, 
 from without and from within. He is not far 
 from any one of them, and leaves himself with- 
 out a witness in none, Acts, xvii. 27; coll.xiv.17. 
 Genuine and pure natural religion can there- 
 fore never contradict revealed religion. Such a 
 contradiction would prove clearly that the reli- 
 gion pretending to be revealed was not so in 
 reality. God cannot contradict himself, nor 
 exhibit himself in one light in nature, and in an 
 entirely different light in revelation. The know- 
 ledge of God acquired from nature is recom- 
 mended and honourably mentioned in the Bible. 
 
 Vide Psalm xix., where ver. 1 6 treat of the 
 knowledge of God derived from nature; ver. 
 7 11, of that derived from revelation. Cf. Acts, 
 xiv. 17; Rom. i. 19, seq.; coll. ii. 12, seq. 
 
 5. It pleased God, as the Bible represents, to 
 give men, from time to time, such direct instruc- 
 tion as they needed. He taught them in this 
 way many things which they might never have 
 discovered of themselves, and which they would 
 not, at best, have discovered for a long time ; and 
 many things in which, perhaps, they had already 
 erred. By this immediate revelation he con- 
 firmed, illustrated, and perfected that revelation 
 of himself, as the invisible creator, preserver, 
 and judge, which he had already made in the 
 external world, and in the conscience of man. 
 By this immediate revelation, he thus causes 
 the revelation of himself in nature, which is 
 commonly too little regarded, and often wholly- 
 neglected, (Rom. i. 21; Acts, xiv. 16,) to be- 
 come intelligible, impressive, useful, and wel- 
 come to man. Ps. xix. 7 14. 
 
 Instruction given by God to men on subjects 
 of which they are ignorant and incapable of dis- 
 covering the truth by reasoning, is called positive 
 (arbitraria) instruction; by which is meant sim- 
 ply, that we cannot show the necessity of the 
 truth revealed by the principles of our own rea- 
 son, and not that God proceeds capriciously and 
 unreasonably in this case, which is not suppos- 
 able. Morus, p. 7, s. 1. When God thus im- 
 parts to men the knowledge of those religious 
 truths of which they are and must remain igno- 
 rant if left to their own reason, he is said in the 
 scriptures to reveal the mystery of his will, the 
 deep things of the Deify. Morus, p. 8, s. 3. 
 
 But revelation ($aj>po<jij, cirtoxaa/u^tj) is used, 
 even in the Bible, in a wider, and in a more 
 imited sense. Morus, p. 9, s. 4. (1) In the 
 wider sense it is the annunciation of such truths 
 as were, indeed, unknown to men, but at the 
 same time within the reach of their minds. 
 Thus fyavfpovv is used in respect to the know- 
 edge of God derived from nature, (Rom. i. 19,) 
 nd artoxahvrftsiv, Phil. iii. 15. (2) In the nar- 
 ower sense, it is instruction respecting things 
 vhich are not only unknown, but undiscover- 
 .ble by the human mind. (3) In the narrow 
 st sense, it is divine instruction on the truths 
 f religion concerning the salvation of men, 
 fhich neither have been, nor can be, taught by 
 iatural religion, and which cannot be derived 
 rom reasoning on the nature of things. 
 
 Revealed religion, then, is not opposed, but 
 dded, to natural religion. It repeats, confirms, 
 nd illustrates many of the precepts of natural 
 eligion, and at the same time brings to light 
 luch that was before unknown. 
 
 All this admits of an easy application to the 
 Christian religion. Although the doctrines of 
 the Christian religion must not be contradictory 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 31 
 
 to reason, they need not be precisely the same 
 as the doctrines of natural religion, as many at 
 the present day contend. Although the Chris- 
 tian religion is perfectly reasonable, it is still a 
 positive religion, because it rests on positive in- 
 struction. That it is a revealed religion cannot 
 be doubted, as long as the yet uninvalidated 
 miracles of Jesus, and other proofs, are sure 
 evidence of his immediate divine mission. To 
 exhibit the great and peculiar doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity as constituting a system of revealed truth, 
 is the object of the present work. 
 
 Note. It is false to conclude, that because 
 positive religion must be consistent with reason, 
 it can contain only such truths as are deducible 
 from reason. Positive religion must indeed em- 
 brace such doctrines, and such only, as we are 
 capable of understanding, and as correspond 
 with the laws of our minds. But from this it 
 does not follow that it can embrace only such 
 truths as unaided reason clearly teaches. The 
 works and the will of God contain mysteries 
 which men are incompetent, of themselves, to 
 explore. Vide Ernesti, Opuscula, Vindiciae 
 arbitrii divini in constituenda religione. 
 
 The positive part of religion promotes the 
 moral part of it, as much as religion in general 
 promotes morality. 
 
 The positive part of religion is that which 
 contains the instructions which God has given 
 us respecting those subjects in religion which 
 are not demonstrable, or which cannot be rea- 
 soned out and made evident by argument. Posi- 
 tive doctrines require belief and assent ; but they 
 do not require an acknowledgment or proof of 
 their essential truth from principles of reason. 
 The doctrines that there is a God, and that he 
 loves men, and the other doctrines of natural 
 religion, are not positive ; but the doctrine that 
 God has revealed himself to us through Jesus 
 Christ, in and through whom he will bless us, 
 is positive; for it cannot be proved from the 
 common principles of reason. 
 
 What is positive (positivum, $>tix6v} is that 
 quod ponitur, sive docetur sic esse ; non quod de- 
 monstratur geometrice. The following is the 
 origin of this term : The Greeks say, vopov$ 
 fiQ'cva,i i. e., prscscribcre, prsecipere ; for a law 
 is laid down and imposed, and not demonstrated. 
 This phraseology was transferred to doctrines 
 (dogmata) which were prescribed or established 
 without being improved. 
 
 6. Any one who would attain to a settled 
 assurance of the divine origin of the Christian 
 religion must begin his examination with the 
 moral system of Jesus. He will find, on an 
 unprejudiced inquiry, that this system is more 
 exalted and reasonable, and more decidedly use- 
 ful, than any other system of morals. But when 
 he comes to put it into practice, he will soon 
 find that he is no more able to obey its require- 
 
 ments, although he acknowledges their excel- 
 lence, than he is to obey the requirements of a 
 merely philosophical system of morals. Vide s. 2, 
 No. 4. In short, he will experience the same 
 difficulties which Paul did ; and find the account, 
 Romans, vii. 7 25, copied as it were from his 
 own soul. 
 
 How, then, can we, who are so weak, attain 
 the strength which is requisite for the practice 
 of virtue 1 Jesus and the writers of the New 
 Testament everywhere answer, By believing on 
 the person and whole doctrine of Jesus Christ ; and 
 in no other way. But those only really believe 
 on him who are convinced that he is the very 
 person which the Bible represents him, and 
 which he himself everywhere claims to be. 
 Now the Bible represents him as a direct 
 messenger from God to men; as the greatest 
 among all who have been sent by heaven to 
 earth ; as the Saviour, the Christ. If we are 
 convinced of this, we shall (a) believe that 
 Christ and his doctrines are the means appointed 
 by God for the moral improvement and happi- 
 ness of men ; and shall (6) make use of these 
 means for the purpose for which they were given, 
 and in the manner prescribed by Christ. Doing 
 this, we shall not want strength to practise the 
 moral system of Jesus. 
 
 We see here what an intimate and necessary 
 connection there is between Christian morals 
 and Christian doctrines, or theology, and what 
 a mistake it is to separate them. Christian 
 morals are supported by Christian doctrines. 
 Christian theology teaches us where we can ob- 
 tain the strength which we need in order to obey 
 the moral precepts of Christianity. Whoever, 
 then, preaches the morals without the doctrines 
 of Christianity, preaches not the gospel of Christ, 
 and preaches Christ in vain. When any are 
 convinced that Christ is a messenger sent from 
 God, and their moral lawgiver and judge, but 
 are at the same time conscious that they are 
 unable to obey his moral requirements, their 
 duty obviously is to follow the directions which 
 he has given them, and to proceed in the man- 
 ner which he has prescribed, in order to attain 
 to a full certainty that he and his doctrine are 
 the means appointed by God for the real moral 
 perfection and consequent salvation of men. 
 Vide John, vii. 17; xiv. 6. Now these direc- 
 tions are fully exhibited in Christian theology. 
 
 Note. The division of religion into natural 
 and revealed is entirely rejected by Socinus, 
 Ferguson, Gruner, and some other theologians. 
 Vide Gruner, Theol. Dogm. p. 9, and Diss. 
 censura divisionis religionis et theologiae in na- 
 turalem et revelatam, Hal. 1770. These main- 
 tain that we owe all our knowledge of God, 
 originally, to divine revelation, such as our first 
 parents received in paradise, and thence trans- 
 mitted to their descendants. They deny that 
 
32 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 we have any knowledge of God, which, as to 
 its origin, is natural. 
 
 The scriptures do indeed teach that God re- 
 vealed himself to men even in the earliest ages 
 of the world ; and much of this original revela- 
 tion has doubtless been transmitted from age to 
 age until the present time. But still this di- 
 vision is not to be rejected. For (a) many reli- 
 gious truths which have been revealed are dis- 
 coverable, and have actually been discovered, 
 by reason and the light of nature. In this di- 
 vision, then, we have respect, not to the actual 
 source of our knowledge of these truths, but to 
 the ground on which we rest our knowledge of 
 them. (6J The elements only of many revealed 
 truths were communicated to our first parents. 
 Men were left to examine, in the diligent use 
 of their powers, the grounds of the revelation 
 given them ; to build higher upon the founda- 
 tion already laid ; and to deduce the proper 
 consequences from what had been already 
 taught. They Obtained this additional know- 
 ledge by the study and contemplation of na- 
 ture ; and why may not this religious science, 
 thus derived from nature, be called natural 
 religion ? 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD INNATE ? 
 
 THE natural knowledge of God has been di- 
 vided, especially by the ancients, into innate 
 (insita, congenita, fyt^nn'oj) and acquired, (ac- 
 quisita, irftxfifrof.) The acquired knowledge 
 of God is that which we obtain by the use of 
 reason and by the observation and study of the 
 world. By the innate knowledge of God the 
 ancients understood an idea of God actually 
 innate in all men, brought directly into the 
 world with them, and obtained neither by in- 
 struction nor reflection. Pythagoras, the Pla- 
 tonists, and many ancient philosophers, believed 
 in these innate ideas, (anteceptse animo notiones.) 
 Vide Cic. De Nat. Deor. I. 11, seq.; Seneca, 
 Epist. 117. This opinion was connected by 
 Plato with his theory respecting the existence 
 of the human soul before its union with the 
 body. He taught that all our ideas previously 
 existed in our minds ; and that learning was 
 only the recollection of what belonged to our 
 former condition. Des Cartes also advocated 
 this innate knowledge; and many theologians 
 considered it as a remnant of the Divine image 
 in man. 
 
 This opinion doubtless arose from the known 
 fact, that the belief of the Divine existence al- 
 ways precedes the knowledge of any theoretic 
 proof of it. The conclusion then was, that be- 
 cause men do not derive their belief in God 
 from speculation, the idea of God must be innate. 
 
 But the mind possesses no such innate ideas. 
 It obtains all its ideas by the use of its natural 
 
 faculties. Vide Locke, Essay on Human Un- 
 derstanding. The soul may be compared in 
 this respect, according to Aristotle, to an un- 
 written leaf, (tabula rasa,) upon which any 
 thing of which it is naturally susceptible may 
 be written. The mistake on this subject origi- 
 nates in this way : The belief in the existence, 
 nature, and attributes of God does not depend 
 upon speculation, of which but few men are 
 capable ; the idea of God is not admitted to be 
 true, because it is proved by theoretic, specula- 
 tive reason, but rather because it perfectly agrees 
 with the principles of moral reason, with moral 
 consciousness, or conscience , and because it is 
 demanded by these principles, as has been 
 abundantly shown by Kant, Kritik der reinen 
 Vernunft, and elsewhere. This is the reason 
 that the belief in the Divine existence always 
 precedes the knowledge of any theoretic proof 
 of it. Speculative reasoning must be awakened 
 and improved before we shall begin to inquire 
 for the theoretic proof of the truths already 
 made known to us by practical reason, or con- 
 science. 
 
 Experience, too, stands in the way of the be- 
 lief that the idea of God is innate. The most 
 uncultivated men, those in whom practical rea- 
 son has not yet been sufficiently exercised and 
 developed, have no idea of God and religion, 
 and of course no words standing for these ideas. 
 Vide Robinson, History of America; Steller, 
 Beschreibung von Kamtschatka, s. 268 ; Olden- 
 dorp, Geschichte der Mission auf den Carai- 
 bischen Inseln, s. 64. The same has been 
 found true of individuals who have grown up 
 in the woods, entirely separated from the society 
 of their fellow-men. 
 
 If the innate knowledge of God means what 
 Musaeus, Buddeus, and others, understood by 
 it, a natural capacity of the mind, (potentia pro- 
 pinqua,) by means of which the knowledge of 
 God is easily attained, then, indeed, we possess 
 such innate knowledge. This natural capacity 
 consists in the practical reason, which begins to 
 act before the other powers of the mind. This 
 natural capacity, however, is very improperly 
 called cognitio insita. 
 
 Some have endeavoured to prove this innate 
 knowledge from the writings of Paul. But 
 they mistake his meaning. The doctrine of 
 Paul, contained in the two passages referred to, 
 entirely agrees with the theory just stated. 
 
 1. Rom. ii. 14, 15. The subject of this pas- 
 sage is the moral sense or feeling which appears 
 in all men, even in childhood, as soon indeed 
 as the practical reason is developed. This 
 feeling renders it impossible for men, whether 
 extremely barbarous or highly cultivated, when 
 free from prejudice and passion, to withhold 
 approbation of right and admiration of virtue. 
 But this moral feeling, as was remarked above, 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 33 
 
 stands in close connection with the idea of God, 
 and leads directly to it. Paul says that even 
 the heathen (fivj vo^iov t%ovt$) have this feeling 
 They, indeed, have no direct revelation (vofwv} ; 
 but they know from their own nature ($v<sti) 
 that the same things are right and wrong which 
 revelation declares to be so, and they act accord- 
 ingly. In ver. 27 he presents the same con- 
 trast, and in ver. 15 he explains his meaning. 
 They show (sv&sutvwta*) by their judgments 
 and actions that the precepts of the law (to tpyov 
 tov vofiov, what the moral law commands to be 
 done or avoided) are written upon their hearts. 
 
 This last expression is frequently cited in 
 proof of innate knowledge; but it denotes 
 merely an acquaintance with a subject so fixed 
 and thorough that it cannot be obscured or ob- 
 literated from the mind. So, Heb. viii. 10, God 
 wrote his commands in the hearts of the Israel- 
 ites; and Cic. Acad. IV. I, Res in animo suo 
 insculptas habere. Vide Wetstein, ad h. 1. 
 "Their conscience condemns them when they 
 do wrong, and acquits them when they do right. 
 They cannot, therefore, be destitute of the cer- 
 tain knowledge of right and wrong." 
 
 2. Rom. i. 19, 20. The doctrine advanced is, 
 that the heathen are as liable to punishment, 
 when they transgress the law of nature, as the 
 Jews when they transgress the precepts of re- 
 velation : for the knowledge of God (to yi/wcrtov 
 tov tov for yvw<jK &IQV) is attainable even by 
 the heathen. It is evident even to them, (<j>a- 
 vtpov sat iv fv artotj for cn;tot$;) for God has re- 
 vealed it to them i. e., has given them the 
 means of attaining it in the natural world. So 
 that even they (passing to the last clause in 
 ver. 20) cannot excuse themselves with the plea 
 of ignorance, (stj to elvai awto-vs dvaTtoXoy^touj.) 
 The words ta yap Jtetotj^are paren- 
 thetical, and explanatory of the declaration that 
 God had revealed himself to the heathen, ver. 
 19. They show in what manner this revelation 
 was made. The attributes of God, in them- 
 selves invisible and inscrutable, (dopata avtoi,) 
 his omnipotence and other divine perfections 
 (^ftotjys), can be discovered, since the creation 
 of the world, (ajtoxtide^xoa^ov, while the world 
 stands, cf. Luke, xi. 50,) by the observation of 
 the things that are made, (rtotj^uacrt, by reflection 
 upon the works of God.) The knowledge here 
 spoken of is, therefore, acquired knowledge, (cog- 
 nitio acquisita.) 
 
 The first of these passages treats, then, of the 
 moral sense which the heathen, the civilized, 
 and the savage, alike possess. The second treats 
 of the knowledge of God acquired from the crea- 
 tion; such knowledge as the enlightened hea- 
 then philosophers had obtained by the study of 
 the natural world ; for with these had Paul, and 
 his readers at Rome, at that time, to deal, and of 
 these, therefore, he here principally speaks. 
 5 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 OF THE ARTICLES OF FAITH ; AND THE ANALOGY 
 OF FAITH. 
 
 1 . Of the Divisions of the Doctrines. 
 
 THE particular parts which compose the sys- 
 tem of theoretic religion are called doctrines of 
 faith, (articuli fidei, capita fidei Christianas :) 
 also, loci, from the sections and rubrics into 
 which they are collected ; whence the phrase 
 loci theologici. The whole sum of the truths 
 of theoretic or doctrinal religion, exhibited in 
 their proper order and connection, constitutes a 
 system of doctrines, or a system of theoretic 
 theology. The articles of faith are divided 
 
 1. Into pure and mixed, in respect to the 
 ground upon which our knowledge of them rests. 
 Pure, are those truths which we learn wholly 
 from the holy scriptures ; mixed, are those which 
 we not only learn from the scriptures, but which 
 we can discover and demonstrate by reason. 
 Morus, p. 10, ad finem. 
 
 2. Into fundamental or essential, and unessential 
 or less essential, in respect to their internal im- 
 portance, and their connection with the whole 
 system of Christian truth. Vide Morus, p. 12, 
 s. 3, 4. This division has been rendered more 
 accurate by the controversies which have arisen 
 in relation to the different doctrines of theology. 
 The fundamental doctrines are those without 
 which the system taught in the Bible is un- 
 founded, and with which it must stand or fall. 
 Such are the doctrines enumerated by Morus, 
 p. 8. They may also be defined to be those 
 which cannot be denied or contested without 
 subverting the ground of Christian faith and 
 hope. The unessential doctrines are those which 
 do not concern the vitals of religion, and which 
 we are not required to believe in order to sal- 
 vation. Vide s. 4. The fundamental doctrines 
 are subdivided into primary and secondary. 
 
 We subjoin the following remarks to this im- 
 portant division of the doctrines into essential 
 and unessential : 
 
 (a) This division was first distinctly stated 
 in the first half of the seventeenth century, by 
 Nic. Hunnius. It was afterwards adopted by 
 Calovius, Musaeus, Baier, and others. 
 
 (6) The term fundamental is taken from 
 1 Cor. iii. 10, 11. Paul here compares himself 
 and other Christian teachers to architects ; the 
 Christian community to a building; the doc- 
 trines of Christianity to the materials for build- 
 ing. The elementary truths of Christianity, 
 which Paul and other teachers preached at the 
 establishment of churches, are here called the 
 foundation, in opposition to the superstructure, 
 which some other one at Corinth had built upon 
 this foundation, (trtotxoSo^t, and ver. 6, 7.) Cf. 
 Eph. ii. 20, where the same comparison is foMn^. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Paul calls the instruction which he had given 
 in the elements of Christianity, ycaa, 1 Cor. 
 iii. 2 ; Heb. v. 12 ; also, 716705 *jjj <WJ? tov 
 XpttfT'oii, Heb. vi. 1. Fundamental doctrines, 
 then, in the sense of Paul, are those elementary 
 truths which should be communicated to such 
 as wish to understand and embrace the Christian 
 religion. These elementary doctrines, as well 
 as the higher truths suited to those who are 
 more advanced, should all be related and never 
 opposed to the great doctrines respecting Christ 
 as the saviour of the world. 1 Cor. iii. 11. 
 
 It is not, in reality, a difficult thing to deter- 
 mine what doctrines the apostles regarded as 
 essential to Christianity, since they themselves 
 have so often and so distinctly informed us. 
 We only need to pursue the historical method ; 
 and to follow the same principles as when we 
 inquire what doctrines were considered essential 
 by the founder and first teachers of the Mahom- 
 medan or any other positive religion. The the- 
 ologians of different sects have, however, been 
 always at variance on this subject. They look 
 at the doctrines of religion from points of view 
 entirely different from that of the early Chris- 
 tian teachers, and, of course, differ widely from 
 the latter in their estimate of these doctrines. 
 How, for example, can a theologian who denies 
 that Christ is, what he is declared to be in 
 every page of the New Testament, a messenger 
 sent from God, agree in opinion with the first 
 Christian teachers respecting him, his doctrine, 
 and the essentials of his religion! Now the 
 theologian whose belief on this point does not 
 accord with that of the apostles, is bound in 
 honour to say so. He ought not to pervert their 
 language in order to adapt it to his own system. 
 Many decide on philosophical principles what 
 the religion of Christ and the object of his mis- 
 sion should be, and then interpret the scriptures 
 according to their preconceived opinions. 
 
 If we would determine what doctrines were 
 regarded by the apostles as essential to Chris- 
 tianity, and were preached by them as such to 
 Jews and Gentiles, we must consult those pas- 
 sages in which Christ and his disciples inten- 
 tionally introduce the elementary truths in which 
 all were instructed. Such passages are those 
 in Acts, which describe the founding of new 
 churches by the apostles, that in Matt, xxviii., 
 which contains the commission given by Christ 
 to his disciples; and those in which the writers 
 distinctly profess to give the fundamental doc- 
 trines of Christianity. Cf. 1 Cor. ; iii. 1 Thess. 
 i. 8 10 ; Heb. vi. I, seq. The following doc- 
 trines are in this way ascertained to be funda- 
 mental. 
 
 1. The doctrine of the divine unity, in oppo- 
 sition to the polytheism, and other connected 
 errors of the heathen world. This one God, 
 revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was 
 
 represented by the apostles as the author, pre- 
 server, and governor of all things. 
 
 2. The doctrine respecting Jesus, (a) He is 
 the MESSIAH, the SAVIOUR, (Swr^p) the SON OF 
 GOD, predicted by the prophets, and attested by 
 miracles. In this character he possesses an 
 authority to which no other prophet could pre- 
 tend. This is a point upon which Christ and 
 the apostles always insist, as the peculiar and 
 distinctive doctrine of Christianity, 1 Cor. iii. 11. 
 And no teacher of religion who sets aside this 
 authority of Christ can be called a Christian 
 teacher, however true and useful his instructions 
 may be in other respects. This doctrine, that 
 Jesus is the Christ, is, as Paul says, the founda- 
 tion upon which all the other great truths of 
 Christianity are built. Vide Storr, Ueber den 
 Geist des Christenthums, in Flatt's Magazin fur 
 Dogmatik und Moral, St. I. s. 103, f. Tub. 1796. 
 ( 6) He became man, died, and rose again. He 
 is now gone into the heavens, where he is ex- 
 alted over all, and enjoys that divine glory which 
 is his due, and whence he will come on a future 
 day to be our judge. ( c). He not only gave us 
 ample instruction respecting our duty, but pro- 
 cured us forgiveness with God, and freedom from 
 the punishment of sin through his sufferings and 
 death (al/ia), the remembrance of which is so- 
 lemnly renewed in the Lord's supper. These 
 truths respecting Christ are always represented 
 as fundamental. 
 
 3. The doctrine of the depravity and moral 
 degeneracy of man is always presupposed and 
 frequently stated in the strongest terms. 
 
 4. The doctrine of a special divine instruc- 
 tion and guidance, (rtvfv/j.a> aytov, ^aptcfftata 
 rtvev[jiato$.) These were afforded in various 
 ways, naturally and supernaturally, to Chris- 
 tians of that period, and promised to those who 
 should follow. 
 
 5. The doctrines of the immortality of the 
 soul, of future retribution, and of the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead. The latter doctrine was 
 taught in opposition to the heathen and to the 
 Sadducees. 
 
 6. The doctrine of the destination of man. 
 This is holiness, and the happiness proportion- 
 ately connected with it. He only who has ex- 
 perienced a true change of heart, and who lives 
 according to the precepts of Christ, can share 
 in the rights and blessings which belong to 
 Christians in this life, and the life to come. 
 
 7. The doctrine of gratuitous forgiveness. 
 Men cannot merit forgiveness and salvation by 
 obedience, either to the civil or ecclesiastical 
 law of Moses, or to the universal moral law, 
 although obedience to the latter is their indis- 
 pensable duty. Paul argues this point against 
 the Jews, who held the opposite opinion ; he 
 also shows that the law of Moses is no longer 
 obligatory upon Christians. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 35 
 
 8. The doctrine of baptism. By this ordi- 
 nance Christian rights are imparted and assured 
 to all who are 'admitted into the Christian 
 church. 
 
 These are the fundamental doctrines which 
 were taught by the apostles. 
 
 Note. The whole Mosaic dispensation, as all 
 will admit, rested on the principles of theocracy. 
 But it is equally clear from the New Testament, 
 that the new or Christian dispensation rests 
 on principles of theocracy and Christocracy. 
 Christ is not merely a teacher, now deceased, 
 like Socrates and Plato, and other sages of an- 
 tiquity, who live indeed in remembrance, but 
 who now no longer exert a personal influence 
 upon men. He is now, as he was formerly, 
 and will always continue to be, a true and living 
 king (sevpK>$) and judge, (x$rtri$ uvtuv xai 
 
 Christianity, then, in the purely scriptural 
 view of it, is no more an institute for mere in- 
 struction than the ancient Mosaic dispensation. 
 It does not rest its precepts upon the weight of 
 the reasons by which they might be supported. 
 It is a divinely constituted government, in which 
 Christ is king, legislator, and judge. To his 
 will, in furtherance of their improvement and 
 blessedness in time and in eternity, the hearts 
 of men should be united. To his authority, as 
 lawgiver and king, God has given abundant tes- 
 timony. His will and command are therefore 
 the only ground which the Bible offers for the 
 unconditional obedience to him which it requires 
 of all the subjects of his rule. Christ does not 
 indeed omit, as our teacher, to give us reasons 
 for his precepts; but, at the same time, as our 
 Lord and judge, he requires obedience to his 
 Dimple authority. These views might be proved 
 from the writings of the apostles and the dis- 
 jourses of Jesus. Vide Matt, v., seq. 
 
 II. Of the Analogy of Faith and of Scripture. 
 
 The analogy of faith is the connection which 
 subsists between the doctrines of the Christian 
 religion and the relation, arising from this con- 
 nection, of these doctrines to one another and 
 to the whole system. Intimately connected 
 with this is the analogy of Scripture, which is 
 the connection and agreement which subsists 
 between all the truths contained in the holy 
 scriptures. The analogy of scripture lies at the 
 foundation of the analogy of faith, since the 
 scriptures are the ground of the doctrines of 
 faith. This agreement should subsist in every 
 system ; the parts should conspire harmoniously 
 to one end. The propositions should be con- 
 nected together into a complete whole, without 
 chasms; and follow, one after another, in natu- 
 ral order, without contradiction. But this is 
 eminently important in the Christian system. 
 
 The phrase analogy of faith is borrowed from 
 
 Rom. xii. 6. But there dvcttoyu* *?? TttWfwj is 
 the proportion or degree of theoretical and prac- 
 tical faith or Christianity ; like /^Vpov TttWtwj, 
 ver. 3. The meaning is, Christians should de- 
 vote the different degiees of knowledge and 
 experience in religion which they may possess 
 to the general good of the church. Those, for 
 example, possessing the gift of prophecy, should 
 be content with this gift, and employ it, accord- 
 ing to the best of their ability, for the good of 
 others. 
 
 But although this term, as used in this pas- 
 sage, has a different sense from that attached to 
 it by theological writers, the thing itself which 
 they mean to designate by it is just and import- 
 ant. The analogy of faith, as they use it, 
 implies, 
 
 1 . That no one doctrine of faith may contra- 
 dict the other doctrines of the system ; and that 
 all must conspire to promote the one great end 
 the moral improvement and perfection of men. 
 The doctrine of the divine justice, for example, 
 must be explained in such a way as to be con- 
 sistent with the doctrine of the divine goodness, 
 and as to be promotive, and not destructive, of 
 the improvement of men. Vide Morus, s. 6. 
 
 2. That the doctrines of faith should mutually 
 explain and illustrate each other, and be drawn 
 from one another by fair conclusion. Any doc- 
 trines may belong to the system of faith which 
 may be derived, by just consequence, from the 
 holy scriptures, although not contained in them 
 in so many words ; and all the doctrines should 
 be carefully preserved in the relations which 
 they bear to each other. When isolated and 
 viewed by itself, alone, a doctrine is apt to ap- 
 pear in a false light. This is the case with the 
 doctrine of the divine attributes, and with much 
 of the doctrine respecting Christ. 
 
 3. That the particular doctrines of the system 
 should be exhibited in a natural connection, in 
 a proper place, and a regular order. No one 
 determinate method can be prescribed ; and yet 
 some fixed plan should be followed through 
 the whole, and into all the particulars. The 
 doctrines in which other doctrines are presup- 
 posed should not hold the first place. It would 
 be absurd, for example, to begin a system with 
 the doctrine respecting death, the Lord's supper, 
 or baptism, since these doctrines presuppose 
 others, without which they cannot be understood 
 and thoroughly explained. Cf. Morus, p. 14, s. 5 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 OF THE MYSTERIES OF RELIGION. 
 
 1. THE Greek juuff-r^ptov is commonly rendered 
 mystery. It answers to the Hebrew "inpp, and 
 signifies in general anything concealed, hidden, 
 unknown. In the New Testament it generally 
 signifies doctrines which arc concealed from men, 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 
 
 either because they were never before published, 
 (in which sense every unknown doctrine is 
 mysterious,) or because they surpass human 
 comprehension. Some doctrines are said to be 
 mysterious for both of these reasons, but more 
 frequently doctrines which are simply unknown 
 are called by this name. Mvatr^iov signifies, 
 therefore, in its biblical use, (1) Christianity in 
 its whole extent, because it was unknown before 
 its publication e. g. p-vstr^ov *iWfw$,-l Tim. 
 iii. 9; (2) Particular truths of the Christian 
 revelation e. g. 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; xv. 51, and espe- 
 cially in the writings of Paul ; (3) The doctrine 
 that the divine grace in Christ extends, without 
 distinction, to Gentiles as well as Jews, because 
 this doctrine was so new to the Jews, and so 
 foreign to their feelings e. g. Eph. i. 9 ; iii. 3 ; 
 Coll. v. 6, seq. &c. 
 
 2. The word mystery is now commonly used 
 in theology in a more limited sense. Here it 
 signifies a doctrine revealed in the holy scrip- 
 tures, the mode of which is inscrutable to the 
 human understanding. A doctrine, in order to 
 be a mystery in the theological sense, must be 
 shown to be (a) a doctrine really contained in 
 the holy scriptures; and (/>) a doctrine of such 
 a nature as to transcend though not contradict 
 the powers of the human understanding. Of 
 this nature are the doctrines respecting Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost the union of two natures 
 in Christ the atonement, &c. 
 
 To the above definitions we subjoin the fol- 
 lowing observations : 
 
 (1) Whether such religious mysteries are 
 really contained in the holy scriptures can be 
 determined only by the principles of hermeneu- 
 tics. The mysteries which, through ignorance 
 of the original languages of the Bible, were 
 supposed to be contained in many texts, disap- 
 pear on a fair interpretation. They were greatly 
 multiplied by the fathers of the church, since 
 mysteries were in great request in their day, 
 and in high esteem even among the heathen ; 
 they were accordingly attributed in great abun- 
 dance to the Christian system. There is ground, 
 therefore, for the caution given by Morus, p. 41, 
 s. 32, n. 3, not to seek to increase the number 
 of mysteries. But this caution is unnecessary 
 at the present day, when many theologians, in 
 consequence of their philosophical objections 
 against mysteries, banish them wholly from 
 their theories ; and, not content with this, seem 
 bent to exclude them, by a violent interpretation, 
 even from the holy scriptures. 
 
 (2) Since we are unable to decide, before- 
 hand, what a divine revelation will contain, we 
 should not undertake to say that it must neces- 
 sarily contain mysteries. Mystery is not, in 
 itself considered, an essential mark and requisite 
 of revelation. But, on the other hand, we should 
 
 not undertake to say beforehand that a revelation 
 cannot contain mysteries. Whether the reve- 
 lation which God has given us contains myste- 
 ries or not is a question of fact; and in such 
 questions, demonstrations dpriori have no place. 
 
 (3) The great object of divine revelation is 
 the promotion of the moral improvement of men. 
 Those dark and unintelligible doctrines, which 
 are either themselves subversive of this end, or 
 are wholly disconnected with the practical truths 
 which tend to promote it, do not belong, we may 
 be sure, to the system of revealed religion. But 
 of such a character are not the mysteries of the 
 Christian religion ! They stand throughout in 
 so close a connection with the most clear and 
 practical truths, that removing them would ren- 
 der these truths very different from what they 
 are exhibited to be in the holy scriptures. The 
 mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for ex- 
 ample, stands in close connection with what we 
 are taught respecting Christ, and respecting our 
 duties and relations to God ; and to remove this 
 mystery would render our duties and relations 
 to God essentially different from what they are 
 represented in the New Testament. This sug- 
 gests the important rule: to consider the myste- 
 ries of the Christian religion not as solitary and 
 isolated, but f as connected with the other truths re- 
 vealed in the holy scriptures. 
 
 (4) The reason of the mystery and obscurity 
 which covers many of the doctrines revealed in 
 the Bible is, that the great first principles upon 
 which these doctrines rest lie beyond the circle 
 of our vision, in the sphere of spirit, with which 
 we have only a very imperfect acquaintance. 
 This is the case with the mysteries of the work 
 of redemption, God and man united in one 
 person, God reconciled with man through the 
 innocent death of his own Son, &c. Could we 
 rise above the sphere of sense, and understand 
 the great principles upon which these doctrines 
 rest, we should doubtless find them clear, con- 
 sistent, and connected, and lose all our suspi- 
 cions concerning them. Even among the objects 
 of our senses there are many things of which we 
 cannot see the reason, and yet cannot doubt the 
 reality. How many more, then, in the world of 
 spirits, which is almost inaccessible to us in our 
 present state ! 
 
 (5) Since these objects lie so wholly beyond 
 the conceptions of our minds, confined as they 
 are within the horizon of sense; the human un- 
 derstanding, in its present circumstances, should 
 abstain from anxious inquiry after their internal 
 and essential nature. On these subjects it be- 
 comes us to be modest, and to remain contented 
 with the information which the holy scriptures 
 have given us. A proud and inquisitive spirit, 
 on subjects like these, always leads to hurtful 
 results. We are taught by the Bible, that we 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 can never fully comprehend the objects which ' 
 lie beyond the circle of our bodily vision, and 
 that yet we must believe in them, notwithstand- 
 ing all objections, as far as they are found by j 
 experience to be effectual means of promoting oar 
 holiness or moral improvement. We must be- 
 lieve in Christ, as Redeemer and Saviour; in 
 God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and we 
 must make a practical use of these doctrines for i 
 the end and in the manner prescribed by Christ, 
 however unable we may be to understand their 
 grounds and internal connection. 
 
 (6) Religion, as we may conclude from all 
 that lias been said, is a necessary result from the 
 principles of human reason. It therefore rests 
 upon a faith, which is grounded on these prin- 
 ciples of reason; otherwise it would be super- 
 stition. The great inquiry, then, on this subject, 
 is, whether this faith is rational, conformed to 
 the laws of our thinking nature, and such that 
 we can justify it to ourselves and others. And 
 this faith will be rational, if it is not contradic- 
 tory to reason and morals. If it be contradic- 
 tory to either of these, we can neither justify it 
 to ourselves nor find grounds on which to com- 
 mend it to others. This faith, then, may be ra- 
 tional, whether the doctrines to be believed are 
 comprehensible or not. This is a point not at all 
 essential to the reasonableness of faith ; because 
 the objects of this religious faith belong to the 
 spiritual world, and are, therefore, from the very 
 nature of the case, incomprehensible to man. 
 The cnmprehensibleness of the doctrines of reli- 
 gion cannot therefore be made the criterion by 
 which their truth is to be determined, as has been 
 done erroneously by many modern philosophers 
 and theologians. Proceeding on the principle, 
 that every thing in the doctrines of religion which 
 was incomprehensible must be explained away or 
 rejected, they came at last, in order to be con- 
 sistent with themselves, to renounce all religion, 
 natural as well as revealed ; or, at best, to leave 
 only the name of it behind. The nature of God 
 is, and must ever remain, wholly incomprehen- 
 sible. We know not what he is in himself, nor 
 the manner in which he acts. And we may say 
 the same even with respect to our own souls. If 
 we consider this, we shall easily see that we 
 must either give up the comprehensibleness of the 
 doctrines of religion as the criterion of their truth, 
 or wholly renounce religion. As we have in- 
 timated above, religion is a product of our moral 
 nature. It is eminently a concern of the heart ; 
 and we believe in its truths because they influ- 
 ence our hearts. If we withheld our assent to 
 the truths of religion till we could comprehend 
 them, we should never believe; but, as human 
 nature is constituted, we firmly believe, not be- 
 cause we fully understand, but because we deep- 
 ly feel. 
 Cf. Morus, p. 41, 42 ; s. 32, 33. 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 
 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE 
 SCRIPTURES, REASON, AND TRADITION, AS 
 SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. 
 
 I. Of the Use of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 THE Bible is the proper source of our know- 
 ledge of those truths of religion which Christians 
 receive as revealed. The New Testament is the 
 more immediate source of the Christian system ; 
 not exclusively, however, of the Old Testament, 
 to which constant reference is made, and which 
 is always presupposed, in the New. 
 
 If any teacher who lived before our own times 
 left written monuments behind, these are the 
 surest sources from which we can learn what his 
 opinions and doctrines were. If he himself 
 wrote nothing, the writings of his disciples and 
 familiar friends are our best authority. Our 
 knowledge will be more easy and sure, in pro- 
 portion to the number and completeness of these 
 written records. The writings of disciples who 
 were contemporary with their teacher, and his 
 personal friends, are far more important in ascer- 
 taining his principles than the writings of later 
 followers, who are apt to introduce opinions 
 foreign to the system which they undertake to 
 exhibit. Socrates wrote nothing himself; but 
 Plato, Xenophon, and others of his early dis- 
 ciples, wrote abundantly respecting him and his 
 doctrine. The disciples of these men styled 
 themselves, still, the followers of Socrates, and 
 continued to expound his system, but they as- 
 cribed to him many opinions which he did not 
 profess. All this is applicable to the New Tes- 
 tament. Jesus wrote nothing himself: but 
 many of his early disciples left records respect- 
 ing him which are collected in the New Tes- 
 tament. If these records are truly the produc- 
 tions of those disciples of Jesus whose names 
 they bear (the proof of which will be given in 
 the Article on the holy scriptures), they furnish, 
 doubtless, the most authentic information which 
 we can possess respecting the doctrines which 
 Jesus himself taught, and wished his disciples 
 to teach. The writings of the apostolical fa- 
 thers, the followers of the first disciples of 
 Christ, are of inferior authority ; and still less 
 authentic are the traditions transmitted orally 
 in^the church. 
 
 If it is true that Jesus is, what these writings 
 affirm him to be, a teacher divinely commis- 
 sioned, and the greatest among all whom God 
 has sent into the world ; and if the books of the 
 New Testament were composed under that pe- 
 culiar divine guidance, called inspiration, then 
 we must admit that the doctrines of Christ and 
 the apostles contained in them are true and 
 divine. These two suppositions are the ground 
 of the doctrine of the symbols of the protestant 
 D 
 
38 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 church, that the holy scriptures, and especially 
 the New Testament, are the only sure source of 
 Christian truth, and, consequently, the only rule 
 of Christian faith and practice, exclusively of 
 all commandments and traditions of merely 
 human origin. 
 
 Our system of faith and morals depends, 
 therefore, solely upon the authority of Christ 
 and his apostles, regarded as teachers commis- 
 sioned by God. If any one does not regard 
 them as such, he cannot hold himself bound to 
 believe their doctrines solely on their authority ; 
 he must demand that his reason should be con- 
 vinced by rational proofs. He may, indeed, 
 hold the memory of Christ and the apostles, as 
 he does of Socrates and Epictetus, in high re- 
 spect, as worthy teachers; but he cannot feel 
 himself obliged to believe on their word. We 
 here see the cause of the real importance of the 
 controversy which has existed on the question, 
 Whether, in matters of faith, the Bible or reason 
 is the true principium cognoscendi. 
 
 II. Of the Use of Reason. 
 
 The frequent abuses of reason, when applied 
 to matters of faith, led Luther and many of the 
 older theologians to express themselves severely 
 respecting the use of reason on these subjects. 
 Their objections, however, were directed only 
 against the arrogance and perversion of reason, 
 and especially against the Aristotelian philoso- 
 phy, then prevalent in the schools. Paul object- 
 ed in the same way to ^txocro^ta, (Col. ii. 8;) 
 or yvM$i$ 4/fvSwvDiuoj, 1 Tim. vi. 20. All these 
 writers have, in other passages, done full justice 
 to reason in itself, as the noblest gift of God. 
 
 Reason ( Vernunft) is that power which guides 
 and regulates, by its spontaneous action, the 
 other faculties of our minds in the acquisition 
 of knowledge; it constitutes the peculiar cha- 
 racteristic of humanity, and is that by which 
 alone we are capable of religion. Reason alone 
 can acknowledge and receive the truths of either 
 natural or revealed religion, and give them an 
 influence upon the human will. Vide s. 6, No. 6. 
 It is therefore always mentioned with respect in 
 the Bible ; and the use of it, in the study and 
 examination of religious truth, always recom- 
 mended. Cf. Rom. i. 20; Psalm xix. ; Isaiah, 
 xl. xli. Indeed, the use of reason is presup- 
 posed in a revelation; since without the use of 
 reason we should be incapable of enjoying a 
 revelation. It is the object of revelation to sup- 
 ply the deficiencies of the knowledge which we 
 acquire in the use of unaided reason ; and this 
 very revelation cautions us against the two ex- 
 tremes, of relying wholly upon reason for our 
 knowledge, and of neglecting the use of it alto- 
 gether. 
 
 Human reason, as the Bible teaches, is not 
 
 the only source of the truths of religion ; which 
 are not, therefore, to be deduced from nature 
 alone. None but the rationalist would pretend, 
 that the only sources of our religious knowledge 
 were the nature of our own minds, and of the 
 external world. The Bible teaches us that, in 
 respect to objects of the spiritual world, which 
 lie beyond the sphere of sense, and which 
 could not be known except from revelation or 
 history ; reason is merely the instrument of our 
 knowledge. But we are not at liberty to neglect 
 to use reason as the instrument of o.ur know- 
 ledge of the objects of revelation. On the con- 
 trary, we are sacredly bound to employ out 
 reason in examining the credibility of the his- 
 tory of revelation, and the correctness of the 
 facts gathered by experience, and in discovering 
 and estimating the suitableness and sacred ness 
 of the duties imposed upon us. 
 
 Reason may properly be used, as the instru- 
 ment of our knowledge of revealed truth, in the 
 following particulars : viz., 
 
 1. In the discovery and arrangement of argu- 
 ments in support of these truths, and of results 
 flowing from them, (a) The proof of many 
 doctrines which are clearly revealed is not dis- 
 tinctly stated in the Bible, but thrown upon 
 reason. The proof of the divine existence, foi 
 example, is not drawn out in the Bible, but is 
 presupposed. (6) Proofs, auxiliary to those 
 given in the scriptures, may be suggested by 
 reason in favour of the articuli mixti ; the pro- 
 vidence of God, &c. (c) Without the use of 
 reason we cannot ascertain the truth of Chris- 
 tianity, the credibility of the history of the sa- 
 cred books, their divine authority, or the rules 
 by which they should be interpreted, (rf) We 
 must employ our reason in developing such 
 doctrines as are not distinctly expressed, but 
 only implied, in the holy scriptures. Reason 
 may be further employed. 
 
 2. In the exhibition and statement of the truths 
 of revelation. We find the truths of religion 
 brought together in the Bible in a loose and dis- 
 connected manner, and must therefore make a 
 diligent use of our reason in collecting, arrang- 
 ing, and uniting them into such a system a? 
 shall suit our own convenience or the advantage 
 of others. We must also illustrate the truth, 
 excellence, and fitness of the particular parts of 
 the system of revealed religion, by analogies 
 drawn from human things, by the observation 
 of human nature, by historical illustrations, and 
 in many other ways which call reason into 
 exercise. 
 
 3. In the defence of revealed religion, and of 
 the particular doctrines which it embraces (usus 
 rationis humanae apolegeticus). How much 
 reason is needed in this particular must appear 
 sufficiently from the preceding remarks. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 39 
 
 III. Of the use of Tradition. 
 The words 7tapao<H$ and traditio are used by 
 the older ecclesiastical fathers, to denote any 
 instruction which one gives to another, whether 
 oral or written. In the New Testament also, and 
 in the classical writers, rfapaSowac and tradere 
 signify, in general, to teach, to instruct. Tradi- 
 tion in this wider sense was divided into scripta, 
 and non scripta sive oralis. The latter, traditio 
 oralis, was, however, frequently called traditio 
 by way of eminence. This oral tradition was 
 often appealed to by Ireneeus, Clemens of Alex- 
 andria, Tertullian, (De Praeser. cap. 7,) and 
 others of the ancient fathers, as a test by which 
 to try the doctrines of contemporary teachers, 
 and by which to confute the errors of the here- 
 tics. They describe it as being instruction re- 
 ceived from the mouth of the apostles by the first 
 Christian churches, transmitted from the apos- 
 tolical age, and preserved in purity until their 
 own times. Tertullian, in the passage above 
 referred to, says, that an appeal to tradition is 
 the most direct way of confuting heretics, who 
 will ofter evade the force of an appeal to texts 
 of scripture by misinterpreting them. This 
 tradition is called by Origen xr^vy^a txxty- 
 oiao-tixov, and by the Latin Fathers regulafidei 
 (i. e. doctrinae Christianas) sive veritatis. The 
 latter title was given by them, more specifically, 
 to the ancient symbols, which contained the in- 
 struction received from the apostles, and trans- 
 mitted and preserved in the church. 
 
 Oral tradition is still regarded by the Romish 
 church as a principium cognoscendi in theology. 
 
 " Sacrosancta cecumenica synodus hoc 
 
 sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens, ut, sublatis 
 erroribus, puritas ipsa evangelii in ecclesia con- 
 servetur, .... perspiciensque hanc veritatem 
 et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine 
 scripto traditionibus, quae ex ipsius Christi ore ob 
 apostolis acceptsc, ab ipsius apostolis, spiritu sancto 
 dictante, quasi per manus traditse, ad nos usque 
 pervenerunt: orthodoxorum patrum exempla 
 secuta, omnes libros tarn veteris quam novi tes- 
 tamenti, cum unus Deus sit auctor, nee non 
 traditiones ipsas, turn adfidem turn ad mores per- 
 tinentes, tamquam vel oretenus a Christo vel a 
 spiritu sancto dictatas et continua successinne in 
 ecclesia catholica conservatas, part pietatis affectu 
 
 etc reverentia, suscipit ac veneratur Si 
 
 quisautem traditiones praedictas sciens 
 
 etprudens contemserit, anathema sit." Concil. 
 Trident. Sess. IV. Deer. 1. 
 
 Note. The ancient Latin writers use the word 
 traditio in the sense of delivery or surrender 
 e. g. of a person or thing into the hands of 
 another. What we mean by tradition, in the j 
 ecclesiastical sense, Livy or Sallust would ex- i 
 I press by the phrase res, doctrina, or historiaper 
 manus tradita, voce, if the tradition were oral, 
 scripto or literis, if it were written. 
 
 OBSERVATIONS on the merits of the question 
 respecting doctrinal tradition (traditio oralis 
 dogmatica). In coming to a decision on this 
 subject, every thing depends upon making the 
 proper distinctions with regard to time. 
 
 1. In the first period of Christianity, the au- 
 thority of the apostles was so great that all their 
 doctrines and ordinances were strictly and 
 punctually observed by the churches which they 
 had planted. And the doctrine and discipline 
 which prevailed in these apostolical churches 
 were, at that time, justly considered by others 
 to be purely such as the apostles themselves had 
 taught and established. This was the more 
 common, as the books of the New Testament 
 had not, as yet, come into general use among 
 Christians. Nor was it, in that early period, 
 attended with any special liability to mistake. 
 In this way we can account for it, that the Chris- 
 tian teachers of the second and third centuries 
 appeal so frequently to oral tradition. 
 
 2. But in later periods of the church, the cir- 
 cumstances were far different. After the com- 
 mencement of the third century, when the first 
 teachers of the apostolical churches and their 
 immediate successors had passed away, and 
 another race came on, other doctrines and forms 
 were gradually introduced, which differed in 
 many respects from apostolical simplicity. And 
 now these innovators appealed, more frequently 
 than had ever been done before, to aposto- 
 lical tradition, in order to give currency to their 
 own opinions and regulations. Many at this 
 time did not hesitate, as we find, to plead apos- 
 tolical tradition for many things, at variance not 
 only with other traditions, but with the very 
 writings of the apostles, which they had in their 
 hands. From this time forward, tradition be- 
 came, naturally, more and more uncertain and 
 suspicious. And especially after the commence- 
 ment of the fourth century, the more judicious 
 and conscientious teachers referred more to the 
 Bible, and less to tradition. Augustine estab- 
 lished the maxim, that tradition could not be 
 relied upon, in the ever-increasing distance from 
 the age of the apostles, except when it was uni- 
 versal and perfectly consistent with itself. And 
 long before him, Irenaeus had remarked, that no 
 tradition should be received as apostolical, un- 
 less founded in the holy scriptures, and confor- 
 mable to them. Adv. Haer. IV. 36. 
 
 3. From these remarks, we can easily deter- 
 mine the value of doctrinal tradition in our own 
 times. We have but little credible information 
 respecting the first Christian churches, of as 
 early a date as the first or second century, beside 
 that which the New Testament gives us. And 
 the information respecting them of a later origin 
 is so intermingled with rumours and fables as 
 to be quite uncertain. We cannot hope, there- 
 fore, to obtain by oral tradition any information 
 
40 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 respecting the doctrines held in the first Chris- 
 tian churches, beyond what we obtain from the 
 books of the New Testament, the only genuine 
 records of the early period of Christianity. Les- 
 sing affirmed, indeed, that the Christian religion 
 would have been handed down from age to age, 
 even if the writings of the New Testament had 
 never existed. And true it is, that by oral tra- 
 dition, by writings of a later origin, by baptism, 
 the Lord's supper, and other Christian rites, 
 much of Christianity might have been preserved 
 to our own times, without the aid of the sacred 
 books of our religion. But it is equally true, 
 that without the New Testament any certainty 
 with regard to the doctrines of Christianity 
 would be impossible; the sure, historical basis 
 of the system would be removed, and Chris- 
 tianity soon become greatly disfigured ; as may 
 be learned from the example of the Romish 
 church, where the use of the Bible was limited. 
 Christianity did, indeed, exist for some time 
 before the books of the New Testament were 
 written. And during that early period, while 
 the apostles and their immediate successors still 
 lived and taught, these books might be dispensed 
 with by Christians without serious injury. But 
 not so in after times. 
 
 The reformers, therefore, justly held, that tra- 
 dition is not (certainly for us) a sure source of 
 knowledge respecting the doctrines of theology ; 
 and that the holy scriptures are to be received 
 as the only principium cognoscendi. Cf. Walch, 
 Untersuchung vom Gebrauche der heiligen 
 Schrift unter den Christen in den vier ersten 
 Jahrhunderten, Leipzig, 1779, 8vo; a work 
 which appeared on occasion of the controversy 
 with Lessing. 
 
 Note. On all the subjects which have been 
 thus far introduced and briefly considered, the 
 student will find very full, thorough, and in- 
 structive discussions in Miiller, Theophil, oder 
 Unterhaltungen iiber die christliche Religion 
 mit Jiinglingen von reiferem Alter, Th. I. Ziirch, 
 1801, 8vo; a work which deserves to be highly 
 recommended to the student in theology. 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 OF THE OBJECT, DIFFERENT DEGREES, PRINCIPAL 
 PERIODS, AND BIBLICAL APPELLATIONS OF THE 
 DIVINE REVELATIONS. 
 
 I. Of the Object of Revelation. 
 
 WHEN man is in the savage state, and left en- 
 tirely to himself, he follows his appetites and 
 passions, and leaves his moral powers unexer- 
 cised. Instead of allowing his will to be go- 
 verned by the moral law, he chooses animal 
 propensity (das sinnliche princip) as its de- 
 termining motive. He thus constantly re- 
 cedes from that holiness and happiness for 
 which he was made. Now to show man the 
 
 I true way of fulfilling his destination, from which 
 he is thus wandering, is the chief object of all 
 direct revelations. Cf. sec. 2, 3. So even rea- 
 son decides. Vide Fich te, Versuch einer Kritik 
 aller Offenbarung, Konigsberg, 1793. 
 
 To enable man to attain his destination, it was 
 requisite (1) that he should be instructed by 
 God respecting the means to be employed by a 
 divine revelation, or in some superhuman way; 
 since left to himself, he could never have disco- 
 vered these means ; and (2) that his moral power 
 should be so strengthened and supported as to 
 enable him to control his stronger animal pro- 
 pensities. These two things are absolutely and 
 equally requisite. For the mere knowledge of 
 the divine will does'not impart to man the power 
 which he needs in order to obey it, his bodily 
 desires having already the preponderance over 
 his moral faculties. Cf. sec. 2, 3. Now to 
 these two points to show man his destination, 
 and to enable him to attain it we may reduce 
 all the objects which the scriptures ascribe to 
 God in the revelations he has made to man. 
 
 II. Of the different Degrees of Revelation. 
 
 Although the plan of God in leading men to 
 their destination was always the same, yet the 
 manner in which he imparted instruction through 
 direct revelation, and the whole method which 
 he pursued in the education of the human race, 
 were very different. We are led by reason to 
 this result, which is confirmed by the history of 
 revelation contained in the holy scriptures. 
 The instruction given to men must, of course, 
 be adapted to their wants and capacities, which 
 differ at different times. Hence Paul remarks, 
 very justly, (Heb. i. 1,) that God revealed him- 
 self to men in ancient times in various ways 
 (fttftufporias). Nor did this difference concern 
 solely the form and costume of the divine in- 
 structions; it extended even to the doctrines 
 which were taught. Vide Gal. iii. 20, seq. et 
 alibi. 
 
 God treated the human race as human instruct- 
 ors treat their pupils. There is a great deal of 
 knowledge which is useful, and indeed indispen- 
 sable to a person of mature age, which would be 
 altogether useless, unintelligible, and perhaps 
 hurtful, to one in childhood. Now the wise 
 teacher will withhold this knowledge from the 
 child, or communicate it to him only so far as it 
 will be serviceable to him, and in such a way as 
 will be most intelligible, proceeding from the 
 known to the unknown, and from the easy to the 
 difficult. And this is the manner in which God 
 proceeds in the instruction and education of men. 
 He cannot, therefore, at any time have revealed 
 such thing-s as were unnecessary, or would have 
 I been useWss, to the people to whom the revelation 
 ! was given. He must also have so planned the 
 I instruction to be communicated by direct revela- 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 41 
 
 tion as to produce a growing conviction in the 
 minds of men of the necessity of a more perfect 
 instruction and a more effectual assistance before 
 they could hope to succeed in controlling their 
 natural desires. Such a course is the only one 
 adapted to the nature of the human mind, of 
 which God is the author. Accordingly, God so 
 regulated his instructions from the beginning as 
 to make men sensible of their wants, and then 
 to supply them ; for until men have been brought, 
 by some elementary instruction, to be deeply 
 conscious of their need of something further, 
 they will never inquire with earnestness for a 
 more perfect instruction. 
 
 III. Of the Principal Periods of Revelation. 
 
 The sacred records contain a history of the 
 divine revelations. This history will be found 
 to confirm the general remarks which have just 
 been made. 
 
 1. The great doctrine which we find exhibited 
 in the earliest revelations recorded in the holy 
 scriptures is this : those who obey the laws which 
 God has revealed shall be rewarded, those who 
 disobey shall be punished. This assurance from 
 God, sometimes expressed in plain language, 
 sometimes represented by images, ceremonies, 
 and examples, and in various other ways, was 
 calculated to strengthen and encourage men to 
 obtain their mastery over their passions with 
 which the divine favour, guidance, and support 
 were connected. 
 
 This first period of revealed religion, the ac- 
 count of which is given by Moses, is called the 
 patriarchal period (ceconomia patriarchalis), and 
 is divided into antediluvian and postdiluvian. 
 Revealed religion was at that time extremely 
 simple, suited to the wants of the infancy of the 
 world, and highly practical. All the institutions 
 of religion had the benevolent end of preserving 
 among men the knowledge of the one living and 
 true God, and of leading them to exercise to- 
 wards him that love and confidence upon which 
 the scriptures everywhere set so high a value. 
 The more to exercise and strengthen this pious 
 confidence they were made acquainted from time 
 to time with their own future destiny ano 1 that of 
 their descendants, and with the great divine eco- 
 nomy for the welfare of the human race at some 
 distant time; as yet, however, as Paul expresses 
 ; t, (Heb. xi. 13,) they only saw the promised 
 olessings/rora afar (rtofifatiev idovtsi). 
 
 2. Next followed the civil and religious institute 
 ff Moses ; and here again the same divine assur- 
 ance was at the foundation of the whole. But in 
 this infancy of the world God found it necessary 
 to confine his promises for the most part to tem- 
 y?ora/good, and his threatenings to temporalevi] ; 
 because such promises and threatenings were 
 best adapted to influence a people who were as 
 yet extremely rude, and who derived their pains 
 
 6 
 
 and pleasures from the objects of the present life. 
 Intimations, however, of the destiny of man be- 
 yond the grave were by no means withheld from 
 those who were cultivated to such a degree as to 
 be able to understand them. But in general, so 
 much only of these higher truths could at that 
 time be made known as would be intelligible to 
 the people at large. And even this small portion 
 of spiritual truth needed to be imbodied,as far as 
 possible, in sensible representations, before it 
 could gain access to the uncultivated mind. 
 
 In accordance with these principles, the New 
 Testament teaches that the Mosaic institute was 
 indeed (a) of divine origin, (Moses being always 
 regarded by Christ and the apostles as a prophet 
 sent by God,) but that still this institute, in com- 
 parison with the Christian, was (&) very imper- 
 fect, and indeed could not well have been other- 
 wise, considering the times and the men it was 
 designed for, Gal. iv. 3, 9 (ffi'oi/^ta) ; Col. ii. 
 8, 20, et alibi ; and therefore it was (c) only a 
 temporary religion, designed by God to continue 
 only for a time, and then to give place to a 
 higher and more perfect scheme, 2 Cor. iii. 11, 
 seq.; Gal. iv. 1 5 ; Heb. viii. 6, et alibi. 
 
 But God excited in the minds of the very 
 people who enjoyed this preparatory revelation, 
 a sense of their need of one more full and perfect. 
 And in various ways he deepened this impres- 
 sion: (1) by such instruction respecting the de- 
 sign of the sacrifices and rites of the Mosaic in- 
 stitute as should turn their attention from the 
 mere external ceremonies of religion, and lead 
 them gradually to a more pure and spiritual wor- 
 ship. Vide Ps. 1. Isaiah, lviii.,lx., seq. (2) By 
 prophecy respecting that great economy for the 
 moral perfection and welfare of the human race 
 which God would at some future time establish. 
 These prophecies were at first only distant and 
 obscure intimations, but they became gradually 
 more clear and intelligible as men became more 
 convinced, by a long trial and experience, that 
 such a new economy was absolutely necessary. 
 And this conviction of the necessity of some new 
 economy became stronger the more men learned 
 by experience that the mere knowledge of the 
 divine will, connected though it might be with 
 the certainty of rewards and punishments, was 
 insufficient to enable them to lead a life of virtue 
 and self-government. Accordingly, the prophe- 
 cies respecting the Messiah, and the new econo- 
 my which he would introduce, became more and 
 more clear and distinct, especially from the time 
 of David until shortly after the Babylonian exile. 
 The prophets now plainly predicted that the 
 economy under which they lived would come to 
 an end, and that a new economy would com- 
 mence, which would bring relief to the wants of 
 men, Jer. xxxi. 31 36, coll. Heb. viii. 7, seq. 
 
 Note. A revelation of the truths of religion, 
 in order to convince men that it actually pro- 
 
42 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ceeds from God and should be obeyed as his 
 will, must be attended with such events as prove 
 its author to be their lord and creator, and the 
 creator, proprietor, and governor of the world. 
 Accordingly, the divine revelations have always 
 been attended with events in the natural world 
 of such a miraculous kind, as could seem to the 
 most savage and unlettered mind to proceed from 
 none other than the author and governor of na- 
 ture. But the Bible claims not only that its 
 doctrines should be received as divine, but that 
 the teachers by whom they are published should 
 be acknowledged to be sent by God, as is im- 
 plied in the word prophet the title commonly 
 given them. Now in order to establish this ex- 
 traordinary claim, it is natural that the Old and 
 New Testaments should narrate extraordinary 
 events. And'these narrations, when given, must 
 not be explained away, but taken as they stand, 
 according to the obvious intention of the narra- 
 tor; for the extraordinary mission which the 
 Bible claims for Moses, Christ, and otherteach- 
 ers, could be confirmed in no other way than by 
 extraordinary events. Those, therefore, who, 
 like Eck, ift his Inquiry, explain away the mira- 
 cles of the Bible by a violent and arbitrary in- 
 terpretation, counteract their own purpose. In- 
 stead of vindicating the Bible in this way from 
 objection and reproach, they render it a very in- 
 consistent book. 
 
 3. After all these preparatory revelations, cal- 
 culated to produce in the mincls of men a sense 
 of their need of more complete instruction, God 
 founded a new institute, which, without in- 
 fringing the liberty of man, exerted a more 
 powerful influence than any which had pre- 
 ceded, and imbodied, in the most perfect man- 
 ner, every means of holiness and happiness. 
 This was the Christian institute. Its object suf- 
 ficiently appears from its nature and influence; 
 its authority, like that of the ancient economy, 
 was abundantly confirmed. We shall hereafter 
 treat of its divine origin, its internal excellence, 
 &c. In this connection we shall notice only two 
 of its principal advantages, which are often men- 
 tioned in the New Testament. 
 
 (a) Its universality. By this we mean that 
 the Christian religion is adapted, in its whole 
 constitution, to be the religion of all men. Its 
 precepts are not confined to any one nation or 
 country, but are applicable to all people, in what- 
 ever climate and under whatever form of go- 
 vernment they may live. Accordingly, Christ 
 commands (Mark, xvi. 15) that his religion 
 should be preached to all men without distinc- 
 tion, (rtday ty xtiau ;) for he is the Saviour of 
 all men, of Jews and Gentiles, of the world, 
 (Swr^p -tov xoa/jt-ov-^ Vide John, x. 16; Rom. 
 i. 16, seq.; Ephes. ii. 11 18, et al. And ex- 
 perience has shown, both in ancient and modern 
 times, that the truths of the gospel, when exhi- 
 
 bited in the native simplicity in which they ap- 
 pear in the New Testament, produce the same 
 effects in all ages and upon all classes of men. 
 They have thus proved themselves to be the 
 power of God unto salvation to all those who be- 
 lieve in them, Rom. i. 16 ; 1 Cor. i. But Christ 
 and his apostles never laboured to make converts 
 in great multitudes, or to bring whole tuitions to 
 an external profession of Christianity ; nor has a 
 whole people, as a matter of fact, been ever tho- 
 roughly reformed by the Christian religion. Ma- 
 ny thousand individuals, however, in different 
 nations, have been reformed by it, and have by 
 their example exhibited to others the advantages 
 of obedience to the precepts of Christ; and so 
 it will always be in Christian communities. 
 The tares and the wheat will always grow to- 
 gether, though in different proportions at differ- 
 ent times, according to the prediction of Christ, 
 Matt. xiii. 
 
 (6) Its perpetuity, (perennitas.) Jesus and 
 the apostles assure us that we can expect no 
 farther revelations of religious truth after the 
 full disclosures which Christ has made. Vide 
 Matt. xvi. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 24. The institute 
 founded by Christ, unlike other religions, and 
 unlike the schools of philosophy, which soon 
 pass away, will continue to the end of the world. 
 Hence the Christian ministry is called I'D ftsvov, 
 in opposition to the Jewish ministry, which is 
 called to xatapyovfievov, 2 Cor. iii. 11; cf. Heb. 
 xii. 27. This contradicts the opinion of some 
 ancient and modern writers, that a still more 
 perfect religion will hereafter arise, to which 
 Christianity in its turn will give place. Mon- 
 tanus in the second century, and many fanatics 
 in succeeding ages, adopted the notion that this 
 more perfect religion would be founded in a new 
 revelation; but some modern philosophers and 
 theologians suppose that the religion of reason 
 is the only perfect religion, and is destined to 
 become universal, after gradually abolishing all 
 positive religions, and the Christian among the 
 rest. This is a favourite idea of Lessing, Er- 
 ziehungdesMenschengeschlechts, and ofKrug, 
 Briefe iiber die Perfectibilitat der geoffenbarten 
 Religion, Jena, 1795. Vide Meyer's prize es- 
 say, Beytrag zur endlichen Entscheidung der 
 Frage : In wie fern haben die Lehren und Vor- 
 schriften des N. T. bloss eine locale und tempo- 
 relle Bestimmung, und in wie fern sind diesel- 
 ben von einem allgemeinen und stets gviltigen 
 Ansehen? Hanover, 1806, 8vo. 
 
 Note. Biblical names of revealed religion 
 and of a religious institute. Some of the most 
 important are the following: viz. 
 
 rrvin, vo^noj. This name is frequently given, 
 by way of eminence, to the Mosaic religion, in 
 opposition to the Christian. Sometimes, how- 
 ever, it denotes the precepts of revealed religion 
 in general, as Rom. ii. 14, vopov py Z%uv. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 43 
 
 rvna, Sia^xy. When God made a law, or 
 published his will, he was said to enter into a 
 covenant or league with men. He promised, on 
 his part, to bestow blessings upon men if they 
 were obedient to his law ; and they promised, on 
 their part, to do his will. Accordingly, 8iarjxq 
 signifies a law with a promise, and also the whole 
 economy founded on the law and promise. It is 
 applied sometimes to the ancient Jewish econo- 
 my and sometimes to the new Christian econo- 
 my, and sometimes to both without distinction. 
 Vide Gal. iv. 24; 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
 
 The Christian economy is called rtiatis Xpw- 
 fov, v6(jio$ XptcfT'O'iJ, vo^uoj TtKTT'Fcof, jtvevpa, (in 
 reference to its divine origin and perfection,) and 
 especially cvayy^ov. The last term was origi- 
 nally the name of the joyful promises which 
 Christianity contains ; but it is frequently used 
 in the New Testament in a wider sense, to de- 
 note the whole Christian economy, as containing 
 riot only promises but precepts as conditions of 
 those promises. In this sense it may be applied 
 to the whole of Christ's sermon on the mount, 
 which is for the most part of a preceptive nature. 
 It is also adapted to particular doctrines of 
 Christianity. 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 OF THE SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF CHRISTIAN 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 1. In the apostolical church the Christian re- 
 ligion was not taught in a scientific manner. 
 All Christian instruction, as we may see from 
 the Acts of the apostles, and the epistles, was 
 then popular, practical, and hortatory. This 
 appears from the terms rtapaxtyus, rtapaxatelv, 
 rtapajit&u^cu, which are used in reference to 
 the teaching of Christianity, (xrfivypa.) Nei- 
 ther in the times of the apostles, nor shortly 
 after, did Christianity need the aid of science 
 and learning; and among the first Christians 
 there were no learned men, except Paul, Apollos, 
 and a few others, who were versed in the Jewish 
 law. 
 
 2. In the third century, many heathen who 
 were versed in science and philosophy became 
 members of the Christian church. At the same 
 time learned men arose among the heathen in 
 opposition to Christianity, and heretics, among 
 Christians themselves, in opposition to the ori- 
 ginal principles and doctrines of the apostolical 
 churches, from which they wished to advance to 
 something more elevated and perfect. In order 
 to this, they misinterpreted the writings of the 
 apostles, parts of which, at this distance of time, 
 had become obscure. In consequence of these 
 circumstances, learning was soon needed in the 
 statement and defence of Christianity. The 
 learned men who had been converted from hea- 
 thenism now applied the doctrines and terms of 
 
 their philosophy to the truths of the Christian 
 religion. This they did partly from the influence 
 of habit, and partly from the desire of rendering 
 
 hristianity in this way more popular. They 
 iad also the example of the Grecian Jews, who 
 frequently at that time treated the Jewish reli- 
 gion in the same way. This was done by Justin 
 the Martyr; and also by Pantaenus, Clemens, and 
 Origen, the teachers of the catechetical school 
 at Alexandria. They supposed that this was 
 the best way to defend Christianity, not only 
 against their learned heathen opponents, but also 
 against the heretics. For the interpretation of 
 the New Testament, also, literary knowledge 
 was now becoming more requisite than formerly, 
 since the language, customs, and whole mode of 
 thinking, had gradually changed since it was 
 written. This department of learning was cul- 
 tivated with great success, in the third century, 
 by Origen, who gave the tone to the scientific 
 interpretation of the scriptures. 
 
 3. From that time forward the reigning philo- 
 sophy of every successive age has been con- 
 nected, and indeed wholly incorporated by the 
 learned with Christian theology and morals. 
 The theology, of course, of each successive 
 period has, with few exceptions, received the 
 form and colour of the contemporary philosophy. 
 The Grecian church, after the second century, 
 began with the Platonic philosophy ; it next 
 adopted the Aristotelian, in which it was fol- 
 lowed by the western church. Through the 
 influence of the schoolmen, the Aristotelian 
 philosophy, after the eleventh century, became 
 universal in the western church. This philo- 
 sophy had the longest reign. The reformers of 
 the sixteenth century did indeed banish it from 
 the theology of the protestant church ; but the 
 theologians of the latter part of the sixteenth, 
 and of the seventeenth century, readmitted it. 
 Then followed the systems of Des Cartes, Tho- 
 masius, Leibnitz, Wolf, Crusius, Kant, Fichte, 
 Schelling, and others, which first supplanted the 
 school of Aristotle, and have since kept up a 
 constant warfare among themselves. In this 
 contest the theologians have ever taken a lively 
 interest; and, what is worthy of remark, they 
 have always been able, however opposite their 
 theological systems might be, to find argu- 
 ments for their own support, and for the refuta- 
 tion of their opponents, by a peculiar and subtle 
 application of the very same principles of the 
 contemporary schools of philosophy. Thus 
 both Clemens of Alexandria and Porphyry drew 
 arguments from the philosophy of Plato; and 
 thus, in every succeeding age, the friends and 
 enemies of Christianity the advocates and op- 
 ponents of particular doctrines of Christianity 
 j have alike furnished themselves with weapons 
 from the philosophy of Aristotle, Leibnitz, Kant, 
 and others, down to our own times. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 From these facts we should learn that philo- 
 sophy can never afford a permanent basis for 
 theology, and should never be relied upon as a 
 sure pillar of a theological system. Those who 
 found their belief upon philosophy never have 
 any thing firm and abiding. As soon as the 
 system which they had adopted gives place to 
 another, the opinions which they before regarded 
 as true have no longer any evidence, and their 
 faith founders like a ship which the storm has 
 torn from its anchor. The belief which rested 
 upon the philosophy of Wolf till the year seven- 
 teen hundred and eighty was undermined when 
 Kant prevailed; and the belief which rested 
 upon the philosophy of Kant till the year eigh- 
 teen hundred, was undermined when Fichte and 
 Schelling prevailed. The same fate will, doubt- 
 less, hereafter attend every belief which rests 
 upon a merely philosophical basis. 
 
 4. Particular portions of theology had been 
 discussed in a scientific manner, from time to 
 time, ever since the second century; so that 
 abundant materials were soon furnished for the 
 composition of a complete system of theology: 
 they only needed to be collected, arranged, and 
 brought into a perfect whole. This was first 
 attempted, in the sixth century, by Isidorus of 
 Sevilla, in his work, Libri tres Sententiarum. 
 It was accomplished much more successfully, in 
 the eighth century, by John of Damascus, in his 
 txSocns axpifirtf tys 6p^o8o|ov rti<rtfa$. We do not 
 mention the books of Origen, jtfpi op^wv, in this 
 connection, because they contain a scientific 
 statement of only some particular doctrines in 
 theology. After the twelfth century, many such 
 systems were published by the schoolmen in the 
 western church. The principal among these 
 were, Theologia Christiana, by Abelard, and 
 Libri quatuor Sententiarum, by Peter of Lom- 
 bardy. The doctrines (sententiae) of these sys- 
 tems were taken from Augustine and other 
 fathers of the church, and connected and illus- 
 trated in the method and phraseology of Aris- 
 totle. 
 
 5. The application of learning to religion is 
 so far from being objectionable in itself consi- 
 dered, that it has become absolutely indispen- 
 sable to the teachers of religion. But they have 
 been at variance on this subject from the first; 
 since there were always some to whom this ne- 
 cessity was not very obvious, and who perceived, 
 on the other hand, that learning was often and 
 greatly abused in religious instruction. 
 
 (a) There always were learned theologians 
 who treated the truths of religion as if they were 
 given for no other purpose than speculation, and 
 who, directly or indirectly, turned away the at- 
 tention of their pupils from the great object to 
 which it should have been directed the prac- 
 tical influence of the doctrines of the Bible. 
 They taught their pupils to acquire knowledge, 
 
 as Seneca says, not for life, but for the school; 
 and, consequently, many even of those who were 
 designed to teach the common people and the 
 young in the duties of religion acquired an aver- 
 sion to every thing practical. That such should 
 be the result of this course must appear almost 
 inevitable, if we consider how common a fault it 
 is with young men of liberal education to feel a 
 distaste for whatever is merely practical, and a 
 strong inclination to speculation. If academical 
 teachers live in mere speculation, as too many 
 of them do, they will infuse this disposition into 
 their hearers and readers, who will again infuse 
 it into others, to the great disadvantage of the 
 common people. It was common for those, who 
 had been educated in this way to assume an ex- 
 tremely authoritative and dogmatical tone ; for 
 there is no other pride which can compare with 
 the pedant's pride of reason. These theological 
 teachers, in their devotion to the philosophy to 
 which they had once pledged themselves, either 
 wholly neglected the scriptures, or so inter- 
 preted them as to render them consistent, if pos- 
 sible, with their own preconceived philosophical 
 opinions. This fault is chargeable upon the 
 schoolmen of former times, and upon too many 
 teachers of religion at the present day. 
 
 (6) In opposition to such theologians, who 
 composed what may be called the scholastic party, 
 there always were others, who composed what 
 may be called the ascetic party. They insisted 
 upon the personal application of known truths for 
 the purposes of piety, rejected every thing which 
 interfered with practical religion, and regarded 
 theological study as important only so far as it 
 contributed to this end. But some among them 
 fell into extravagant and fanatical notions, and 
 pronounced an unconditional sentence against 
 all learning of whatever kind. Such were some 
 of the mystics, as they are called, who appeared, 
 even in the western church, especially after the 
 eleventh century, in opposition to the schoolmen. 
 The mystics have been divided, in consequence 
 of this difference of opinion among them, into 
 puri and mixti. The mystici puri, as the more 
 moderate and unprejudiced of the ascetic party 
 were called, blamed only the abuse of philosophy 
 and learning, and wished to have them regarded, 
 not as an end in themselves, but as the means of 
 a more important end. To this class belonged 
 the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and the Bohemian 
 and Moravian Brethren; and, in more modern 
 times, the German and Swiss reformers of the 
 sixteenth century, and in the protestant church, 
 at the end of the seventeenth and commencement 
 of the eighteenth century, Spener, and the first 
 theologians of Halle, who were of his school. 
 
 The state of theology during particular pe- 
 riods, and especially in modern times, is exhi- 
 bited in ecclesiastical history. 
 
 6. The course of theological study to be pur- 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 45 
 
 sued by the student, with special reference to 
 the circumstances of our own times. 
 
 (1) Since the holy scriptures are the true 
 ground of our knowledge of the truths of Chris- 
 tianity, so far as they are of a positive nature, 
 (vide s. 7,) the study of theology must com- 
 mence with the Bible. The truth of the maxim, 
 theologus in scripturis nascitur-, cannot be contro- 
 verted. The first business of the theologian is, 
 to search and discover, in the use of his exege- 
 tical helps, the sense of the passages upon 
 which the proof of any doctrine depends. He 
 should then faithfully exhibit the doctrine itself, 
 as drawn from these texts, without any addition 
 or diminution. He should entirely forget, while 
 thus engaged, what ancient and modern teachers 
 have said respecting the doctrine in question, 
 and endeavour to come to a result which shall be 
 purely scriptural. 
 
 (2) When he has done this, he may arrange 
 the doctrines which he has thus discovered in 
 such an order as shall suit his main design, and 
 defend, confirm, and illustrate them by what- 
 ever he can draw for this purpose from philo- 
 sophy, history, or other departments of learning. 
 Proceeding in this way, the theologian will al- 
 ways be able to ascertain how much of any doc- 
 trine is expressly taught in the holy scriptures, 
 and how much of it is merely derived from them 
 by inference, or added by men for the purposes 
 of defence or illustration. 
 
 (3) The theologian should always be careful 
 to notice the practical influence of the several 
 doctrines of theology, and of the particular pro- 
 positions of which they are composed. He 
 should also, as far as possible, suggest advice, 
 in passing, respecting the proper manner of ex- 
 hibiting the truths of religion before a popular 
 assembly ; for those who are to be the religious 
 teachers of the people need to be taught how 
 they may enter into the views and understand 
 the wants of hearers of a far different intellec- 
 tual culture from their own. A modern theolo- 
 gian has well remarked, that most of the stu- 
 dents of theology know no better than to address 
 a promiscuous audience on the various subjects 
 of religion in the same way in which they them- 
 selves, as educated men, have been addressed 
 for their own conviction by their theological in- 
 structor. The necessity of such advice to po- 
 pular teachers of religion is apparent, from con- 
 sidering that they are often wholly destitute of 
 a deep internal conviction and personal experi- 
 ence of the truths which they are expected to 
 teach to others. It cannot be said with respect 
 to them, pectus est quod disertosfacit. The want 
 of this personal experience cannot he made good 
 by any thing else; the teacher of religion can 
 never be qualified for his office if he has not felt, 
 with joy in his own heart, the truth of the doc- 
 trines to which his understanding has assented. 
 
 (4) It is now very generally admitted, that 
 the circumstances of our age require that the 
 history of doctrines should be connected with the 
 study of theology. Many attempts have accord- 
 ingly been made to produce a complete history 
 of doctrines, which, however, must prove un- 
 successful until the particular portions of which 
 such a history is composed have been more tho- 
 roughly studied. The latest works in this de- 
 partment are those of Lange, Miinscher, Miinter, 
 and Augusti. The historical method of treating 
 the subject of theology has indeed been abused ; 
 but when properly employed, it possesses great 
 advantages. It is useful in the following re- 
 spects : 
 
 (a) It presents us with different views of these 
 most important subjects of knowledge, makes 
 us acquainted with the opinions of others re- 
 specting them, and shows us briefly the causes 
 which led to these different views, and the ar- 
 guments for and against them. In this way it 
 serves to quicken the judgment of the teacher 
 of religion, to confirm and settle his own con- 
 victions, and to preserve him from illiberally in 
 his estimate of others. He is often enabled by 
 a simple historical view to decide upon the va- 
 lidity or invalidity of the different arguments by 
 which a doctrine may be supported. 
 
 (6) In the established system of our churches, 
 of which no teacher of the church should remain 
 ignorant, there are many philosophical and tech- 
 nical phrases, which have been introduced in 
 consequence of the various errors and contro- 
 versies which have existed. These phrases 
 cannot be understood and properly estimated 
 unless we are acquainted with the time and man- 
 ner in which they originated. And this we learn 
 from the history of doctrines. 
 
 'c) There is another very important point of 
 view with respect to the history of doctrines, 
 which is too often overlooked. 
 
 There is a certain universal analogy in the 
 knowledge and opinions of men on the subject 
 of religion; like the analogy existing, for ex- 
 ample, among human languages. This analogy 
 may be often used by the theologian to greater 
 effect than many logical demonstrations. The 
 opinions and conceptions of men respecting God 
 and divine things are indeed very different; and 
 so are their languages. But in the midst of all 
 this variety, both of religion and language, we 
 find a striking similarity in some principal 
 points; and this similarity leads us at last to 
 the result, that even on the subject of religion 
 men proceed everywhere on certain universal 
 principles, which must have their ground in the 
 original constitution which God himself has 
 given us. Cf. s. 2, 3. The thousand different 
 modifications of these principles and modes of 
 conception are owing to the different degrees of 
 intellectual and moral culture, and to other ex- 
 
46 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ternal circumstances by which men are affected. 
 And it is for this reason that the analogy of 
 human opinions on the subject of religion is 
 most visible and striking in the infancy of 
 society. 
 
 Knowing now these universal ideas, and 
 modes of conception and expression on the sub- 
 ject of religion, we may safely presume, that if 
 God has actually given a direct revelation to 
 men, he has adapted it to these ideas and con- 
 ceptions, founded as they are in the original 
 constitution of the human mind. This is de- 
 manded by the nature of man ; and this is found 
 to be actually the case in the divine revelations 
 which we enjoy. 
 
 These ideas and conceptions, which belong 
 essentially to the nature of man, give us the 
 thread, as it were, by which we may traverse 
 the labyrinth of religious opinions, and ascend 
 up to their very origin. They illustrate the 
 doctrine of divine revelation, and render the 
 wisdom of the divine plan in the different de- 
 grees of revelation (vide s. 8) everywhere con- 
 spicuous. 
 
 The theologian, therefore, who would cast the 
 light of history upon the doctrines of revelation, 
 must acquire, from all the sources of informa- 
 tion within his reach, both of ancient and mo- 
 dern date, a comprehensive knowledge of the 
 religious opinions and conceptions of different 
 nations, especially in the infancy of their exist- 
 ence, and from all these various sentiments de- 
 duce some universal results. In this inquiry, 
 he will find the careful study of the Old Testa- 
 ment peculiarly important and instructive. For 
 here he will discover the germs which were 
 afterwards developed in the religions of the 
 Jews, Christians, and other nations. With the 
 sacred books of the Jews he should compare the 
 writings of other nations, especially those which 
 belong to their early history. Among all the 
 writings of the people of the ancient world, none 
 are so important as those of the Greeks, parti- 
 cularly the poems of Homer. They contain 
 those fundamental ideas which, in all their va- 
 rious modifications among the later Greeks, 
 (disclose their common origin in the essential 
 nature of man. The passages which exhibit 
 these fundamental ideas should therefore be fre- 
 quently cited, in order to render this analogy of 
 principles obvious, in cases where important 
 results are depending upon it. 
 
 Note. In the study of theology, the follow- 
 ing works may be read with profit, and used as 
 manuals. (1) Morus, CommentariusExegetico- 
 historicus, in suam Theologiae Christianas Epi- 
 tomen, Tom. 2, edited by M. Hempel, Halle, 
 179798, 8vo. (2) Reinhard, Vorlesungen uber 
 die Dogmatik, edited with literary additions by 
 Berger, Amberg, and Sultzbach, 1801, 8vo. 
 (3) Storr, Doctrinse Christianae pars theoretica 
 
 e s. literis repetita, ed. 2, ex MS. auctoris emen- 
 data, 1808. (4) Storr, Lehrbuch der christlichen 
 Dogmatik, with additions by Flatt, Stuttgard, 
 1803, 8vo. 
 
 The manuals of Ammon, Schmidt, Staudlin, 
 and others, may be recommended, in many re- 
 spects, to the more advanced student, who can 
 examine for himself. The work of Storr de- 
 serves special recommendation, as a very tho- 
 rough system of biblical theology. The works 
 which give a merely historical view of the vari- 
 ous theological opinions are less suitable for b--- 
 ginners. One of the best among the works of 
 this kind is Beck, Commentarii historici decreto- 
 rum religionis Christianae et formulae Lutherice, 
 Lips. 1801, 8vo. The work of Augusti, above 
 mentioned, gives a briefer sketch. Another 
 work of the same author, System der christ- 
 lichen Dogmatik, nach den Grundsatzen der 
 lutherischen Kirche, im Grundrisse dargestellt, 
 Leipzig, 1809, 8vo, contains much that is 
 valuable. 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AS THE SOURCE OF 
 OUR KNOWLEDGE IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 NAMES AND DIVISIONS OF THE BOOKS BELONGING 
 TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 THE holy scriptures are a collection of the 
 productions of the prophets, evangelists, and 
 apostles, containing the doctrines and the his- 
 tory of revealed religion. They are the archives 
 of the records of revealed religion, and of its 
 history. They consist of two principal parts : 
 the Old Testament, or the sacred national books 
 of the Israelites ; and the New Testament, or 
 the sacred books of Christians. Aio^'x?? and 
 rp-Q denote laws, religion, and religious writ- 
 ings ; also the books, or the collection of the books, 
 which embody all the precepts of religion. Btj8- 
 ?a'oj> 8ia^r t xrjf is used in the latter sense, 1 Mac. 
 i. 57, and TtaXcu'a 8ta^r t xrj, 2 Cor. iii. 14. The 
 sacred books of Christians are called, in distinc- 
 
 tion, 
 
 The books of the New Testament have been 
 differently divided. At a very early period they 
 were divided into to s^oyycjuw and o ajtoa-totos, 
 of which we shall speak hereafter. They have 
 also been divided into the historical part, con- 
 taining the gospels and the Acts of the apostles ; 
 the doctrinal part containing the epistles, and 
 the prophetical part, the Apocalypse. The his- 
 tory of the remarkable events of the life of Jesus 
 stands first in the collection ; because the divine 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 47 
 
 revelation contained in the New Testament de- 
 pends upon events, and upon the divine autho- 
 rity of Jesus, which was confirmed by these 
 events. For the same reason, the history of the 
 remarkable events of the life of Moses, and of 
 his times, stands first in the Old Testament. 
 
 The Old Testament was divided by the Jews 
 into three parts: (1) mm, the /aw;, containing 
 the five books of Moses (rtevtartevzos) ; (2) 
 the prophets; subdivided into avo 
 ores, containing the books of Joshua, Judges, 
 Samuel, and Kings, and o^i'-rN onoaj, posteriores, 
 containing the prophets, properly so called ; 
 (3) DOi.n-j, Hagiographa, containing Job, Psalms, 
 Proverbs, and the remaining books. 
 
 This division of the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, at least the division into vojuo$ xai rtpofyq- 
 T-oit, occurs in the prologue of Jesus Sirach, and 
 in the New Testament, Luke xvi. 16; and vo- 
 fio$ rtpo^T'at, xai -^a^oi (libri poetici), in Luke, 
 xxiv. 44, in Josephus, and very frequently in 
 the Talmud. All the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment are sometimes designated in the New by 
 the word vop,o$. They are also called Ispa ypc^u.- 
 /iai'a, ypa<J>afc ayu, and simply ypaJ>^. They 
 are sometimes called by the Jews npanw. o^? 
 the four and twenty books. 
 
 The holy scriptures are frequently called the 
 Word of God,- especially since the time of 
 Hutter, who gave them this name. Tollner, 
 Semler, and others, object to this phrase, as in- 
 convenient and liable to mistake. It may be 
 allowed, however, if it is properly explained. 
 This phrase, as used in the Bible, does not de- 
 note the sacred books; but (1) oracles, predic- 
 tions, and other divine declarations ; and (2) the 
 doctrines and precepts of religion. So Rom. 
 iii. 2 ; Acts vii. 38. The Word of God may 
 therefore be distinguished from the holy scrip- 
 tures, of which, strictly speaking, it composes 
 only a part. It cannot, therefore, in strict pro- 
 priety of language, be used to signify the books 
 belonging to the Bible. 
 
 Cf. Morus, p. 16,8. 1. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OR GENUINENESS OF THE 
 BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 THE word aw&vtia properly denotes the cre- 
 dibility (a|fcortiffi'ia, Gloss. Vet.) of a work in 
 respect to its author. In investigating the au- 
 thenticity of the books of the Bible, we inquire, 
 therefore, whether the opinion that they are the 
 productions of the authors to whom they are 
 ascribed is worthy of credit. 
 
 We shall first exhibit the evidence of the 
 genuineness of the books of the New Testa- 
 ment ; after which the genuineness of the books 
 of the Old Testament can be more easily and 
 satisfactorily proved. The proofs for the genu- 
 
 ineness of the books of the New Testament may 
 be divided into internal and external. 
 
 I. Internal proofs of the Genuineness of the Books 
 of the New Testament. 
 
 1. Their contents. They contain nothing to 
 awaken the suspicion that they were composed 
 in another age, or by other authors, than are 
 commonly supposed. They agree in every re- 
 spect with what we know from other sources of 
 the history and circumstances of the age in 
 which they are supposed to be written, and ex- 
 hibit no traces of a later composition ; facts 
 which, considering the variety of subjects in- 
 troduced, are wholly inconsistent with the sup- 
 position that they are spurious. 
 
 2. Their dialect. It is clear from the dialect 
 in which the books of the New Testament are 
 written, that they are the productions of native 
 Jews of the first century; for all the Jewish 
 writers of the first century who made use of the 
 Greek language employed exactly that Hebra- 
 istic Greek in which the New Testament is 
 written ; but after the second century, this dia- 
 lect was no longer employed by Christian 
 writers, who then wrote in an entirely different 
 manner. Now if these books are supposititious, 
 they must have been forged during the second 
 century, when the dialect in which they are 
 written was fallen into disuse among Christian 
 writers. Besides, a very extraordinary and in- 
 credible skill would have been requisite to in- 
 vent for each of the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment such a peculiarity of style as appears in 
 the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 
 Peter, Paul and the rest; and still more, to 
 carry through successfully a fiction like this. 
 
 II. External proofs of the Authenticity of the Books 
 
 of the New Testament. 
 
 1. The testimony of Christian writers of the 
 first three centuries. We necessarily derive our 
 earliest evidences of the existence of these books 
 from those who read and used them from Chri-s- 
 tian writers. Now we know that the fathers of 
 the first three centuries possessed these books, 
 and considered them to be the genuine produc- 
 tions of those whose names they bear. The tes- 
 timony of the early Christain fathers on this 
 subject has been carefully collected by Euse- 
 bius, Hist. Eccles. III. 25; VI. 25; and De- 
 monstratio Evangelica. This whole subject has 
 been ably and accurately investigated in modern- 
 times by Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel 
 History. A more brief survey is taken by 
 Storr, Doctrines Christianas pars theoretica e 
 sacris literis repetita, Stuttgard, 1795, 8vo. He 
 has executed the article, De sacrarum litera- 
 rum auctoritate, pages 1 82, with great dili- 
 gence, acuteness, and accuracy. Cf. the Intro- 
 ductions of Michaelis, Hug, and others. 
 
18 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 2. The assent of the heretics of the first cen- 
 turies. The Gnostics, who were the heretics 
 of the first period of the church, never ques- 
 tioned the credibility of the books of the New 
 Testament,. They even received some books 
 as genuine which, from regard to their philo- 
 sophical views, they could not admit to be 
 inspired. From this quarter, therefore, no rea- 
 sonable doubt can arise with respect to the 
 authenticity of the books of the New Testa- 
 ment. Vide Storr, ubi supra, p. 1 4. 
 
 3. The evidence from heathen writers. Cel- 
 sus, Porphyry, Lucian, Julian, and other hea- 
 then writers, who attacked the doctrines con- 
 tained in these books, confirm their genuine- 
 ness. Vide Storr, ubi supra, p. 1 4. 
 
 4. The evidence from the ancient versions. 
 The books of the New Testament were trans- 
 lated as early as the second century into Syriac 
 and Latin, and during the third and fourth cen- 
 turies into jEthiopic and Gothic. 
 
 Note. From the foregoing remarks we may 
 conclude that since no important objection can 
 be urged against the authenticity of the books 
 of the New Testament as a whole, they are 
 therefore genuine; and even intelligent deists 
 will now universally admit that no valid his- 
 torical arguments can be urged against the au- 
 thenticity of most of these books. 
 
 The genuineness of some of the books which 
 belong to this collection was indeed doubted in 
 ancient times by some Christians. This, how- 
 ever, so far from disproving the genuineness of 
 the rest, is a strong argument in its favour. It 
 shews how cautiously the early Christians pro- 
 ceeded in distinguishing the true from the false. 
 Besides, their doubts respecting the authenticity 
 of the Apocalypse, the general epistles, and some 
 other books, arose very obviously from the doc- 
 trines contained in them, and not from any defi- 
 ciency in the historical evidence by which they 
 were supported. 
 
 The books of the New Testament were divided 
 in consequence of the doubts respecting their 
 authenticity, into (1) o^okoyoi^tfm, the books 
 whose authenticity was never doubted by the 
 orthodox or catholic church, Morus, p. 28; (2) 
 avr iteyops va, the books whose authenticity was 
 doubted by some, although, according to Euse- 
 bius, it was admitted by most viz., James, 
 Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and the se- 
 cond and third epistles of John; (3) ro^a, the 
 books which, although received by the unin- 
 formed as genuine, were doubtless spurious 
 viz., the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of 
 Hermas, &c. This division occurs first in Ori- 
 gen, and afterwards in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 
 III. 25. It has been adopted in part by some 
 modern theologians, who, however, have altered 
 the terms, calling the 0^0X0701^? va, protoca- 
 nonici, and the avtiteyoptva, deuterocanonici. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 THE proof of the authenticity of the books of 
 the Old Testament is attended, indeed, with 
 some difficulty, and is destitute of that degree 
 of evidence, with respect to particular parts, 
 which belongs to the proof of the authenticity 
 of the New Testament. The reasons of this are 
 very easily understood. We are wholly igno- 
 rant of the authors of many of these books, and 
 of the age in which they were composed ; and 
 in general, so high is their antiquity, and so 
 few are the written accounts transmitted from 
 that early age, that we are very deficient in sure, 
 historical information concerning them, and are, 
 of course, unable to decide correctly in every 
 case on the question of their authenticity. How- 
 ever, it can be shewn, from many combined 
 reasons, that with respect to most of these books, 
 either the whole of them or their most important 
 parts were composed in the ages to which they 
 are assigned. 
 
 I. Internal Proofs of the Genuineness of the Books 
 of the Old Testament. 
 
 1. The language, style, costume, and the 
 whole mode of representation in the Hebrew 
 scriptures, are in the spirit of the times in which 
 they were written. In the earlier books, the 
 ideas, expressions, and in short everything 
 about them, is such as it naturally would be in 
 the infancy of the world. Now, if Ezra, or any 
 number of Jews living at the time of the exile, 
 or afterwards, had composed these books, as 
 some have supposed, they could hardly have 
 avoided allusions to the language, manners, or 
 history of their own age, by which the decep- 
 tion would have been betrayed. Consider, too, 
 that notwithstanding the general agreement of 
 the sacred writers of the Hebrews in language, 
 style, and the mode of thought and representa- 
 tion, each has some peculiarity which plainly 
 distinguishes him from all the rest. Vide the 
 Notes of Michaelis to his Bible ; also the Intro- 
 ductions of Eichhorn and Michaelis. 
 
 2. The accounts which the sacred writers 
 give us of the history, polity, customs, and in- 
 stitutions of the oldest nations of the world 
 agree exactly with those which we obtain from 
 other sources. The accounts which Moses gives 
 us of Egypt, for example, agree with those 
 which we obtain from oriental and Grecian 
 writers. And it is quite incredible that impostors 
 of a late age should have given a description 
 like this, which is true even to the slightest 
 characteristic shades. They must have com- 
 mitted anachronisms and historical mistakes; 
 especially considering how much the critical 
 study of antiquity and of general history was 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 49 
 
 neglected by the ancients. Jerusalem, Briefe 
 iiber die Mosaischen Schriften und Philosophic, 
 Braunschweig, 1762, 8vo. C. Gottlob Lang, 
 Versuch einer Harmonic der heiligen und Pro- 
 fanschreibenten, 1775. 
 
 II. External Proofs of the Authenticity of the Books 
 oftlie Old Testament. 
 
 1. These books are full of allusions to each 
 other. Not only are the events which are re- 
 corded in the earlier writings often mentioned 
 in the later books, as Psalms Ixxviii., cv., cvi. ; 
 1 Samuel, xii. 8 12; but the earlier writers 
 themselves are often afterwards cited by name 
 David, e. g., in 2 Chron. xxiii. 18; Moses, 
 Josh. viii. 31 ; and Jeremiah, Dan. ix. 2. That 
 the authenticity of these books cannot be proved 
 from a large number of contemporary witnesses 
 is nothing strange ; the case is the same with all 
 the writings of the ancient world. In those early 
 times little was written, and still less is pre- 
 served. All the evidence which we can rea- 
 sonably ask of the authenticity of such ancient 
 works is, that they possess internal marks of 
 truth, which are not invalidated by any external 
 testimony to the contrary. There is no contem- 
 porary testimony for the poems of Homer or the 
 history of Herodotus ; but since they possess 
 sufficient internal credibility, and there is no 
 external testimony against them, their antiquity 
 and genuineness are universally admitted. 
 
 2. The written records of the Jewish nation 
 were preserved from the earliest times with the 
 greatest care. The law of Moses was depo- 
 sited among the sacred things in the temple 
 (Deut. xxxi.), and with it, from time to time, 
 other public documents which the Jews wished 
 to preserve with special care, or to which they 
 wished to give a solemn sanction, Josh. xxiv. 
 26 ; 1 Sam. x. 25. Thus a kind of sacred libra- 
 ry was gradually formed in the temple, from 
 which our present collection of the books of the 
 Old Testament was taken. Josephus mentions, 
 Antiq. V. 1, avaxtipfva iv ?$> tsp^ ypa j ti i uai'a. 
 
 3. The Greek translation, called the Septua- 
 gint or Alexandrine version, is a proof that the 
 Jews, at a very early period, acknowledged the 
 books of the Old Testament to be genuine. This 
 translation was commenced, beginning with the 
 Pentateuch, in the reign of the Egyptian king 
 Ptolemy Philadelphus, and completed a consi- 
 derable time, certainly a century, before the 
 birth of Christ. 
 
 4. The Jews who lived at the time of Christ, 
 and in the centuries immediately preceding and 
 following, were all united in the opinion that 
 these books were authentic and credible. The 
 Grecian Jews agreed with those of Palestine on 
 this point. Vide the catalogue of the wise and 
 distinguished men of the Jewish nation, Sirach, 
 xliv. xlix. The testimony of Philo on this 
 
 7 
 
 subject is very important ; and also that of Jo- 
 sephus, (Contra Apionem, I. 8,) whose opi- 
 nions were always remarkably candid. The 
 old Jewish rabbins, whose testimony is collect- 
 ed in the Talmud, agree with the writers above 
 mentioned in supporting the authenticity of the 
 books of the Old Testament. 
 
 5. The testimony of Christ and his apostles 
 confirms that which has already been adduced. 
 They frequently quote passages from Moses, the 
 prophets, and the historical books, thus admit- 
 ting their authenticity, Morus, p. 23, s. 13, and 
 Storr, p. 61 70. Even Paul, who was so in- 
 tent on the subversion of Judaism, and who 
 always gave his opinion against it without any 
 reserve, never expressed the most distant doubt 
 respecting the authenticity of the sacred books 
 of the Jews, or the credibility of the Jewish 
 history. Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles 
 did not indeed themselves institute critical ex- 
 aminations and inquiries respecti ng these books ; 
 nor was it necessary that they should. On sup- 
 position that they were inspired teachers, their 
 mere word is sufficient security for the truth of 
 what they uttered ; and since the authenticity 
 of the books of the Old Testament was admitted 
 by them, it must also be admitted by all who 
 consider them to be inspired. This considera- 
 tion alone is sufficient to support the faith of the 
 Christian, when attacked with specious objec- 
 tions which he is unable to answer. 
 
 Note. Some additions have indeed been 
 made in later times to the oldest writings of the 
 Israelites ; but these interpolations can gene- 
 rally be distinguished from the original. Nor 
 have the scriptures of the Old Testament fared 
 worse in this respect than the writings of Ho- 
 mer, and indeed most of the written records 
 composed at an early period. These additions 
 inserted in the books of Moses consist of names 
 of towns and countries, which were not given 
 to them till after his time the account of his 
 death and burial, Deut. xxxiv., &c. Here the 
 nature of the case and the alteration of style 
 sufficiently indicate another hand. 
 
 Note 2. At this distance of time it cannot be 
 determined with entire accuracy whether the 
 authors to whom the several books of the Old 
 Testament are ascribed, gave them the very 
 form which they now have, or only furnished 
 the material, which others have brought into 
 the shape in which they now appear. But even 
 on the latter supposition, the credibility of these 
 books is not at all diminished. Rhapsodies and 
 disconnected compositions are frequently col- 
 lected and arranged, for the first time, by some 
 compiler living a long time after the original 
 author. Many of the prophetical books for 
 example, the book of Isaiah, and most of the 
 historical books, and perhaps even those of 
 Moses were composed in this way. But al- 
 E 
 
50 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 though Moses, for example, may not have writ- 
 ten his books exactly in the manner in which 
 they appear at present, he may still be said to 
 have written them; and Jesus properly speaks 
 of what Moses wrote. The books which bear 
 his name are undoubtedly composed from very 
 ancient, credible, and authentic narratives, 
 which breathe everywhere the very spirit of the 
 ancient world. They are his writings, although 
 they may have been "arranged, and sometimes 
 perhaps newly modelled, by another hand. The 
 same may be said with respect to the writings 
 of Homer, and many others. They were col- 
 lected and modelled anew, some time after they 
 were originally composed, and yet their authen- 
 ticity as a whole remains unimpaired. Vide 
 Wolf, Prolegg. ad Homerum. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, OR THE 
 COLLECTION OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTA- 
 MENT INTO A WHOLE. 
 
 Introductory Remarks. 
 
 THIS section and the following comprise all 
 the topics which are usually introduced under 
 the title of the canon of the holy scriptures. The 
 word canon, which is often misunderstood, 
 means anything determined according to a fixed 
 measure, rule, or law ; hence, a list or catalogue 
 made by a law e. g., canon martyrum. 
 
 But the phrase canonical books has not always 
 been used in the same sense in the Christian 
 church. (1) The canonical books were origin- 
 ally those which Christians commonly used, 
 according to the appointment of the church, in 
 their public assemblies for divine worship ; so 
 that, under this name, many books were for- 
 merly included which did not belong to the 
 authorized collection of the Old and New Tes- 
 tament scriptures, while many books whose 
 divine authority was undoubted were not re- 
 garded as canonical that is, were not read in 
 the churches. (2) But after the fourth century 
 the phrase libri c.annnici was taken in a more 
 limited sense, and became synonymous with the 
 term ivoid^rjxoii which was common among the 
 ancient Greek fathers. Libri canonici, in this 
 sense, were the books belonging to the author- 
 ized collection of the Old and New Testament 
 scriptures, and containing, as such, the rules of 
 our faith and practice. In this sense the word 
 canonical was formerly used by Augustine, and 
 is still used by theological writers at the pre- 
 sent day. 
 
 In contradistinction to the canonical are the 
 apocryphal books. And the latter term, as well 
 as the former, has been used in a wider and a 
 more limited sense, (a) The apocryphal writ- 
 ings were originally those books which were 
 
 not publicly used in the Christian assemblies, 
 which were laid aside, or shut up, the public 
 use of which was forbidden, (^tjSxt'a aTtoxpr^a, 
 an-uj.) A book therefore of the Old or New 
 Testament, whose divine original and authority 
 were undoubted, might be apocryphal in this 
 sense. But (5) after the fourth century the 
 apocryphal books were understood to be those 
 which did not in reality belong to the collection 
 of the Old and New Testament scriptures, al- 
 though frequently placed in it by the uninformed, 
 and esteemed by them of equal authority with 
 the inspired books. This is the sense in which 
 the word apocryphal is now used by theological 
 writers. 
 
 The history of the canon of the Old-Testament 
 scriptures is obscure, from the deficiency in an- 
 cient records. Still there are some historical 
 fragments and data from which it may be com- 
 posed ; though, after all, it must remain imper- 
 fect. 
 
 I. The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament 
 before the Babylonian Exile. 
 
 Most of the books of the Old Testament were 
 composed, and some of them (a considerable 
 number of the Psalms, to say the least) collected 
 and arranged, before the time of Ezra, or the 
 Babylonian exile. The books of Moses had 
 been collected and arranged in the order in 
 which they now stand before the ten tribes were 
 carried captive by the Assyrians. They were 
 therefore adopted by the Samaritans. The book 
 of the law was kept in the sanctuary of the tem- 
 ple, in order (1) to secure it more effectually 
 from injury, and (2) to give it a more solemn 
 sanction. Vide s. 3, II. 2. The oracles, sacred 
 songs, and various other compositions of Isaiah, 
 Hosea, and other prophets and teachers of reli- 
 gion, were afterwards preserved in the same 
 manner, and doubtless with the same intention. 
 But it does not appear that before the exile any 
 complete and perfect collections were made of 
 all the oracles of any one prophet, or of all the 
 Psalms or Proverbs. And even supposing such 
 collections to have been made, they did not agree 
 throughout with the collections which we now 
 possess, which were made and introduced soon 
 after the exile. The original collection of the 
 Psalms, for example, has been enriched by the 
 addition of many, which were not composed till 
 after the captivity. The other original collec- 
 tions have been altered and improved in a simi- 
 lar manner. 
 
 Note. It is usually the case, that as soon as 
 a nation comes to the possession of many works 
 which have different degrees of merit, or which 
 are in danger of being corrupted or neglected, or 
 which perhaps have already experienced this 
 fate, persons appear who are versed in literature, 
 and who interest themselves in these works. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 51 
 
 They take pains to preserve their text, or to re- 
 store it when it has become corrupt; they shew 
 the distinction between genuine and spurious 
 writings, and they make collections, or lists, 
 comprising only those which are genuine, and 
 among these only the more eminent and distin- 
 guished. Such persons appeared anciently 
 among the Israelites, and afterwards among 
 Christians. And such among the Greeks were 
 the grammarians of Alexandria, under the Ptole- 
 mies. They distinguished between the genuine 
 and spurious works of Grecian literature, and 
 composed catalogues (canones) of the best 
 among the former. The books admitted into 
 their canon were called eyxpwofjievot, (classici), 
 and the books excluded, ixxpivopwoi. The ex- 
 cluded writings were of course less used, arid 
 have since mostly perished. Vide Ruhnken, 
 Historia Oratorum Groecorum critica, p. xcvi. 
 Quintillian, (I. 0.) I. 4, s. 3, and Spalding, ad 
 h. 1. Jhese remarks illustrate the origin of the 
 collection of the holy scriptures. 
 
 II. The Completion of the Canon of the Old Testa- 
 ment after the Babylonian Exile. 
 It is a current tradition among the Jews that 
 the complete collection of their sacred books was 
 made by Ezra. Another tradition, however, 
 ascribes the establishment of the canon to Nehe- 
 miah, 2 Mace. ii. 13. But neither of these tra- 
 ditions is supported by sure historical evidence. 
 It cannot be doubted, however, that in so im- 
 portant a work as the collection and arrange- 
 ment of their sacred books, the priests, and 
 lawyers, and all the leading men of the nation, 
 must have been unitedly engaged, as the gram- 
 marians of Alexandria were, in determining the 
 Greek classics. And it is very probable that 
 both of the distinguished men above mentioned 
 may have had a principal share in this under- 
 taking. 
 
 Our collection of the Old-Testament scrip- 
 tures appears to have originated somewhat in 
 the following manner : When the Jews return- 
 ed from captivity, and re-established divine 
 worship, they collected the sacred books which 
 they still possessed, and commenced with them 
 a sacred library, as they had done before with 
 the book of the law. To this collection they 
 afterwards added the writings of Zachariah, Ma- 
 lachi, and other distinguished prophets and 
 priests, who wrote during the captivity, or 
 shortly after ; and also the books of Kings, 
 Chronicles, and other historical writings, which 
 had been compiled from the ancient records of 
 the nation. 
 
 The collection thus made was ever after con- 
 sidered complete; and the books composing it 
 were called THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE LAW 
 AND THE PROPHETS, &c. It was now circulated 
 by means of transcripts, and came gradually into 
 
 common use. The canon of the Old Testament 
 was closed as soon, certainly, as the reign of the 
 Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, and proba- 
 bly somewhat before. After this time the spirit 
 of prophecy ceased, and no new writings were 
 added to the approved collection. What was 
 done by the Grecian grammarians under Ptole- 
 my, towards securing the existence and literary 
 authority of Grecian works, by the establish- 
 ment of the canon of the Greek classics, was 
 done by the Jews, after their return from exile, 
 towards securing the existence and religious 
 authority of Hebrew books, by the establish- 
 ment of the canon of the Hebrew scriptures. 
 
 The books belonging to this collection were 
 the only ones translated as sacred national books 
 by the first translators of the Old Testament, the 
 authors of the Septuagint. But to some manu- 
 scripts of this version, other books, apocryphal, 
 as they are called, were found appended. From 
 this circumstance some have supposed that the 
 Egyptian Jews had a different canon from those 
 of Palestine, and included in it the apocryphal 
 books, as of equal authority with the rest. This 
 was the opinion of Semler; but it cannot be 
 shewn from Josephus or Philo that the Egyptian 
 Jews, though they held the apocryphal books in 
 high esteem, both before and after the com- 
 mencement of the Christian era, ever thought 
 them of equal authority with the canonical 
 books. Philo, in the first century, does not 
 once mention them, although Sirach wrote about 
 237 years before the birth of Christ. They can- 
 not, therefore, have been counted, even by the 
 Egyptian Jews of the first century, among the 
 books of the Old Testament. Besides, they 
 were never cited by the apostles, who, however, 
 always follow the Septuagint. During the se- 
 cond century, Sirach was held in high esteem 
 among the fathers ; and gradually he and the 
 other apocryphal writers obtained great autho- 
 rity in the churches. At a still later period they 
 were admitted into the canon by Christian 
 writers, who mistook their high reputation for 
 divine authority. Vide No. III. Cf. Eichhorn, 
 Einleitung in das A. T. Th. I., and also in die 
 apokryphischen Schriften des A. T. Leipzig 
 1795; Storr, in the work above mentioned, p 
 71, ff. ; especially Jahn, Einleitung in die 
 gottlichen Schriften des alien Bundes, W 7 ien, 
 1802. The latter work contains a full examina- 
 tion of the latest objections. 
 
 Can it be shewn by historical evidence that 
 all the books which now stand in this collection 
 belonged to it originally] Of most of these 
 books this can be satisfactorily shewn; but re- 
 specting some particular books it cannot be 
 ascertained from historical records, either that 
 they belonged to the collection originally, or at 
 what time they were received as canonical ; for 
 ji" .fcjupU te lisjt ff ;ilj cjjr rrtn'Mtirvil books can 
 
52 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 be gathered from the works of the oldest Jewish 
 writers. 
 
 The following observations, however, may 
 enable us to come to some conclusion: (I) 
 We see from Sirach, xlv. xlix., that most of 
 these books belonged to his canon. (2) The 
 citations which Philo, in the first century, makes 
 from the Old Testament, shew that most of these 
 books belonged also to his collection. (3) But 
 Josephus has left a list of the books, of which, 
 at his time, the collection was composed ; but 
 there is some obscurity attending the passage, 
 Contra Apionem, I. 8, in which this catalogue 
 is contained. We cannot be certain from this 
 passage that Josephus intended to include the 
 books of Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, and Nehe- 
 miah, in his catalogue; though the probability 
 is that he did. Vide Eichhorn, Einleitung, Th. 
 I. s. 113. (4) The frequent citations which 
 the evangelists and prophets made from these 
 books render it certain that most of them be- 
 . longed to the canon at the time of Christ. The 
 passage, Matt, xxiii. 35, coll. Luke, xi. 51, de- 
 serves to be specially noticed. Christ here de- 
 clares that the Jews should be punished for the 
 murder of all the just men who had been slain 
 from Abel (Gen. iv. 8) to Zachariah, 2 Chron. 
 xxiv. 21, 22. From this passage we are led to 
 conclude that the disputed book of Chronicles 
 not only belonged to the canon of the Old Tes- 
 tament at the time of Christ, but that it was 
 then, as it is now, placed last in the collection. 
 (5) Add to this, that these disputed books are 
 contained, as belonging to the canon, in the 
 Alexandrine version. 
 
 Note. Since the free inquiry respecting some 
 of the books of the Old Testament, which Oeder 
 published at Halle, 1771, many protestant theo- 
 logians have employed themselves in suggest- 
 ing doubts respecting the genuineness of some 
 of the canonical Hebrew scriptures, and in at- 
 tempting to prove them to be either spurious, 
 uncertain, or adulterated. Among these theolo- 
 gians, De Wette is the latest. They commenced 
 the attack upon the books of Esther, Chroni- 
 cles, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; proceeded to Isaiah 
 (xl. Ix.) and other prophets, and then to the 
 books of Moses; against the genuineness of all 
 of which they arrayed specious objections, and 
 finally endeavoured to subvert the foundation of 
 the whole canon of the Old Testament. The 
 student can become acquainted with the princi- 
 pal modern writers who have either assailed or 
 advocated the canon of the Old Testament, and 
 with the principal arguments used on both sides, 
 from Jahn's Introduction to the Old Testament, 
 and the theological work of Storr and Flatt, 
 which notice all, except perhaps a few of the 
 very latest objections. 
 
 To all these objections but few Christians are 
 able to give a satisfactory answer. But if they 
 
 allow to Christ the authority which he claimed 
 for himself, and which the apostles ascribed to 
 him, they can relieve their minds from doubts 
 by the considerations already suggested in s. 3, 
 II. 5, and by those which here follow. 
 
 III. The Reception of this Canon by Christians. 
 
 Since the primitive Christians received the 
 books of the Old Testament from the Israelites, 
 they may naturally be supposed to have admit- 
 ted into their collection all the books which be- 
 longed to the canon of the contemporary Jews. 
 It has been always said, from the earliest times 
 of the church, that Christians received the books 
 of the Old Testament on the simple testimony 
 of Christ and his apostles ; and whatever some 
 Christians may think of the authority of this 
 testimony, they must allow that it is at least 
 important in ascertaining the canon of the He- 
 brew scriptures. But to this testimony it has 
 been objected, especially in modern times, (a) 
 that it did not extend to all the books of the Old 
 Testament; for example, to the books of Esther, 
 Nehemiah, &c. ; and (6) that it cannot be re- 
 garded as decisive, because Christ and his apos- 
 tles made it no part of their object to examine 
 critically the history of the Hebrew scriptures; 
 and made the Old Testament the basis of their 
 own instructions only because it was regarded 
 as the source of religious knowledge by the 
 Jews among whom they taught. 
 
 But it appears from No. II. that the whole 
 collection existed at the time of Christ and his 
 apostles, and indeed for some time previous, 
 and that it was approved by them. Whoever, 
 therefore, acknowledges them to be divine teach- 
 ers, must receive the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment on their authority. If he refuses to do 
 this, he is either inconsistent in rejecting the 
 authority of those whom he acknowledges to be 
 divine teachers, or dishonest in acknowledging 
 Christ and his apostles to be divine teachers, 
 while he really does not believe them to be 
 such. 
 
 After the times of the apostles, the fathers of 
 the church disagreed with respect to the books 
 belonging to the canon of the Old-Testament 
 scriptures. (1) The fathers of Palestine, their 
 disciples, and others who were acquainted with 
 the original Hebrew, or the tradition of the Jews, 
 composed catalogues containing all the books 
 which belong to our Bible. This was done in 
 the second century, by Melito, bishop of Sardis, 
 cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. IV. 26; by 
 Origen, cited VI. 25 of the same history; by 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV. ; by Gregory 
 Nazianzen, Athanasius, and Epiphanius. (2) 
 But some of the fathers included the apocryphal 
 writings, which are usually appended to the 
 Alexand rine version, among the canonical books. 
 They, at least, ascribed to these writings a great 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 53 
 
 authority, and called them ^ttof although they 
 were never considered as divine by the Jews, 
 who lived either before or at the time of Christ, 
 and were never quoted by the writers of the 
 New Testament or by Philo. Vide No. II. 
 These fathers believed the fable of the inspira- 
 tion of the Septuagint; and finding the apocry- 
 phal books appended to this version, and in 
 high repute among the Egyptian Jews of the 
 second century, they considered them, at length, 
 as divine^ and placed them on a level with the 
 canonical books. The Egyptian fathers, Cle- 
 mens of Alexandria and Irenaeus, first adopted 
 this opinion, in which, as in many other things, 
 they were followed by the Latin fathers. At 
 the council at Hippo, in the year 393, in can. 
 36, and at the third council at Carthage, in the 
 year 397, can. 47, the apocryphal books were, 
 for the first time, expressly included inter scrip- 
 turas canonicus. This decision was then re- 
 ceived by the African fathers, and generally in 
 the western church. 
 
 But there were some of the fathers of the 
 Latin church who carefully distinguished the 
 apocryphal from the canonical books. Hiero- 
 nymus, in his Prologus Galeatus, says respect- 
 ing the Book of Wisdom, &c., non sunt in ca- 
 none. In his Praef. in libros Salomonis, he says, 
 " Haec duo volumina (ecclesiasticum et sapien- 
 tiam) legat ecclesia ad aedificationem plebis, 
 non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum 
 confirrnandam." Hence the books properly 
 belonging to the Old Testament were called 
 libri canonici, and the apocryphal books, libri 
 ecclesiastici. Rufinus, ExpositioSymboli Apost., 
 after enumerating the canonical books of the 
 Old Testament, says, Hajc sunt quae patres 
 intra canonem concluserunt, et ex quibus fidei 
 nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt : sciendum 
 tarnen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non sunt 
 canonic/, sed ecclesiastici a majorihus appellati." 
 He then enumerates them, and adds, " Qua? 
 omnia legi quidem in ecclesia voluerunt, non 
 tamen proferri ad auctoritattm ex his fidei con- 
 firmandam" 
 
 But after all, the Romish church, through ig- 
 norance of the subject, placed the apocryphal 
 books on a level with the canonical, and even 
 appealed to them as authority on the doctrines 
 the Bible. They were induced to do this 
 the more, from the consideration that some of 
 the peculiar doctrines of their church were fa- 
 voured by some passages in these books; inter- 
 cession for the dead, for example, by the passage 
 2 Mace. xii. 43 45. Accordingly the council 
 at Trent, in the sixteenth century, set aside the 
 distinction between the canonical and apocry- 
 phal books, and closed its decretal by saying, 
 "Si quis autem libros ipsos integros, cum omni- 
 bus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia cat.holica legi 
 consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latino, editione 
 
 habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non snsciperit, 
 et traditiones prajdictas, sciens et prudens con- 
 temserit, anathema sit." Sess. IV. Deer. I. 
 The more candid and enlightened theologians 
 of the Romish church have, however, never al- 
 lowed quite the same authority to the apocryphal 
 as to the canonical scriptures; and have adopt- 
 ed the convenient division of the books into pro- 
 tocanonici and deuterocanonici, in the latter of 
 which they place the apocryphal writings. 
 Cf. Morus, p. 38. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, OR THE 
 COLLECTION OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TES- 
 TAMENT INTO A WHOLE. 
 
 I. Origin of this Collection. 
 
 IT was natural that the first Christians, who 
 had been in the habit of using a collection of 
 the sacred books of the Jews, should feel in- 
 duced to institute a similar collection of their 
 own sacred books. This was the more neces- 
 sary, as many spurious writings, which were 
 ascribed to the apostles, were in circulation, 
 and even publicly read and used in the churches. 
 Even during the life of the apostles, such spu- 
 rious writings were palmed upon them by impos- 
 tors, 2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Col. iii. 17. In consequence 
 of these circumstances, Christians were induced 
 very early to commence the collection of their 
 sacred books into a complete whole, with par- 
 ticular reference to Christian posterity, which 
 otherwise would have had a very groundless 
 and disfigured Christianity. Vide Introduction, 
 s. 7, ad finem. Into this collection only such 
 writings were admitted as were considered to be 
 the genuine productions of the apostles and first 
 disciples of Christ; although many other books 
 were still regarded as canonical, in the old ec- 
 clesiastical sense of the word, and were still 
 publicly read in Christian assemblies. Euse- 
 bius, Hist. Eccles. III. 3, and others of the an- 
 cient fathers, said expressly that many books 
 , which were not Ir&a^xot 
 Thus the epistle of Barnabas, 
 the Shepherd of Hermas, and the sermon of Peter, 
 were used in Egypt; and even in the fifth cen- 
 tury, the revelation of Peter, in Palestine. 
 
 But with respect to the manner in which this 
 collection originated, and with respect to those 
 who were chiefly instrumental in forming it, we 
 can obtain only very disconnected and imperfect 
 information from the history of the church dur- 
 ing the first centuries. The information which 
 we possess on these points is, however, more 
 complete than that which relates to the canon of 
 the Old Testament; and indeed amounts to a 
 satisfactory degree of evidence. 
 
 In order to confirm the credibility and genu- 
 ineness of the collection, it was formerly sup- 
 
 E2 
 
54 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 posed that some inspired man must have either 
 made or approved it ; and because John outlived 
 the other apostles, he was fixed upon as the in- 
 dividual ; just as Ezra was, by the Jews, for the 
 compilation of the Old-Testament scriptures. 
 In this supposition there is a mixture of truth 
 and error. We have no historical evidence for 
 believing that John either made or approved the 
 whole collection. In order to arrive at the truth 
 on this subject, we must consider the collection 
 divided into its two principal parts, tvayytfaov 
 and artoatohos. 
 
 1. It was commonly reported in the early 
 ages of the church, that John was acquainted 
 with the first three gospels, that he sanctioned 
 them by his authority, and completed the his- 
 tory of Jesus which they contain, by his own 
 gospel. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. III. 24. And 
 this report appears to be true, on a moment's 
 reflection. Vide Michaelis, Herder, and Storr. 
 John either wholly omits to mention, or at most 
 only briefly notices, for the sake of connexion, 
 even such important events as the baptism and 
 the ascension of Christ, and the institution of 
 the Lord's supper, if they have been fully de- 
 scribed by the other evangelists. On the other 
 hand, he relates many things which the others 
 omit. He enlarges, for example, on the inci- 
 dents and discourses which preceded and folio wed 
 the supper, the passion, the resurrection, and 
 other events, the histories of which are given 
 by the other evangelists. He may therefore be 
 supposed to have known and sanctioned the first 
 three gospels, which, in connexion with his own, 
 were of course received by the Christian church. 
 
 -2. But it cannot be shewn from historical tes- 
 timony, or any other evidence, that John either 
 made the collection of the other books (drtoa- 
 tfo^oj) now belonging to the New Testament, or 
 sanctioned it by his authority, when made. This 
 supposition is, on the contrary, extremely im- 
 probable. If John had sanctioned the entire col- 
 lection of our New Testament scriptures, how 
 could doubts have arisen respecting his second 
 and third epistles, the Apocalypse, and some 
 other writings, even in the midst of the Asiatic 
 church, where he himself lived ? His decision 
 would have for ever settled the question as to 
 the sacred canon. 
 
 It is evident from the historical information 
 which we possess, that this collection was not 
 finished at once, but was commenced a consi- 
 derable time before it was made complete. It 
 was divided into two parts, TO wayy&iov, and 
 
 O drtOffT'OXOJ Or tO OTtOUT 'OhlXOV '. 
 
 (1) As to the gospels, the genuine and the 
 spurious were early distinguished from each 
 other. Justin the Martyr distinctly speaks of 
 the gospels as productions of the apostles. Ire- 
 naeus, Contra Haeres, III. 11, cites the gospels 
 of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as those 
 
 which he knew to be genuine. The same was 
 done by Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian. 
 Vide Storr, s. 12. Tatian, at the end of the se- 
 cond century, and Ammonius, at the beginning 
 of the third, composed harmonies of the foui 
 gospels, and Origen wrote a copious commen- 
 tary on Matthew and John. The gospels were, 
 therefore, collected as early as the second cen- 
 tury ; and in the third and fourth centuries were 
 regarded as of undoubted authority throughout 
 the Christian church. They were prefixed to 
 the other books of the New Testament ; because 
 the history of Jesus was considered, at that early 
 period, as the basis of Christian truth, and was 
 taught wherever the gospel was preached, (John, 
 xx. 31 ;) just as the historical books, especially 
 the writings of Moses, were prefixed to the 
 Old Testament, as the basis of the Mosaic 
 economy. 
 
 (2) As to the epistles, a collection of them 
 was commenced at a very early period, and was 
 gradually enlarged and completed. It appears, 
 indeed, to be of somewhat later origin than the 
 collection of the gospels; but both of them must 
 have existed soon after the commencement of 
 the second century; for Ignatius, Ep. ad. Phi- 
 ladelph. cap. 5, speaks of the gospels, and of the 
 apostolical writings. The apostolical epistles 
 were first sent to the churches, for which they 
 were principally written. They were then 
 communicated by these churches, either in the 
 original or in transcript, to other connected 
 churches, (Col. iv. 1G;) and each church col- 
 lected as many as it could obtain. From such 
 small, imperfect beginnings, our present collec- 
 tion was formed. It is probable that some cele- 
 brated teacher, who possessed more epistles than 
 any other man, or perhaps some distinguished 
 church, first instituted this collection in the se- 
 cond century ; and that it was afterwards adopted 
 by others, in deference to this authority. The 
 place where this collection was first made, is 
 unknown. Mill supposes it was Rome; but 
 without sufficient reason. 
 
 This collecton of the epistles was designed to 
 include only those which were most distin- 
 guished, and whose authenticity was univer- 
 sally allowed. The drtotftoMxov, therefore, ori- 
 ginally contained only the thirteen epistles of 
 Paul, and the first epistles of Peter and John; 
 since these only were considered by the oldest 
 fathers as belonging to the iv8td^xot. But 
 afterwards the avtiteyopfva were gradually ad- 
 mitted into the canon. And as early as the third 
 century, most of the copies of the collection con- 
 tained all the books which now belong to it, the 
 avfttey opera not excepted ; as appears from the 
 catalogue of Origen cited by Eusebius, Hist. 
 Eccles. VI. 25 ; and from that of Eusebius him- 
 self, Hist. Eccles. 111.25, where he appeals to ex- 
 t rfapdSostj, and excludes the Apocry- 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 55 
 
 pha from the evfita^xou Vide Griesbach, Hist. 
 epp. Paull. Jenae, 1777, 4to. The catalogues 
 of Cyril of Jerusalem and of Gregory Nazi.m- 
 zen agree with these, except that the Apoca- 
 lypse is wholly omitted by the former, and is 
 mentioned by the latter as doubtful. 
 
 p 
 
 II. The Principles on which this Collection was 
 made, and the Authority which it possesses. 
 
 We discover these principles from the writ- 
 ings of the fathers of the early ages of the church. 
 
 1. It was a rule to admit only such books 
 into the canon as could be proved to be the pro- 
 ductions of the apostles themselves, or of their 
 first assistants in office. Those only, therefore, 
 were allowed to be tvSM^yxot, which had credible 
 testimony in their favour from the earliest times. 
 The gospels of Peter, Thomas, and others, were 
 on this principle rejected by Origen and Euse- 
 bius. 
 
 2. The doctrines taught in a book were also 
 examined before it was admitted into the canon. 
 If any book disagreed with the doctrines which 
 the apostles taught, or with the regulations 
 which the apostles established, it was excluded 
 from the canon as clearly spurious. This rule 
 was needed even at that early period ; for many 
 books written in support of error had from the 
 first been ascribed to the apostles, in order to 
 procure more influence and currency. 
 
 3. The custom and example of other churches, 
 which might reasonably be supposed to have 
 judged on good and solid grounds, and which 
 were free from the suspicion of credulity or care- 
 lessness, were in some cases referred to in de- 
 termining whether a book should be admitted 
 into the canon. So Hieronymus (Catal. Script. 
 Eccles.), when speaking of the book of Jude, 
 says that it had indeed been doubted and reject- 
 ed by some, but auctoritatem jam vetustate et usu 
 mcruit. 
 
 The question upon what the canonical autho- 
 rity of the books of the New Testament depends 
 may now be easily answered. It depends prin- 
 cipally upon the decision of the first Christian 
 teachers and churches; as the authority of the 
 Greek classics depends upon the decision of the 
 grammarians of Alexandria. Their decision, 
 however, was not arbitrary, but founded on sober 
 examination of the authenticity of these books. 
 No public and universal law was ever passed 
 in the ancient church, determining that all and 
 each of the books of the New Testament should 
 be adopted without further examination and in- 
 quiry. The learned always were, and always 
 must be, free to inquire on this subject. If we 
 are convinced at all, it must be by reason and 
 not by authority. We should not, therefore, 
 blindly credit the testimony of the ancients, whe- 
 ther given by particular churches or by distin- 
 guished individuals ; nor, on the contrary, should 
 
 we blindly reject their testimony. W T e ought 
 rather to examine the evidence upon which they 
 decided, and then believe according to our own 
 sincere conviction. The authenticity of some of 
 the books (the avtiteyo/Asva) which stand in our 
 present collection was disputed even in ancient 
 times ; and the decision respecting them was 
 very different, even in the ancient orthodox 
 church. 
 
 The canonical books were indeed, as we find, 
 in some cases determined by formal decrees, 
 which seem to cut off and discountenance all 
 further inquiry, as in the Canones jSpfatoliei, 
 which, however, are spurious ; also in can. 60 
 of the council at Laodicea, about the year 360, 
 in which only the Apocalypse is omitted. But 
 this council was composed of only a few bi- 
 shops, and its determinations were not adopted 
 by the other churches ; besides, the sixtieth canon 
 is probably spurious. Vide Spittler, Kritische 
 Untersuchung des sechzigsten Laodic. Ca- 
 nons, Bremen, 1777, 8vo. The council at Hippo, 
 in the year 393, and at Carthage, in the year 
 397, also established similar catalogues. But 
 neither of these councils was general. Many 
 other enactments were made on the subject of 
 the canon in the Romish church at a later pe- 
 riod ; but the council of Trent, in the sixteenth 
 century, for the first time established the canon 
 for the Romish church by a general and formal 
 decree. 
 
 But the protestant church has never acqui- 
 esced in those decrees which preclude or pro- 
 hibit further investigation. Luther considered 
 it allowable to call in question the authenticity 
 of the Apocalypse and the epistles of James; and 
 he was followed in this opinion by many theo- 
 logians of the sixteenth century. And other 
 protestant theologians have doubted respecting 
 other books of the avtiteyopfva. 
 
 Note 1. Even if we should allow that the 
 avt&eyofjisvn are spurious, and cannot be relied 
 upon in proof of the Christian system, we should 
 not be compelled either to relinquish or to alter 
 a single doctrine. For the books whose genu- 
 ineness is undisputed contain all that is neces- 
 sary for a complete knowledge of Christian faith 
 and duty. 
 
 Note 2. If we examine the reasons which led 
 some of the ancients to doubt the authenticity 
 of the &rttteyvfi&va, we shall find that they were 
 derived rather from the doctrines taught in these 
 books than from any historical evidence against 
 them. Such were Luther's objections. But 
 none of the objections of this nature which are 
 alleged are, in my view, sufficiently weighty to 
 justify us in considering any one of these books 
 as doubtful, not even the Apocalypse, as most 
 at present acknowledge. In the following work, 
 therefore, the doctrines of the Christian religion 
 will be supported by texts taken from the differ- 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ent books of the New Testament, without any 
 reference to this distinction. 
 
 Works to be consulted : Gerh. de Mastricht, 
 Canon SS. secundum seriem seculor. N. T. 
 collectus et notis illustratus, Jenae, 1725. This 
 work contains the opinions of the fathers, cata- 
 logues of the canon extracted from their writ- 
 ings, and the decrees of the councils. Stosch, 
 De librorum V. T. canone, Frankfort an dem 
 Oder, 1755, 8vo. Semler, Abhandlungen von 
 freyer Untersuchung des Canons, 4 Theile, 
 Halle, 1771 75, 8vo. Weber, Beytrage zur 
 Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Canons, 
 Tubingen, 1791. Corrodi, Versuch einer Be- 
 leuchtung der Geschichte des jii<lishen und 
 christlichen Bibelcanons, 2 Biinde, Halle, 1792. 
 Other works are referred to in Jahn, and in the 
 Elements of Storr and Flatt. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 ON THE' UNADULTERATED CORRECTNESS AND IN- 
 TEGRITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT 
 SCRIPTURES. 
 
 THE integrity of the holy scriptures implies 
 (1) that none of the books which formerly be- 
 longed to the canon are now wanting (integritas 
 totalis;) (2) that these scriptures are transmitted 
 to us in such a state as still to promote the ob- 
 ject for which they were originally written, (in- 
 tegritas partium, or partialis.) 
 
 I. Tntegritas Totalis. 
 
 If some of the scriptures which formerly be- 
 longed to the canon had perished, the loss would 
 not be very essential. If those that are left give 
 us all the information which we need respecting 
 the Jewish and Christian economy, no other 
 books are necessary. That any books, how- 
 ever, have ever belonged to the canon of the 
 Jewish or Christian scriptures, which do not 
 now belong to it, cannot be proved. It is true, 
 indeed, that the apostles and prophets wrote 
 many books which have not come down to us 
 books, too, which were inspired. For if inspi- 
 ration is conceded to those books of theirs which 
 were admitted into the canon of the Old and 
 New Testament, and which are therefore pre- 
 served, it must also be conceded to those which 
 were not admitted into the canon, and have 
 therefore perished. The oral discourses of Jesus 
 and the apostles were doubtless inspired, and yet 
 many of these discourses are lost; and even of 
 those which were committed to writing, only 
 extracts of the more important parts were in 
 many cases preserved. There is nothing incon- 
 sistent, therefore, in the supposition that God 
 should suffer even an inspired book to be left 
 out of this collection, and consequently to be 
 lost to posterity. But there is no evidence that 
 any of the books which are lost ever belong- 
 
 ed to the canon. Paul wrote, as we see from 
 his epistles, at least one letter to the Corinthi- 
 ans more than we have at present. Many me- 
 moirs of Jesus, as we find from Luke, i. 1, were 
 written at a very early period. The historical 
 books of the Old Testament were extracted from 
 larger historical works, which are often cited 
 in the books compiled from them, but which 
 are now lost. Other collections of songs are 
 mentioned ; as, nchn ICD, Joshua, x. 13. Writ- 
 ings of the prophets Gad, Nathan, Semaja, and 
 Jehu, are mentioned in Chronicles; but none of 
 these ever belonged to the collection of the Old 
 and New Testament scriptures. Cf. Jahn, 
 Einleitung. 
 
 II. Integritas Partialis. 
 
 The integrity of a book is not affected by 
 variations of the text, and by false readings. 
 These could not have been avoided, except by 
 miracle, in the numerous transcripts which have 
 been made of these ancient scriptures. The in- 
 tegrity of a book requires only that its text be 
 in such a state that the object for which the 
 book was written is fully answered. When we 
 assert the integrity of the Bible, therefore, we 
 do not pretend that every letter, word, and ex- 
 pression in our present copies exactly answers 
 to the original text, but that the general contents, 
 the doctrines of the Bible, are taught in it with 
 uncorrupted correctness and certainty. 
 
 The variations of the text of the New Testa- 
 ment amounted, according to the estimate of 
 Wetstein, to sixty thousand; and of the text of 
 the Old Testament to a still greater number. 
 But by all these variations no doctrine of any 
 importance is undermined or altered, and no 
 history of any interest is disfigured or changed. 
 A few of the texts by which some doctrines 
 were supported have, indeed, been discarded 
 e. g., 1 John, v. 7 ; but there are other texts which 
 afford to each of these doctrines an ample proof; 
 so that the doctrines themselves remain unal- 
 tered. Besides, the most important variations, 
 those which affect the sense most materially, do 
 not concern the doctrines of religion or the ob- 
 jects of faith, but some indifferent circumstances, 
 trifling historical minutiae, &c. Without giving 
 up the integrity of the Bible, then, we may freely 
 concede that in some few places the true reading 
 is lost beyond recovery. 
 
 The Text of the Holy Scriptures is not so corrupt 
 as to prevent the attainment of the object for 
 which they were written. 
 1. Of the text of the New Testament. The 
 supposition that the text in all the manuscripts^ 
 of the New Testament has been intentionally 
 and generally falsified cannot possibly be made. 
 Any falsifications must have been made either 
 by the reigning ecclesiastical body (catholici) 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 57 
 
 or by some of the sects (haeretici) during the 
 first three centuries. But among the former, 
 there was no man during this period of sufficient 
 authority to cause the alterations which he 
 might have made to be generally adopted. The 
 jealousy existing among individual churches 
 and teachers was far too great, and the use of 
 the Christian scriptures far too general, to allow 
 an intentional falsification to be made. These 
 scriptures were publicly read, and were there- 
 fore familiar to every Christian. This was the 
 case certainly with those more important parts, 
 which, if any, would have been falsified. There 
 were also many translations made from the va- 
 rious manuscripts of the original Greek, the 
 text of which still agrees in every important 
 particular with our own. 
 
 The text of the New Testament was, indeed, 
 intentionally altered and corrupted by some of 
 the heretics e. g. Marcion ; but those altera- 
 tions were immediately discovered and con- 
 demned by the orthodox churches. In fact, 
 these heretics freely acknowledged that they 
 themselves had fabricated them, and did not 
 pretend to follow the original text. 
 
 2. Of the text of the Old Testament. The 
 opinions which formerly prevailed respecting 
 the integrity of the text of the Old Testament 
 were much more extravagant than respecting 
 that of the New. These opinions were founded 
 on the exaggerated accounts which were given 
 by the later Jews respecting the pains which 
 their ancestors, especially the Masorites, had 
 taken to preserve the sacred text unaltered. 
 They went so far as to say, that in consequence 
 of this caution, not a single mistake or false 
 reading had been able to creep into the original 
 Hebrew text. AncL they extended the same re- 
 mark even to the accents and vowel points. 
 John Buxtorf, father and son, professors of the 
 Hebrew language at Basel, during the last part 
 of the seventeenth century, adopted these fabu- 
 lous Jewish opinions and stories, and advocated 
 them with great zeal. Through their influence 
 and that of their disciples, as the principal 
 cause, these opinions became very prevalent 
 among the Swiss, and even Lutheran, theolo- 
 gians at the end of the seventeenth and the be- 
 ginning of the eighteenth century. In Switzer- 
 land they were regarded as essential points of 
 orthodoxy, and placed as such in the Formula 
 consensus Helvitici. But, 
 
 (1 ) The exactest agreement of all our present 
 manuscripts would not prove the present text to 
 be throughout true, for all our present Hebrew 
 manuscripts follow the same Masoretic recen- 
 sion; and their agreement would only prove 
 that this recension had suffered no corruption. 
 
 (2) This supposed agreement has, however, 
 been disproved since our manuscripts have been 
 compared. They diffW widely from one another, 
 
 8 
 
 as appears from the vast number of various read- 
 ings collected by Kenriicott and De Rossi. 
 
 (3) The Hebrew manuscripts from which 
 the ancient versions for example, the Septua- 
 gint were made differed still more widely ; and 
 in some instances quite another recension of the 
 Hebrew text was at the foundation of these ver- 
 sions. 
 
 But however great may be the corruptions 
 which are found in particular books or passages 
 of the Old Testament, they do not materially 
 affect the Christian religion, which does not 
 stand in such an intimate connexion with any 
 parts of the Jewish scriptures that it must stand 
 or fall with them. But the same is true on this 
 subject with respect to the Old Testament as 
 was remarked above with respect to the New. 
 Not a single doctrine is undermined or weak- 
 ened by all these various readings. Nor can it 
 be proved that the text has in a single instance 
 been intentionally corrupted in favour of parti- 
 cular doctrinal prejudices. Even the Samaritan 
 text of the five books of Moses, the most im- 
 portant of the Hebrew scriptures, exhibits their 
 contents with entire fidelity, and in entire ac- 
 cordance with the texts of our common Hebrew 
 manuscripts. 
 
 Cf. Rich. Simon, Hist, critique du V. T., 
 Rotterdam, 1685, 4to. Capellus, Critica Sacra, 
 Paris, 1650. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins alte 
 Testament, Th. I. Cap. II. Lichtenstein, Pa- 
 ralipomena critica circa textum Vet. Testamenti, 
 Helmstiidt, 1799, 4to. Jahn, Einleitung. Also 
 the writings of Kennicott and De Rossi. 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 OF THE TRUTH AND DIVINITY OF THE DOCTRINES 
 TAUGHT BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. 
 
 THE truth and divinity of the doctrines con- 
 tained in the Christian scriptures must be con- 
 sidered before the divinity of these scriptures 
 themselves. 
 
 The principal proofs which Jesus himself and 
 his apostles produced in favour of the divinity 
 of their doctrines are the following: 
 
 I. Proof from the Claims which Jesus himself made. 
 
 Jesus frequently called himself an immediate 
 divine messenger. He declared that he taught 
 his religion by the express command of God, 
 and as his deputed ambassador, Matt. xxvi. 63 ; 
 John, v. 43 ; xvi. 27, 28, et passim. This de- 
 claration of Jesus, so often repeated, is, in itself 
 considered, of reat weight. The same preten- 
 sions have, indeed, sometimes been made by im- 
 postors and enthusiasts; but the whole charac- 
 ter and conduct of Jesus were such as to free 
 him from the imputation of being either an ho- 
 nest enthusiast or a crafty impostor. He is the 
 very opposite of what impostors and enthusiasts, 
 
58 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 oven of the best description, usually are; he 
 practised none of the arLs of deception, and he 
 appealed confidently and unreservedly to his in- 
 nocence, even in presence of his enemies ; and 
 challenged them to convict him, if they were 
 able, of a single act of dishonesty, John, viii. 
 1(>, seq. 
 
 This proof has been carefully stated by Storr, 
 Doctrina Christiana, p. 28 34, and by Dr. 
 Hensler, Die Wahrheit und Gottlichkeit der 
 christlichen Religion in der Kiirze dargestellt, 
 p. 26 32, Hamburg, 1803, 8vo. 
 
 II. Proof from the Excellence, Suitableness, and Be- 
 neficial Tendency of this Religion. 
 
 This proof is called argumentum internum 
 pro veritate et divinitate religionis Christianx. 
 Jesus himself makes use of this argument, John, 
 vii. 17. It is also employed by the apostles, 
 and by the ancient apologists of Christianity, 
 Justin, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Clemens 
 of Alexandria. That the Christian religion is 
 surpassed by no other in the purity, simplicity, 
 and practical utility of its doctrines, is perfectly 
 obvious, and, even at the present day, is gene- 
 rally acknowledged. No sage or moralist, of 
 ancient or modern times, has accomplished so 
 great a work as has been done by Christ; has 
 taught such salutary doctrines doctrines which 
 exert so benign an influence in comforting and 
 renovating the heart of man. And this every 
 one may know from his own experience who 
 makes a personal application of these doctrines 
 in the manner which Christ has prescribed. 
 Vide Introduction, s. 3, ad finem. 
 
 The religion which, by its doctrine and disci- 
 pline, accomplishes all this, and which is so 
 taught as to effect what had never before been 
 done by man, deserves to be called divine , and 
 must be acknowledged, even by the rationalist, 
 to be, on this account, at least important and 
 worthy of respect. But the internal excellence 
 of the Christian religion does not, in itself con- 
 sidered, satisfactorily prove that this religion is, 
 as a matter of fact, derived immediately from 
 God ; the utility and benevolent tendency of a 
 doctrine prove only that it is worthy of God, and 
 not the fact that it is derived from him. As this 
 is a question of fact, it can be proved only by 
 other facts. Vide Introduction, s. 8. III. 2, note. 
 Hence it is that this proof from the internal ex- 
 cellence of the Christian religion is always in- 
 sisted upon, to the exclusion of the proof from 
 miracles, by those who deny any immediate di- 
 vine revelation in the higher sense. That di- 
 vine revelation in this sense cannot be suffi- 
 ciently established by this internal argument 
 may be seen from the Introduction, s. 7, I. ad 
 iinem. 
 
 But although this internal argument does not, 
 separately considered, satisfactorily prove the 
 
 immediate divine origin of the Christian religion 
 it is still of great importance 
 
 1. To ike sincere inquirer. A conviction of 
 the inherent excellence of the Christian religion, 
 and of its benevolent tendencies, is of the great' 
 est importance to the candid inquirer in seriously 
 examining the other proofs by which the divi- 
 nity of our religion is supported. It prepares- 
 his mind to receive them, and predisposes him 
 to believe any evidence that may be offered, or 
 any declarations that may be made, by one who 
 gave such excellent precepts, and lived himself 
 in a manner so conformed to them, as Jesus did, 
 Jesus declared that his instructions were derived 
 immediately from God. Vide No I. Now if 
 the inquirer finds that the religion of Christ ac- 
 complishes what might be reasonably expected 
 of a religion of divine origin ; if he finds that its 
 founder possessed a pure moral character, and 
 was neither an impostor nor a deluded enthusi- 
 ast; he will give credit to his pretensions, and 
 feel himself bound to admit the evidence that 
 may be offered of his divine mission. 
 
 2. To the practical Christian. The belief of 
 the truth and divinity of the Christian religion 
 arising from its internal excellence and its bene- 
 ficial effects, is in the highest degree important 
 to every practical Christian. His whole estima- 
 tion of this religion depends upon his having 
 felt this excellence, and joyfully experienced 
 these benefits, in his own heart. These experi- 
 ences produce a firm conviction in his mind of 
 the truth of this religion, which no theoretic 
 doubts are able to shake. 
 
 These feelings arising in the heart of the true 
 Christian, as he studies, applies, and practises 
 the instructions of his religion, and the firm con- 
 viction of the truth and divinity of his religion, 
 arising from these feelings, is called testimonium 
 spiritus sancti internum i. e., a conviction of 
 the divinity of the Christian religion produced 
 in the mind of man by the Spirit of God. This 
 conviction is not a conclusion, but a feeling, from 
 which the truth is inferred. Vide Morus, p. 39, 
 40. The term testimonium (ftopfvpca), taken 
 from Rom. viii. 1G, and I John, v. 6, was ap- 
 plied to this inward persuasion, in contradistinc- 
 tion to the name testimonium externum spiritus 
 sancti, taken from Heh. ii. 4, which was given 
 to the proof afforded by miracles. 
 
 Tkt internal witness of the Spirit denotes those 
 pious feelings and dispositions which God or 
 the Holy Spirit awakens in us by means of the 
 Christian doctrine, and which are the evidence, 
 the internal proof, to us, that this doctrine is 
 true. " Ultima ratio, sub qua et propter quam 
 fide divina et infallibili credimus, verbum Dei, 
 esse verbum Dei, est, ipsa intrinseca vis et effica- 
 cia verbi divini, et spiritus sancti in scriptura lo- 
 quentis testificatio et obstgnatio" Quonstedt, 
 Systems, I. p. i 10. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Tliis intimate persuasion is perfectly rational, 
 and by no means visionary. It is not produced 
 in us in a miraculous manner, by direct divine 
 agency, but it results from the truths which we 
 have understood and obeyed. We are conscious 
 in our inmost souls that since we have embraced 
 this heavenly religion, and have faithfully obey- 
 ed its precepts, we have had more peace and 
 happiness, and more strength to execute our vir- 
 tnous resolutions, lhan ever before. In this way 
 we are brought to the conviction that the Chris- 
 tian religion is the true and only means of pro- 
 moting our happiness, and of imparting that 
 quiet of mind, and that strength for virtue, which 
 we need. And from this conviction we pass to 
 the conclusion, that the Christian religion is true 
 and divine, and that Jesus and his apostles are 
 to be believed when they declare it to be such. 
 We have found this doctrine to be possessed of 
 higher excellences and of a greater efficacy than 
 any other with which we have been acquainted, 
 and hence conclude that it is the very means 
 which God himself has appointed for our good. 
 
 This proof of the divine origin of the Chris- 
 tian religion, derived from its happy effects, is 
 often urged by Christ, John, vii. 15 17, coll. 
 viii. 47; and also by the apostles, I Thess. ii. 
 13 ; 2 Cor. iii. 14 ; Acts, ii. 1437; and par- 
 ticularly from the effect of the discourses of 
 Jesus, Matt. vii. 28, 29 ; Luke, xxiv. 32. This 
 proof, explained in this way, is conformed both 
 to reason and observation ; and the feelings 
 upon which it rests must have been experienced 
 by every true Christian. Cf. s. 124, II.; 
 Nosselt, Diss. inaug. de interno testimonio spi- 
 ritus sancti, Halle, 1767. Gehe (Superintendant 
 at Oschatz), Diss. inaug. de argumento, quod 
 pro divinitate religionis Christianas ab experi- 
 entia ducitur, Gottingen, 1796. Morus, p. 40. 
 
 III. Proof from Miracles. 
 
 In this place we shall consider only what we 
 are taught on this subject by the writers of the 
 Old and New Testaments, and the point of view 
 in which they regarded it ; adding a few obser- 
 vations for the purpose of illustration. Here- 
 after, in the Article on Divine Providence, s. 72, 
 we shall consider the arguments and objections 
 of a philosophical nature. 
 
 1. The following names are given to miracles 
 by the sacred writers, and by Jesus himself: 
 rryoj, nvna-i, correspondent to which in the Sep- 
 tuagint, and in the New Testament, are the 
 words Sin-cijiuf, Swdptis, because miracles are 
 proofs of the divine power. xSe, ^av/jidaia, 
 ijavuara, something extraordinary, which ex- 
 cites wonder, npi'c, rs'pas, tk pata, prodigia, por-> 
 tcnta, something monstrous, which excites the 
 idea of a tremendous force. PIN, ar^fla, ostenta, 
 because miracles are signs or evidences of di- 
 vine interposition; whence they are also called 
 
 ihe hand of God, the finger of God. 
 tov tov. The miracles of Christ are frequently 
 called tpya, by way of eminence. The divine 
 power by which miracles were wrought was 
 called nn, chip nn, rtvtvp.a aytov, Ttvsvpu for, 
 
 2. These biblical names of miracles clearly 
 shew that the sacred writers considered miracles 
 to be events effected by divine power, unlike 
 those which commonly occur in the known 
 order of nature, established by God, and inex- 
 plicable to us by the laws of nature, and there- 
 fore calculated to excite surprise and wonder. 
 Such events are not necessary for the establish- 
 ment of a natural religion ; but they are indis- 
 pensable to the establishment of any religion 
 which announces itself as revealed from God in 
 any other way than through the reason of man, 
 of a religion, in short, like the Christian, which 
 is a positive religion, and in which Christ ap- 
 pears in the character of a divine messenger to 
 disclose the mind of God. The peculiar doc- 
 trines of this religion are not cognizable from 
 the nature of things, but are taught us by per- 
 sons who assert that they themselves were 
 taught by God. Now if they would obtain cre- 
 dit in this assertion, they must be able to prove 
 their divine mission by proper evidence. They 
 cannot do this by proofs drawn from reason ; 
 they therefore resort to miracles. 
 
 Properly speaking, these miracles are wrought 
 by God. In performing them, he does not alter 
 or disturb the course of things which he himself 
 directs, or counteract the laws which he himself 
 has established ; but he accomplishes, by means 
 of nature, which he has thus constituted and 
 which he governs, something more than is com- 
 mon, and in connexion with unusual circum- 
 stances. 
 
 [Note. This is here maintained in opposition 
 to some theologians of former times, who held 
 that in case of a real miracle the course of na- 
 ture was disturbed, or the laws of nature coun- 
 teracted. " Miracula vera et proprie dicta sunt, 
 quse contra vim rebus naturalibus a Deo inditam, 
 cursumque naturalem, sive per extraordinariam 
 Dei potentiam efficiuntur ; ut cum . . . aqua in vi- 
 num convertitur, mortui suscitantur," &c. Quen- 
 stedt, Systema, P. I. et II. p. 471, Vitebergse, 
 1685, fol. The same opinion is expressed by 
 Buddeus. Miracles, he says, are "operationes 
 quibus naturae leges ad ordinem et conserva- 
 tionem totius hujus universi spectantes, re vera 
 suspenduntur.' 1 ' 1 Instit. theol. dogm. p. 245. 
 They are likewise denned by W'egscheider as 
 " eventus insoliti ad mi rationed) excitantes ; ideo- 
 que a cooperatione causae, humanas vires super- 
 antis, et rerutu naturae cursum consuetum, leges- 
 que in efficiendo ejusmudi eventu tollentis, ple- 
 rumque repptiti." Institutiones, p. 173, s. 46. 
 But with respect to this opinion, Augustine pro- 
 
GO 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 perly asked, " Quomodo est contra naturam, 
 quod est voluntate Dei, quum voluntas t,mti 
 utique creatoris, conditae rei cujuslibet natura 
 sit." De Civ. Dei, XXI. 8. This opinion led 
 to the supposition that in connexion with every 
 miracle there was ajniraculum restitutionis, by 
 which the confusion occasioned was obviated, 
 and the proper order restored. Vide J. Jac. 
 Ebert, Dabitationes contra miracula restitu- 
 tionis. 
 
 The following remarks on this subject are 
 from Tieftrunk, Censur des chr. protest. Lehrbe- 
 griffs, s. 263 265: "The efficient supersen- 
 sible Being may not suspend the laws, or disar- 
 range the course of nature; but must employ 
 nature as the means of producing the designed 
 result. What is miraculous is not therefore 
 contrary to nature (widernatiirlich), but extraor- 
 dinary, preternatural, (aussernatiirlich.) The 
 wonder-working Being produces in the sphere 
 of sense, and by the laws which govern this 
 sphere, snch an effect as does not occur in the 
 ordinary course of things, and could not be pro- 
 duced by the mere powers of nature. A miracu- 
 lous event seems to encroach upon the course of 
 nature, without disturbing or displacing it. But 
 this encroachment cannot be accounted for by 
 any natural causality, and must be ascribed to a 
 higher power working according to the laws of 
 sensible nature. But we must not suppose that 
 this supersensible cause acts in a lawless man- 
 ner in working miracles; for although we are 
 unacquainted with the laws which prevail in the 
 sphere of spirit, we must still believe that some 
 laws are there in force; and if we knew what 
 they were, we should consider the same events 
 which now appear miraculous as perfectly na- 
 tural." Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch des christlichen 
 Glaubens, s. 24, Leipzig, 1828.] 
 
 In this extraordinary exertion of his power, 
 God has ever some great moral end in view; 
 since it is inconsistent with reason and scripture 
 to suppose that he acts without respect to an 
 end. Now the end for which miracles are per- 
 formed is clearly revealed. They are the cre- 
 dentials of the divine messengers, and invest 
 with a divine authority their precepts, promises, 
 threatenings, and whatever else they may de- 
 clare ; for no teacher ever did or can work a 
 miracle by his own power : he can only act as 
 the instrument in the hand of God, the author 
 and governor of nature. .When God, therefore, 
 raises the dead, or performs any other miracle, 
 through the instrumentality of a teacher, he thus 
 declares that this teacher is divinely commis- 
 sioned, that througli him he shall speak, and 
 act, and accomplish his purposes. He thus fur- 
 nishes his ambassador with credentials, secures 
 him the attention of his fellow men, calls upon 
 them to acknowledge the divinity of his mission, 
 and to receive his heavenly doctrine. This, 
 
 then, as we are taught by the Bible, is the end 
 fur which miracles were wrought. True mira- 
 cles are the credentials which God gives his 
 ambassadors of their divine mission; and every 
 teacher who performs them should be received 
 as a messenger sent from God. For it cannot 
 be supposed that the God of truth would enable 
 an enthusiast, or a crafty impostor, or any false 
 teacher, to perform real miracles, since he would 
 thus set his own seal to a falsehood. Hence 
 we may safely argue the falsity of all the al- 
 leged miracles which are wrought for the con- 
 firmation of doctrines and declarations which are 
 demonstrably untrue, and therefore not of God, 
 such, for example, as were wrought by the false 
 prophets in ancient times, and which are de- 
 clared in the Bible to be deceptive. 
 
 On these principles, Christ and his apostles 
 prove the divinity of their mission and doctrine, 
 by the miracles which they performed in view 
 of their contemporaries, Matt. xi. 3, seq. John, 
 xiv. 11. Vide Scripta Vajrii argument!, ed. 2, 
 p. 187. And in consequence of the miracles 
 which he wrought, Jesus was received by many 
 of his contemporaries as a teacher sent from 
 God, John, iii. 2 ; ix. 35 38. This belief in 
 his character arising from his miracles, was ap- 
 proved by Jesus himself, Matt. xi. 2 6, 20 24. 
 Sometimes, however, he justly blamed the Jews 
 for seeking constantly after signs and wonders. 
 As to the object of the miracles which he per- 
 formed, he distinctly declared, that they should 
 be considered as proof (tj^ftov) that he, as a 
 man, did not teach his own wisdom, nor act 
 from his own will, but as the organ of God, the 
 creator and governor of the universe; and that 
 his instructions should therefore be considered as 
 divine instructions (a,6yot), and received and 
 obeyed as coming from God. Vide John, iii., 
 v., vi., viii., xii., xiv., xvi. ; Acts, ii. 22 ; x. 38. 
 Miracles are regarded by Christ and the apos- 
 tles as always intended by God to promote the 
 success (tftwpyftc&ai) and confirm the authority 
 (/3fj3atovi/) of the doctrine taught by the one 
 through whom they were performed. Mark, 
 xvi. 20. The apostles refer, in the Acts and in 
 the epistles, to three kinds of miracles viz., 
 (1) those wrought upon Jesus, to prove his au- 
 thority, especially his resurrection from the 
 dead ; (2) those wrought by him ; and (3) those 
 which they themselves performed. 
 
 The proof from miracles, impressing, as they 
 do, the bodily senses, often produces a strong 
 conviction, and is especially adapted to those 
 who are insensible to the proof drawn from the 
 internal excellence of the Christian religion, 
 and the effects which it produces on the hearts 
 of men. 
 
 3. How far is the proof from miracles still 
 valid 1 May it be urged at the present day ] It 
 has been rejected, in modern times, as wholly 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 61 
 
 destitute of evidence, by Rousseau, Hume, and 
 all the rationalist theologians. Hume main- 
 tained, that however strong might be the evi- 
 dence in favour of any miracle, there was always 
 stronger evidence against it; and that every 
 miracle was contradictory to the reason and ex- 
 perience of all ages. In order to render the mi- 
 racles of the Bible suspicious, he collected all 
 manner of marvellous histories, and endeavoured 
 to shew that the miracles of the Bible had less 
 evidence to support them than many of these 
 pretended miracles, which were universally 
 allowed to be false. The proof from miracles 
 was also abundantly canvassed in the contro- 
 versies with Lessing. 
 
 We may freely concede, (a) that this proof 
 must have carried a stronger and more resistless 
 evidence to the minds of those who themselves 
 saw the miracles with their own eyes, than to 
 the minds of others living at a distance from the 
 scene, or after the time in which they were per- 
 formed ; and (&) that Christ and his apostles in- 
 tended their miracles primarily for their contem- 
 poraries, who expected and demanded evidence 
 of this nature, and who would receive the true 
 religion more readily, and believe it more firmly, 
 if it came to them supported by such evidence 
 as was conformed to their previous opinions and 
 expectations ; and that this proof may so far be 
 said to be temporary. But (c) it can by no 
 means be said to be destitute of evidence for all 
 who were not the contemporaries of Christ and 
 the apostles. If any at the present day are con- 
 vinced of the historical truth of the miracles 
 wrought by Christ, to them the proof derived 
 from miracles must still be perfectly valid. For 
 to attempt to prove a priori, as is usually done, 
 that miracles are impossible, is the height of folly 
 and presumption. Moreover (d) the system of 
 truth which was taught by Jesus, the apostles, 
 and prophets, is consistent with itself only on 
 the supposition that it was corroborated by mi- 
 racles. They laid claim to the character of ex- 
 traordinary divine messengers a claim which 
 could not be supported except by extraordinary 
 events. Vide Introduction, s. 7, 8. The rea- 
 son, now, that so many deny the evidence of mi- 
 racles is, that they are unwilling to admit this 
 extraordinary claim, which miracles are intended 
 to establish. 
 
 The historical credibility of the miracles of 
 Christ may be proved in two ways : 
 
 (1.) From the testimony of the apostles them- 
 selves. We reason thus : (a) they were able to 
 know the truth. They were contemporaries of 
 Christ, and eye-witnesses of his works. They 
 enjoyed the best opportunity for examining and 
 scrutinizing every thing which he did. Nor were 
 they credulous ; but, on the contrary, slow to be- 
 lieve, as Christ himself says, Mark, xvi. 14. 
 They perfectly agree in their testimony, and in 
 
 open court refer to the miracles of Christ as to 
 undisputed facts, known to the world, Acts, ii. 
 22. (6) They intended to speak the truth. Their 
 Whole character is such as to free them from the 
 suspicion of intentional deception. If they had 
 been influenced by considerations of wordly 
 interest they would not have embraced Christi- 
 anity, from which they had little ta hope, and 
 everything to fear, as to their temporal prospects. 
 Besides, the style of their narratives is so sim- 
 ple, artless, and unaffected, that every unpreju- 
 diced reader must feel himself compelled to ac- 
 knowledge that they understood and believed 
 what they wrote, and had no intention of deceiv- 
 ing their readers. 1 John, i. 1, seq. Cf. Morus, 
 p. 1620. 
 
 (2) From the testimony of those who were 
 not followers of Christ, and even of those who 
 were opposed to his religion. The Jews who 
 were contemporary with Christ allowed that he 
 had wrought miracles, (John, xi. 47,) and did 
 not venture to accuse him, before a judicial tri- 
 bunal, of deception in performing them. Even 
 the Talmud makes mention of his miracles, and 
 allows their historical truth, although it under- 
 takes to account for them in different ways. 
 And so the pharisees, when they were unable 
 to deny the reality of the miracles of Christ, pre- 
 tended, as a last resort, that they were the work 
 of the devil. And even the apostate Judas, who 
 lived on terms of perfect intimacy with his Mas- 
 ter, could not bring against him the charge of 
 deception, and confesses at last, in despair, that 
 he had betrayed innocent blood; whereas, if he 
 had known or suspected any dishonesty, he 
 would surely have justified his crime. And if 
 he did not know of any dishonesty, we may 
 safely conclude that there was none; since the 
 imposture could not have been executed without 
 pecuniary means, which were placed in the hands 
 of Judas. Matt, xxvii. 4, seq. Those who op- 
 posed Christianity during the first periods of its 
 existence namely, Celsus, Hierocles, and Ju- 
 lian, did not doubt the historical truth of the mi- 
 racles of Christ, although they ascribed them to 
 magical arts. Morus, p. 26, 27. 
 
 IV. Proof from the fulfilment of Ancient Prophecies 
 in Christ. 
 
 In urging this proof, Jesus and his apostles 
 had primary, though by no means exclusive, re- 
 ference to the Jews, in whose sacred books these 
 predictions respecting the Messiah were contain- 
 ed. This proof will be particularly considered 
 in connexion with the office of Messiah, s. 89, 
 90, in the Article on Christ. 
 
 V. Proof from the Prophecies of Christ himself. 
 
 Every prediction of future, incidents may pro- 
 perly be regarded as a miracle. All which was 
 said, therefore, respecting the proof from mira- 
 F 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 cles, may be applied to this proof and the one 
 preceding, both of which are parts of the gene- 
 ral proof from miracles. 
 
 With respect to the proof from prophecy, we 
 remark now more particularly, that in order to 
 its validity, (1) The prediction must be histori- 
 cally true i. e., must have been actually made 
 before the events to which it relates, and not 
 fabricated afterwards, nor even enriched by the 
 addition of any circumstances which may have 
 occurred in connexion with the fulfilment of the 
 original prophecy. (2) It must not, like most of 
 the oracles of the ancient heathen world, hide its 
 meaning under an artful ambiguity of expression. 
 (3) The exact and perfect fulfilment of the pre- 
 diction must be capable of proof from history. 
 If any prediction answers these conditions, it 
 must be allowed to come from God, and to be of 
 the nature of a miracle, 2 Pet. i. 19. 
 
 God only can foresee future and fortuitous 
 events. When a man therefore foretells events 
 of this nature, he proves that he is instructed 
 and commissioned by God. The Jewish pro- 
 phets who laid claim to the title of divine am- 
 bassadors were required, therefore, in proof of 
 their pretensions, to foretell the future. Christ 
 himself made use of this proof to support his 
 own claims, John, xiii. 19; xiv. 29. He fore- 
 told, in the most distinct and accurate manner, 
 his own impending fate, (Matt. xvi. 21, seq. 
 Luke, xviii. 31 33 ;) and also that of his dis- 
 ciples, Matt. x. 18, seq. He predicted that his 
 religion would prevail upon the earth, and con- 
 tinue to the end of the world ; and this, too, at a 
 time when its destruction must have appeared 
 to every one in the highest degree probable. 
 He predicted the destruction of the temple, and 
 the overthrow of the Jewish state by the Romans, 
 Matt. xxiv. ; Luke, xxi. This latter prediction 
 was very minute, and was fulfilled, according 
 to the testimony of Josephus, in every particu- 
 lar. Cf. the valuable treatises on the prophecies, 
 collected by Hurd and Halifax. Thomas New- 
 ton, Treatise on the prophecies which have 
 been remarkably fulfilled. Less, Wahrheit der 
 christlichen Religion, s. 472, if. Gottingen, 
 1785. 
 
 Morus, p. 24, seq., s. 14, seq. 
 
 Note. It thus appears, that in investigating 
 the truth of Christianity we must proceed as 
 we do when we investigate any subjects of an 
 historical nature. We must believe what we are 
 taught in the holy scriptures, upon the authority 
 of the testimony by which it is supported. We 
 are indeed gratified to find other reasons, beside 
 positive divine testimony, on which to found our 
 belief in the truths of religion; but these addi- 
 tional reasons are not essential to our belief. 
 And in cases where we are unable to discover 
 them, we may believe upon the simple divine 
 testimony. Nor are we chargeable with credu- 
 
 lity in so doing, any more than when we be- 
 lieve, on credible testimony, any fact which may 
 for a time be incomprehensible. 
 
 Cf. Job. Friedr. Kleuker, Neue Priifung und 
 Erklarung der vorziiglichsten Beweise fur die 
 W r ahrheit und den gottlichen Ursprung des 
 Christenthums, wie der OrTenbarung iiberhaupt, 
 3 Bde, Riga, 178794, 8vo. Koppen, Die 
 Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit, Ausg. 
 2, Rostock and Leipzig, 1797-8, 8vo. Storr, 
 Doctrinae Christianas, &c., p. 21, seq. Siiskind 
 (Prof, of theology at Stuttgard), Eine histo- 
 risch exegetische Untersuchung, In welchem 
 Sinne hat Jesus die Gottlichkeit seiner Religion 
 und Sittenlehre behauptet] Tubingen, 1802, 
 8vo. Hensler, Die Wahrheit und Gottlichkeit 
 der christlichen Religion, in der Kiirze darge- 
 stellt, s. 3348. 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 OF THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE 
 OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, OR THE HIGHER 
 DIVINE INFLUENCE ENJOYED BY THE SACRED 
 WRITERS. 
 
 Introductory Remarks. 
 
 1. THE two following positions viz., the doc- 
 trines taught in the books of the Bible are of di- 
 vine origin, and these books themselves are given 
 by God, are by no means the same, and need to 
 be carefully distinguished. The divinity of the 
 doctrines of the Bible was considered in s. 7 ; but 
 this does not necessarily involve the divinity of 
 the Bible itself. The doctrines of revelation 
 are frequently contained in books of devotion, 
 for example, but it is not pretended that on this 
 account these books are of divine origin. The 
 truth and divinity of the Christian religion might 
 be satisfactorily proved if the books of the New 
 Testament were acknowledged to be merely ge- 
 nuine, and the authors of them merely credible; 
 so that the divinity of the Christian religion need 
 not be considered as depending on the divinity 
 of the holy scriptures. The two things were dis- 
 tinguished from each other as early as the time 
 of Melancthon. 
 
 Religion, therefore, is more concerned, as 
 Michaelis has justly observed, in having proot 
 for the authenticity and genuineness than for the 
 inspiration of the sacred volume. Still, the sin- 
 cere friend of truth will surely be rejoiced in 
 finding reason to believe in the immediate divine 
 origin of the books of our religion. If this higher 
 divine influence, called inspiration, were not en- 
 joyed by the apostles in those instructions which 
 they have left us, how easily could we be dis- 
 turbed by the suspicion that they misunderstood 
 some of the doctrines of Christianity, or failed 
 to exhibit them in a proper manner! They 
 were liable, we might then say, from their de- 
 voted attachment to the person of Christ, and 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 63 
 
 their high esteem for his character, to adopt 
 false and exaggerated opinions respecting his 
 nature, and his future exaltation. In this way, 
 if these books were not believed to be given by 
 inspiration of God, the most important positive 
 doctrines of Christianity might be considered 
 doubtful; as has been done, in fact, in modern 
 times, by those who deny the inspiration of the 
 scriptures. 
 
 2. Inspiration has been defined in different 
 ways. Cf. the historical sketch, s. 9, 10. It 
 may be best defined, according to the representa- 
 tions of the scriptures themselves, to be an ex- 
 traordinary divine influence, by which the teachers 
 of religion were instructed what and how they 
 should write or speak, while, discharging the duties 
 of their office. There is no need of any distinc- 
 tion betwen their oral and written discourses. 
 Morus, p. 30, s. 24. The correctness of 
 this definition will hereafter appear from the 
 texts which will be cited from the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 Note. It may be regarded as a settled point 
 that inspiration is not impossible, and that no 
 argument a priori can be urged against the his- 
 torical evidence of the fact. This was truly 
 remarked by Kant, Religion innerhalb der Gran- 
 zen der reinen Vernunft, 2 Ausg. Konigsberg, 
 1793, 8vo; and also by Fichte, Versuch einer 
 Kritik aller Offenbarung, 2 Ausg. Konigsberg, 
 1793, 8vo. 
 
 I. Inspiration of the New Testament. 
 
 1. This cannot be proved from the testimony 
 of the fathers. They can command belief only 
 when they testify respecting things which could 
 be known by observation; such as the authen- 
 ticity of a book, or the age of the writer. Nor 
 can the divine origin of the Bible be proved by 
 the argument by which we prove the divine 
 origin of the doctrines it contains viz., the in- 
 ternal witness of the Holy Spirit, s. 7. Still less 
 can it be proved from the miracles which the 
 sacred writers performed. These arguments for 
 the inspiration of the Bible were unknown to the 
 ancients, and were first employed in the seven- 
 teenth century by the theologians of Helmstadt, 
 who succeeded Calixtus. 
 
 2. The great argument upon which protest- 
 ants rely in proving the inspiration of the scrip- 
 tures presupposes only the genuineness of the 
 books, and the credibility of the authors of the 
 New Testament. Vide s. 7; cf. Morus, p. 17 
 20, s. 39, and p. 32, s. 28. We hold that 
 every book of the New Testament which is ge- 
 nuine, and which was really written by an apos- 
 tle, is inspired, or written under a special divine 
 influence. In proof of this point, we rely upon 
 the express testimony of Jesus, who explicitly 
 and solemnly promised to his disciples a peculiar 
 divine assistance whenever they should be call- 
 
 ed upon to teach, confirm, or defend his reli- 
 gion, to the service of which he had consecrated 
 them. 
 
 Christ promised his disciples this peculiar 
 divine assistance on four different occasions : 
 (a) when he first sent them forth, Matt. x. 19, 
 20; (6) in a discourse in which he commis- 
 sions them to publish his religion, Luke, xii. 
 11, 12; (c) when he predicted the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, Mark, xiii. 11; Luke, xxi. 14; 
 (d] in his last address to his disciples, John, 
 xiv. xvi. On these occasions he promised 
 them -to jtvevpu aytov, an extraordinary divine 
 influence to attend them constantly, and secure 
 them against error. He said to them in Mark, 
 that when they spoke under this divine impulse, 
 it would not be they who spoke, but the Holy 
 Spirit, (ovx 6ts -fytetj ol hahovwtf j, aXXa to 
 jtvfv/^a TO aytoi/r) He forbade them to pre- 
 meditate what they should say before judicial 
 tribunals, since they should then be taught by 
 the Divine Spirit, not only what but how they 
 should speak, (/t^ f*fp*pvjflti'tt rtwj ^ -ti XaJt?- 
 coyz'f So^jjcterat yap vp.lv x. t. X.) The object 
 of the apostles, in those discourses in which 
 the divine assistance was promised, was not 
 only to defend themselves, but to give instruc- 
 tion in Christianity. 
 
 Now, if the apostles were assisted in this 
 manner in their discourses, which were merely 
 oral, and of course of a very temporary and li- 
 mited advantage, how much more should they 
 be assisted in their written instructions, which 
 were destined to exert a more lasting and extend- 
 ed influence ! " Est enim scripturx etprsedica- 
 tionis par ratio. Quae enim voce prsedicabatur 
 doctrina, ea postea juvandse memoriae causa con- 
 signabatur literis, et quae causa erat cur praedi- 
 cationem ex divina inspiratione oporteret peragi, 
 ea militabat pro scriptione eo magis, quod scrip- 
 tura deberet esse medium doctrinae ejusdem in- 
 corrupte ad finem mundi usque conservandse, et 
 ad posteritatem propagandae." Job. Musaeus 
 in Spinosismo, p. G9. Divine assistance was 
 promised to the apostles, in general terms, in 
 the discharge of their duties as teachers, whe- 
 ther they spake or wrote; and the words tatetV 
 and rtapaxatelv are applied with equal propriety 
 to speaking and writing. According to John, 
 xiv. xvi., Christ promised his disciples that so 
 often as the circumstances of time and place 
 might require, they should enjoy the constant, 
 uninterrupted assistance of the Holy Spirit, as 
 their Paracletus, their counsellor, and assistant. 
 According to John, xvi. 7 11, the Holy Spirit 
 would convince the world through them, (by 
 their writing, therefore, as well as speaking.} 
 And finally, the apostles and evangelists them- 
 selves ascribe the same authority to their writ- 
 ings as to their oral instructions, John, xx. 31 ; 
 1 John, i. 1 1; 2 Thess. ii. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 1. 
 
64 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 coll. ii. 13 ; Ephes. iii. 3, seq. ; Acts, xv. 23, 
 seq. 
 
 The Holy Spirit, beside the general assistance 
 which he would render the apostles, should, ac- 
 cording to the promise of Christ, reveal to them 
 many things of which Christ had not spoken, 
 John, xvi. 12 15. That in their teaching they 
 might be secure from mistake, even with respect 
 to knowledge which they might have acquired 
 in the unaided use of their own faculties, lie 
 should remind them (vrto/jLvr^e^ of all that Christ 
 had taught them ; and himself instruct them in 
 everything (gtSofft- ytdvta) necessary for the 
 discharge of the duties of their office, John, xiv. 
 26. He should reveal to them future events, 
 John, xvi. 13 ; endow them, when necessary, 
 with miraculous powers, Mark, xvi. 17 ; correct 
 their mistakes, and impart to them new instruc- 
 tions whenever they were called for, John, xvi. 
 12; xiv. 26. So that whatever the apostles 
 taught might be regarded as coming from God. 
 
 This testimony of Christ is the foundation of 
 the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Tes- 
 tament. And from this testimony we see clearly 
 the propriety of the definition of inspiration 
 given in the introductory remarks. In order to 
 shew in what estimation the apostles held their 
 own writings and those of their fellow-labour- 
 ers, it deserves to be mentioned, that the epis- 
 tles of Paul were placed by Peter on a level 
 with the scriptures of the Old Testament, which 
 were then regarded by both Jews and Christians 
 as divine, 2 Pet. iii. 16. 
 
 These promises of special divine assistance 
 were not, indeed, originally made to Mark and 
 Luke, who were not apostles. But each of them 
 was the disciple .and assistant of an apostle. 
 oSrytris xai ^fi/j-evsve^ IlfT'pov, xai 
 a into IltVpov x^pvfjao/u.fva yypa<J><I$ r { \n.iv 
 Irenseus, Adversus Hseres. III. 1. 
 Luke stood in a similar relation to Paul, by 
 whom his writings were supposed to be sanc- 
 tioned. "Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere 
 solent," Tertullian, Adversus Marc. IV. 5. 
 The writings of Mark and Luke, therefore, being 
 either dictated or sanctioned by inspired apos- 
 tles, must be regarded as possessing divine au- 
 thority. " Potest magistrorum videri, quae dis- 
 cipuli promulgarint," Tertullian, ubi supra, IV. 
 5. Besides, as they were the companions and 
 fellow-labourers of the apostles, they may be 
 supposed to have been endowed, as such, with 
 the higher gifts of teaching, to have enjoyed the 
 same divine influence when they wrote and 
 spake, and therefore to be entitled to equal cre- 
 dit with the others in what they teach. Nor 
 were these promises originally made even to 
 Paul, who was not, like the other apostles, a 
 companion of Jesus; but they were afterwards 
 extended to him, since he was appointed an 
 
 apostle by Jesus himself, and enjoyed all the 
 privileges of an apostle, and was acknowledged 
 by the others as one of their own number. 
 Morus, p. 19, s. 7. 
 
 II. The, Inspiration of the Old Testament. 
 
 The Jews at the time of Christ generally con- 
 sidered the books of the Old Testament to be in- 
 spired ; by which they did not mean, merely, 
 that the doctrines contained in them were of di- 
 vine origin, but that the books themselves were 
 divine, being the productions of inspired pro- 
 phets. Vide Josephus, Contra Apionem, I. 7. 
 They all agreed in this point, although they had 
 different opinions respecting the mode and the 
 degrees of inspiration. It is not enough to say 
 that Christ and the apostles did not disclaim this 
 prevailing opinion of the Jews ; they assented to 
 it, and presupposed and confirmed its truth. 
 They received the Old Testament, in all its 
 parts, as divine. The texts in which the several 
 books of the Old Testament are cited, are enu- 
 merated by Storr, Biblical Theology, vol. 1, s. 
 
 13, 14 (of the translation.)* Now if Christ and 
 his apostles were inspired men, as has been 
 shewn, No. 1, their testimony with respect to 
 the inspiration of the ancient scriptures is deci- 
 sive. And this testimony affords the most brief 
 and convincing proof which can be offered for 
 the inspiration of the Old Testament. Vide 
 Morus, p. 23, s. 13. 
 
 It is worthy of remark, that though Christ 
 and his apostles laboured to subvert the Jewish 
 dispensation, and to establish a more perfect one 
 in its place; they still regarded the Mosaic doc- 
 trine, institute, and writings, notwithstanding 
 their imperfections, as divine. These imperfec- 
 tions were inevitable to the ancient economy, 
 which was designed for the world while yet in 
 its infancy, and incapable of a higher instruc- 
 tion. 
 
 That the apostles assented to the Jewish opi- 
 nion respecting the inspiration of the Old Tes- 
 tament, is abundantly evident from various and 
 explicit passages in their writings. Their opi- 
 nions on this subject are exhibited with most 
 clearness in the two following texts : 
 
 1. 2 Tim. iii. 1417. In this passage, Paul 
 exhorts Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which 
 was taught by the apostles, because they were 
 inspired teachers, and because their doctrine was 
 accordant with the ancient scriptures. In ver. 
 
 14, he mentions the first reason : " Continue 
 thou in the things which thou hast learned 
 ftSwj rfapa tlvos 2juc&$." In ver. 15 he men- 
 tions the second reason : Continue thou in the 
 things which thou hast learned (for this is the 
 
 * Pages 6672, in the edition forming part of 
 WARD'S LIBRARY OF STANDARD 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 65 
 
 force of xcu,) because thou hast from a child known 
 the ho/y scriptures (of the Old Testament,) ta 
 iwdfjtfvd at ootyiaat, ti$ (ycoi'jypiaz' 6ia rtt-ofscoj T^S iv 
 Xptcrra "Irjaov, which can instruct you in the 
 knowledge of that salvation which we obtain by 
 the Christian doctrine. Here Paul expresses his 
 opinion that the Old Testament leads to Christ, 
 and is preparatory to Christianity. In ver. 16, 
 he proceeds to say, Hdaa, ypcw^ SsojtvtvGtos (for 
 $eortvfv(tto$ ovffa, according to Clemens of Alex- 
 andria, Theodoret, the Syriac version, the Vul- 
 gate, and nearly all the theologians of the six- 
 teenth century ; otherwise the article must be 
 inserted before ypa<|?, and the comma after it be 
 retained,) xal co^aXt^oj Ttpoj St-SaofxaXuxv, rtpo$ 
 rtpoj Ertayop^-iocrtv, rtpoj rtatdtiav "tr^v iv 
 vvv], Jill inspired scripture (no part of it 
 excepted) is also projitablefor instruction (in the 
 Christian religion), for conviction (confutation 
 of errors, &c.),/or improvement, and for disci- 
 pline in virtue or piety. Ver. 17, "Iva 
 YI o tov sov ai^pcortoj, rtpoj jtav t'pyov a 
 ifyptia/jit vo$, By means of the Old-Testament scrip- 
 tures the servant of God (Christian teacher) may 
 become Jilted, and truly qualified for his import- 
 ant work. In this passage, therefore, Paul ex- 
 presses the opinion, that the books of the Old 
 Testament are inspired, and that, when rightly 
 employed, they are useful even in Christian in- 
 struction. 
 
 2. 2 Pet. i. 19, 20. Vide Scripta Varii Argu- 
 ment!, t. i. p. 1, seq. In this passage, Paul 
 shews, in opposition to Jews and judaizing he- 
 retics, that Jesus was the true Messiah. In 
 shewing this, he now appeals to those predic- 
 tions of the Jewish prophets which had been 
 fulfilled in him. Ver. 19, " We (apostles) find 
 the oracles of the prophets (respecting Christ) 
 much more convincing now (since they have 
 been fulfilled ;) and ye will do well to attend to 
 them. Formerly, before their fulfilment, they 
 were obscure, like a lantern shining feebly on a 
 dark path, until the appearance of Christ upon 
 the earth, from which event a clearer light now 
 proceeds, and we can better understand the pro- 
 phecies." Ver. 20, "Nor could the prophets 
 themselves of the Old Testament give a clear 
 explanation (IrttXvcrij from ertfavfw, explicare, 
 Mark, iv. 34,) of their own oracles, because 
 they had only indistinct conceptions of the sub- 
 jects on which they spake, and knew only so 
 much as was communicated to them, from time 
 to time, by divine revelation." (This is the 
 context of ver. 21 ; and what is here said agrees 
 with the passage, 1 Pet. i. 1012.) Ver. 21, 
 Ov -yap ^sfa^tcttt (l^7 V?n) cw&pwrtou qv%$r { 
 rtote rtpo^t'cta, aM,' vrtb rtvfvpa'tos ayi,ov (divine 
 impulse and guidance) $fpojitei>ot (tpfpfo&at, mo- 
 veri, agitari, the word by which the Greeks 
 commonly described the inspiration of their 
 9 
 
 minstrels, prophets, soothsayers of the temple 
 of Apollo, &c. ; vide s. 9;) ihdtyoav aytot- ?ov 
 av^pcoTtot (the prophets of the Old Testament,) 
 for no oracle was delivered from the mere will of 
 man, (i. e., whether they should speak, and 
 what and how they should speak, did not depend 
 on the will of the prophets ;) but the ancient pro- 
 phets spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 
 The prophets themselves acknowledged, that 
 whatever they taught, whether by speaking or 
 writing, was dictated to them by God, or the 
 Divine Spirit, and was published by his com- 
 mand, Ex. iv. 12, 15, 16; Deut. xviii. 18; Jer. 
 i. 6, seq. ; Amos, iii. 7 ; Is. Ixi. 1 ; Cf. Morus, 
 p. 20, seq. 
 
 This passage from Peter proves the inspira- 
 tion only of the prophetical part of the Old Tes- 
 tament, and not, strictly speaking, of the rest. 
 But from the two passages taken together, it is 
 obvious that the apostles believed the Old Tes- 
 tament, as a whole, to be inspired. We can find 
 no evidence in all the New Testament that 
 Christ and his apostles dissented in the least 
 from the opinion commonly received among the 
 Jews on this subject. But the Jews regarded 
 the entire collection of the Old-Testament scrip- 
 tures as divine. They were frequently called 
 by Josephus and Philo, ^ttat ypa$at, tspa ypctyi- 
 juara, and always mentioned with the greatest 
 veneration. Divine inspiration (tjtiitvoia, EOV) 
 is expressly conceded by Josephus to the pro- 
 phets .- and as none but prophets were permitted 
 by the Jews to write their national history, and 
 none but priests to transcribe it, (as appears 
 from the same author ;) we conclude that inspi- 
 ration was also conceded by him and his con- 
 temporaries to their historical books. Josephus, 
 Contra Apionem, I. 6, 7, 8. Cf. Morus, p. 20. 
 
 Such were the prevailing opinions of the Jews 
 of the first and second centuries, and long be- 
 fore the birth of Christ; and to these opinions 
 Christ and his apostles plainly assented ; they 
 must, therefore, be adopted by all who allow 
 Christ and his apostles to be divine teachers. 
 The contemptuous expressions which many have 
 permitted themselves to use with regard to the 
 Old Testament are, as Morus justly observed, 
 Epitome, p. 24, Christiana indignae voces. 
 
 The doubt may arise whether some of the his- 
 torical books can be considered as the produc- 
 tions of prophets, as they were compiled from 
 other works after the Babylonian exile. But no 
 essential difference is made, even if what is sup- 
 posed be true ; since the most important parts 
 of these historical books were extracted from 
 larger histories, and ascribed to the prophets by 
 whom they were originally written. So the ex- 
 tracts made in the books of Kings and Chroni- 
 cles, from a larger history of Jewish kings, are 
 ascribed to Isaiah. 
 
 F2 
 
66 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS, COMPARING THE CON- 
 CEPTIONS AND EXPRESSIONS OF THE ANCIENT 
 WORLD RESPECTING IMiMEDIATE DIVINE INFLU- 
 ENCE. 
 
 I. The Idea of Inspiration Universal. 
 
 WE find that every nation of the ancient 
 world believed in immediate divine influences, 
 although the particular conceptions which they 
 entertained on this subject varied with their 
 local circumstances, and the different degrees of 
 their intellectual culture : but in consequence of 
 the prevalence of a strict and scholastic philoso- 
 phy in modern times, our own conceptions on 
 this subject have become widely different from 
 those which formerly prevailed, and can hardly 
 be brought into agreement with them. The at- 
 tempt has frequently been made to reconcile the 
 modes of thinking and speaking respecting di- 
 vine influences, which were common in all an- 
 tiquity, with the philosophical principles of our 
 own day. But this attempt has not been very 
 successful; and the entirely different methods 
 which have been adopted by writers to effect 
 this reconciliation are a sufficient proof of the 
 difficulty of the undertaking. 
 
 From the above remarks we may conclude 
 
 1. That since these conceptions are found to 
 exist among all people, and to be everywhere 
 very much alike, especially in the early stages 
 of cultivation, they must be natural to the hu- 
 man mind, and result directly from its original 
 constitution. 
 
 2. That if God has seen fit to make a direct 
 revelation to any particular man or nation, he 
 has accommodated himself in so doing to these 
 original conceptions of the mind, and has, as it 
 were, met them on the way in which they were 
 coming towards him. This might be reason- 
 ably expected from the Divine wisdom and good- 
 ness ; for how should a wise and good father 
 deem it improper to adapt the instructions which 
 he gives to his children in their education to 
 their natural expectations, and to answer the de- 
 mands of their minds ? This shews us the rea- 
 son why true inspiration, such as the apostles 
 and prophets enjoyed, resembles so much in its 
 external signs, how wide soever the internal dif- 
 ference may be, the false and imaginary inspira- 
 tion to which the prophets and teachers of the 
 heathen world pretended. The reason of this 
 resemblance between real and pretended inspi- 
 ration should be carefully noted, because the 
 comparison of the two has been frequently turn- 
 ed to bad account. 
 
 3. That the explanations which are frequently 
 given of those passages of the Bible which treat 
 of inspiration cannot be true. Some modern 
 writers explain away the sense of these passages 
 till nothing seems to be left of literal inspira- 
 
 tion, and everything accords with their philo- 
 sophical system. But by applying these his- 
 torical observations to these passages, we find 
 that the sacred writers intended to teach a lite- 
 ral inspiration in the proper sense, and were so 
 understood by their contemporary hearers and 
 readers. 
 
 II. Rude Nations believed Great Men to be Inspired. 
 
 Nations in the first stages of improvement 
 believe that everything which is great, which 
 excites their wonder, or surpasses their compre- 
 hension, is the result of immediate divine 
 agency, and overlook the second causes to which 
 these effects are to be ascribed. Accordingly, 
 they regard useful inventions, laws, and reli- 
 gious institutions, as gifts bestowed directly by 
 God, and the distinguished men through whom 
 these blessings are bestowed as the favourites 
 and messengers of God, and therefore entitled 
 to the highest reverence. This statement is 
 abundantly proved from the mythology of the 
 ancient nations, and especially of Greece. 
 Through these men God was supposed to speak ; 
 and what they said was regarded as the word of 
 God, and they themselves as holy or consecrated, 
 as is implied in all the ancient languages. Thus 
 minstrels and prophets were called by the an- 
 cient Greeks dytot and tloi, by the sacred 
 writers n^n;?, D^SH E^K, 2 Kings, i. 9, aytot 
 iov ilv^purtot, 2 Pet. i. 21; also D^NOJ, which, 
 according to its Arabic etymology, would denote 
 messengers, ambassadors, (of God.) The term 
 fortp6rto$ (Homer, Iliad, XII. 228) signifies 
 one who speaks in the place of God, rates. Cicero, 
 Pro Archia Poeta, VIII., says that poets were 
 supposed divina quodam spiritu inflari, and that 
 they were called sancti, quod quasi deorum 
 aliquo dono atque munere commendati nobis esse 
 videantur ; and XII., that they semper apud 
 omnes sancti sunt habiti atque dicti. Cf. Dresde, 
 Proluss. duo de notione prophetae in codice 
 sacro, Wittenberg, 1788 89. Morus, p 
 20, 21. 
 
 III. Great Men believed themselves to be Inspired. 
 
 Those who felt themselves urged on to great 
 and noble deeds, or irresistibly compelled to 
 communicate their feelings to others, believed 
 the impulses by which they were actuated to be 
 supernatural, and that they were the organs 
 through whom the Deity spake and acted. 
 Many of the sages and philosophers of early an- 
 tiquity expressed this belief respecting them- 
 selves; and to doubt their sincerity, or to sup- 
 pose that they made such pretensions, as artful 
 politicians, for the purpose of deceiving their 
 contemporaries, would betray great ignorance 
 of the history of mankind. The minstrels and 
 prophets among the ancient Greeks believed no 
 less firmly than their hearers or readers that they 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 67 
 
 were actuated by a divine impulse. This ap- 
 pears evident from the writings of Homer. 
 What Cicero said, De Nature Deorum. II. 6(5, 
 Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino un- 
 quam fuit, was universally believed in all anti- 
 quity. Accordingly, everything great and noble 
 in the thoughts or actions of the ancient heroes, 
 commanders, kings, and sages, all their great 
 undertakings, their wars and victories, were 
 ascribed to the Deity working in them as instru- 
 ments of its own purposes. 
 
 It appears, then, from Nos. II. III., that the 
 teachers and prophets of the heathen world, as 
 well as those of the Bible, both believed them- 
 selves and were believed by others to be in- 
 spired. And the question here naturally arises, 
 whether the inspiration of the latter as well as 
 that of the former may not have been feigned or 
 imaginary. This question may be firmly an- 
 swered in the negative, with reasons which are 
 perfectly satisfactory to the unprejudiced in- 
 quirer. The teachers and prophets of the Bible 
 were enabled, through the divine wisdom and 
 goodness, to give such proof of the reality of 
 their inspiration as those of the heathen world 
 
 could never offer. 
 
 * 
 
 IV. Different Nations agree in their Representations 
 
 and Ideas of Inspiration. 
 The conceptions formed of the Deity in the 
 early ages were extremely gross and sensual. 
 Men in the savage state have always supposed 
 God to possess a body, and every way to resem- 
 ble themselves. Their conceptions respecting 
 his influence would not, of course, be more re- 
 fined than respecting his nature. In this parti- 
 cular, as well as in many others, the ideas 
 which the human mind has entertained have 
 been everywhere very much the same, as is 
 proved by the agreement of various languages. 
 Almost all the ancient nations ascribed the di- 
 vine influence, by which the confidents of hea- 
 ven were inspired to speak or act, to the word 
 or mouth of God, or to the breath proceeding out 
 of his mouth ; and they accordingly regarded this 
 divine influence itself as literally inspiration. 
 All this is shewn by the language employed to 
 designate their ideas. Vide John, xx. 22. The 
 oracles of the prophets were called among the 
 Hebrews nirr> >c, rwv n;n, iji ; among the Greeks, 
 tyr^ri, <j)ct0t$, xoytov and among the Romans, ora- 
 cula, derived, according to Cicero, from ore sive 
 oratione Deorum, And these divine influences 
 are expressed in all the ancient languages by 
 terms which literally designate blowing, breath- 
 ing, breathing upon, &c.; in the Hebrew, 
 ryn, crn^N rvn, u>np nn, mrv n-3 rvn; in the Greek, 
 rti/sco, /irtvto, Ttvfiyta (aytw or foa;,) l(Jirtvv<U$y 
 Erttrtvota to{), also ^drt^DUToj, 2 Tim. iii. lf>, 
 (vide s. 8 ;) sometimes, ha-ktlv iv jtvevpaat. Qeov 
 lvai, or ijtirivoiav tov t^ftv in 
 
 the Latin, inapiratio, inspiratus, (a spirando,) 
 and spiritu divino instinctum essc, Livy, V. 15, 
 afflatus Dei, afflatum esse numine, inflari divino 
 spiritu, Cicero, Pro Archia Poeta, VIII. From 
 this agreement in the terms by which the an- 
 cient nations designated inspiration, we argue 
 the agreement of their original ideas respecting 
 it; and we conclude that these terms, when 
 used in the Bible, must be understood to denote 
 immediate divine influences, since this is the 
 only sense in which they were used in the an- 
 cient world. Cf. s. 19, II., and s. 39, I. 
 
 V. Inspired Men often spake what they did not 
 
 understand. 
 
 The ancient nations believed that one whose 
 words and actions were thus under the divine 
 influences, was himself, at the time of inspira- 
 tion, merely passive. Mentes declares to Tele- 
 machus, Odyssey, I. 200, 201 
 
 'ASavaro 
 
 evl 
 
 Cf. Odyssey, XV. 172. They also believed 
 that the soothsayer or minstrel did not himself 
 understand, and could not explain to others, what 
 he spake, or rather, what God spake through 
 him, while he was inspired. This opinion was 
 a natural consequence of the former. In con- 
 formity with this general belief was the opinion 
 of the Jews, as expressed in the Talmud, the 
 prophets themselves did not, in many cases, under- 
 stand the import of what they predicted. The 
 same opinion is expressed by Josephus and 
 Philoj and Peter says, 2 Pet. i. 20, rtpotytj'tfia, 
 tStaj 7tt2u;<5tt? ov ytVff at. Vide s. 8. We find 
 the same thing expressed in innumerable pas- 
 sages of the Grecian writers. Plato, in his dia- 
 logue jtspi *I?aaSo$ ( v lcov), puts the prevailing 
 notion of the Greeks into the mouth of Socra- 
 tes : KOV<|>OP gpr^a rtoty/rTjs eati, xai rttyvov, xai 
 tspov xai> ov TtpOT'Epov olornts rtoitiv jtpiv av c-v&fo; 
 tf f ytvr t 'tat> xai txtypuv, xai 6 vovj p.r^xi'ti -v avtcp 
 ivy. wj 8' dv fowti t%vj "fb x^r^a, aovvatos jiav 
 jtotflv ia'tlv cupcortO, xai Zpya/J-cpbiiv . . . . ov 
 yap T'W7 tfavtf a ta'yorcuv, aMa ^st'a bwdpei, . . . 
 u >f6$, itcupoi^fi/os fovtuv vovv, tovtot,s 
 , xai tol$ ^p^tfjU^Sots, xai -fotj 
 * Iva ^t$ oti axovovtef t6u|Ufv oti 
 tiaiv ot tav-fa Xfyovi'fj, oiiVw rtoXXov a 
 olj vovs p. 1 *] rta.psG'tw, aTtX' 6 ^-EOJ iativ o ' 
 8id tov't&v 8s <j>^f'yyT'cu< rtpoj tj/jids, *' The poet 
 cannot compose, nor the soothsayer prophesy, 
 unless he is inspired by the Deity, and trans- 
 ported, as it were, beyond himself. He then 
 loses sight of the rules of art, and is borne away 
 by the divine impulse. The Deity deprives 
 him of his own consciousness and reflection, 
 and employs him as an ambassador. It is not 
 he who speaks, but God who speaks through him." 
 True inspiration is described in very much the 
 
68 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 same way, Mark, xiii. 11. Again, Plato says 
 in his dialogue rtepi, 'Apjr^j (Mewov), 'Opw$ a,v 
 
 seat fjuyd'ka, xortop^ovfiw wv Ttparroufft xat Xt'youot, 
 "poets and prophets are justly called divine, 
 because while they declare important things, 
 they themselves do not understand what they 
 say." In the Odyssey, I. 347350, Telema- 
 chus thus checks Penelope in attempting to 
 control the bard, 
 
 Mfjrep ipti, rl r dp dv <p$ovieis epirjpov aoifov 
 Tepneiv ornn? of vdof Spvvraf, ov vv T' do i So I 
 A IT 10 i t dXXd TroSt Zevs a ? r t o y , 8j TE 6iS<Mtv 
 'Avipatnv atywrgoiv STTCOJ IS&gffiv CKOOTW. 
 
 Phemius declares, ODYSSEY, xxn. 346, 
 
 i/u* Sedj 6s /xot iv Qpeolv otfiag 
 Tlavroias ivetpvoev. 
 
 In the Sybilline Oracles, an inspired speaker 
 says, 
 
 ovre yap ol&a, 
 'O rt Xtyco, Kt\Tai 6' b Stdj ra IKUOT dyoptvtiv. 
 
 So it is said respecting Balaam, (Num. xxiii. 
 5,) that the Lord put words into his mouth. The 
 ancient minstrels and poets, in whose produc- 
 tions art had as yet no share, were called simply 
 aoiSoi and Stot aoiooL So they are always called 
 in Homer. The word jtoiqtrj is of later origin, 
 and was unknown until poetry had become an 
 art. Cf. Scripta Varii argumenti, p. 28, 29, 
 ed. 2. 
 
 VII. Inspiration described by terms indicating 
 Violence. 
 
 The impulse which is felt by those who are 
 inspired is commonly very strong and irresist- 
 ible. They often betray their emotion by an 
 unusual strength of voice, and very violent bo- 
 dily movements ; hence, in all the ancient lan- 
 guages the terms which designate the words and 
 actions of those who are inspired convey the 
 idea of violence of mental feeling and bodily ac- 
 tion e. g., 6p/i7 (impetus), op^ao/tat. Those 
 who were inspired were said, corripi, agitari 
 Deo, xat%ea$at, ex sov, $pfc&<u, (2 Pet. i. 21), 
 pati Deum; and inspiration itself was called 
 furor divinus, juavta (jKcuvfo^cw.) Accordingly, 
 the words which in the ancient languages signi- 
 fy to predict, generally signify too, to rage, to 
 act like a madman, insanire e. g., vaticinari in 
 Latin, and in Hebrew N3i~>n, 1 Sam. xviii. 10. 
 The impulses attending inspiration were like- 
 wise represented in the writings of the Asiatics 
 as a spiritual and sacred intoxication ,- because 
 they transported a man beyond himself, and 
 strained and elevated all the powers of his soul. 
 Hence the figurative language employed, Luke, 
 i. 15; Ephes. v. 18. The ancient prophets and 
 poets, as we see from Homer, were accustomed 
 
 to employ music and song as a means of exciting 
 and increasing inspiration. Elisha did the same, 
 2 Kings, iii. 15. And the members of the 
 schools of the prophets were ever engaged in 
 these exercises, 1 Sam. x. 5, seq. 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 OF THE VARIOUS THEORIES RESPECTING THE MAN- 
 NER AND DEGREES OF INSPIRATION. 
 
 I. The Theory that Inspiration in the highest sense 
 was extended equally to all Scripture. 
 
 THE theory that the divine assistance which 
 the sacred writers experienced extended to every- 
 thing which they wrote, words and letters not 
 excepted, is doubtless one of the oldest in the 
 Christian ehurch. In this view of the subject, 
 the sacred writers were merely the scribes or 
 amanuenses, of the Holy Spirit; and were often 
 compared by the ancients to flutes, upon which 
 the Spirit of God played. This comparison is 
 found in the writings of Justin, Athenagoras, 
 Macarius, and other fathers ; and also of the 
 modern theologians, Musaeus, Baier, Quenstedt, 
 and even of Schubert, in the middle of the eigh- 
 teenth century. 
 
 This theory accords very well in many re- 
 spects with the mode of thought and conception 
 which prevailed in the ancient world, (vide s. 
 9;) but it is very unlike the ideas which are 
 entertained on the subject of inspiration at the 
 present day. But it is still more important to 
 remark respecting it, that the sacred writers 
 themselves never profess to have enjoyed, while 
 writing, inspiration of such a nature. And that 
 they were not in reality the mere organs of the 
 Divine Spirit, whatever may have been supposed 
 by their contemporaries, must appear from a mo- 
 ment's observation. For (1) we find that each 
 of the writers of the Bible has his own peculiar 
 style, which perfectly distinguishes him from 
 all the rest. It has indeed been said, that the 
 Holy Spirit accommodated himself to the style of 
 each particular writer ; but the one who dictates 
 is not wont to accommodate himself to the style 
 of the amanuensis. (2) The manner in which 
 the sacred writers treat the subjects which they 
 introduce, the costume with which they invest 
 them, is often, notwithstanding the dignity and 
 excellence of the subjects themselves, rude and 
 unpolished, and such as might be expected from 
 illiterate and uncultivated writers. This trait, 
 at least in their writings, must be ascribed to 
 their own agency. (3) In many cases the in- 
 spired writers evidently made use of the pro- 
 ductions of others : the evangelists composed 
 their histories in part from the previous accounts 
 of the life of Jesus; the later prophets, Ezekiel 
 and Jeremiah, frequently borrowed from the 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 69 
 
 oracles of Isaiah, &c. (4) The sacred histo- 
 rians frequently appealed to the evidence of 
 their own senses for the facts which they relate, 
 to the testimony of others, to the records from 
 which they derived their information, and to 
 their own investigations, (Luke, i. 1 ;) from all 
 which it appears that they were not passive 
 under the divine influences, and that they were 
 not miraculously endowed with any knowledge 
 which they could obtain in the diligent use of 
 their own intellectual powers, since God does 
 not work miracles when they are unnecessary. 
 (5) They frequently speak in their own names, 
 send greetings, mention their private affairs (2 
 Tim. iv. 13, seq.), &c. (6) In some cases they 
 themselves make a distinction between their 
 own advice and the express command of God, 
 or of Christ, 1 Cor. vii. 25, coll. v. 40; 2 Cor. 
 viii. 10. 
 
 According to the conceptions of the ancient 
 world, (vide s. 9,) the very words employed 
 were in some cases, though not always, inspired ; 
 and by many writers, both of ancient and mo- 
 dern times, the inspiration of the Bible has 
 been thought to extend even to the words in 
 which it was written. This opinion is advo- 
 cated by Ernesti, Neue Theol. Bibliothek, b. iii. 
 s. 468, ff. The argument which he used, and 
 which is commonly urged, is this : thoughts 
 cannot be clearly communicated to the mind 
 without words; and therefore the latter, as well 
 as the former, must have been given to the in- 
 spired writers by the Holy Spirit. But I may 
 obtain a person to write a book under my super- 
 intendence and direction ; I may communicate 
 to him the ideas to be expressed, furnish him 
 with all the materials of the composition, and 
 suggest, whenever it is necessary, particular 
 words; and all this without dictating to him 
 every syllable and letter to be employed : I may 
 leave him, under my close supervision, to exe- 
 cute the work in his own way. So Paul might 
 have been left by the Spirit to pursue his own 
 method in shewing that the Mosaic institute 
 must be abolished. But in other cases it seems 
 to be necessary that the Holy Spirit should 
 have communicated the very words in which 
 the things revealed should be expressed ; as, for 
 example, in certain numbers, or names of persons 
 and places, which could not have been known 
 except from revelation. Vide Morus, p. 35, n. 
 6. Considerations like these prepared the way 
 for the views which follow. 
 
 II. The Theory that Inspiration was extended in dif- 
 ferent degrees to different portions of Scripture. 
 
 This theory was adopted in order to avoid the 
 difficulties resulting from the former. In this 
 view of the subject, the degrees of inspiration 
 vary with the character of the writer and the 
 nature of the subject. This was believed by 
 
 some of the ancients ; but theologians have never 
 been able to agree in deciding how many de- 
 grees of inspiration there were, or in what way 
 they should be defined ; nor is it probable that, 
 on these points, they will ever perfectly agree, 
 since the inspired writers have left them unde- 
 cided, and we are unable to determine with re- 
 spect to objects which lie so wholly beyond the 
 circle of our experience. The following are 
 some of the principal attempts that have been 
 made to determine the manner and degrees of 
 inspiration : 
 
 1. Some theologians are contented with the 
 general position, that there are different degrees 
 of inspiration, and do not think proper to deter- 
 mine under what particular degree any given 
 passage was written. They go no further than 
 to say, that in writing on subjects of the first 
 importance, in communicating facts which could 
 have been learned only from revelation, and in 
 cases where there was peculiar liability to mis- 
 take, the sacred writers enjoyed the highest de- 
 gree of divine influence the inspiration of words 
 (inspiratio verbalis) ; but that in treating of sub- 
 jects of inferior interest for example, of those 
 of a merely historical nature they enjoyed no 
 higher assistance than was necessary to secure 
 them against error, to refresh their recollection 
 with the knowledge which they had before ac- 
 quired, or perhaps to give the first impulse to 
 speak or write. These views of inspiration 
 were entertained by Michaelis, Doderlein, and 
 others. Calixtus thought that it was sufficient 
 to say, in general terms, that the sacred writers 
 were secured by divine influence against the 
 possibility of mistake. Cf. Morus, p. 36, s. 
 29, n. 7. But considering that we are unable, 
 at the present time, to determine how much the 
 sacred writers knew respecting the several sub- 
 jects of which they have treated, from their own 
 unaided study, and how much from the direct 
 teaching of the Holy Spirit, none of the theolo- 
 gians above mentioned have attempted to define 
 accurately the degree of inspiration under which 
 particular portions of holy writ were composed. 
 
 2. Other theologians have denied that all the 
 books of the Bible were inspired, or that the 
 whole of the inspired books was written under 
 special divine assistance. Those who have en- 
 tertained this opinion may be subdivided into 
 different classes. Some go so far as to say, 
 that some parts of a book may be of divine ori- 
 gin, while other parts of the same book are of 
 human origin only, and must therefore be care- 
 fully distinguished from the former. 
 
 If we ask, now, which parts of the epistle 
 to the Romans, for example are divine and 
 which human, we shall receive various answers. 
 Henry Holden, as cited by Richard Simon, 
 would say, that only those parts were to be re- 
 ceived as inspired which the sacred writers 
 
70 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 themselves expressly declared were spoken by 
 God; and that the other parts, whether they 
 related to history or doctrine, were to be re- 
 garded as human. Others would say,thatwhat- 
 ever related to the doctrines of religion was in- 
 spired. Semler, in his Treatise on the Canon, 
 and likewise Kant, maintained that the general 
 moral utility of a work was the only criterion 
 by which its inspiration could be judged; that 
 an inspired book must therefore be calculated 
 to promote the moral improvement of all men 
 in all ages ; and that consequently those parts 
 only of our scriptures which had this tendency 
 were inspired. 
 
 According to the last opinion, some parts of a 
 book those of universal application, and of ge- 
 neral moral utility are inspired, while other 
 parts of one and the same book, not possessing 
 these marks of divinity, are merely human. 
 To this view it may be objected, (1) that by 
 subjecting inspiration to the criterion of utility 
 it does the same as to deny it altogether; since 
 what might be received as divine by one, from 
 the general utility which he might suppose it to 
 possess, might be denied this character by an- 
 other, as wanting, in his view, this mark of 
 inspiration. (2) It is chargeable with the error 
 of reasoning a priori upon a question of fact 
 an error which cannot be justified; for if God 
 has seen fit to give special divine aids to any 
 individual, we are not to determine by our rea- 
 sonings, and prescribe as it were to God, what 
 and how great they may or must have been. 
 (3) It does not correspond with the view of the 
 inspiration and divinity of a book entertained 
 by the ancient world, and of course by the 
 sacred writers. Vide s. 9. It is easy to see, 
 that while those who hold this opinion retain 
 the ancient words inspiration and divinity, they 
 endeavour to use them in such a sense as will 
 accord with the prevailing conceptions of our 
 own age, and with the principles of their philo- 
 sophy. 
 
 This opinion is not of recent origin. Tertul- 
 lian says, " A nobis nihil omnino rejiciendum 
 est, quod pertinet ad nos : et legimus, omnem 
 scripturam sedificationi habikm divinitus inspi- 
 rari." De habitu mulierum, c. 3. He says 
 this in order to defend the book of Enoch. 
 
 Note. We may indeed decide that a divine 
 revelation cannot contain any doctrines subver- 
 sive of the moral improvement and happiness 
 of men, which we have before shewn (Intro- 
 duction, s. 3, 6) to be the great objects for which 
 a revelation was made. And we may conse- 
 quently determine, that no book which contains 
 such hurtful doctrines can be inspired. So far 
 Kant, Fichte, and others, are right. But when 
 they undertake to prescribe to Supreme Wisdom 
 the means by which this end is to be attained, 
 they transcend their proper limits. These 
 
 means, it is obvious to every one, must vary 
 with the age, character, and other circumstances 
 of those for whom they are intended. And 
 who can say, that positive religion may not be 
 a means of moral improvement, by giving effi- 
 cacy to moral religion, and hence be revealed 
 and inspired! If positive doctrines were not 
 contained in the Bible, philosophers would soon 
 demonstrate that they must be contained in a 
 revelation made from God. 
 
 3. The great body of modern theologians, 
 both of the Romish and protestant churches, 
 prefer a middle course between the theory first 
 mentioned and the opinions last cited. They 
 adopt, for the most part, the theory of Claude 
 Frassen, a Franciscan monk and a scholastic 
 theologian of the seventeenth century, and sup- 
 pose three degrees of inspiration. 
 
 (a) The first and highest degree of inspira- 
 tion is, the revelation of things before unknown 
 to the sacred writers. This is called by Frassen, 
 inspiratio antecedens, but commonly by other 
 writers, revelation,- who thus make a distinction 
 between inspiration and revelation, and hold that 
 revelation is indeed always attended by inspira- 
 tion, but that inspiration is not, in every case, 
 preceded by revelation. Everything in the sa- 
 cred scriptures, they say, is inspired, but every- 
 thing there is not revealed ; for much which is 
 contained in the Bible was known to the sacred 
 writers from their own reflection. 
 
 (b) The second degree of inspiration is, the 
 security against error which God affords the sa- 
 cred writers in the exhibition of doctrines or 
 facts with which they are already acquainted, 
 the care which he takes in the selection, truth, 
 and intelligibleness of the subjects introduced, 
 and the words by which they are expressed, 
 &c. This is called by Frassen, inspiratio con- 
 comitans. 
 
 (c) The third degree of inspiration is, the 
 divine authority stamped upon writings, origin- 
 ally composed without inspiration, by the ap- 
 probation of inspired men, and is called inspira- 
 tio consequens. This degree of inspiration is pre- 
 dicated of the historical books of the Old Tes- 
 tament, which were approved by Jesus and the 
 apostles; and of the gospels Mark and Luke, 
 which were approved by Peter and Paul, and 
 afterwards by John. 
 
 This theory is developed by Doddridge, and 
 still more fully by Tollner; the latter of whom 
 endeavours to shew, that the authority of the 
 holy scriptures as the source of our knowledge 
 in matters of faith is perfectly secured, even in 
 cases where only the lowest degree of inspira- 
 tion is admitted. Vide Tollner, Die gottliche 
 Eingebung der heiligen Schrift. 
 
 4. Other theologians deem it sufficient to 
 shew that the prophets and apostles enjoyed a 
 higher divine assistance and support. Vide s. 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 71 
 
 8. They were induced in various ways, some- 
 times by natural means, and sometimes by im- 
 mediate divine direction, to write the sacred 
 books. They always wrote, as well as spoke, 
 as persons enjoying the influence of the Spirit 
 of God. This is the light in which inspiration 
 is regarded by Morus, p. 32, seq. s. 27, 28. He 
 did not think necessary to determine what par- 
 ticular actus &ortvtv<rtias was exerted in each 
 particular actus scribendi. 
 
 It may be well to remark the striking contrast 
 between the meagre productions of the fathers 
 of the first century and the rich and instructive 
 writings of the apostles, most of whom were 
 illiterate me'n. But how, the unprejudiced in- 
 quirer will be compelled to ask, could the latter 
 have written in sush a widely different manner, 
 and one so superior to that of the fathers, if they 
 had not enjoyed a higher divine assistance! 
 
 Note. The following works on this subject 
 may be recommended to the attention of the stu- 
 dent. Rich. Simon, Histoire Critique du V. 
 T., especially ch. 23 25; and the Letters of a 
 Dutch dmne on the critical History of Simon, 
 edited by Le Clerc. The opinions contained in 
 this work, some of which are true, and others 
 false and partial, have been developed by mo- 
 dern theologians. Among modern works, the 
 following are most distinguished : (1) Semler, 
 Abhandlung von freyer Untersuchung des Ca- 
 nons, 4 Thle, Halle, 177175, 8vo. The dif- 
 ferent theories are here illustrated and examined. 
 This work induced Schmid, Miiller, Pittiscus, 
 and others, to undertake the defence of the com- 
 mon doctrine. (2) Tollner, Die gottliche 
 Eingebung der heiligen Schrift, Mitau und 
 Leipzig, 1782, 8vo. (3) Koppen, Die Bibel 
 ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit. This book 
 contains many excellent observations on the 
 origin and collection of the different parts of the 
 Bible. (4) Fichte, Versuch einer Kritik aller 
 Offenbarung, Konigsberg, 1793, 8vo a pro- 
 found inquiry respecting the possibility of direct 
 revelation, and the criteria by which it is to be 
 judged. (5) Sonntag, Doctrina inspirationis, 
 ej usque ratio, historia, et usus popularis, Hei- 
 delberg, 1810, 8vo. 
 
 Note 2. The teacher of religion should not 
 trouble the common people and the young with 
 the recondite investigations of ancient and mo- 
 dern theologians respecting the nature, manner, 
 and degrees of inspiration, or respecting the an- 
 cient mode of thought and expression on this 
 subject. In his public instructions he should 
 confine himself to the scriptural view of inspira- 
 tion exhibited in s. 8. He should, as Calixtus 
 and Morus have done, give prominence to the 
 truth, that the sacred writers were, by divine 
 aid, perfectly secured against error. He should 
 explain to his hearers the promises of assistance 
 which Christ gave his disciples. In doing this, 
 
 he will sufficiently establish and confirm their 
 faith. But he ought not by any means to with- 
 hold this doctrine from those whom he is ap- 
 pointed to teach, since it is a doctrine taught in 
 the Bible, and is calculated, as there exhibited, 
 to produce a deep and happy persuasion of the 
 truths of revealed religion. Nor should he at- 
 tempt to modernize this doctrine, but should 
 rather labour to restore it to its early simpli- 
 city. 
 
 SECTION XL 
 
 OF SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES OF 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 SINCE the sixteenth century, the theologians 
 of the protestant church have endeavoured to ob- 
 viate various opinions, respecting the nature and 
 use of the Bible, which appeared to them erro- 
 neous, by treating in their systems of the attri- 
 butes of the holy scriptures. Most of what they 
 say on this subject is aimed against the doc- 
 trines of the Romish church. The following are 
 the principal attributes of the Bible : 
 
 I. The Intel ligibkness of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 The protestant church has maintained from 
 the first, in opposition to the Romish, that the 
 holy scriptures are intelligible. The popes have 
 always been anxious to crush a spirit of free in- 
 quiry in the members of their church, to subject 
 belief to human authority, and to arrogate to 
 themselves a judicial power, even in matters of 
 faith. But they saw, at once, that the free use 
 of the Bible would be very much in the way of 
 the success of their designs; and therefore either 
 wholly interdicted, or at least encumbered the 
 common use of it, under the pretence that it was 
 full of obscurities, calculated to mislead or con- 
 found the faith of the laity, which ought to de- 
 pend upon tradition or ecclesiastical authority. 
 Vide Introduction, s. 7, III. and Art. I. s. 13. 
 This extravagant opinion, however, is only re- 
 ceived by the more zealous adherents of the 
 papal see, and is rarely entertained by the theo- 
 logians of the Gallican church. 
 
 On the other hand, many protestant theolo- 
 gians have entertained opinions respecting the 
 intelligibleness of the Bible which are equally 
 extravagant. The truth on this subject may, 
 perhaps, be best expressed as follows : The 
 holy scriptures are so written, that the first read- 
 ers, for whom they were especially designed, 
 could understand the greater part of them with- 
 out the necessity of laborious interpretation, and 
 that even we can ^obtain from them a clear ac- 
 quaintance with those doctrines of religion which 
 are essential to our improvement, comfort, and 
 salvation. There is no need of proving more 
 than this. The following remarks will illustrate 
 the view here expressed : 
 
72 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 1. Many parts of these books must have been 
 unavoidably obscure even to the contemporaries 
 of the sacred writers, from the nature of the sub- 
 jects of revelation. Many of the subjects 
 brought to view in the epistles of Paul were 
 hard to be understood, even at his own time, 2 
 Pet. iii. 16. And much that was written under 
 divine influence was unintelligible even to the 
 sacred writers themselves. Vide s. 9, V. But 
 as Buddeus justly observes, "alia est perspi- 
 cuitas rerum, alia verborum." 
 
 2. The writers of the Bible employed the lan- 
 guage and style which were common in the age 
 in which they lived, and understood by the 
 public for which they wrote ; they expressed 
 themselves in conformity with the modes of 
 speech and thought then prevalent: of course, 
 their writings must have been, for the most part, 
 intelligible to their contemporaries, to whom 
 they had always primary reference in what they 
 wrote. 
 
 3. But in consequence of this very circum- 
 stance, much which was then perfectly intelli- 
 gible is so no longer. Our language is wholly 
 unlike the Hebrew or Hebraistic Greek in which 
 they wrote. And our manners, customs, opi- 
 nions, and modes of thinking, are equally 
 changed. If we were able to place ourselves in 
 the circumstances and enter into the feelings of 
 the inspired authors, we should find their writ- 
 ings comparatively easy and intelligible. But 
 common Christians cannot do this ; and even the 
 most learned will find passages in the Old and 
 New Testaments which, after all their efforts, 
 will remain doubtful and obscure. If, however, 
 we set aside all passages of this nature, we shall 
 find enough left to give us a clear and sure 
 knowledge of the essential doctrines of religion. 
 These difficult and obscure passages commonly 
 have no bearing, or, at most, a very remote one, 
 upon the truths of salvation. And it is fre- 
 quently the case, that when an important doc- 
 trine or duty is expressed with apparent obscu- 
 rity in one place, it is exhibited elsewhere with 
 so much the greater clearness. Experience 
 shews, that people in common life have been 
 able to acquire, by the exercise of a sound under- 
 standing, and by the aids of the divine Spirit, a 
 fund of useful knowledge and of important prin- 
 ciples, even from very defective translations of 
 the Bible. Indeed, an illiterate man, who pos- 
 sesses a sound understanding and good charac- 
 ter* and studies the Bible without prejudice, will 
 often understand it better, and with more ease, 
 than the scholar, who first adopts his opinions 
 and then endeavours to find them in the Bible. 
 The latter looks upon all the doctrines of the 
 Bible through a discoloured medium. The holy 
 scriptures were not written for the scholar, as 
 such ; nor were they intended to afford materials 
 for speculation, but rather enjoyment for the 
 
 heart. Hence they are often misunderstood and 
 despised by those whose feelings are deadened, 
 and who have little taste for anything but spe- 
 culation. Most of the writers of the Bible were 
 themselves illiterate men, and lived in familiar 
 intercourse with common people. They there- 
 fore meet the wants of this class of society, and 
 agree with the common mode of thought and 
 expression better than the learned commonly do. 
 This consideration is overlooked by those who 
 would take the Bible from the hands of the com- 
 mon people. It is truly remarked by Thomas i 
 Kern pis, that the holy scriptures must be read 
 with the assistance of the same Spirit by which 
 they were inspired. Now this may be enjoyed 
 by all by the unlearned as well as the learned, 
 if they only sincerely wish to obtain it. 
 
 It should be remembered, too, that the very 
 difficulties and obscurities which occur in the 
 Bible have been very beneficial to the human 
 race by exercising, and of course strengthening, 
 the powers of the mind. If the scriptures were 
 so plain that all parts of them could be under- 
 stood without study, they would not furnish 
 nourishment and employment for the spirit of 
 inquiry. Lessing made the bold assertion, that 
 the human race had not been benefited so much 
 by the doctrines taught in the Bible as by the 
 inquiries and investigations to which the Bible 
 had given occasiou. 
 
 Some have attempted to prove the intelligible- 
 ness of the Bible from texts of scripture ; but an 
 opponent would not allow the testimony of a 
 writer in his own behalf to be valid proof; nor 
 do these texts (such, for example, as compare 
 scripture with a light, enlightening men, and 
 shewing them the way to true happiness, Psa. 
 xix. 8; cxix. 105) apply so much to the scrip- 
 tures themselves as to the doctrines which they 
 contain. 
 
 II. The Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 When we say the holy scriptures have an effi- 
 cacy, we use figurative language ; forthrs efficacy 
 belongs rather to the doctrines and principles 
 contained in the scriptures. Theologians have 
 been led to adopt many fine distinctions on this 
 point, by the controversies which have existed 
 respecting the means of grace. We shall con- 
 sider these distinctions in connexion with the 
 means of grace, s. 133, II. 
 
 III. The Infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 When we assert the infallibility of the holy 
 scriptures, we mean to say, that if any doctrine 
 of religion can be clearly shewn to be taught in 
 them, it must be received as true, and needs no 
 further evidence ; according to the maxim, sen- 
 sus hermeneutice verus, est etiam dogmatice verus. 
 This position is grounded on the fact, that the 
 authors of the Bible were rendered infallible by 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 73 
 
 divine influence, according to the promise of 
 Christ, John, xiv. 26. It is taken in opposition 
 to those who rely unduly upon unaided reason 
 in matters of faith; Vide Introduction, s. 7, II. 
 and s. 8, 9. But before we can prove that any 
 doctrine is taught in the holy scriptures, we 
 must be sure of the uncorruptedness of the sa- 
 cred text, and of the justice of our interpretation 
 of it; and as both of these points are sometimes 
 attended with difficulties, we cannot apply this 
 maxim to much purpose in particular cases, al- 
 though, abstractly considered, it is perfectly 
 true. 
 
 IV. The Authority of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 1. Auctoritas normativa. By this is meant 
 the authority of the Bible to bind men to believe 
 and do what it teaches and prescribes. This is 
 likewise called auctoritas canonica (petito voca- 
 bulo ex Gal. vi. 16.) Vide Morus, p. 37. This 
 authority depends upon the infallibility of the 
 scriptures, and also upon their divine origin. 
 Moreover, the writers of the New Testament re- 
 quire that every doctrine should be examined 
 by the instructions of Jesus and his apostles, 
 and should be received as obligatory, if found 
 i.o agree, but otherwise, should be rejected, 1 
 John, iv. 1, coll. 2 John, v. 10 ; Gal. i. 8. Paul 
 exhorts Timothy to hold fast the doctrines of 
 true Christianity (vyiawovtss koyot,), the sum of 
 which (urtoT'VTtcocris, what we now find in the 
 writings of the apostles) he had taught him with 
 his own mouth, 2 Tim. i. 13. Jesus himself 
 required that the doctrines which he taught 
 should be received on his mere authority, and 
 frequently brought no other proof than the sim- 
 ple assertion, 'Eyw Se te'yw vplv* He gave Ni- 
 codemus to understand that he acted very incon- 
 sistently in acknowledging his divine authority, 
 and yet questioning the truth of his assertions. 
 The question which Nicodemus asked, " How 
 can these things be 7" was indeed very natural ; 
 and the serious inquirer after truth will always 
 rejoice to have it answered. But if it cannot be 
 answered, he must be content with the mere as- 
 sertion of a teacher whose divine authority he 
 must acknowledge : he must say with respect 
 to Christ, as Pliny the younger said of a certain 
 wise man, tua mihi auctoritas pro ratione sufficit. 
 
 2. Auctoritas judicialis. By this is meant, 
 that the scriptures are the final appeal in mat- 
 ters of faith and practice. No doctrines opposed 
 to the Bible can be admitted as true by those 
 who receive it as an inspired book. Christ and 
 the apostles everywhere appeal to the Old Tes- 
 tament, and thus shew that they, and the Jews 
 generally, regarded it as divine, John, v. 39; 
 Matt. xxii. 44; Acts, xv. 15. But in applying 
 the judicial authority of scripture to particular 
 cases, everything depends upon the justice of 
 the interpretation ; arid we must frequently say, 
 
 10 
 
 that it is rather the interpreter than the scripture 
 which decides. Most theological controversies 
 owe their origin to the different interpretations 
 of the Bible ; and every theologian pleads the 
 auctoritas judicialis of scripture in behalf of his 
 own opinion, because he regards one particular 
 sense of the words as true. The question is, 
 how he proves that this sense is the true one, 
 and whether he interprets the Bible on just prin- 
 ciples 1 
 
 The text, Heb. iv. 12, 13, where the word of 
 God is said to be xprtixbs sv&v/jirfituv xai evvoiuv 
 scapSuxj, is often cited in this connexion. But 
 the phrase xoyoj &fov here signifies the divine 
 threatenings against sinners and apostates. The 
 meaning of the text is, the threatenings of God 
 relate not merely to the outward actions, but to 
 the most secret purposes of evil. 
 
 V. The Sufficiency or Completeness of the Holy 
 
 Scriptures. 
 
 1. The sufficiency of the doctrines of the Bible. 
 All the doctrines affecting the improvement, 
 comfort, and salvation of men, which were 
 taught by Jesus, the apostles, and prophets, are 
 contained in the holy scriptures, without any 
 omission. This completeness (plenitudo) of 
 the scriptures is called by Paul, Acts, xx. 27, 
 rtatsav f^ov^v tfov sou, the whole divine plan of 
 salvation. This attribute of scripture is main- 
 tained in opposition both to those who receive 
 from tradition some doctrines of faith which are 
 not found in the Bible, and to those who, under 
 the influence of enthusiasm, would make addi- 
 tions from new, pretended revelations to the doc- 
 trines really revealed. In opposition to both of 
 these classes, this attribute may be truly predi- 
 cated of the holy scriptures; for the instructions 
 which the Bible contains respecting the way of 
 real happiness here and hereafter are so com- 
 plete that we have no occasion to resort either 
 to the dark sources of tradition or the assevera- 
 tions of fanatics. But, on the other hand, when 
 we affirm the sufficiency of the scriptures we 
 must not be understood to mean that the Bible 
 is a repertory of information respecting the arts, 
 sciences, literature, and every object of human 
 knowledge. These things do not fall within 
 the scope of the sacred writers, because they do 
 not stand immediately connected with the great 
 end of man. The instructions contained in the 
 Old and New Testaments were adapted to the 
 comprehension and wants of those for whom 
 they were primarily written. But we are per- 
 mitted, according to the example of Jesus and 
 his apostles, yea, we are required, to adapt these 
 instructions to our own wants, and, by the help 
 of these scriptures, to make constant progress 
 in spiritual knowledge and experience. This 
 progress, however, must still accord with the 
 Biblo, and be regulated by the principles of 
 G 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Christianity. The Bible, from which these 
 principles are learned, must be the star by which 
 we are guided in all our advances. In this view, 
 Paul recommends the use of the Old Testament, 
 even to Christian teachers, 2 Tim. iii. 15. Vide 
 Introduction, s. 5. I. 
 
 2. The sufficiency nf (he books. This implies, 
 that our canon contains books enough to furnish 
 the Christian with all necessary knowledge of 
 the truths of religion. This cannot be proved 
 from the sacred writers themselves ; for the 
 canon must have been incomplete while any 
 one of them was as yet writing. The passage 
 Rev. xxii. 18, 19, idv m tTtt^ eV avtd, x. 4. x. 
 was formerly cited in proof of the sufficiency of 
 the books of the Bible, by Tertullian, Adv. 
 Herm. c. 22, and has since been frequently 
 called, as well as the whole book in which it 
 stands, sigillum canonis. But the prohibition 
 here expressed strictly relates only to the Apo- 
 calypse. So much, however, is beyond dispute, 
 that the great truths of salvation are repeated so 
 often in the Bible, that they might all be learned 
 from a much smaller collection of books than 
 we have at present. If therefore some part of 
 the canon should be rejected as spurious, the 
 completeness of the holy scriptures would be 
 unaffected, and the system of divine truth re- 
 main entire. 
 
 SECTION XII. 
 
 OF THE USE OF THE BIBLE AS THE SOURCE OF THE 
 DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 
 
 I. The Use of the New Testament. 
 
 FROM the remarks already made, it appears 
 that the scriptures of the New Testament are to 
 be regarded as the source from which we are to 
 derive the knowledge of the principal doctrines 
 of the Christian religion. But in deriving the 
 doctrines of Christianity from the New Testa- 
 ment, we must be governed by the following 
 considerations : 
 
 1. The authors of the New Testament had 
 their contemporaries principally in view in what 
 they wrote. Paul, for example, in his epistle 
 to the Romans, had primary and principal refer- 
 ence to the church then existing at Rome, and 
 not to the Christian church in succeeding ages. 
 These scriptures would have been very differ- 
 ently composed if they had been throughout in- 
 tended for all ages of the world. Instead of 
 containing salutations, allusions to local inte- 
 rests, and temporary disputes and errors, and a 
 disconnected view of the doctrines of revelation, 
 they would have exhibited a complete, connected 
 system of religious truth. Those texts of the 
 Bible, then, which relate merely to circum- 
 stances then existing, but never afterwards, can- 
 not be regarded as sources of Christian doctrine. 
 
 Such texts are indeed useful, in making us ac- 
 quainted with the history of the times in which 
 they were written, and in furnishing examples 
 for imitation, if similar circumstances should 
 recur ; but in themselves they have no binding 
 authority at the present time. Texts of this na- 
 ture are those in the Acts of the Apostles, and 
 in the epistles to Timothy, which relate to the 
 constitution of the apostolical church. For these 
 texts the sacred writers do not claim an univer- 
 sal and perpetual authority, still less do they 
 claim this for all parts of their writings without 
 exception, although they do distinctly for the 
 Christian doctrines which they teach. Vide 
 Introduction, s. 5, I. and s. 8, III. 3, b. 
 
 2. Since the scriptures of the New Testament 
 were originally adapted to the age in which they 
 were written, and always presuppose the oral 
 instructions which were given by the apostles, 
 we cannot expect that all the doctrines of faith 
 should be taught in them with equal fulness and 
 clearness. The slight and unfrequent mention 
 of a doctrine in our sacred writings does not 
 prove its unimportance, since the authors of the 
 Bible might have known that it was already 
 sufficiently understood and duly regarded by 
 those for whom they wrote. Nor does the fre- 
 quent and extended discussion of any subject in 
 the Bible prove its internal and lasting import- 
 ance, since the local circumstances of some 
 churches, or the character of certain individuals, 
 may have required a more repeated and urgent 
 inculcation of particular doctrines than would be 
 otherwise advisable. Thus the circumstances 
 of the church at the time when the apostles 
 wrote led them to insist more frequently and 
 strongly upon the abolition of the Mosaic insti- 
 tute than they would have done in other circum- 
 stances. 
 
 3. The case is exactly the same with the 
 manner in which the apostles taught the doc- 
 trines of religion. Their manner was adapted 
 to the conceptions, views, and capacities of their 
 contemporary hearers and readers, and is often 
 wholly inappropriate to other persons in other 
 circumstances. In bringing the instructions of 
 Christ and his apostles in proof of any doctrine 
 of religion, we must therefore, in many cases, 
 pay more regard to the truth itself which they 
 teach, than to the manner in which they illus- 
 trate it. For many of the proofs and illustra- 
 tions employed successfully by the first teachers 
 of Christianity have now lost their force and 
 evidence. It is frequently true, that those very 
 cortsiderations which must have made the 
 strongest impression on the contemporaries of 
 the apostles, are least of all convincing to us ; 
 while, on the contrary, the proofs by which we 
 are most influenced would have been scarcely 
 intelligible to them. The proofs which Jesus 
 adduced from the 01 rl Testament in behalf of 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 75 
 
 many of his doctrines wore far more convincing 
 to the Jews than the most powerful arguments 
 which could be drawn from human reason. The 
 same may be said of many of the illustrations 
 contained in the epistles to the Hebrews and 
 Galatians. The doctrines of the Bible are un- 
 alterably true, and intended for all ages of the 
 world ; but the method in which they are taught, 
 the costume in which they are invested, the ar- 
 guments by which they are proved, w 7 ere all de- 
 signed primarily for the Jews, and are therefore 
 by no means obligatory on the present teachers 
 of religion. 
 
 We may therefore affirm, that while it was 
 the design of God that religious knowledge 
 should be communicated by means of these books 
 to all the successive ages of the world, this was 
 not the design which the authors of the Bible had 
 in view, in a great portion of what they wrote. 
 But for the very reason that these sacred books 
 were designed for the good of all succeeding 
 ages, each particular portion of them could not 
 possibly be designed for each successive age. 
 What if most useful and necessary for one 
 period is not equally so for another. But we 
 should expect, that the wants of the present and 
 future would be alike provided for in the codex 
 of revelation ; and this we find to be done in the 
 Bible. Many parts of it, which seem hardly to 
 answer the demands of the present day, were 
 perfectly adequate to the wants of a former 
 period ; and the reverse : and many parts which 
 were once in the highest degree useful, and 
 have ceased to be so now, may perhaps, in after 
 times, become as useful and important as ever. 
 
 4. Those texts of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments which exhibit particular doctrines with 
 the most fulness and clearness, and are therefore 
 most frequently cited for proof or illustration, are 
 called sedes doctrinarum, dicta probantia ; more 
 frequently loca classica i.e., primaria, prsestan- 
 tissima; like aucfores classier, first used by Gel- 
 lius, XIX. 8 ; and cives classici, the name given 
 to those belonging to the first class of Roman 
 citizens, into which such only were admitted as 
 possessed a certain amount "of property, decided 
 by law. 
 
 In using these proof-texts many of the ancient 
 systems followed a kind of doctrinal or herme- 
 neutical tradition, employing such texts only as 
 had been adduced by the authors of the sym- 
 bols, who, on their part, had employed those 
 mostly which had been previously adduced by 
 the ecclesiastical fathers, and the theologians 
 of the Romish church. As the theologians of 
 former times strictly followed the doctrines of 
 the symbolical books, they were incline-d to 
 adopt the arguments and proof-texts by which 
 these doctrines were there supported. Hence 
 we find almost the same proof-texts, explained 
 in the same way, constantly recurring, with 
 
 very slight alterations in the theological sys- 
 tems, as late as the middle of the eighteenth 
 century. Some of these traditionary texts had 
 no bearing on the point which they were in- 
 tended to prove, or at best were doubtful and 
 obscure; while on the other hand, some of the 
 most direct and pertinent texts were never cited. 
 In making use of these texts we should never 
 lose sight of the above remarks. As Luther 
 well observes, we must treat the Bible cau- 
 tiously, and inquire not only whether any par- 
 ticular truth is taught in the word of God, but 
 whether it concerns us or others. " Man muss 
 mit der Schrift sauberlich handeln und fahren. 
 Man rnuss nicht allein ansehen ob es Gnues 
 wort sey; sondern vielmehr zu wem es geredet 
 sey, ob es dick treffe, oder eincn andern. Den 
 Unterschied sollen wohl merken, fassen, und 
 zu herzen nehmen die Prcdigcr, ja alle Chris- 
 ten," Luther, Unterricht wie man sich in Mosen 
 schicken soil. W T e should also carefully dis- 
 tinguish between the truth itself w r hich is taught 
 in these passages, and the manner in which 
 this truth is illustrated. 
 
 II. The Use of the Old Testament. 
 
 1. Christianity and the Jewish institute are 
 not so nearly related that they must stand or fall 
 together. It is possible that one who knew nc- 
 thing of the Jewish religion, and had never read 
 the Jewish scriptures, might believe on Jesus 
 as the Saviour of the world. And we find, ac- 
 cordingly, that when the apostles were called to 
 teach the principles of the Christian religion to 
 those who were unacquainted with Judaism, 
 they rarely alluded to the Old Testament. 
 Christ and the apostles regarded the divine re- 
 velations as gradual, and the instruction given 
 in the Old Testament as elementary, adapted to 
 the state of society while yet in the infancy of 
 improvement, and calculated to deepen the sense 
 of the higher and more spiritual wants of the 
 mind. Vide Introduction, s. 8, II. In this 
 light is Judaism regarded by Paul, who com- 
 pares the ritual of the former institute with a 
 schoolmaster (rtcuSoycoyoj) who is deserted by 
 the children, as they approach towards manhood, 
 Gal. iii. 24 ; iv. 1, 9. The books therefore con- 
 taining the principles of the Jewish religion, 
 taken by themselves, cannot be regarded as a 
 principal source of our knowledge of the Chris- 
 tian system, although they are of essential ser- 
 vice, and indeed often indispensable. They 
 are recommended in the New Testament to our 
 careful study ; but always in connexion with 
 Christian instructions. For we, as Christians, 
 are no longer bound by many things which are 
 commanded in the Old Testament; and must 
 learn from Christian instructions what these 
 things are, and why their obligation has ceased. 
 
 2. The books of the Old Testament may he 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 used for various purposes, which differ very 
 much, according to time and circumstances. 
 
 (1) Usus polemicus or elencticus. The Old 
 Testament may be employed to prove the truth 
 and divinity of the Christian religion against 
 Jews and infidels. From these ancient books 
 we can shew that the Christian institute was 
 promised and expected from the earliest times; 
 and can correct many of the mistakes which 
 have prevailed among the Jews and other 
 nations. For this purpose they were used by 
 Christ and his apostles, and sometimes in the 
 instruction even of the heathen, but more fre- 
 quently when Jews were to be convinced. We 
 may see the different method in which they 
 addressed Jews and heathen, by comparing the 
 discourses of Paul contained in the Acts, and 
 also his epistles to the Hebrews and Galatians, 
 with those to the Thessalonians. 
 
 When Christ wished to convince the Jews of 
 the truth of his religion, and the divinity of his 
 mission, he exhorted them to study their own 
 scriptures, in which he was predicted. But al- 
 though this advice of Christ was first given to 
 the Jews, it must apply in full force to all who 
 allow the authority of Christ, and acknowledge 
 that the Old Testament contains predictions re- 
 specting him. Christ thus addresses the Pha- 
 risees, (John, v. 39,) "Epswars (indicative, not 
 imperative, as many suppose) ra? ypa<j>a$, ott 
 8oxit EI> avracs cov al&viov tftv x ou 
 
 x (, v at, a iv a 
 fjuou, "Ye search the scriptures (of the Old 
 Testament), because ye suppose that ye shall 
 find in them the means of attaining salvation; 
 and these very scriptures testify of me i. e., of 
 the Messiah, the character which I sustain, and 
 of the way of salvation through me." In 2 Tim. 
 iii. 14 17, Paul distinctly states that Timothy 
 (even as a Christian and Christian teacher, verse 
 17) would find the Old Testament very useful 
 in connexion with the Christian instruction 
 which he had received (ver. 14), in acquainting 
 himself with the way of salvation (ver. 15), in 
 teaching this way to others (rtpoj 6tacrxca.cav, 
 ver. 16), and in refuting the objections of the 
 Jews and other enemies of Christianity, (rfpoj 
 tteyxov, ver. 16.) Cf. s. 8, II. 1. 2 Peter, i. 
 19, "The predictions of the Old Testament 
 respecting Christ, are now, since their fulfilment, 
 much more certain than formerly; and ye (con- 
 verts from Judaism, who are accustomed to read 
 the Jewish scriptures) will do well to attend to 
 them." In this very connexion, however, Peter 
 likens the Old Testament to a lantern, casting 
 a feeble light, when compared with the day 
 which had risen, since Christ had appeared, 
 upon those who had embraced his religion. Cf. 
 s. 8, II. 2. 
 
 Note. However imperfect the Jewish insti- 
 tute may be in comparison with the Christian, 
 
 it must not be despised or undervalued. Morus, 
 p. 24, note. It was perfectly adapted to the age 
 for which it was intended, and to the country 
 where it was established, and could not have 
 been different in any respect. It betrays a poor 
 judgment to blame a teacher for not introducing 
 into his book of elements everything which is 
 found in a complete system, or for pursuing a 
 different method in the instruction of little chil- 
 dren and advanced scholars. This, so far from 
 deserving blame, constitutes the highest merit 
 of the teacher. The instructions given by God 
 in the Old Testament are regarded in this light 
 by Christ and the apostles, and are highly es- 
 teemed as adapted to the age for which they 
 were given. Vide s. 8, II. ad finem. 
 
 (2) Usus dogmaticus and historicus. The Old 
 Testament is of use in ascertaining the doctrines 
 of Christianity, inasmuch as it is very full upon 
 many doctrines presupposed in the New Testa- 
 ment, and gives intimations on many doctrines 
 on which the latter enlarges, (a) As the primi- 
 tive Christians were for the most part native 
 Jews, they were naturally supposed to have 
 known from the Old Testament many of the 
 most important truths of religion. Accordingly 
 we find that the instructions given them in the 
 New Testament respecting the nature, attri- 
 butes, and providence of God, the creation of 
 the world, and the fall of man, are less full and 
 explicit than those contained in the Old. (>) 
 The Old Testament also contains traces, inti- 
 mations, and, as it were, the germs of many 
 doctrines which were afterwards followed out 
 and developed by Christ and the apostles. 
 This is exactly as it should be in a book of 
 elementary instruction. The Old Testament 
 pointed to the distant blessings which were 
 promised. The passages of the Old Testament 
 which treat of the Messiah, the life beyond the 
 grave, and subjects of the same kind, are useful 
 in shewing that these ideas have been brought 
 to light and developed by Christ (usus histori- 
 cus), and that all the divine revelations compose 
 one complete system. 
 
 The false opinions which were formerly en- 
 tertained respecting the use of the Old Testa- 
 ment and its relation to Christianity led many 
 writers to attribute too many Christian ideas to 
 the ancient Jewish prophets, and to carry back, 
 without any distinction of time, all the light of 
 the New Testament into the Old. That the 
 light enjoyed under the former dispensation was 
 inferior to that which Christians enjoy appears 
 from the declarations of an apostle, 2 Peter, i. 
 19, seq. ; J Pet. i. 10, seq. Christ himself says, 
 Matt. xi. 11, that among those who had been 
 born of women there had not been a greater 
 prophet than John, his precursor ; but that the 
 least who enjoyed Christian instruction, and 
 had kindled his torch by the Christian light, 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 77 
 
 was better acquainted with the peculiar doctrines 
 of the Christian religion than John. 
 
 (3) Usus hertneneuticus. As Christ and the 
 apostles were native Jews, and had their own 
 countrymen for their first hearers, they con- 
 formed, as far as they could consistently with 
 duty, to the manners and opinions, to the mode 
 of thought and expression, common among those 
 with whom they were conversant. It is there- 
 fore impossible for any one who is ignorant of 
 this prevailing mode of thought and expression 
 to understand fully their instructions. And this 
 knowledge, which is so essential to the right 
 understanding of the Christian doctrine, can be 
 obtained only from the Old Testament. The 
 service which it renders us in this respect is of 
 the greatest importance. How many mistakes 
 respecting the,doctrines of faith, and how much 
 confusion would have been avoided, if theo- 
 logians had brought to the study of the Chris- 
 tian scriptures a thorough acquaintance with the 
 Old Testament ! 
 
 (4) Usus moralis. The books of Moses, the 
 Psalms, Proverbs, and other portions of the Old 
 Testament, are full of precepts relating to the 
 wise conduct of human life, and calculated to 
 awaken religious and pious sentiments. Even 
 the historical portions of the Old Testament are 
 highly useful in this view, and should be em- 
 ployed by religious teachers, and especially the 
 teachers of youth, for the promotion of virtue 
 and piety, more than is commonly done. It was 
 the manner of Moses, and of all the ancient Jew- 
 ish teachers, to give instruction by means of 
 history a manner which is always interesting, 
 and which was imitated by the first Christian 
 teachers, who always built their instructions 
 upon the history of the Old Testament and of 
 Christ. 
 
 CAUTIONS to be observed in the use of the 
 Old Testament for moral instruction. 
 
 (a) All the precepts contained in the Old Tes- 
 tament are not of universal obligation; some of 
 them are applicable only to those living under 
 the peculiar constitution of the Jewish nation. 
 Christians commit a great mistake when they 
 apply to themselves the promises of temporal 
 good and the threatenings of temporal evil which 
 are contained in the Old Testament, but which 
 are valid only under a theocratical form of govern- 
 ment. Christians can make application to them- 
 selves of such only of these precepts as relate to 
 all men in every age. By neglecting this distinc- 
 tion, and applying to the present time what 
 has long since ceased to be valid, the teacher of 
 religion frequently draws contempt upon him- 
 self and his doctrine, and awakens unnecessary 
 suspicion of the truth of what he utters. Every 
 act of disobedience to the divine law will indeed 
 be punished, and every act of obedience reward- 
 ed. But that this will be visibly accomplished 
 
 in the present life is nowhere taught in the 
 Christian system, but rather the contrary. 
 Temporal rewards and punishments are peculiar 
 to a theocratic constitution, and ought not to 
 be expected under a different divine dispensa- 
 tion. 
 
 (6) The rudeness of the early ages, and the 
 degeneracy of the Jewish nation, called for a 
 strictness of discipline from which Christianity 
 has now released us. The spirit of Christianity 
 is in many respects essentially different from 
 that of Judaism. The latter terrified by punish- 
 ments those who were too depraved to be in- 
 fluenced by love ; the former teaches us to love 
 God as our father and benefactor, and moves us 
 by mildness and benevolence. Rom. viii. 15, 
 " Ye (true Christians) have not received (by 
 Christianity) a slavish spirit, leading you still 
 (rtcaiv, as Christians) to tremble before God; 
 but ye have a filial, c-onfiding disposition 
 (rtvzvpa vlo&aias') produced in your rninds by 
 God, under the influence of which you can sup- 
 plicate him in all circumstances as your beloved 
 Father." Cf. Heb. xii. 1824 ; Gal. iv. 14. 
 When, therefore, as Christians, we obey any 
 part of the law of Moses, or of the precepts of 
 the Old Testament, we yield this obedience, not 
 because it is required by the law of Moses or 
 the Old Testament, but partly because it is com- 
 manded by the universal moral law, and chiefly 
 because it is commanded by Christ. For Christ 
 did not come, as he himself said, to annul the 
 moral law of the Old Testament, but to fulfil and 
 enforce it, Matt. v. 17, seq. So depraved were 
 the Jews at the time of Moses, and long after- 
 wards, that he was compelled to proceed with 
 them as a teacher does with ignorant, rude, and 
 untractable pupils. The first measures which the 
 teacher takes in the education of such pupils are, 
 to separate them from others of the same charac- 
 ter with themselves, to impose compulsatory re- 
 straints, to awe them with threatenings, and to 
 make to them such sensible representations as 
 are most calculated to produce an effect. And 
 these are the measures which Moses adopted. 
 Those for whom his institute was intended were, 
 in a great measure, incapable of any higher re- 
 ligious knowledge, which was not therefore 
 given them, except in such obscure intimations 
 as were proper in elementary instructions. 
 Vide Introduction, s. 8, II. Cf. Gal. iv. 3; 
 Col. ii. 8, 20. Warburton, Divine Legation of 
 Moses. 
 
 (c) Christians ought not to adopt, without 
 some limitation, the life and example of the per- 
 sons described in the Old Testament, even of 
 those there mentioned with approbation, as mo- 
 dels for their own imitation ; for, in consequence 
 of their better instruction, Christians are now in 
 many respects far advanced beyond the best of 
 former times. In those ages of ignorance many 
 G 2 
 
78 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 things were allowed or palliated which, in this 
 period of higher illumination and improvement, 
 would be without excuse. Many events in the 
 histories of David, Samson, and others, for 
 which they might perhaps have been excul- 
 pated, cannot be adopted by Christians as mo- 
 dels for their imitation. These remarks are suf- 
 ficient to shew the necessity of caution in the 
 use of the characters of Old-Testament history, 
 in recommending moral duties, and in popular 
 instruction. Vide Joh. Aug. Wolf, Diss. duo 
 de exemplis biblicis in theologia morali caute 
 adhibendis, Lipsiae, 1786, 4to. Christian teach- 
 ers would do well to follow in this respect the 
 example of the writers of the New Testament. 
 They never deal in indiscriminate praises and 
 encomiums of the characters of the Old Testa- 
 ment, but always select those parts of their ex- 
 ample which are worthy of commendation, and 
 of the imitation of Christians ; such as the piety 
 and faith of Abraham, and others mentioned, 
 Heb. xi. 
 
 SECTION XIII. 
 
 OF THE READING OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 I. History of the Dispute respecting the Reading of 
 
 the Bible. 
 
 THAT the holy scriptures were less read by the 
 the ancient Jews and primitive Christians than 
 at the present day is beyond dispute. Books 
 were formerly very rare and costly, and the read- 
 ing public was extremely small. Even in 
 Europe it was not so large by half, a century 
 ago, as now. The great body of society, in for- 
 mer times, had little taste for reading, or indeed 
 ability, as a general thing, either to read or to 
 write. They were not therefore required, by 
 any precepts of the Bible, to read the scriptures 
 themselves. This was made the duty of the 
 teachers of religion, who were then required to 
 read the scriptures before the people. Thus the 
 sons of Levi were required to read the law of 
 Moses in the hearing of the people, Deut. xxxi. 
 
 II, 12 ; and Timothy was required to study the 
 scriptures in order to qualify himself to teach 
 others, 2 Tim. iii. 15. The passage, John, v. 
 39, is also addressed to the teachers of religion. 
 In consequence of the fact, that, in ancient times, 
 the great body of mankind received instruction 
 more by hearing than by their own reading, the 
 learner was called axpoatr^, and instruction, 
 njisir, dxojj, Rom. x. 15. 
 
 But, on the other hand, the common people 
 and the ignorant are nowhere forbidden, in the 
 Old or New Testament, to read the scriptures ; 
 but were rather encouraged to instruct them- 
 selves by their own study of the Word of God, 
 if they had sufficient leisure and ability. The 
 letters of the apostles were addressed to the 
 
 whole church, and were publicly read in the 
 hearing of all, Col. iv. 16. Now, if the apostles 
 did not fear any harm from having their epistles 
 read in public, in the hearing of all, they could 
 have no reason to apprehend danger from having 
 them perused in private. The Jews also were 
 always permitted the free use of their scriptures, 
 cf. Acts, viii. 28; nor is there a passage in all 
 the Old Testament in which this is prohibited. 
 In the early Christian church, too, the reading 
 of the Bible was universally allowed, and, in- 
 deed, encouraged and facilitated by frequent 
 versions. As early as the second century the 
 Bible had been rendered into Syriac and Latin, 
 and was accessible in these versions to as many 
 as wished to own or study them. Hieronymus 
 commends Pamphilus, " quod scripturas quoque 
 sanctas, non ad legendum tantum, sed ad haben- 
 dum tribuebat promptissime, non solum viris sed 
 etiam feminis, quas vidisset lectioni deditas," 
 Apol. I. Contra Rufnnum. Julian objected to 
 Christians, " quod mulieres puerosque pateren- 
 tur scripturas legere," Cyril. Alex. Contra Jul. 
 VI. 9. Cyprian recommended the study of the 
 Bible to Christians : " Scripturis inquam sacris 
 incumbat christianus fidelis, et ibi inveniet 
 condigna fidei spectacula," Cyprian, De Spec- 
 tac. p. 342. From all this it appears, that at 
 this period of the church the use of the holy 
 scriptures was unincumbered. Vide Walch, 
 Vom Gebrauch der hetligen Schrift unter den 
 alten Christen, Leipzig, 1779, 8vo. 
 
 At a later period the great decline of learn- 
 ing commenced. And to such a point of dark- 
 ness did western Europe arrive, that the whole 
 learning of the clergy of the middle ages often 
 consisted in their being able to read. In a state 
 of things like this, the Bible was not, of course, 
 much read by the laity, if, indeed, they were able 
 to read at all. And as the Latin version was 
 retained, although the Latin language had 
 ceased to be vernacular after the seventh centu- 
 ry, the common people became more and more 
 ignorant of its contents. 
 
 In the midst of this darkness the pope and 
 clergy established many doctrines, which were 
 as promotive of their own interests as they were 
 contrary to the Bible. These innovations and 
 errors were soon discovered and opposed by 
 some of the more intelligent and inquisitive 
 even among the laity. Hence, to take the Bible 
 from their hands was the obvious policy of the 
 clergy. Accordingly, Pope Gregory VII., of 
 the eleventh century, declared himself against 
 the free and general use of the scriptures. But 
 as many of the laity, who had obtained more 
 enlightened views from the use of the Bible, 
 opposed themselves to the designs of the pope, 
 the prohibition was repeated by Innocent III., 
 at the commencement of the thirteenth century. 
 The use of the Bible was again forbidden the 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 laity, on account of the Waldenses, by the 
 council held at Toulouse, in the year 1229. 
 Prohibemus, ne libros V. T. aut N. laicis per- 
 mittatur habere; nisi forte Psalterium vel Bre- 
 viarium pro divinis officiis ac Horas Beatae Vir- 
 ginis aliquis ex devotione habere velit; sed, ne 
 praemissos libros habeant in vulgari translations, 
 arctissime inhibemus," Concilium Tolosanum, 
 Can. XII. At a synod at Beziers, in the year 
 1233, the laity were forbidden to possess any 
 books of theology in the Latin language, and 
 both clergy and laity to possess any in the ver- 
 nacular. In the year 1338, John Wickliff was 
 declared a heretic by a synod at Oxford for pub- 
 lishing an English translation of the Bible; and 
 in the year 1408, the third synod at the same 
 place ordained, " ne quis textum aliquem ex 
 scriptura transferal in linguam Anglicanam, nisi 
 a Dioecesano vel Concilio provinciali translatio 
 approbata sit." 
 
 Still there were many among the different 
 sects, and some even of the catholic church, who 
 read the Bible for themselves. And by com- 
 paring the existing state of faith and practice 
 with the Bible, they were soon convinced of 
 the errors arid corruptions of the church. At 
 last, m the sixteenth century, Luther and the 
 Swiss reformers appeared, and restored the free 
 use of the Bible. Luther especially very much 
 promoted the general circulation of the scrip- 
 tures by his German translation, which was the 
 principal means of the Reformation. The coun- 
 cil at Trent did not now venture to renew the 
 prohibition of the Bible, and undertook only to 
 establish the Vulgate edition as alone authen- 
 tic. But afterwards, Pope Pius IV. issued an 
 Index librorum prohibitorum, in the preface to 
 which he writes, " Cum experimento manifes- 
 tutn sit si sacra Biblia vulgari lingua passim 
 sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde ob ho- 
 minum temeritatem detriment! quam utilitatis 
 oriri ; hac in parte judicio Episcopi sive Inqui- 
 sitoris stetur, ut cum consilio parochi vel Con- 
 fessarii Bibliorum a catholicis auctoribus ver- 
 sorum lectionem in vulgari lingua eis concedere 
 possint, quos intellexerunt ex hujusmodi lec- 
 tione non damnum, sed fidei atque pietatis 
 augmentum capere posse ; quam facultatem in 
 scriptis habeant. Qui autem absque tali facul- 
 tate ea legere sive habere prassumserit, nisi prius 
 Bibliis ordinario redditis, peccatorum absolu- 
 tionem percipere non possit." But even this 
 permission was afterwards limited by Clement 
 VIII., who declared that by this indulgence of 
 Pius IV., "nullam de novo tribui facultatem 
 Episcopis vel Inquisitoribus aut Regularium 
 Superioribus concedendi licentiam eraendi, 
 It'gendi, aut retinendi Biblia, vulgari lingua 
 edita, cum hactenus mandato et usu sanctse ro- 
 ittanse et universalis Inquisition! s sublata cisfuerit 
 
 facultas concedendi hujusmodi licentias legendi 
 vel retinendi Biblia vulgaria, aut alias sanctse 
 scripluras tarn Novi quam Vtteris Testa menti 
 partes, quavis vulgari lingua editas ; ac imuptr 
 summaria et compendia etiam historica eorun- 
 dem Bibliorum, sen librorum sanctae scripture, 
 quocunque vulgari idiomate conscripta , quod qui- 
 dem inviolate servandum est." And at last this 
 permission was wholly withdrawn by Gregory 
 XV., who says, " De plenitudine apostolicae po- 
 testatis et ex certa scientia, ac matura delibera- 
 tione revocamus, cassamus, et annullamus 
 omnes et singulas licentias legendi et habendi 
 biblios quoscunque prohibitos." 
 
 It is injustice, however, to the catholic church, 
 to suppose that this prohibition of the free and 
 general use of the Bible was ever universally 
 approved. There have always been theolo- 
 gians, especially in the Gallican church, who 
 have advocated the lawfulness and necessity of 
 the unlimited use of the scriptures. Paschasius 
 Quesnel published at Paris, 1687, and Brussels, 
 1702, a French translation of the New Testa- 
 ment, (Le Nouveau Testament, avec des reflex- 
 ions morales sur chaque verset,) from which a 
 hundred and one propositions were extracted at 
 the instigation of the Jesuits, and condemned by 
 the pope in the bull Unigenitus, 1713. Among" 
 these propositions were the following : " Lec- 
 tio sacra? scripturse est pro omnibus." " Ob- 
 scuritas sancti verbi Dei non est Laicis ratio 
 dispensandi se ipsos ab ejus lectione." " Abri- 
 pere e Christianorum manibus Novum Testa- 
 mentum, sive eis illud clausum tenere, auferendo 
 eis modum illud intelligendi, est illis Christi os 
 obturbare." " Interdicere Christianislectionem 
 sacrse scripturae, prasertim Evangelii, est inter- 
 dicere usum luminis filhs lucis, et facere ut pa- 
 tiantur speciem quandam excommunicationis." 
 It should be remarked, too, that the nse of the 
 Bible has never been prohibited without some 
 limitation ; so that it is not unfrequent in our 
 day for the most distinguished theologians of 
 the Romish church to advocate the general use 
 of the scriptures; while there are still many 
 Jesuites, or Exjesuites, who hold to the prohi- 
 bition of the Bible. Vide Hegelmeier, Ges- 
 chichte des Bibelverbots, Ulm, 1783, 8vo. 
 
 [Note. The following passage from the his- 
 torian Olatis Magnus, will shew on what pre- 
 tences the court of Rome has sometimes pro- 
 ceeded in forbidding the translation and circula- 
 tion of the holy scriptures. " Gregorius VII., 
 Vratislao (a Bohemian nobleman) scripsrt (2 
 Jan. 1080) ac prohibuit, ne, ut optavit, scriptura 
 sancta verteretur in linguam vulgarem ; quoniam 
 tam secreta majestas in ea est, ut difficulter 
 translate sensus secretorum Dei poterit in ea 
 postmodum deprehendi;immonunquamdevotir r 
 fieret populus, quando sciens facilitntem, in con- 
 
80 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 temptum verteret, quod in reverentiaconsueverat 
 admirari et jam in cerevisiaria taberna irrisorie 
 decantatur," Hist. Lib. XVI. c. 39. 
 
 At the time of the Reformation, the Bible was 
 translated by many catholic theologians, in order 
 to prevent the use of the " heretical" Bible by 
 the members of their communion. The New 
 Testament was translated by Hieron. Emser, 
 in 1527, and by J. Dietenberger, in 1533; and 
 the whole Bible by J. Eck, Gasp. Uhlenberg, 
 and others. 
 
 The condemnation of the maxims of Father 
 Quesnel by Clement XI. occasioned a contro- 
 versy in the catholic church, which resulted in 
 larger views respecting the use of the scriptures. 
 These views were patronised by Benedict XIII., 
 in the synod held at the palace of the Lateran, 
 and afterwards more successfully by Maria The- 
 resa and Joseph II., of Austria. 
 
 Since the commencement of the present cen- 
 tury, the Bible Society has found patrons in 
 many distinguished members of the catholic 
 church. The Archbishops of Mohileff and of 
 Gnesne sanctioned a Polish version of the scrip- 
 tures, and promoted its circulation in their dio- 
 ceses; for which, however, they were severely 
 rpprimanded by Pius VII., in his brief of June 
 29, 1816. Among the distinguished catholics 
 who have made common cause with the protes- 
 tants in the circulation of the Bible, in opposi- 
 tion both to papal authority and the active jea- 
 lousy of the Ultra-montanists, the names of Van 
 Ess, Gossner, and De Sacy, deserve to be parti- 
 cularly mentioned. In our own country, the 
 *' bishops of the church" are content with " ear- 
 nestly cautioning the laity against the indiscri- 
 minate use of the unauthorized and extremely 
 defective and erroneous versions which are 
 placed within their reach," and with recommend- 
 ing "the Douay translation from the Vulgate of 
 the Old Testament, and the Rhemish translation 
 of the New Testament." Vide Pastoral Letter 
 of the Prelates of the catholic church, Baltimore, 
 1829. 
 
 While these more liberal views are obtaining 
 in the Romish church, it is worthy of remark 
 that many protestant divines have so far desert- 
 ed the principles of the Reformation as wholly 
 to disapprove of the general reading of the 
 Bible, or at least to allow it only under very 
 narrow restrictions. Several bishops of the 
 episcopal church, both in England and America, 
 have publicly avowed their hostility to the Bible 
 Society, pretending that its exertions menaced 
 the safety of the established church. Vide 
 Christian Observer, vol. xx. p. 28. The same 
 hostility to the unrestricted use of the Bible has 
 been manifested by several German theologians. 
 Vide Lessing, Theol. Nachlass, Berlin, 1784. 
 J. G. Becker, Tract, ad quaestionem, utrum lec- 
 tio literarum sacra? scripturae omnibus ornnino 
 
 Christianis, maxirne imperitae multitudini, valde 
 sit commendanda, Rostochii, 1793, 4to. Voigt- 
 lander, Die Bibel kein Erbauungsbuch, in the 
 Predigerjournal fur Sachsen, November, 1809. 
 Voeckler, De eo, an bene actum sit, scripta Ve- 
 teris et Novi Testarnenti omnia ac singula cum 
 imperitorurn multitudine communicandi, Lipsiae, 
 1823, 8vo. Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch des christ. 
 Glaubens, Leipzig, 1828.] 
 
 II. How may the Bible be best adapted to common 
 use ? 
 
 It appears from the preceding historical sketch 
 that religion has always suffered from the prohi- 
 bition or restriction of the use of the scriptures ; 
 and, on the contrary, has always gained from 
 their free and unrestricted use. To establish 
 this declaration, we need only appeal to the time 
 of the Reformation. The most direct way to 
 render Christianity obsolete is to take the Bible 
 from the hands of the common people. And 
 already have we begun to experience the evils 
 resulting from the efforts of some modern teach- 
 ers to banish the reading of the scriptures, espe- 
 cially of the Old Testament, from our schools, 
 or at least to diminish the degree of attention 
 formerly paid to them. 
 
 But however useful the simple perusal of the 
 scriptures in the common method may be to 
 common people of no education, it may doubt- 
 less be rendered in different ways more useful 
 and less objectionable. The following are the 
 principal methods adopted to promote the gene- 
 ral utility of the Bible: 
 
 1. New translations. Before the perusal of 
 the scriptures can be instructive and edifying to 
 the common people, they must be able to obtain 
 clear and definite conceptions of what they read ; 
 and they can do this only by means of good and 
 intelligible translations. It were, indeed, desir- 
 able that the established version, which has a 
 classical authority with the great body of society, 
 should be gradually improved, if circumstances 
 were such as to allow this to be done. Consi- 
 dering the period at which this version was 
 made, it is a masterpiece in its kind, and is in 
 many respects worthy of the study and imitation 
 of the modern translator. But since that period 
 we have made great advances in the art of inter- 
 pretation, and have many exegetical helps, which 
 were not then enjoyed. Our language, too, has 
 undergone great alterations since this translation 
 was written ; and many of the words and phrases 
 which are used in it, and which were then com- 
 mon, are now obsolete and unintelligible; but 
 the period has not yet arrived, either for intro- 
 ducing a new version into the protestant church, 
 or for making considerable improvements in the 
 one now established. Indeed, to attempt this 
 at the present crisis of the affairs of religion, and 
 while opposing sects are inflamed with such a 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 81 
 
 zeal against each other, would be extremely dan- 
 gerous. In these circumstances we could hardly 
 expect that any one plan of improvement would 
 gain the assent of all parties. Since, therefore, 
 neither a new version can at present be author- 
 ized, nor any considerable improvements be 
 made in the old, we can do nothing better to 
 excite the interest and enlist the feelings of the 
 common people in the reading of the Bible, than 
 to recommend to them new translations and 
 practical expositions, to be used in connexion 
 with the established version. 
 
 2. Allegorical interpretation and compends. 
 Every part of the Bible was not intended for all 
 ages or for all classes of readers. Considerable 
 portions both of the Old and New Testaments 
 have no immediate connexion with the Christian 
 religion and the truths of salvation, and contri- 
 bute little to the instruction and edification of 
 believers, and are therefore of service merely to 
 the scholar. Vide s. 12. In order now to ren- 
 der the reading of the scriptures truly profitable 
 to common people, and to save them from wast- 
 ing their time upon subjects which lie beyond 
 their sphere, and from which they can derive no 
 profit, their attention should be directed to such 
 passages as exhibit the great truths of Christian 
 faith and practice, and especially to the instruc- 
 tive narratives of the Bible. The inconveni- 
 ences resulting to the greater portion of readers 
 from the indiscriminate and unaided perusal 
 of the Bible, and the necessity of doing some- 
 thing to adapt it better to their spiritual profit, 
 have been for a long time perceived and felt ; 
 and, accordingly, two methods have been taken 
 to obviate these inconveniences, and to render 
 the perusal of the Bible more useful to common 
 readers. 
 
 (a) A mystical and allegorical mode of inter- 
 pretation has been applied to the historical parts 
 of the Old Testament, and to other parts of the 
 Bible, which have no immediate bearing on the 
 doctrines of salvation, or the moral improvement 
 of men ; and in this way a new sense has been 
 ascribed to these passages better calculated to 
 instruct and edify. This method was formerly 
 adopted by Philo and other Jews, who were fol- 
 lowed in this respect by many of the Christian 
 fathers, especially by Clemens of Alexandria, 
 Origen, and others of the Egyptian church. 
 This method has also been adopted in modern 
 times. It has doubtless been the means of good 
 in some former periods, and to certain classes of 
 readers ; but it involves so many inconveniences, 
 and gives occasion to so many errors, that the 
 revival of it at the present day can hardly seem 
 desirable. It has lately, however, though under 
 fie different name of moral interpretation, re- 
 ceived the sanction of Kant. Vide Nosselt, 
 Progr. Animadversiones in sensurn sacrorum 
 librorum moralem, Halle, 1795. 
 11 
 
 [Note. Those who apply this mode of inter- 
 pretation suppose that every passage of the Bible 
 contains a concealed, spiritual, and higher sense, 
 either in connexion with or under its literal and 
 grammatical sense; and that the Holy Ghost 
 thus gave two or more senses to the words 
 which he inspired. The catholic church held 
 to a fourfold sense of the Bible viz., (1) GRAM- 
 MATICUS, (2) MYSTICUS, subdivided into (a) 
 tropologicus, s.moralis (1 Cor. ix. 8, seq.), (6) 
 allegoricus (Gal. iv. 21, seq.), (c) anagogicus. 
 This theory of catholic hermeneutics was ex- 
 pressed in the following distich : 
 
 Litera gesta docet; quid credas, allegoria; 
 Moralis, quid agas ; quid speres, anagogia. 
 
 Tirinus, a Jesuit, thus writes : " Sub unis, 
 iisdemque sacrae scripturae verbis, praeter sensum 
 literalem, primario a spiritu sancto intentum, 
 latere subinde etiam alium, sensum mysticum 
 sive spiritualem, secundario a spiritu sancto in- 
 tentum, patet ex John, iii. 14, ubi per exalta- 
 tionem serpentis Mosaici, Christus suam cruci- 
 fixionem ; ex Matt. xii. 20, ubi per occultationem 
 Jonas in venire celi, suam sepulturam desig- 
 nat," &c. 
 
 In opposition to this, Sam. Maresius, of the 
 reformed church, writes " Absit a nobis ut 
 Deum faciamus StyTuo-rYov, aut multiplices sen- 
 sus affingamus ipsius verbo, in quo potius, tam- 
 quam in speculo limpidissimo, sui autoris sim- 
 plicitatem contemplari debemus, Ps. xii. 6 ; xix. 
 8. Unicus ergo sensus scripturoe nempe gram- 
 maticus, est admittendus, quibuscunque demurn 
 terminis, vel propriis vel tropicis et figuratis ex- 
 primatur. Sed cum res illo sensu grammatieo 
 expressae, (sunt enim verba rerum imagines) 
 saepe sint typicee, hinc fit, ut sensus ille unicus 
 et simplex debeat extendi non solurn ad typtiin, 
 sed etiam ad prototypum,cui praefigurando typus 
 ille a Deo destinatur ; quo spectant pleraque ex- 
 empla hie Tirino citata, et in quibus sensum 
 hactenus mysticum agnoscimus, qnatenus res 
 ipsae mysticam habuerunt significationem." 
 
 Such was the opinion of the reformers, and 
 of most of the older evangelical theologians; 
 but Musaeus, Calovius, Quenstedt, Hollaz, Car- 
 povius, Mosheim, and others, contended for a 
 mystical sense, besides the literal sense disco- 
 vered and determined by the usus loquendi and 
 the context. By this mystical sense they meant, 
 however, only a spiritual application of the lite- 
 ral sense. On the contrary, Baier, Buddeus, 
 Baumgarten, and others, maintained that this 
 spiritual, hidden, second, remote, sense of the 
 scriptures was the one intended by the Holy 
 Spirit. In later times, Dr. Olshausen distin- 
 guishes between the literal sense of the Bible 
 and a deeper sense (vrtovoia, Untersinn), which 
 he calls spiritual. Vide Olshausen, Ein Wort 
 iiber tiefern Schriftsinn, Konigsberg, 1824, 8vo. 
 
82 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Hahn, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, 
 Leipzig, 1828.] 
 
 (6) Another means of rendering the Bible 
 more useful to all classes of people a means 
 far better than the former, and more adapted to 
 the present lime, is that of making compends, 
 containing the most important, instructive, and 
 practical portions of the scriptures. The idea 
 of making extracts from the Bible is not of re- 
 cent origin. Soon after the Babylonian exile, 
 the Jews made selections from the various his- 
 torical works of their prophets. The books of 
 Kings, Chronicles, &c., are compends, com- 
 posed from larger historical works therein 
 named. Compends of the same kind were early 
 attempted among Christians. According to 
 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. IV. 26, Melito of Sardis, 
 in the third century, composed a Synopsis Vete- 
 ris Testamenti, which, however, is now lost. 
 And we learn from a catalogue of the writings 
 of Augustine, given by Possidonius, an African 
 bishop of the fifth century, and a disciple of 
 Augustine, that he also made a selection of such 
 portions of the Old Testament as were interest- 
 ing and instructive to Christians, to which he 
 gives the title of Speculum. 
 
 These compends of the scriptures may be 
 constructed on different plans, according to the 
 various ends for which they are composed. 
 But we are speaking here of that kind only 
 which is intended for the instruction and edifi- 
 cation of the common people and of the young. 
 During the last twenty or thirty years many 
 compends of this nature have been composed in 
 the protestant church. Some theologians of 
 that party which would banish from religion 
 everything positive have made use of this method, 
 in order to give a direction to the religious in- 
 struction of the common people and of the young, 
 conformably to their own maxima. They have 
 selected such portions only of the Bible as incul- 
 cate the truths of natural religion, or exhibit the 
 the general precepts of morality, and have either 
 wholly omitted or very slightly noticed the posi- 
 tive doctrines of the Christian faith. Many of 
 them have gone so far as to insist that such com- 
 pends should be used in the schools instead of 
 the Bible, and have boldly declared that they 
 might be made gradually to supersede wholly 
 
 the original scriptures ; as in very many cases 
 the extracts made from a work have led to an 
 entire neglect of the original from which they 
 were taken. 
 
 If we consider these abuses, and the present 
 very doubtful tendency of this method, we can- 
 not deny that there are weighty objections to 
 the regular use of compends of the Bible in po- 
 pular religious instruction. Indeed, Eichhorn 
 (Bibl. der bibl. Lit. Th. I. s. 828, f.) and 
 many other neologists have declared themselves 
 against this method. 
 
 If, however, these compends are properly 
 constructed and rightly used they may be very 
 useful. In order to avoid the mistakes just men- 
 tioned, and to answer the ends for which these 
 selections should be designed, they should be 
 composed in view of the following considera- 
 tions : (1) The author of the compendium and the 
 teachers who use it must carefully guard against 
 the appearance of undervaluing the Bible itself, 
 or of wishing to supersede it by their selections. 
 (2) They must rather labour to prepare those 
 whom they teach by means of these extracts to 
 read the Bible itself with understanding and 
 profit. In short, a compend of the Bible should 
 be made a practical introduction to the Bible 
 itself, and should be calculated to awaken the 
 desire of reading the original from which it is 
 taken. (4) The historical portions of the Bible 
 should be carefully retained, and the attention 
 of the reader should be directed to their practi- 
 cal use. (5) The author should especially la- 
 bour to render everything clear and intelligible, 
 preserving, however, as far as may be, the lan- 
 guage of the Bible itself, and indeed, for the 
 most part, that of the authorized version, to 
 which the readers have been accustomed from 
 their youth. Cf. Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk 
 der gottlichen Weisheit, Th. II. s. 737. Some 
 of the best compends are those of Trinius, 
 Bahrdt, Seiler, Hufnagel, Schneider, Treumann, 
 Risler, and others mentioned in Noesselt's Bu- 
 cherkenntniss. One of the latest compends is 
 that of Zerrenner, which, however, does not 
 answer all the conditions above stated. The 
 student will find a number of essays for and 
 against compends of the Bible in some of the 
 volumes of the Predigerjournal. 
 
BOOK I. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF GOD 
 
 (83) 
 
THIS Book comprises what may be called theology in the strict sense of the 
 term. The several doctrines belonging to it will be considered in the following 
 order : 
 
 PART I. 
 
 OF THE NATURE* AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 
 
 1. Of the existence and the notion of God Art. II. 
 
 2. Of the nature and attributes of God Art. III. 
 
 3. Of the doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Art. IV. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 OF THE WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 1. Of the creation of the world : 
 
 (a) The creation of the world in general, and of the earth . . Art. V. 
 
 (6) The creation, and original condition of man Art. VI. 
 
 (c) The doctrine of angels Art. VII. 
 
 2. Of Divine Providence and the preservation of the world .... Art. VIII. 
 
 (84) 
 
BOOK I 
 
 DOCTRINE OF GOD 
 
 PART I. NA1JRE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 OF THE EXISTENCE AND THE NOTION OF GOD. 
 
 SECTION XIV. 
 
 OF THE NOTION OF GOD. 
 
 I. Can God be defined? 
 
 O this question, which was 
 frequently asked by the 
 schoolmen, some writers 
 have returned a negative 
 answer, for the reason that 
 no definition can perfectly 
 exhaust the idea in ques- 
 tion. And if the definition of a thipg 
 must necessarily contain a complete de- 
 scription of its whole nature and all 
 its attributes, a definition of God is 
 indeed impossible. But all which is 
 necessary in a definition is, that it should give 
 us so many of the characteristics of the thing de- 
 fined as to enable us to distinguish it from all 
 other things. And in this sense God can cer- 
 tainly be defined. 
 
 II. What is the best definition of God ? 
 
 The difference between the various defini- j 
 tions which philosophers have given of God is, j 
 for the most part, merely verbal. Some of the j 
 metaphysical definitions are obscure and other- \ 
 wise objectionable. This is the case with the ' 
 definition given by Wolf: "God is a self-ex- ! 
 istent being, in whom the ground of the reality j 
 of the world is to be found," or, ".God is a | 
 being who has the ground of his existence in 
 himself." Others define God to be an inde- 
 pendent being, or an independent spirit, or an 
 infinite, necessary, eternal being. By these 
 definitions, which enumerate particular divine 
 attributes, God is distinguished from all other 
 
 beings. As a general thing, all the divine at- 
 tributes may be derived by inference from any 
 one ; which may, therefore, be made the ground 
 of the definition of the Divine Being. This 
 was done by the ancient philosophers, who de- 
 fined God to be Ttdvtuv atVtov, to OVT'COJ oi>, ovoia> 
 
 But the best definition of God the one in 
 which all the others are comprehended is the 
 following : God is the most perfect being, and is 
 the cause of all other beings, (a) The first 
 clause of this definition is comprehensive of all 
 the particular attributes by which God is dis- 
 tinguished from other beings, such as eternity, 
 necessity, independence, freedom, and perfec- 
 tion of will, &c. This definition may be ex- 
 pressed in more popular and scriptural lan- 
 guage, by saying, God is the Supreme Being, 
 the Most High (itywr'os), exalted over all, to 
 whom none can be compared. (&) The second 
 clause of this definition is added, because the 
 contemplation of all other beings, the aggregate 
 of which is the world, facilitates the knowledge 
 of this most perfect being by rendering it obvi- 
 ous that no other beings possess all the perfec- 
 tions which are united in him. In this view, 
 God is regarded not only as he is in himself, 
 but also in relation to other existing things. 
 But Kant has pronounced this definition of God, 
 and all the common definitions, defective, be- 
 cause they make no express mention of moral 
 perfection, which, in the description of a being 
 like God, should be far more prominent than 
 mere metaphysical perfection. He would there- 
 fore connect with the idea of the most perfect 
 being that of a/ree being, provided with a pure 
 moral will. But the latter idea being implied 
 in the former does not require to be expressly 
 mentioned in a general definition. 
 
 But the first clause of the definition above 
 given, however intelligible it may be to the 
 learned, who are accustomed to abstract ideas, 
 is too transcendental and metaphysical for an- 
 
86 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 educated people. And as the principal part of our 
 knowledge of God is derived from the contem- 
 plation of the natural world, and the conclusions 
 to which we arrive from this contemplation ; the 
 second clause of this definition will be far more 
 generally intelligible than the first. In popular 
 instruction we should therefore define God to be 
 the creator, preserver, and governor of all things ; 
 for we always conceive of God principally in 
 relation to ourselves and the world around us, 
 and without the contemplation of the world we 
 should not have come to the knowledge of God 
 as the most perfect being ; so that the first part 
 of the definition is a consequence of the last. 
 
 This is the light in which God is presented 
 to us in the Bible, Gen. i. 1 ; Jer. x. 10 16; 
 Amos, v. 8 ; Acts, xvii. 24, coll. Psalm clxvi. 
 6 ; Isa. xlii. 5 ; xlv. 6, seq. ; Matt. xi. 25. Vide 
 Morus, p. 44. And this, too, is the view of God 
 which is most calculated to inspire the minds 
 of men with reverence for his character, which 
 is the great object of all religious instruction. 
 Vide Morus, pages 43, 44. 
 
 SECTION XV. 
 
 OF THE PROOFS OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 
 
 I. Statement of the Proofs of the Existence of God. 
 
 THE belief in the divine existence is always 
 presupposed in the Bible, and the truth of this 
 belief is not, therefore, formally proved, although 
 it is supported by many convincing arguments, 
 Rom. i. 19. On this account Baier and some 
 other theologians contended that the divine ex- 
 istence should be presupposed in Christian theo- 
 logy, and that the proofs of it should be wholly 
 omitted ; and it must be confessed that the full 
 and scientific statement of these proofs belongs 
 rather to metaphysics and natural theology than 
 here. The proofs of the divine existence may 
 be divided into two principal classes. 
 
 1. Proofs a priori. The most celebrated of 
 these is that derived from THE IDEA of the most 
 perfect being, and called the ontological or Carte- 
 sian proof. It was first used by Auselmus, and 
 often repeated by the schoolmen who succeeded 
 him, and only renewed by Des Cartes. It was 
 afterwards improved by Leibnitz, Wolf, and 
 Baumgarten. It may be briefly stated thus : 
 The most perfect being is possible, and therefore 
 actually exists , for existence is a reality or perfec- 
 tion, and necessary existence is the highest perfec- 
 tion. Consequently necessary existence must be 
 predicated of the most perfect being. The vali- 
 dity of this argument was disputed by the monk 
 Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselmus, and by 
 many others in succeeding ages. In modern 
 times it has at last been proved by Kant to be 
 entirely futile. The mere supposableness or 
 logical possibility of a perfect being is no proof 
 
 of the objective or real possibility of such a 
 being; and existence cannot be inferred from a 
 mere idea. This proof a priori entirely sur- 
 passes the comprehension of common minds. 
 
 2. Proofs a posteriori, or from experience. 
 
 (a) From the contingency of the world. We 
 perceive a constant motion and change in the 
 objects around us, from which we conclude that 
 they are contingent. These contingent things 
 must have some ground for their existence and 
 change extrinsic to themselves. And this 
 ground must be a necessary being, one who has 
 the ground of his existence in himself; and this 
 being is God. Otherwise we must make the 
 absurd supposition that effects exist without 
 their causes, or that there is an infinite series of 
 contingent causes (progressum causarum in infi- 
 nitum), which is equally absurd. This proof, 
 when stated in connexion with others, and espe- 
 cially with the moral proof, is well calculated 
 to produce conviction. The Bible frequently 
 contrasts the eternity and immutability of God 
 with the perishable nature of the material world, 
 Psalm xc.; cii. 2628; Heb. i. 10, seq. And 
 this proof, when exhibited in this way, is highly 
 adapted to produce impression even on the com- 
 mon mind. [It is commonly called the cosmolo- 
 gical proof.] 
 
 Note. This argument, in its scientific form 
 and development, has been ascribed by many, 
 from their ignorance of ancient philosophy, to 
 Thomas Aquinas. It was used, however, by 
 Carneades in opposition to the stoics, who 
 ascribed divinity to the world ; accwding to the 
 testimony of Cicero, De Natura Deor. III. 12. 
 It was also used by many of the ecclesiastical 
 fathers. Vide Petavius, Dogm. Theol. 1. i. 
 c. 2. 
 
 (&) The proofs from final causes. These may 
 be stated in a very popular and intelligible man- 
 ner, and are therefore best adapted to the instruc- 
 tion of the common people and of the young. 
 They are called by the schoolmen argumenta 
 physica. In these, however, the proof from the 
 contingency of the world is presupposed. The 
 argument stands thus: If the things of the 
 world stand connected as means and ends, and 
 follow one after another in this relation, they 
 must be ordered by an intelligence, a being of 
 reason and supreme wisdom. Now the things 
 of the world are found actually to exist in this 
 relation and order, so that we are compelled to 
 believe that the world has sprung from an intel- ' 
 ligent author. 
 
 The full evidence of this conclusion depends 
 upon the following particulars. (1) The world 
 exhibits the most astonishing marks of order, 
 perfection, and design. Although we are unable 
 to survey the boundless extent of the universe, 
 we find abundant proof of this in the animate 
 and inanimate creation which surrounds us. 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 87 
 
 (2) The order and design exhibited in the world 
 are not the effect of blind chance. This cannot 
 ^e supposed without contradicting the most fun- 
 damental principles of the human mind. (3) 
 This order, so observable in the material crea- 
 tion, is contingent. We may be very easily 
 satisfied that it does not result from anything 
 existing in the world itself. From all this we 
 conclude that the order exhibited in the material 
 world must have a ground beyond the world 
 itself; and that the author of the visible creation 
 must be an intelligent being, who proposes to 
 himself certain ends to be attained in the produc- 
 tion and wise arrangement of contingent things. 
 
 The science by which we attain the know- 
 ledge of the existence and attributes qf the Di- 
 vine Being from the wisdom displayed in the 
 constitution of the natural world, is called phy- 
 sico-theology ^ and that which develops the ends 
 or final causes of this constitution, teleology. 
 [Hence this proof of the divine existence is com- 
 monly called the physico-theological or teleolo- 
 gical. 
 
 This argument, so well adapted to common 
 apprehension, was employed more frequently 
 than any other by the ancient writers. Cf. 
 Xenophon, Memorabilia, I. 4. IV. 3. Plato, 
 De Legg. X. 68. XII. 229. Galen, De.usu 
 partiurn. Philebus, 244. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 
 II. 2, 38, seq. Quaest. Tusc. I. 28, 29. It was 
 likewise often employed by the Christian fa- 
 thers. Vide Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 28. 
 Gregory of Nyssa, De opificio hominis. Lac- 
 tantius, De opificio hominis. Theophilus, Ad 
 Autolychum, I. 23. Cf. Athanasius, John of 
 Damascus, and others. The best modern 
 writers on the general subject of physico-theo- 
 logy are, Fenelon, Van Nieuwentyt, Derham, 
 Wolf, Scheuchzer, Bonnet, and Sander. Par- 
 ticular branches of physico-theology have also 
 been frequently laboured in modern times. 
 Cf. Frabicius, Hydrotheologie. Lesser, Litho- 
 theologie. Derham, Astrotheologie. Bode, An- 
 leitung zur Kenntniss des gesternten Himmels. 
 Reimarus, Ueber die Triebe der Thiere. Lesser, 
 Insektotheologie, &c. This general argument 
 is often exhibited in the holy scriptures. Vide 
 Ps. viii. xix. civ.; Is. xl. 21 26; Job, xxxvii. 
 xli. ; Matt. vi. 25, seq. ; Acts, xiv. 15, seq. xvii. 
 2428 ; Rom. i. 19. 
 
 (c) The moral argument, lately elucidated by 
 Kant. Vide No. II. 
 
 (f/) The historical proof, drawn from the 
 agreement of all, even the most uncultivated 
 nations, in the belief of the divine existence. 
 Against this proof it has been objected, (1) that 
 the fact of this agreement could not be satisfac- 
 torily proved from history ; vide Introduction, 
 s. 4 ; (2) that this agreement, even if it could 
 be satisfactorily established, would not prove 
 this belief to be true ; since many acknowledged 
 
 errors and superstitions have been universally 
 believed. But notwithstanding these objec- 
 tions, this almost universal agreement of men 
 with regard to the divine existence must be ac- 
 knowledged to furnish an argument of some 
 weight. It shews that the common sense of 
 mankind, on a little reflection, leads to the idea 
 of God, and that the conclusion from these ef- 
 fects to such a cause is very obvious and natu- 
 ral to the human mind. Acts, xvii. 27. It 
 should be here remarked, however, that the be- 
 lief of the divine existence precedes the know- 
 ledge of any theoretic proof of it. Vide Intro- 
 duction, s. 4, and infra No. II. 
 
 [This argument was used by the ancient phi- 
 losophers. ttdvt$ ai^pcoTtot rtepi ytewv t%ovow 
 j Aristotle, De Casio, I. 3. "Ajtavtss 
 a%obv "EM-Jpfj is xau )3apj3apot, vofii- 
 v(M to &iov, Sextus Empiricus, Adv. 
 Mathern. I. 8. The same writer mentions as 
 one of four proofs of the divine existence, % 
 Ttapa jtdaiv di^pcortotj oiyz^wWa, Adv. Mathem. 
 IX. 60. 'Ev |3apj3apot$ ovdst,$ tali tov ^tovayvowv, 
 Maximus Tyrius, Dissert. 38. Cf. Cicero, De 
 Nat. Deor. I. 17, 23. Seneca, Epist. 117. 
 
 (e) The proof of the divine existence from 
 miracles. The miracles recorded in the Old and 
 New Testaments must have afforded to those 
 who saw them irresistible proof of the existence 
 and perfections of God. They were accordingly 
 employed by Moses, and the other ancient pro- 
 phets, to convince the Jews and Egpytians not 
 only that God existed, but that Jehovah was 
 the only true and the almighty sovereign of the 
 universe. And these miracles are calculated to 
 produce the same conviction in us, although we 
 have not seen them with our own eyes, if we 
 believe the truth of the Bible in which they are 
 recorded. Vide Storr and Flatt, Elements of 
 Biblical Theology, vol. i. p. 309, of the trans- 
 lation. 
 
 II. Observations on the Use of the Proof of the 
 Divine Existence. 
 
 1. The proofs of the divine existence have 
 been the subject of much controversy among 
 the philosophers of modern times. Kant has 
 endeavoured to shew, in his Kritik der reinen 
 Vernunft, der Urtheilskraft, and other works, 
 that all the theoretic proofs of the divine exist- 
 ence are imperfect, and that we do not hold the 
 notion of God to be true on the ground of spe- 
 culative reason, but because it perfectly agrees 
 with the principles of our moral nature. And 
 he would therefore have our belief in the exist- 
 ence of God to depend solely upon the moral 
 proof, which may be briefly stated as follows : 
 There is a moral order of things in the world, 
 all things are connected together as means for 
 the attainment of moral ends. To this moral 
 order we ourselves belong, as we learn from the 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 moral feeling which we all possess, and which 
 is exerted in the conscience. Now we are led 
 by our practical reason to conclude, that there 
 exists some cause, by which alone this order 
 could be established i. e., that there is a God. 
 Vide Jacobi, Priifung der Mendelssohn'schen 
 Morgenstunden, oder aller speculativen Be- 
 weise fur das Daseyn Gottes, Leipzig, 1786, 
 8vo. Cf. Jacobi, Ueber den moralischen Be- 
 weis vom Daseyn Gottes, Libau, 1791, 8vo. 
 
 [This argument will be placed in a clearer 
 light by the following passage from Kant him- 
 self. "The highest good of man consists of 
 two parts, the greatest possible morality and 
 happiness. The former is the demand of his 
 spiritual, the latter of his animal nature. The 
 former only, his morality, is within his own 
 power; and while, by persevering virtue, he 
 makes this his personal character, he is often 
 compelled to sacrifice his happiness. But since 
 the desire of happiness is neither irrational nor 
 unnatural, he justly concludes, either that there 
 is a supreme being who will so guide the course 
 of things (the natural world not of itself subject 
 to moral laws) as to render his holiness and 
 happiness equal, or that the dictates of his con- 
 science are unjust and irrational. But the lat- 
 ter supposition is morally impossible ; and he is 
 compelled, therefore, to receive the former as 
 true." Kritik der reinen Vernunft, s. 620, f.] 
 
 2. An impartial examination of this contro- 
 versy leads us to the following general re- 
 sult: 
 
 (a) The metaphysical proofs of the divine 
 existence are imperfect, as well as all proofs of 
 this nature, to whatever subject they may relate. 
 But they are not requisite for the establishment 
 of our faith. If we should begin with the prin- 
 ciple of believing only what we could prove on 
 speculative grounds, we should end with doubt- 
 ing many of the most established truths, and our 
 own existence among the rest. The demonstra- 
 tion which Spinoza has given of pantheism is 
 inconclusive, because it is founded on merely 
 speculative grounds, as Kant has shewn beyond 
 all dispute. The person who hopes to attain to 
 certainty in the way of metaphysical speculation, 
 will be disappointed, and will fall into the depths 
 of cheerless scepticism. 
 
 (6) It is an established fact, that all who be- 
 lieve in the divine existence, are convinced of it 
 before they come to the knowledge of any theo- 
 retic argument by which it might be proved. 
 Men in general admit the idea of God to be true, 
 because it perfectly agrees with the principles 
 of their moral nature, and is demanded by these 
 principles; and not because it is proved by spe- 
 culative reason. Vide Introduction, s. 4. 
 
 (c) This moral proof is therefore very true 
 a 1 just; and we shall do well if we search for 
 the grounds of it in our own minds, in order to 
 
 establish our own personal conviction. This 
 proof should likewise be used, divested however 
 of technical language, in popular instruction; 
 for so it is actually employed in the holy scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 (d) As soon, however, as the speculative rea- 
 son is awakened, and in some measure culti- 
 vated, the mind, agreeably to its nature and its 
 usual course, searches for the theoretic proofs 
 of the same truths with which it had become 
 previously acquainted from practical reason. 
 But the man deceives himself who supposes that 
 these theoretic proofs alone would have ever led 
 him to conviction. They are not, however, by 
 any means to be rejected ; since they result di- 
 rectly from the very constitution of the specula- 
 tive reason, and serve to confirm our belief in 
 truths which were before made known to us in 
 another way. If with these views we find im- 
 perfection and inconclusiveness in these theoretic 
 proofs, we shall not be wavered in our faith, 
 knowing that it depends upon other grounds 
 than these. In connexion, therefore, with the 
 moral proof, the physico-theological and teleolo- 
 gical should also be used. What God, the au- 
 thor of our nature, has joined together in the 
 very constitution which he has given us, let not 
 the philosopher or religious teacher put asunder. 
 
 3. The use to be made of these remarks in 
 popular instruction. If the human mind comes 
 to the knowledge of God in the manner just 
 described, we must conform ourselves in our in- 
 structions to this natural progress, if we would 
 compass our object. In so doing, we shall fol- 
 low the example of the sacred writers, who al- 
 ways proceed in this way. We must accord- 
 ingly inculcate upon our hearers the truth, that 
 the conscience of man is the ground of all our 
 knowledge of God, and the source of all true 
 religion. Every man has a law within his own 
 bosom, by which he judges his feelings, actions, 
 and his whole moral character. This law com- 
 mands his obedience so imperatively, that he is 
 compelled to regard it as the standard, to which 
 alone his conduct must be brought, and where 
 it must be tried independently of human opi- 
 nions. And he acquits or condemns himself, 
 according to this law, as if he stood before a ju- 
 dicial tribunal, Rom. ii. 12 16; Acts, xvii. 
 2731 ; Rom. i. 19, 20, 32 ; Cf. Introduction, 
 s. 4. Now when a person acknowledges this 
 law, he at the same time acknowledges, that 
 there is an invisible lawgiver and judge, who 
 annexes rewards to what is morally good, and 
 punishment to what is morally evil, to whom 
 therefore homage and obedience is due from us 
 his subjects. Vide loc. sup. cit. In this way 
 does man come to the knowledge of a moral 
 order of things, to which he himself is conscious 
 of belonging in the nobler portion of his nature, 
 and from which he cannot but infer the exist- 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 ence of a cause upon which this order de- 
 pends i. e., of a free and moral being. In 
 short, the conscience of man distinctly utters the 
 voice of an invisible and supreme judge of our 
 thoughts and actions. 
 
 But we do not stop at this point. Though 
 this judge of our hearts is invisible, he is yet the 
 object of our knowledge. His existence is made 
 known to us by his works, which we see with 
 our eyes, and perceive by all our bodily senses, 
 (voovptva, 3ecoparat, Rom. i. 20 ;) for as long as 
 the world exists (drto xtlotus xoopov} we may 
 find proof of the divine existence, and revelation 
 of the divine attributes, in the works of his hand. 
 Here, then, according to the example of the sa- 
 cred writers, we may introduce the proofs from 
 the contingency of the world, arid the marks of 
 design which it exhibits,, in all their force. 
 
 If we impart religious instruction in this man- 
 ner, we shall proceed both psychologically and 
 scripturally ; for conscience within, and nature 
 without us, furnish a twofold source of the know- 
 ledge of God. But if we follow the example of 
 the Bible, we shall connect with these truths, 
 derived immediately from the human conscience, 
 the more peculiar doctrines of the Christian 
 system; such, for example, as the doctrine that 
 Christ will, at a future day, sit in judgment upon 
 all the actions of our lives, Rom. ii. 16. It fol- 
 lows from the views here expressed, that we 
 should begin to instruct children in the know- 
 ledge of God at a very early period ; as soon, 
 indeed, as they shew the movings of moral feel- 
 ing, or begin to reflect upon the things which 
 surround them, or to reason from effect to cause. 
 
 Vide Jacobi, Leichter und iiberzeugender Be- 
 weis von Gott, und von der Wahrheit der christ- 
 lichen Religion; also, Versuch eines Beweises 
 eines in der menschlichen Seele von Natur 
 liegenden Eindrucks von Gott, und einem Leben 
 uach dem Tode. 
 
 III. Of Atheism. 
 
 The error of those who deny the existence of 
 God is called atheism. Atheists are such either 
 theoretically or practically. Practical atheists 
 are those who derive the motives of their con- 
 duct from the denial of the divine existence. In 
 the common sense, however, they are those who, 
 while they profess religion, live in reality like 
 atheists. It is of such that the Bible speaks, 
 Psa. xiv. 1 ; Ephes. ii. 12. But we shall here 
 treat only of theoretic atheism. Some have de- 
 nied that theoretic atheism is possible. This 
 opinion, so contradictory to all experience and 
 history, is generally entertained by those who 
 believe in innate ideas, or who would prove the 
 existence of God from the common consent of 
 all mankind; but notwithstanding this opinion, 
 there have always been those who have denied 
 the being of God. Some, like Sextus the Em- 
 12 
 
 piric, and Hume, are sceptical atheists, and con- 
 sider the evidence against the divine existence 
 as equivalent to that in its favour, and therefore 
 leave the question undecided. Others are de- 
 cided, dogmatical atheists, and think the argu- 
 ments against the divine existence prepon- 
 derate. 
 
 But we must here notice a species of atheism 
 which is more refined, and which has been bet- 
 ter received, than any other. God, as we con- 
 ceive of him, is the most perfect being distinct 
 from the world which is dependent on him. 
 Whoever, therefore, believes that the world 
 itself, or any part or power of it, is God, is an 
 atheist. But there have always been some phi- 
 losophers who have held that the world itself, 
 or that the air or fire, or some other portion, or 
 that the power of motion, (which was the opi- 
 nion of many of the Stoics and Epicureans), 
 was God himself. But this atheism was for 
 the first time thoroughly systematized by Bene- 
 dict Spinoza, in his Ethics, published among 
 his posthumous works in 1677. According to 
 him, there is but one substance, which, however, 
 is variously modified. It has two principal at- 
 tributes, infinite extension (matter) and infinite 
 thought (intelligence.) Spinoza speaks indeed 
 of God ; his God, however, is not personally 
 distinguished from the world, but is the uni- 
 verse itself, I'D jtwv. Hence the name of pan- 
 theism, which is given to his system. He is 
 commonly supposed to have derived his views 
 from Xenophanes of Colophon, and from Parme- 
 nides and Zeno of Elea. He did not, however, 
 agree so well with the principles of that school 
 as with the ideas of the system of emanation, 
 which he enlarged, refined, and adapted to his 
 own theory. The weakness and inconclusive- 
 ness of the reasoning of Spinoza has been ex- 
 posed with great sagacity by Kant. The 
 whole subject is fully considered in the writings 
 of Jacobi, Heydenreich, and Herder, respecting 
 Spinoza. 
 
 Very similar to the system of Spinoza is that 
 of many theosophists. Pantheism has likewise 
 been received into favour, in modern times, by 
 many philosophers in Italy and France ; and in 
 Germany, the visible tendency of many of the 
 adherents of the critical philosophy is to derive 
 atheism from the ideas of Kant, and thus esta- 
 blish it on a new foundation. This appears to 
 be the case particularly with Fichte, Nietham- 
 mer, Forberg, and Schelling. Vide Fichte's 
 and Nietharnmer's Philosophisches Journal, St. 
 I. Fichte is very unwilling to be thought an 
 atheist ; and, to be sure, he speaks of God ; but 
 he cannot speak of him in the sense in which 
 others do, for he denies the existence of a being 
 who is self-existent and independent of our con- 
 ceptions; and such a being is intended by every 
 one who speaks of God. The term God, accord- 
 H2 
 
90 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY". 
 
 ing to Fichte, means nothing more than the 
 moral order of things; and this order, according 
 to his system, exists only in relation to us, and 
 as belonging to ourselves, and not at all inde- 
 pendent of our conceptions. Vide the Essay, 
 Ueber Fichte's Lehre von Gott, und der gott- 
 lichen Weltregierung, in Flatt's Magazin fur 
 christliche Dogtnatik und Moral, St. 5, s. 1 83, 
 and 174 239; and Briefe iiber Kant's, For- 
 berg's und Fichte's Religionslehre, St. 6, s. 
 184210. Cf. the Essays of Dr. Vogel, in the 
 Neue Theol. Journal, 1799 and 1800. Also two 
 treatises in Siiskind's Magazin, St. 11, 12, No. 
 8, Ueber die Griinde des Glaubens an eine 
 Gottheit als ausserweltliche und fur sich beste- 
 hende Intelligenz; and No. 9, Ueber das Fun- 
 dament des Glaubens an die Gottheit. For 
 remarks respecting Schelling's doctrine of reli- 
 gion, vide Dr. Vogel's Essay in Gabler's Jour- 
 nal fur auserlesene theol. Litteratur, Bd. V. St. 
 1, s. 1, ff., and Suskind's Magazin, St. 17. 
 
 [JVb/e. The name atheism would seem to be 
 improperly given to the error of those who in 
 any way allow the idea of God, however much 
 their conceptions of him may vary from the 
 truth. These different conceptions may be de- 
 signated by names more appropriate and less in- 
 jurious than that of atheism. Thus the doctrine 
 of Fichte, who allows the subjective validity of 
 the idea of God, though he denies its objective 
 'reality, is properly called idealism; the doctrine 
 of Spinoza, who removes the individual exist- 
 ence of nature, and transfers it to God, while 
 he retains unaltered the idea of God as a self- 
 conscious individual, would be properly called 
 ideal pantheism ; and that of Schelling, who 
 transfers the individual being of God into na- 
 ture, natural pantheism. These remarks are 
 confirmed by the following quotation from 
 Henke: 
 
 " Summa injuria omnes illi Atheorum numero 
 accensentur, qui summum numen ab hoc uni- 
 verso secretum ac disperatum cogitare nesciunt, 
 maluntque Deum rerum omnium causam imma- 
 nenteni, quam transeuntem, dici, nee tamen id 
 quod perpetuo est, commiscent cum illo quod 
 perpetuo fit : quorum error, profecto magis fana- 
 ticus quam impius, Pantheismus et Spinosismus 
 vocatur." Lineam. Inst. fidei Christ., p. 54. 
 
 Among the ancient Greek philosophers to 
 whom the name of atheist would truly apply, 
 we may mention, Leucippus, Diagorasof Melos, 
 Protagoras of Abdera, Critias of Athens, Prodi- 
 cus, and Theodorus of Gyrene; among the 
 Romans, Lucretius; among modern writers, De 
 la Mettrie, Von Holbach, or La Grange, (the 
 author of the System of Nature), Helvetius, 
 Diderot, and D'Alembert, (the authors of the 
 French Encyclopaedia,) and Joseph Priestly. 
 Mandeville, Edelmann, and Voltaire, appear to 
 
 have been rather promoters of atheistical princi- 
 ples than themselves decided atheists.] 
 
 SECTION XVI. 
 
 OF THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 I. Proof of the Divine Unity. 
 
 1. THE unity of God is proved from the 
 idea of absolute perfection, which cannot be 
 conceived as divided, or as residing in different 
 subjects. This proof was sometimes employed 
 by the ecclesiastical fathers e. g., Tertullian, 
 Contra Marcionem, I. 3. 
 
 2. From the unity of the world. All the ob- 
 jects existing extrinsically to God himself com- 
 pose one great whole. And since the most 
 perfect being affords sufficient ground for the 
 existence of the world, the supposition of an- 
 other being is unnecessary. This metaphysical 
 proof was used by Ambrosias, De fide, I. 1. 
 
 3. From the creation and preservation of the 
 world. This proof may be stated in the most 
 popular manner. If many deities participated 
 in the creation and preservation of the world, 
 we must suppose, (a} either that they divided 
 the powers among themselves, one possessing 
 one power, and another a different power, to 
 which it might be said that the supposition of a 
 God with only one power is a contradiction, 
 or (6) that one among them possessed more 
 power than the rest; in which case he alone is 
 worthy of the name of God, and the others are 
 unnecessary, or at most are only subservient to 
 the supreme God ; or (c) that they all possessed 
 equal powers and perfections ; in which case, 
 either one among them created the world, and 
 is, therefore, alone entitled to the name of God ; 
 or they all united their powers in the work of 
 creation, which implies that their single powers 
 were insufficient, and that their united powers 
 alone constitute God, and thus leads us back to 
 unity, (^ovaj.) On the supposition that many 
 different gods participate in the goverment of the 
 world we could hardly avoid the conclusion that 
 they would disagree in their views and plans, 
 and thus introduce disorder and confusion into 
 the world. This argument was formerly em- 
 ployed by Abelard. 
 
 For a more full discussion of the proofs of the 
 unity of God the student may consult the fol- 
 lowing works : Tollner, Versuch eines neuen 
 strengen Beweises von der Einheit Gottes, in 
 his Vermischten Aufsatzen, Samml. I. Num. 3, 
 1766. Just. Christ. Henning, Die Einigkeit 
 Gottes, nach verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten 
 gepriift; Altenburg, 1779, 8vo. Plainer, Phi- 
 losophische Aphorismen, th. i. 
 
 The doctrine of the unity of God is taught in 
 the most clear and explicit manner in the Old 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 91 
 
 and New Testaments. "Jehovah is God, Jeho- 
 vah is ONE" (ins) i. e., one God, Deut. vi. 4; 
 iv. 35, 39 ; xxxii. 39. " I am God, and there is 
 none else," Isaiah, xlv. 5, 21, 22; Ps. Ixxxvi. 
 10. The doctrine of the unity of God was at 
 the foundation of the whole Mosaic religion 
 and institute, and also of the Christian religion. 
 And this is eternal life, that they might know 
 thee," fbv fiovov ahrj&vbv OEOV, John, xvii. 3. 
 'H/itv flj &tbg 6 rta-r^p, ** we believe in one God," 
 1 Cor. viii. 4 6; James, ii. 19, seq. 
 
 II. Historical Illustrations of the Doctrine of 
 the Divine Unity. 
 
 1. The error of those who maintain that the 
 universe was created, and is sustained and go- 
 verned by more than one God, is called poly- 
 theism. And those who had fallen into this 
 error being the great body of the nations of the 
 ancient world, were called by the Jews, D?ia (fa 
 2^-wf, gentes) ; rendered by Luther, Heiden (lit. 
 Volker) and by our translators, heathen, (lit. 
 gentiles, pagans.) Hence polytheism is called 
 by Luther Heidenthum, and by our translators, 
 heathenism. 
 
 2. The notion of the unity of God is com- 
 monly supposed to be very obvious to the mind 
 of every one. But if it is as clear and compre- 
 hensible to the human understanding as the 
 idea of the divine existence, for example, how 
 comes it to pass that so many nations, even 
 those who must be allowed to have possessed 
 the highest mental cultivation, should have been 
 from the first so decidedly inclined, and so ob- 
 stinately attached, to polytheism 1 ? The Israel- 
 ites themselves, who in the times of the patri- 
 archs had been taught the truth on this subject 
 by immediate revelation, relapsed afterwards 
 into the errors of the surrounding nations. The 
 idea of the unity of God cannot, therefore, as 
 Grotius justly observed (De jure belli et pacis), 
 be so obvious to the mind as is commonly sup- 
 posed. In fact, it presupposes an acquaintance 
 with many subjects far too abstract and trans- 
 cendental for the uncultivated mind. But if 
 this necessary knowledge is previously acquired, 
 this idea results very naturally, and when it is 
 once obtained it is not easily surrendered. This 
 point has been ably illustrated by Meiners, His- 
 toria doctrinae de deo vero ; Lemgo, 8vo. 
 
 Note. The remarks just made strikingly 
 confirm the observation, that it is very easy to 
 establish by proofs drawn from reason any truth 
 which is once made known, but often very dif- 
 ficult to discover in the first instance even the 
 most simple truth. When we consider that the 
 writers of the Old Testament taught the doc- 
 trine of the unity of God at a time when all the 
 nations of the world were sunken in polytheism, 
 we must regard them with great veneration. 
 Could they, in the situation in which they were 
 
 placed, have obtained this truth by their own 
 reflection 1 ? The neglected writers of the Old 
 Testament speak on this subject with more 
 truth and clearness than the enlightened philo- 
 sophers of Greece and Rome. And to whom 
 are we indebted for our just apprehensions on 
 this subject 1 ? Our conduct with respect to the 
 Bible, to which we owe so much, resembles 
 that of ungrateful children and scholars with 
 respect to their parents and instructors. 
 
 3. But the idea of the unity of God which 
 the great multitude of the Jews entertained be- 
 fore the Babylonian exile was very imperfect, 
 which accounts for their inclination to idolatry. 
 They regarded Jehovah as merely the first and 
 greatest among the gods, as their God, and the 
 God of their fathers and their country. They 
 admitted the real existence of the deities of the 
 heathen, and only claimed for their God a pre- 
 cedence over the rest. Such, doubtless, were 
 the conceptions of the great multitude of the 
 Jews, although Abraham, Moses, the prophets, 
 and the more enlightened part of the nation, 
 were in possession of better views. Vide No. 
 I. ad finem. If it were not so, how could they 
 have revolted so frequently from the worship 
 of the true God to idolatry, in order to make 
 trial as it were of another god who might please 
 them better "? Jacob himself appears to have 
 entertained opinions like this at first, (Genesis, 
 xxviii. 16;) and his family were therefore, for 
 a long time, in the practice of idolatry. He at 
 least permitted it in his wives. And Moses 
 was compelled to ask God for the name by 
 which he would be known to the Israelites, so 
 imperfect were their conceptions with respect 
 to his unity, Exodus, iii. 13. Solomon, too, 
 permitted his concubines to practise idolatry 
 even in the holy land, not, however, so much 
 from the want of sufficient theoretical know- 
 ledge on this subject as from a false toleration, 
 resulting from weakness and a misplaced plia- 
 bility. 
 
 But it was not till after the Babylonian exile 
 that the Jews became the zealous professors 
 and stanch advocates of this doctrine. Then, 
 however, and especially after they came under 
 the yoke of the Persians, who were at that time 
 the avowed haters of polytheism, the unity of 
 God became the prevailing belief of the Jewish 
 nation. But the establishment and diffusion of 
 Christianity has done more than anything else 
 to propagate this doctrine, which is now re- 
 ceived by a great majority of mankind. To 
 this result the spread of the Mahommedan re- 
 ligion has contributed not a little; for Moham- 
 med was one of the most zealous advocates of 
 the unity of God. He, however, was indebted 
 for his purest views on religion to Judaism and 
 Christianity. 
 
 4. The question has been asked whether 
 
92 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 there were any among the heathen nations who 
 entertained just conceptions respecting the unity 
 of God? to whfch various and contradictory 
 answers have been given. The following ob- 
 servations may be of use in deciding the contro- 
 versy : 
 
 (a) Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, 
 and other sages of the heathen world, either ex- 
 pressly asserted the doctrine of the unity of 
 God, or (which is the case with most of them) 
 regarded it as highly probable. Vide Hennings, 
 Die Einigkeit Gottes nach verscheidenen 
 Gesichtspunkten gepriift, Altenburg, 1779, 8vo. 
 Some of them, however, the philosophers of 
 Elea for example, formed different conceptions 
 of the unity of God from those which we derive 
 from the Bible, and were rather inclined to pan- 
 theism than to monotheism. 
 
 (6) There have always been various systems 
 of polytheism among the heathen nations ; and 
 in judging of them, two extremes should be 
 avoided. They should not be so much depre- 
 ciated as they sometimes are by modern writers, 
 nor should they, on the other hand, be so much 
 extolled as they were by many of the church 
 fathers, (Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, Cle- 
 mens of Alexandria, and others,) who supposed 
 that by giving such favourable representations 
 of the established religions of the heathen, they 
 might induce them the more easily to embrace 
 Christianity. Cudworth, in modern times, has 
 fallen into the same extreme. 
 
 It is doubtless true that many heathen nations 
 acknowledged a supreme God. But besides 
 him, they believed in many subordinate deities, 
 to whom the government of the world was com- 
 mitted. Such we find was the belief of most 
 of the oriental nations. They supposed that the 
 supreme God lived in rest and inaction, uncon- 
 cerned with the affairs of the world, and in all 
 respects like an eastern despot, and who, as for 
 any influence beyond himself, might as well 
 cease to exist. This being they conceived to 
 be one, and yet material. And in general, the 
 pure idea of spirit is far too transcendental for 
 the infancy of the world, and we see from the 
 description of God in all the ancient languages, 
 the Hebrew not excepted, that he was supposed 
 to exist as a subtile, corporeal essence. 
 
 The manner in which these unjust concep- 
 tions originated may be best explained as fol- 
 lows: When man is in a savage state and ig- 
 norant of the powers of nature, he ascribes every 
 effect, the cause of which is unknown to him, 
 to some invisible being like himself, whom he 
 imagines to be more or less powerful, good or 
 bad, according to the nature of the effect which 
 which he witnesses. In every body there is a 
 superior being, from which its motion and ex- 
 istence depend. This led naturally to the wor- 
 ship of this being; and hence philosophy, when 
 
 it afterwards arose, abstracted the system of 
 emanation ; which, accordingly, is one of the 
 oldest philosophical systems. Vide Meiners' 
 Essay concerning the origin and differences of 
 false religions, in Comment. Soc. scient. Get- 
 ting, vol. vii. page 58, seq. 178485. Cf. 
 Kleuker's Zend-Avesta. 
 
 [Note. The following quotations from Lac- 
 tantius shew the manner in which this subject 
 was treated by the Christian fathers in their con- 
 troversies with the early enemies of Christianity. 
 In defending the monotheism of Christians 
 against the polytheism of the heathen world, he 
 says, " Sed omittamus sane testimonia prophe- 
 tarum et eos ipsos ad probationem veri testes 
 citemus, quibus contra nos uti solent, poetas dico 
 et philosophos. Poets igitur, quamvis Deos 
 carminibus ornaverint, et eorum res gestas arn- 
 plificaverint summis laudibus, ssepissime tamen 
 confitentur, spiritu velmente UNA contineriregique 
 omnia." He then passes to the philosophers, 
 " quorum gravior est auctoritas certiusque judi- 
 cium," and after enumerating several who had 
 given intimations of the doctrine of the unity of 
 God, adds, " Nunc satis est demonstrare, sum- 
 mo ingenio viros attigisse Veritatem et prope te- 
 nuisse," Institutt. 1. i. c. 5. In a similar man- 
 ner, M. Minuc. Felix concludes his defence of 
 Christian monotheism by the somewhat extra- 
 vagant result, " aut nunc Christianas philosophos 
 esse, aut philosophos fuisse jam tune Christianos" 
 Cap. XX.] 
 
 5. Some sects even of the Christian church 
 have been accused of receiving a number of 
 gods, and especially of believing in a good and 
 an evil being, or the doctrine of dualism, which 
 was held in the second and third centuries by 
 many Persian and other oriental phiosophers. 
 Such was the doctrine of Carpocrates, Marcion, 
 and many other Gnostics, and especially of 
 Manes and his followers in the third and fourth 
 centuries. These sects, however, according to 
 the testimony of Beausobre, did not suppose that 
 these beings were themselves the supreme God, 
 but that they were dependent upon him, and 
 that the evil principle could not in any sense be 
 properly denominated God. In fine, Christians 
 in general have been charged by Jews and Ma- 
 hommedans with believing in a tritheism. And 
 it must be confessed that too much ground for 
 this charge has been afforded by the incautious 
 expressions with regard to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity which were common, especially among 
 the ancient teachers of Christianity. And even 
 at the present day there are many common and 
 unenlightened Christians who fall into the same 
 error. They make profession with their mouth 
 of their faith in one God, while at the same 
 time they conceive of him in their minds as 
 three. 
 
 Morus, s. 5, p. 44. 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 SECTION XVII. 
 
 OF THE SCRIPTURAL NAMES OF GOD. 
 
 THERE is no way so good for ascertaining the 
 manner in which anything is regarded as by 
 considering the names by which it is called. 
 We may, accordingly, find in what light God 
 was regarded by the Hebrews by examining 
 the names by which they called him. In this 
 view, the subject of the present section is very 
 important. It shews how proper, worthy, and 
 elevated, were the ideas which the Jews enter- 
 tained of God. 
 
 I. General names applied to Deity, without distinc- 
 tion of true or fake. 
 
 1. niSs, augustus, the one to be revered, syno- 
 nymous with trhp. It is derived from the 
 
 Arabic 4*31, colere, venerari, which is still ex- 
 tant. Hence it comes to pass that it is fre- 
 quently applied to kings, magistrates, judges, 
 and others to whom reverence is shewn, and 
 who are regarded as representatives of the Deity 
 upon earth. Vide Psalm Ixxxii. 6; Exodus, 
 vii. 1. It is almost always rendered in the 
 Sept. version, even when it occurs in the plural, 
 by the words ?oj, god, which are also applied 
 by the Grecian Jews to other subjects besides 
 the supreme God. Vide John, x. 3436. The 
 plural of this word, D^riSs, although it denotes 
 but one subject, is appropriately used to desig- 
 nate Jehovah by way of eminence. In this fact, 
 many theologians have thought they perceived 
 an allusion to the doctrine of the Trinity, though 
 they have no sufficient ground for supposing that 
 this doctrine was known at so early a period. 
 And without resorting to this supposition, the 
 application of this plural name to a singular 
 subject may be explained from an idiom of the 
 ancient oriental and some other languages, by 
 which anything great or eminent was expressed 
 in the plural number, (pluralis dignitatis, or ma- 
 jestaticus.) Vide Glass, Philol. Sacra, p. 58, 
 seq. ed Dathe. Accordingly rviSs, augustus, may 
 be considered as the positive degree, of which 
 Dv-iSs, augustissimus, is the superlative. Cf. 
 Genesis, xxix. 3 ; Exodus, xxi. 4, 9. 
 
 2. SN. EOJ, sometimes literally rendered in 
 the Septuagint and in the version of Aquila, 
 o t<j#upoj, the Almighty. 
 
 3. jiis, Sscrrtor^j, xvp>j, dominus. This is a 
 name of dignity, applied to rulers, leaders, and 
 persons of distinction, and, like the word, Sj?3, 
 sometimes given even to heathen deities. Psalm 
 cxxxvi. 3 ; Numbers, xxxii. 25, 27, coll. 1 Cor. 
 viii. 5. The form -onx, however, is the appro- 
 priate designation of the supreme God. It is an 
 ancient form of the plural found in several other 
 Hebrew words, and still preserved in the Syriac. 
 Here, as in the case of o^nSs, the plural WIN is 
 
 doubtless superlative, and signifies lord of lords , 
 or supreme lord. 
 
 II. Names giren to the*true God by way of 
 distinction. 
 
 1. The most ancient name, by which the su- 
 preme God was distinguished from the gods of 
 the heathen, is, ntr Ss, which first occurs in the 
 history of Abraham, (Gen. xvii. 1 ;) and after- 
 wards in Exodus, vi. 3, where God expressly 
 says, " I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, 
 and unto Jacob, by the name nf Ss." From a 
 false etymology this title has been supposed to 
 signify the Jill-sufficient. But it is derived from 
 
 the Arabic 
 
 robustus, potens esse, and in 
 
 the plural signifies, potentissimus, and is there- 
 fore rendered in the Septuagint, Ttavroxpafcop, 
 omnipotens, 
 
 2. nin\ When the Israelites lived in Egypt, 
 in the midst of an idolatrous people, to whose 
 practices they themselves were inclined, Moses 
 was commanded (Exodus, iii. 13, seq.) to an- 
 nounce to them the true God as the same Being 
 who had been worshipped by Abraham, Isaac, 
 and Jacob, and who would prove himself equally 
 powerful and gracious to the children as to the 
 fathers. God therefore called himself nyw, / 
 will be namely, the God of the Jews as well 
 as of their ancestors; and directed Moses, when 
 he addressed the Israelites, to call him mrp i. 
 e., he shall be, from rvn, or rather, mn, fuif, 
 according to a form which afterwards became 
 obsolete in Hebrew, but which was preserved, 
 and in common use in Chaldaic. Such was the 
 origin and occasion of this appellation. 
 
 With respect to the manner in which it. was 
 pronounced, as it is the third person future, it 
 would be uttered, according to grammatical ana- 
 logy, nifT or nin. Accordingly, the Samari- 
 tans, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, pronounced it 
 Jave. But the Jews believed that this name 
 was not to be uttered, and Josephus said, Antiq. 
 II. 12, that he dared not to communicate it. In 
 place of it, the Jews were accustomed to enun- 
 ciate Dvfoi or JIN; from the latter of which its 
 common punctuation is borrowed. It is always 
 rendered by the Alexandrine translators by the 
 wordKvpcoj. The Talmud says that the angels 
 themselves dared not to utter it, and denounces 
 all who should be so presumptuous with fright- 
 ful curses. The Jews went so far as to believe 
 that it could not be uttered by man, or that one 
 who jnight speak it would be able, by its enun- 
 ciation, to work miracles. Such a superstitious 
 regard for this name does not seem to have ex- 
 isted before the Babylonian exile, for we meet 
 with the names Jehoiakim, Jehoiadah, Jeho- 
 zadak, &c., in which the word nyr evidently 
 makes a part of the composite proper noun. But 
 
94 
 
 CHRJSTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 these names were afterwards altered, in conform- 
 ity with this superstition, into Eliakim, &c. 
 And in Daniel, Esther, and other of the latest 
 books of the Old Testament, this name is wholly 
 omitted. For this mystery, as well as many 
 others relating to divine things, the Jews are 
 indebted to the Chaldeans. Vide Reland, Diss. 
 de vera pronuntiatione nominis Jehovah; Ultra- 
 jecti, 1705, 8vo. 
 
 This name is appropriated to the supreme God, 
 and is never applied to the gods of the heathen. 
 Vide 1 Kings xviii. 21, 24; Isa. xlii. 8; xliii. 11. 
 It has been asserted, however, that this name 
 was sometimes given, by way of metonomy, to 
 such things as were consecrated to the service 
 of God, and especially to the ark of the covenant. 
 This was urged by Socinus and his followers, 
 and has been repeated in modern times as an 
 answer to the argument for the divinity of Christ, 
 drawn from the application to him of the name 
 nirp. They refer to the passage, Numbers, x. 
 35, 36, " When the ark set forward, Moses said, 
 Rise up, JEHOVAH ! And when it rested, he 
 said, Return, JEHOVAH." Cf. Ps. Ixviii. 1 ; 
 cxxxii. 8. But in this passage Moses does not 
 address the ark, but God himself, who was sup- 
 posed to dwell or sit upon it. 
 
 3. n\ This name occurs only in the poetical 
 portions of the Bible, and is frequently ren- 
 dered in the Septuagint by the word Kvpto$. It 
 is derived by many from nx% decuit, (Jeremiah, 
 X. 7,) and thus signifies, the magnificent, the 
 majestic ; but this derivation is contrary to ana- 
 logy, and the word, more probably, is a mere 
 abbreviation of the name, nirv. 
 
 4. fvSp, from rhy, 6 <>4/icrT'o$, Luke, i. 35,) 
 Deus supremus, the Most High. God was sup- 
 posed to dwell in the highest heaven, which 
 was called OTTO, ta v-^iatu. Hence the name 
 O'ctf is sometimes given to God himself, Luke, 
 xv. 18, 21. 
 
 5. m>o>f nirp, x ^riStf, xvpioj <?aj3au, jtavto- 
 xpar'cop, x . t. ?i. This title is explained in va- 
 rious ways. Some translate it God of gods, 
 others, God of hosts, (the stars of heaven;) 
 others still, and with more probability, Lord of 
 the universe, and Governor of the world, rtavto- 
 xpaT'wp ; since tax frequently denotes all crea- 
 tures, so far as they are employed by God in 
 his service, Psalm ciii. 21. Cf. s. 45. 
 
 6. Several other titles, which will be hereaf- 
 ter enumerated in connexion with the subject of 
 the divine attributes, Art. III., are used by the 
 sacred writers to distinguish the true God from 
 the imaginary deities of the heathen wwld. 
 Among these we may mention the title ->n Sx, 
 tb$ 6 wv, 6 fjiovog ahy^ivos ?6j, the living and 
 true God, in opposition to the gods of the hea- 
 then, who are called pd-tawi, 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 
 
 SECTION XVIII. 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING 
 THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 
 
 I. What is meant by the Nature and Attributes of 
 God. 
 
 THE nature of God is the sum of afl the di- 
 vine perfections ; the attributes of God are the 
 particular distinct perfections or realities which 
 are predicable of the divine nature, (prsedicata 
 dei necessaria, ob essentiam ei tribuenda, Mo- 
 rus, p. 58, note 1.) The divine attributes do 
 not therefore differ materialiter from the divine 
 nature, but only formaliter, [i. e., the difference 
 between nature and attribute is not objective, or 
 does not appertain to God himself; but is sub- 
 jective, formal, or, as the older theologians say, 
 secundum nostrum concipiendi modum.] The 
 attributes of God are merely our notions of the 
 particular distinctions which, taken together, 
 compose the divine nature. We are unable to 
 take in the whole object at a single glance, and 
 are compelled, in order to accommodate the 
 weakness of our understanding, to consider it 
 in separate portions. It should be remarked, 
 moreover, that from any one of the divine attri- 
 butes all the rest may be derived. Vide s. 14. 
 
 Note (1) Cf. Morus, p. 57, s. 22. The 
 attributes of God were called by the Jews 
 at?, met?, nomina dei ; for a thing is usually 
 named from the attributes which it is seen to 
 possess. (2) The divine attributes are called 
 by the Greeks cxp^at', (1 Pet. ii. 9,) answering 
 to the Latin virtutes, and the Hebrew rnSnn, 
 (Isaiah, xlii. 8; xliii. 21,) laudes dei, rendered 
 apstai in the Septuagint. They are called by 
 the ecclesiastical fathers (e. g., by Cyrill of 
 Alexandria), dljtat, altio^uara, also tvvotai, iiti- 
 voat, vor^ata, whence the Latins have their 
 conceptus. In the western church they are 
 called virtutes, attributa, proprietates, qualitatcs. 
 (3) The whole sum of the divine attributes is 
 called by the Hebrews nyv 1122, 8d|a &BOV, inas- 
 much as they are admired and revered by men, 
 Psa. xix. 1; cxlviii. 13. The phrase, to do 
 anything FOR THE GLORY OF GOD, often means 
 therefore nothing more than to live in such a 
 manner as to testify the reverence we owe to 
 God and his glorious perfections, Phil. ii. 11. 
 And hence the phrase, / will not give mine ho- 
 nour to another, (Isa. xlviii. 11; xlii. 8,) con- 
 veys the idea, I will not permit that other gods 
 should be regarded with as much reverence, or 
 supposed to possess the same attributes, as be- 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 95 
 
 long to me. Accordingly, the terms 1133, " ar 
 nrv, 6o|a sou, majestas Dei, are mere peri- 
 phrases for God, or the nature of God, which 
 Paul expresses by ^to^j, Rom. i. 20. Some- 
 times the term 6d|a is used in a more limited 
 sense ; as, Rom. vi. 4, Xpifffos ^ys'p^? 8ia 86fy$ 
 rov Tto/fpo?, x. T. >.., where So|ct signifies power. 
 
 II. WAa/ tt?e foioiy respecting the Nature and At- 
 
 tributes of God, and whence we derive our In- 
 formation. 
 
 I . The nature of our knowledge respecting God. 
 On a subject of this kind it is impossible that 
 we should have perfectly clear and distinct no- 
 tions. For, 
 
 (a) All our notions are sensible, and therefore 
 inadequate. We indeed acknowledge that when 
 we conceive of God we must abstract everything 
 sensible from our notions; but to do this is very 
 difficult, and often quite impossible. And after 
 all our attempts at abstraction., our knowledge 
 of God will ever remain anthropopathic and an- 
 thropomorphic, as the philosophers and theolo- 
 gians say i. e., we shall ever transfer to God 
 the notions and expressions which we derive 
 from human things, attributes, actions, &c. 
 These expressions, borrowed from human 
 things, very naturally give rise to gross con- 
 ceptions of God, especially among those who 
 have but few words to express abstract ideas, 
 or but few ideas of this nature to be expressed. 
 This was the case with the language of all the 
 sacred writers, and especially those of the Old 
 Testament ; and this observation should always 
 be kept in mind by those who undertake to ex- 
 plain their meaning. In order to be intelligible, 
 they must needs have adopted the language of 
 the rude and uncultivated people whom they 
 were called to address; and in the first place 
 must have condescended to the capacity of their 
 hearers, in order to raise them gradually to their 
 own level. But in this more improved period 
 we must understand the gross expressions which 
 the sacred writers were thus compelled to use, 
 in the purer and more correct sense which they 
 themselves attached to their language. Hence 
 the rule laid down by the older theologians, 
 Dicta anthropopathica et anthropomorphica Deo 
 digne (^sortp* rtwj) sunt explicanda. Vide Morus, 
 p. 45, s. 7, n. 4. 
 
 Note. In popular instruction, the terms em- 
 ployed should be neither wholly anthropopathic 
 and anthropomorphic, nor, on the other hand, 
 wholly proper and literal, but, according to the 
 example of the Bible, should be wisely selected 
 from both of these classes, as the circumstances 
 of those to be instructed may require. In for- 
 mer times, the teachers of religion inclined too 
 much to the use of figurative expressions, which 
 they employed without any explanation ; but at 
 the present day the reverse of this is true. The 
 
 modern teachers of religion carefully avoid every 
 figurative expression, in the hope of rendering 
 their discourse very clear and interesting to their 
 hearers, while, in fact, they make it in this way 
 extremely dry and powerless. The same may 
 be said respecting many of the sacred songs of 
 modern composition, which, for the same reason, 
 are far less interesting, and far more obscure, to 
 the common people, than those formerly used. 
 God, as he appears in the discourses of many 
 modern teachers, is a mere metaphysical being, 
 who, in all his intercourse with men, acts in a 
 manner wholly unlike anything which we wit- 
 ness among ourselves. How, then, is it possible 
 that men should feel love for him, or confidence 
 in him 1 ? Such a mode of expression and repre- 
 sentation is extremely adverse to the interests 
 of the common people and of the young. It 
 gives rise to doubts respecting the providence 
 of God, the hearing of prayer, and other con- 
 soling truths of religion, which should be ex- 
 hibited in a manner consisting indeed with the 
 perfections of God, and yet figuratively, and ac- 
 cording to the analogy of human affairs, or their 
 whole effect will be lost. On this subject the 
 teacher of religion may learn a useful lesson 
 from that neglected book the Bible. He will 
 there find nothing of this abstraction, but an ex- 
 ample of the only correct and of the most ap- 
 proved method of practical instruction. The 
 sermon on the mount, the parables, and other 
 discourses of Christ, should be particularly stu- 
 died with reference to this subject. 
 
 (6) We reason mostly from the constitution 
 of the world to the nature and attributes of God ; 
 but in ourselves, in the first instance, do we ob- 
 serve the perfections which we ascribe to him, 
 nor can we form an)' conception, or even ima- 
 gine the existence, of any attribute or perfection 
 which we ourselves do not to a certain extent 
 possess. A man who had never seen could form, 
 no conception of the sense of sight, nor would 
 he ever suppose that there was such a sense, 
 unless informed of it by others. The case is 
 the same with regard to the divine perfections. 
 We can form no conception of any attributes 
 belonging to the Divine Being for which we 
 cannot find at least some analogy in ourselves. 
 We must therefore give the same names to the 
 divine perfections which we are accustomed to 
 give to those of which we ourselves are con- 
 scious, in some humble degree ; but for this very 
 reason our views of the divine nature must be 
 extremely poor and imperfect. We may indeed 
 have some right apprehensions with regard to 
 the quality of some perfections of God, such 
 as his goodness and wisdom ; but our concep- 
 tions as to their quantity their extent and 
 greatness ever remain in the highest degree 
 imperfect and infantile. The ideas which the 
 child forms of the sun and its attributes are just 
 
96 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 as to quality, inasmuch as he conceives of it as 
 a round, luminous, and hot body; but they are 
 incorrect as to quantity, inasmuch as he sup- 
 poses that its size is less than it actually is, its 
 light no clearer than he beholds it, and its heat 
 no more intense than he feels it. 
 
 In conformity with these views are the pas- 
 sages, Prov. xxx. 3 ; Is. xl. 22, xlvi. 5. When 
 speaking of this pure knowledge of God, David 
 says, Psalm cxxxix. 6, " it is high, I cannot at- 
 tain unto it." And Paul says, 1 Tim. vi. 16, 
 that God dwells in light inaccessible, (<j>u drtpo 
 roi/,) i. e., the infinite and perfect God is ex- 
 alted above the comprehension of our feeble and 
 limited faculties. Parallel with these passages 
 is that in John, i. 18, U 0f6i> ovSftj Iwpaxf jt^jtotf, 
 but the Messiah has revealed to us as much of 
 him as it is necessary for us to know." 
 
 With respect to the true nature of the objects 
 even of the visible world, we can have no dis- 
 tinct knowledge, owing to the inadequacy of our 
 senses ; and in regard to the nature of the human 
 soul, we are in equal ignorance. We may 
 therefore, with Simonides, reasonably decline 
 to give an answer to the question concerning 
 the true nature of the Divine Being. When he 
 was asked, Quid aut quale sit Deus ? he replied, 
 quanta diutius considero, tanto mihi res videtur 
 obscurior. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. I. 21. Con- 
 siderations like these should not, however, deter 
 us from the investigation of truth, but only ren- 
 der us humble and cautious. In the exercise 
 of this temper, it is our duty to make constant 
 advances in divine knowledge, and to render 
 our conceptions of God as pure and just as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Note. The representations which were com- 
 mon in any particular nation respecting the cha- 
 racter and employments of their gods, discover 
 the degree of cultivation and of moral improve- 
 ment to which that nation had attained at the 
 time when these representations prevailed. The 
 mythology of the Greeks, the histories in which 
 their gods are described as licentious, violent, 
 and deceitful, originated among them at a time 
 when the practical reason was as yet but imper- 
 fectly developed, and when the morals of the 
 nation agreed perfectly with these representa- 
 tions. At a later and more improved period, a 
 new meaning was given to these ancient histo- 
 ries by means of allegorical interpretation. 
 
 2. Sources of our knowledge respecting the na- 
 ture and attributes of God. 
 
 (a) The instructions of the holy scriptures. 
 God is described in the Bible in different ways. 
 He is sometimes described in plain and literal 
 language, without tropes or figures ; or (as these 
 are sometimes unavoidable both in popular and 
 scientific discourse) at least by such as are level 
 to the common capacity. Of this kind are the 
 descriptions of the immutability of God con- 
 
 tained in Psalm xc., cii., cxxxix. ; Job xxxvii. 
 In the New Testament, the figures employed 
 in the description of God are still more intelli- 
 gible, and still better adapted to general use. 
 But God is also sometimes described in the Bi- 
 ble in a symbolical or typical manner, the sym- 
 bols and types employed being in a good mea- 
 sure derived from the taste and mode of thinking 
 peculiar to the early age and the oriental coun- 
 tries in which the sacred writers lived. But 
 these symbolical representations, however im- 
 portant they may be in the history of the mode 
 of thought and representation common in early 
 ages, are of very little importance in elucidating 
 the ideas themselves which we entertain of the 
 Divine Being. Among these symbols we may 
 mention that of fire (Ex. iii. 2, seq.), of a gen- 
 tle wind (1 Kings, xix. 12), of an eastern ruler 
 and judge (Is. vi. 1), and those exhibited in 
 Ezek. i. coll. Rev. i. These are all symbolical 
 representations, shadowing forth some real per- 
 fections of the Divine Being, and should there- 
 fore be explained by the teacher of religion. He 
 must not be content with saying that these are 
 symbols, but must also shew what attributes of 
 God they are intended to represent. He should 
 shew, for example, that by the symbol of fire, 
 the activity of God, his power to restore and 
 destroy, the moral purity of his dispositions, are 
 exhibited ; by the symbol of a gentle wind, his 
 goodness and mildness ; by the symbol ofzprince 
 or ruler, his supremacy and power, and his jus- 
 tice in bestowing rewards and punishments. 
 
 (6) Nature is another source of our know- 
 ledge of God. (1) Internal, moral nature. In 
 s. 15, II., we have shewn how the idea of the 
 character and law of God is derived from the 
 conscience of man. (2) External nature, or the 
 sensible world. Here we argue from the effect 
 to the cause, from the attributes of the creature 
 to those of the Creator; and for so doing, we 
 have the authority of the Bible. Vide s. 15, I. 
 II. A very important passage in this connex- 
 ion is Psalm xix., in the former part of which 
 the visible creation is commended as a source 
 of the knowledge of God ; and in the latter part, 
 direct revelation. Cf. Ps. civ. ; Job, xxxvii. ; 
 Is. xl. ; Matt. vi. 26, and especially Rom. i. 20, 
 21. There are three methods of arriving at the 
 knowledge of the divine attributes from the 
 contemplation of nature. Vide Morus, p. 43, 
 s. 2, note 2. (a) We abstract all defects, 
 weaknesses, and imperfections, from the attri- 
 butes which we ascribe to God. In this way 
 we pass from the imperfect degrees of power 
 and wisdom which we possess to the omnipo- 
 tence and omniscience of God ; from the frail 
 and perishing nature of man, and of all created 
 things, to the eternity and immutability of God. 
 Cf. Ps. cii. 2528. This method is denomi- 
 nated by the schoolmen via negationis, and by 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 97 
 
 Dionysius the Areopagite 
 (j3) We conclude that God must possess, in a 
 peculiar and extraordinary degree, all the per- 
 fections which we perceive in ourselves or in 
 other creatures. Here we employ the argument 
 a minori ad majus. By this mode of reasoning 
 especially do we obtain our notions of the moral 
 attributes of God, his justice, wisdom, and good- 
 ness. Cf. Ps. xciv. 9. This is called by the 
 schoolmen via eminentiae. (y) There is a third 
 method of reasoning: since the production of 
 certain effects can be accounted for only by 
 ascribing certain attributes to their cause, these 
 attributes must truly belong to this cause. 
 Thus we conclude that the author of the world 
 possesses supreme power, wisdom, and know- 
 ledge, because these attributes are requisite for 
 the production and government of the world. 
 This mode of reasoning is called via causalitatis, 
 or causae. It might also be called via positiva, 
 in opposition to via negativa, because we thus 
 obtain positive ideas and direct knowledge of 
 the divine attributes. Thus it appears that all 
 our knowledge of God is drawn from analogy. 
 We ascribe to God the perfections which we 
 observe in ourselves, after abstracting from 
 them whatever of limitation or imperfection they 
 may possess, as existing in us. Cf. No. I. 
 
 III. Division of the Divine Attributes. 
 
 All the divisions of the attributes of God, 
 which have been adopted by philosophers and 
 theologians, are in some respects imperfect and 
 inconvenient, but not equally so. The follow- 
 ing are some of the most common : 
 
 1. Negative, and positive or affirmative. The 
 negative attributes are those by which we re- 
 move from God certain imperfections of which 
 we are conscious. Thus we ascribe to God 
 infinity, independence, eternity, in opposition 
 to the limitations of our own being. The posi- 
 tive attributes, on the contrary, are those divine 
 perfections for which we find some analogy in 
 ourselves e. g., holiness, justice, wisdom. We 
 derive our knowledge of the negative attributes, 
 via negationis ; of the positive, via causalitatis et 
 eminentise. The ground of this division, how- 
 ever, does not exist in God himself, (for all his 
 attributes are positive,) but in the imperfection 
 of our conceptions. 
 
 % 2. Active (attributa operativa, or transeuntia, 
 Ivfpy^rtxa,) and passive, (quiescentia, or imma- 
 nentia, dv? wpy^rixa.) The active attributes are 
 those which involve the idea of action; the qui- 
 escent are those which imply rest and inaction. 
 Omnipotence, justice, and goodness, belong to 
 the former class ; immensity, eternity, &c., to 
 the latter. But from this division mistaken no- 
 tions respecting God might easily result. For 
 rest, properly speaking, cannot be predicated 
 of God. Besides, the passive attributes are, 
 13 
 
 for the most part, only the modes in which the 
 active attributes exist. Thus infinity and im- 
 mensity are only the maniere d'etre of the om- 
 nipotence, wisdom, holiness, and other attri- 
 butes of God. 
 
 3. Physical or natural, and moral. We are 
 conscious of two principal powers, understand- 
 ing and will; and accordingly we ascribe 
 these to the Supreme Being. But whatever 
 analogy may subsist between the divine and 
 human intelligence, the former is infinitely dif- 
 ferent from the latter. Now the attributes 
 which we conceive to be connected with the 
 divine will are called by theologians moral , 
 the others, standing in no connexion with the 
 will, but belonging to the understanding and to 
 the power of God as a spirit, natural or physical. 
 These terms are indeed inconvenient, since the 
 moral attributes of God belong to his nature. 
 Still there is ground for the division itself, 
 where it is correctly stated ; which may be done 
 by substituting the phrase not moral for natural. 
 
 The natural attributes of God are beyond the 
 reach of our attainment; but we may be con- 
 formed to his moral character. And this is the 
 conformity which the Bible intends when it re- 
 quires us to resemble God, Matt. v. 45, 48 ; Col. 
 iii. 10. Through this moral perfection it is that 
 we are as it were related to him, Acts, xvii. 28 ; 
 and by which we first obtain our idea of him. 
 Vide s. 14, and s. 15, II. He is a free being, 
 possessed of the purest moral will. 
 
 Morus (p. 45, s. 7) adopts this third division 
 of the divine attributes as the most useful. To 
 this opinion we assent, and shall accordingly 
 treat (1) of the spirituality of God, (for most 
 of his physical and moral attributes are founded 
 in this,) s. 19 ; (2) of his eternity and immuta- 
 bility, s. 20; (3) of his omnipotence, s. 21; 
 (4) his omniscience, s. 22 ; (5) omnipresence, 
 s. 23; (6) supreme wisdom, (though perhaps 
 this attribute should be ascribed to the divine 
 will, as has sometimes been done,) s. 24 ; (7) 
 the nature and the perfections of the divine will, 
 Introduction, s. 25 ; its freedom, immutability, 
 and efficiency, s. 26. In connexion with the 
 divine will are the following moral attributes, 
 which are cursorily described in s. 27 viz., 
 (8) truth, and (9) goodness, s. 28; (10) holi- 
 ness, s. 29; (11) justice, s. 30, 31. The Ap- 
 pendix, s. 32, exhibits the doctrine of divine, 
 decrees, (de decretis divinis, sive predestina- 
 tione,) which is directly derived from the attri- 
 butes of the divine will. 
 
 Morus, p. 58, note, extr. 
 
 SECTION XIX. 
 
 OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD. 
 
 I. Statement of the Doctrine. 
 BY the word spirit we mean to denote a na- 
 ture possessed of intelligence and a free moral 
 
98 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 will (natura intelligens et moralis.) A mate- 
 rial or corporeal substance acts only by motion ; 
 a spiritual substance, on the contrary, by thought, 
 or free will. Now, as we perceive that God 
 possesses, and that too in the highest perfection, 
 those qualities of intelligence and will which 
 constitute a spiritual existence, we justly con- 
 clude that he is a Spirit. Hence it follows, 
 that all the attributes which he possesses as a 
 Spirit are connected either with his understand- 
 ing or his will. And as he possesses these at- 
 tributes in the highest perfection, he is the most 
 perfect Spirit. Among the attributes which be- 
 long to God as a Spirit, the following may be 
 enumerated : 
 
 1. Simplicity, (simplicitas, immaterialitas.) 
 Nothing of a material or bodily nature can ap- 
 pertain to spirit. Matter possesses no power 
 of thought or will, and is governed by laws en- 
 tirely different from those which prevail in the 
 sphere of spirit. The former is governed by the 
 law of necessity, the latter by that of freedom. 
 If this is so, and spirit is so wholly unlike 
 matter, it cannot be compounded, and is there- 
 fore simple. The Grecian philosophers call 
 God artXovj scat (Lvtjov, expers materise ; and with 
 this description the sacred writers perfectly 
 agree. John, iv. 24, HvfVjua 6 EOJ. Here be- 
 long those texts which teach that God cannot 
 be represented, Isa. xl. 25; Exod. xx. 4. 
 
 2. Invisibility. Whatever is immaterial is 
 also invisible, for our bodily sight acquaints us 
 only with the objects of the material world. 
 Accordingly, God is called by the sacred writers 
 doparoj, Col. i. 15 ; Rom. i. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17. 
 We are indeed told in the Bible that we shall see 
 God. But by this phrase we are to understand 
 merely that we shall know God, or that he will 
 honour us with his favour and intimacy. Thus 
 Moses was said to have seen God face to face, 
 and the righteous are promised as their reward 
 in eternal life that they shall see God e. g., 
 1 John, iii. 2. This figure is taken from a cus- 
 tom of eastern courts, in which it was regarded 
 as a great privilege to stand in the presence, or 
 enjoy the intimacy, of the king. Cf. Matt. v. 
 8; xviii. 10; Heb. xii. 14. 
 
 3. Indestructibility. Whatever is composed 
 of divisible parts may be destroyed ; but spirit, 
 which is uncompounded and simple, cannot 
 be divided or destroyed. Hence the attribute 
 
 is ascribed to God, and he is called 
 j, 1 Tim. i. 17, and acp^aptfoj go?, in op- 
 position to ^aptoj ai^pcortoj, Rom. i. 23. 
 
 From these attributes which belong to God 
 as a Spirit we may deduce the following con- 
 clusions viz. : 
 
 (a) God cannot be represented, since he is 
 both immaterial and incorporeal. The attempt 
 to exhibit him by means of sensible images 
 always leads to gross and unworthy conceptions 
 
 of his nature. For this reason Moses forbade 
 the Israelites to make any images of God, 
 Exod. xx. 4 ; and with this prohibition all the 
 sacred writers agree, Isa. xlvi. 5; Acts, xvii. 
 29 ; Rom. i. 23, &c. The worship of images 
 is not necessarily connected with that of idols. 
 The Israelites in the wilderness worshipped 
 their own God, Jehovah, under the image of a 
 golden calf; and this, properly speaking, was 
 not idolatry; but experience shews that the 
 transition is easy from the worship of images to 
 idolatry ; and such was the case even with the 
 Israelites. The fact that Moses and other 
 writers of the Old Testament, notwithstanding 
 their zeal against the gross representations of 
 God, still described him in terms which were 
 highly figurative, may be accounted for by the 
 consideration that the Jews, as a nation, were 
 extremely rude and uncultivated, and had no 
 words in their language for the expression of 
 abstract ideas and spiritual things. The sacred 
 writers accordingly, in speaking to them of God 
 and divine things, were compelled to use terms 
 which had before been applied only to material 
 objects in a metaphorical sense; and these 
 terms, whenever they occur in the Bible, must 
 therefore be interpreted ^07tprtw$. Vide s. 18. 
 When we undertake to speak of God to uncul- 
 tivated men, we can make ourselves understood 
 in no other way than by the use of the words 
 descriptive of the organs which men employ in 
 their affairs, or by which they exhibit their va- 
 rious powers. To denote the commandment of 
 God, we must speak of his mouth ; to denote 
 his knowledge of the actions of men, we must 
 speak of his eyes and ears ; we must describe 
 his power by speaking of his hand , his dispo- 
 sition and feelings by speaking of his heart, &c. 
 (6) A merely external and bodily service is 
 of no avail with God, who is a Spirit. So we 
 are taught by Christ himself, John, iv. 21 24. 
 One reason why so many believe that God will 
 be satisfied with an outward form of worship is, 
 that they entertain low conceptions of his na- 
 ture, and regard him as like themselves. 
 
 II. Historical Sketch of this Doctrine. 
 
 1. It is a great mistake to suppose that the 
 same pure and abstract ideas which are attached 
 to the word spirit in our metaphysics were as- 
 sociated with it in the minds of the ancient Is- 
 raelites. Ideas of such a nature were far too 
 high and transcendental for so early a period. 
 The Hebrew word nn, which is translated spi- 
 rit, signified, properly and originally, wind, 
 breath, (and so speech,} and life. Vide s. 9. 
 The power of the wind is great, and yet the 
 wind itself is invisible. Hence in nearly all 
 the ancient languages every power which was 
 at the same time great and invisible was de- 
 noted by some word which in its literal signifi- 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 cation stood for the wind, e. g., rrn, 
 spiritus. That invisible power which moves 
 and animates our bodies is indicated by the mo- 
 tion of the air, or breath, and thence derives its 
 name ; for as soon as we cease to inhale the 
 air, we cease to move and to live. Hence even 
 this invisible power, which gives motion and 
 life to our bodies, is also called nn; cf. Eccles. 
 viii. 8; xii. 7. The body, which serves as the 
 organ through which this power acts, is called 
 vb'3, and is thus widely distinguished from the 
 power itself by which it is moved. In this 
 way, nn and -tira are always opposed one to the 
 other. According to this analogy, the Hebrews 
 gave the name nn to all the invisible powers, 
 whether physical or moral, which they saw in 
 operation in the universe, and consequently to 
 God himself, who is possessed of all conceiva- 
 ble powers in the highest possible degree. 
 Thus nn and nvr nn came to signify (a) the 
 nature of God in general ; (5) his invisible 
 power, as exercised both in the material world, 
 in its creation (Gen. i. 2), &c., and in the soul 
 of man, in promoting its moral improvement, in 
 the act of inspiration, and in various other ways. 
 Vide 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, 2 ; cf. s. 9. But the an- 
 cient Hebrews justly ascribed thought and will 
 to the same principle which moves and animates 
 us, and so denominated them nn, rtrsvpa' which 
 term they then applied, by way of analogy, to 
 the divine intelligence and will. Now, since 
 the body, when destitute of this animating prin- 
 ciple, is incapable of will and action, the term 
 nfe>3 was made to stand for whatever is weak 
 and powerless, and the term nn, for whatever is 
 great and strong, both in the material and moral 
 world. Vide Isa. xxxi. 3. Hence it appears 
 that the Hebrews made sufficient distinction be- 
 tween spirit and body, although in their notions 
 respecting spirit they may not have agreed ex- 
 actly with modern metaphysics. Their views 
 on this point were sufficiently distinct for all 
 practical purposes; and of anything more of 
 whatever possesses a merely speculative inte- 
 rest they were as well ignorant as are the com- 
 mon people of our own day. Many among 
 them did indeed suppose that God, like man, 
 was of a corporeal as well as spiritual nature, 
 as appears from many of the ancient terms em- 
 ployed in their language; and this accounts, in 
 some measure, for their strong and invincible 
 propensity to the worship of images. The same 
 thing is found to be true in regard to other nations 
 who have worshipped God under some human 
 resemblance, respecting which there is a remark- 
 able passage in Cicero, Nat. Deor. I. 27, seq. 
 
 2. But even among Christians there have 
 been some who have conceived of God as mate- 
 rial and corporeal. The Ebionites of the second 
 century, Audaeus the Syrian, and a great part of 
 the Egyptian monks of that period, are accused 
 
 of entertaining this error. .Even some of the 
 fathers, as we find, ascribed somewhat corpo- 
 real to God. Tertullian asks, Quis negabit 
 Deum CORPUS esse, etsi Deus spiritus est? Me- 
 lito and many others expressed the same opi- 
 nions. They were opposed, however, by Ori- 
 gen and others, who earnestly contended for 
 the truth, that God is oww^afoj. In the seven- 
 teenth century, Hobbes, and in the eighteenth, 
 Priestley, contended that God possessed a body, 
 as otherwise he could stand in no relation to 
 bodily things. Accordingly they ascribed to 
 him the attribute of extension. 
 
 This opinion may be traced to various causes. 
 (1) With some it was mere ignorance, or the 
 use of unguarded expressions, like those em- 
 ployed by illiterate people at the present day. 
 This was probably the case with the Ebionites, 
 Audagus, and some of the fathers. (2) Others 
 seem to assert these views when they do not in 
 reality entertain them, the mistake arising from 
 the different use of language. Such is the case 
 with Tertullian, who meant to denote by the 
 word corpus nothing more than substance and 
 individuality. He, however, believed extension 
 to be an attribute of spirit. (3) Others still are 
 gross materialists, and deny the possibility of 
 simple substances. Such are Hobbes, Priest- 
 ley, and others. (4) Some of the mystics ascribe 
 extension to God, and consequently somewhat 
 of a material nature. This may be said of the 
 Egyptian monks; and, as a general thing, the 
 my slid impuri have been very much inclined to 
 pantheism. 
 
 Morus, p. 45, s. 7, extr. et not. 4. 
 
 SECTION XX. 
 
 OF THE ETERNITY AND IMMUTABILITY OF GOD. 
 
 I. What Eternity is, and upon what it depends. 
 
 THE word eternity is used, as philosophers 
 observe, in a figurative and a literal sense. In 
 the figurative or popular sense it denotes an ex- 
 istence which may indeed have had a beginning, 
 but will have no end ; like that of the angels, 
 of the human soul, &c. Instead of eternity in 
 this sense, the shoolmen use the words seviter- 
 nitas, sempiternitas. In the literal sense it de- 
 notes an existence which has neither beginning 
 nor end, like that of God. The eternity of God, 
 considered as without beginning, is called by 
 the schoolmen seternitas & parte ante, or a priori, 
 and sometimes pritnitas Dei ; considered as 
 without end, it is called xternitas a parte post, 
 or a posteriori, more commonly called immor- 
 tality, d<jop<j(,'a, c&avotfteu This immortality of 
 God, however, unlike that of created spirits, is 
 necessary ; with him there is necessitas absoluta 
 vivendi ; nor can he, like the creatures of his 
 power, ever cease to exist. 
 
100 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 The eternity of God depends upon the neces- 
 sity of his existence; since we cannot suppose 
 that there ever was, or will be, a period in 
 which a necessary being did not or will not 
 exist. To suppose this would be contradictory, 
 and equivalent to saying that a necessary being 
 is not necessary. Such was the reasoning of 
 Plato in Timaeus; of Proclus in his Commen- 
 tary on the same ; of Parmenides and Plotinus. 
 
 The question is sometimes asked in this con- 
 nexion, whether the notion of the eternity of 
 God implies the exclusion of all succession of 
 time in his existence, so that in him the past, 
 present, and future are indistinguishable. Cle- 
 ricus and other Socinian and Arminian theolo- 
 gians, and some philosophers, have contended 
 for a succession of time in God. This subject 
 lies so wholly beyond the circle of our know- 
 ledge, and is so little analogous to anything 
 with which we are acquainted, that at first sight 
 it might seem not to admit of a definite determi- 
 nation. At least, we are incapable of forming 
 any conception on this subject, as we can never 
 contemplate an object as without time and space. 
 In everything in the material world around us, 
 and even in ourselves, there is a constant suc- 
 cession of time; and however much we may 
 strive to lift our minds above this necessity, we 
 shall still find ourselves compelled to conceive 
 of any event for example, the creation of the 
 world which with us is past, as past also with 
 God, and as future with him before it took 
 place. Most writers, however, will admit of no 
 succession of time in God; they justly consU 
 der that this succession as it exists in us in- 
 volves imperfections of various kinds, and espe- 
 cially dependence and limitation, and cannot 
 therefore be admitted to have existence in the 
 divine nature. But it is best to pass by this 
 metaphysical subtlety, and to represent God to 
 our minds as existing without beginning or 
 end, as coeval through all time, past, present, 
 and future, with all the creatures of his hand. 
 In intimate connexion with this doctrine is that 
 of 
 
 II. The Immutability of God. 
 
 Since the existence of God is necessary, we 
 cannot suppose that his nature possesses any 
 attribute at one time of which it is destitute at 
 another. If he changes, it must be for the bet- 
 ter or for the worse ; neither of which can be 
 supposed with regard to him. Accordingly, his 
 relation to his creatures, which first arose on the 
 creation of the world, can have produced no al- 
 teration in God himself; he continues the same 
 amidst all the changes of created things. To 
 doubt this truth would involve us at once in 
 contradiction. We must therefore believe it, 
 although we have no analogy for it, and of 
 course cannot form any clear conception of it. 
 
 This immutability relates to the decrees and the 
 actions, as well as to the nature, of God. Cf. 
 Morus, p. 53, s. 15, n. 1. The immutability of 
 God in respect to his actions is most frequently 
 mentioned in the Bible ; nor is this attribute 
 denied by those passages which affirm that 
 God repents, &c. When God appears to be 
 displeased with anything, or orders it differ- 
 ently from what we expected, we say, after the 
 manner of men, that he repents. That this is 
 the meaning is plain from other texts, in which 
 the immutability of the divine decrees is ex- 
 pressly asserted. Vide s. 25, which treats of 
 the will of God, and Morus, p. 45, n. 5. 
 
 In these attributes which have just been 
 named, two others are involved viz., self-exist' 
 ence (aseitas), by which is meant that God has 
 the ground of his existence in no other being 
 than himself; and independence, by which is 
 meant that God cannot be determined or con- 
 trolled, either as to his existence, his will, or 
 his actions, by any other being. Morus, p. 45, 
 s. 8. 
 
 III. The Biblical representation of these Attributes. 
 
 The pure idea of eternity is too abstract to 
 have been conceived in the early ages of the 
 world, and is not accordingly found expressed 
 by any word in the ancient languages. But as 
 cultivation advanced, and this idea was more 
 distinctly developed, it became necessary, in 
 order to express it, either to invent new words, 
 or to employ old words in a new sense, as was 
 done with the words seternitas, perennitas, &c. 
 The Hebrews, like other nations, were destitute 
 of any single word to express the idea of eter- 
 nity. The word oSijr, like atwv and CHU>VM>J, sig- 
 nifies any duration, especially a long period, 
 whether past, present, or future. They were 
 compelled, therefore, to have recourse to circum- 
 locution. To express seternitas a parte ante, 
 they said, before the world was; seternitas & 
 parte post, when the world shall be no more. 
 
 Some of the principal texts of scripture re- 
 specting these attributes. 
 
 1. Respecting the eternity of God. God is 
 said to be the first and the last i. e., the being 
 who existed before the world began, and who 
 will continue when it shall be destroyed, Isaiah, 
 xliv. 6, coll. xli. 4. The same meaning is con- 
 veyed when God is said to be A xai Jl, ajj*7 xa ^ 
 T'f^o?, Rev. i. 8 ; or, as the Rabbins say, from 
 N to n i. e., ab initio usque ad extremum. In 
 Psalm xc. the eternity of God is described in a 
 very sublime manner. The length of human 
 life, which had previously been from one hun- 
 dred and twenty to one hundred and thirty 
 years, had been suddenly abridged in the desert 
 to seventy or eighty years. Moses hence takes 
 occasion to compare the perishable nature of 
 man with the eternal nature of God. The 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 101 
 
 phrase "before the mountains were brought 
 forth" is a periphrasis for aeternitas aparteante, 
 like rtpo xaraj3ok?j xdcr^ov, John, xvii. 24. In 
 the phrase n^y ny n^iyp, the former word denotes 
 past, the latter, future time ; like art' cuwvwv, t$ 
 tfouj cuwvas, in the New Testament, John, vi. 
 51, seq. The meaning of the Psalmist, ver. 3, 
 seq., is briefly this : short and transitory is the 
 life of man; but it is otherwise with God : the 
 being who made us mortal is himself immortal. 
 Of the same import is the passage, Ps. cii. 
 24 28. "Thy years are throughout all gene- 
 rations (onn 11-13)." "Of old (epjoS) hast thou 
 laid the foundations of the earth" i. e., God 
 existed before the creation of the world. Verse 
 27, "Thou art the same" i. e., God himself is 
 immutable amidst the alterations of the world ; 
 he changes not with the changing universe. 
 "Thy years shall have no end" i. e., God is 
 immortal a periphrasis for seternitas a parte 
 post. So Paul describes God, 1 Tim. vi. 16, 
 as o jitows Z%uv c&avowi/'av i. e., immortal in 
 a peculiar sense, necessarily so a being who 
 can have no end. Cf. 1 Tirn. i. 17. The pas- 
 sage, Roin. i. 20, dUSc-oj av-r'ou 8vvap.i,$ xai ^C.OT'JJS, 
 belongs in this connexion. 
 
 2. Respecting the immutability of God. This 
 attribute is described by the text before quoted, 
 Ps. cii. 28, (Kin nns, avto$, semper idem.} It is 
 also implied in the names rvav nt^x rmv, and 
 nvr> in the Pentateuch. Vide s. 17. In Ps. xc. 
 4, it is expressly said, that time produces no 
 alteration in God, as it does in creatures: "A 
 thousand years pass away before thee like yes- 
 terday, or like a watch in the night." Vide 
 Uebersetzung der Psalmen. Parallel with these 
 texts is that in 2 Pet. iii. 8, 9, " Be not ignorant 
 of this orre thing, that one day is with the Lord 
 as a thousand years, and a thousand years as 
 one day." If it appears (ver. 9) that God does 
 not immediately accomplish his promises and 
 threats, we may yet be certain that he will not 
 forget to accomplish them. For (ver. 8) he is 
 not mutable. Length of time makes no altera- 
 tion in him, that he should forget anything, as 
 we do. What took place a thousand years ago, 
 is as new and as present to him as what takes 
 place to-day. This is the proper practical view 
 of this subject. In other texts the immutability 
 of the divine decrees is spoken of, and they are 
 called djUfr'a^tojT'a, Rom. xi. 29 ; also, ?b a/j-std- 
 Sftov trfi povhrj avvov, Heb. vi. 17, 18 ; Mai. 
 iii. 6; Ps. xxxiii. 10, 11. The passage, James, 
 i. 17, may be connected with these, as it does 
 not properly treat of the immutability of the na- 
 ture, but of the purposes and dispositions of 
 God. He is there said to be the creator and 
 preserver of the lights of heaven, 
 
 ) with whom is no variableness 
 nor shadow of alteration (^port? 
 i. e., his favour is not changeable, lik 
 
 that of a prince, but he is always equally gra- 
 cious to men. 
 
 3. Respecting the self-existence of God. The 
 passages Ps. xc. cii. &c., which speak of the 
 eternity of God, teach this attribute implicitly, 
 and by way of consequence. Vide also Acts, 
 xvii. 24, 25. Cf. Philo, De Opif. mundi, p. 28, 
 ed. Pf. M^Stvos TtpoaSfOjiui/oj aM.oi>. 
 
 4. Respecting the independence of God. Here 
 belongs the text just quoted from Acts. This 
 attribute is also exhibited very intelligibly and 
 plainly in Rom. xi. 33 36. Tt's ov-^ovXoj 
 avtov eyzvsto ; yj ti$ Ttpol&oxsi/ a/uf^, xai avtarto- 
 So^tfsT'cu, avtct. Cf. Isaiah, xl. ; 13, seq. Mo- 
 ms, p. 46, note. 
 
 Morus, p. 44, s. 6, coll. p. 53, s. 15. 
 
 SECTION XXI. 
 
 THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD. 
 
 I. Definition, Ground, and Proof of this Attribute. 
 
 THE omnipotence of God, defined in philoso- 
 phical language, is that attribute by which he 
 can bring to pass everything which is possible. 
 It is, then, nothing else than an exertion of the 
 divine will. But since its object is rather phy- 
 sical than moral good, it is here placed among 
 the physical attributes of God. The ground of 
 this attribute lies in the supreme perfection and 
 infinity of the divine nature. Since God is in- 
 finite, his power cannot admit of bounds or 
 limitations. But that God can do only what is 
 possible, as they say in the schools, is still true in 
 itself, and perfectly consistent with his infinity. 
 For an impossibility, in the philosophical sense 
 of the word, is something which implies a con- 
 tradiction, and is a nonentity. One who should 
 contend that God could perform what is impos- 
 sible, would contend that he could act contra- 
 dictorily, which would be an imperfection not 
 ascribable to the most perfect being. This 
 metaphysical definition should, however, never 
 be used in popular instruction, since it can never 
 be made sufficiently intelligible; and the words 
 possible and impossible are not used in the same 
 sense in common life, and in the schools of phi- 
 losophers. Common people, who are unaccus- 
 tomed to reflection, will always find difficulty 
 in the assertion, that God can do only what is 
 possible. To them, therefore, this attribute 
 should be described, according to the language 
 of scripture, to be that by which God can do 
 everything which he will. This definition com- 
 prehends the whole, since God can never will 
 anything which is impossible. 
 
 In proof of the unlimited power of God, we 
 may here mention the greatness of his works. 
 Vide Rom. i. 20; Job, xl. 41. 
 
 The omnipotence of God is divided, in the 
 philosophical and theological schools, into ai- 
 
102 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 solitta and ordinata. The absolute omnipotence 
 of God is that immediate, miraculous exertion 
 of his power, which is seen in the creation of 
 the world, &c. His omnipotentia ordinata. is 
 that common, regular exercise of his power, by 
 which he makes use of the course of nature, 
 which he himself has established for the promo- 
 tion of his own designs. Thus he produces the 
 warmth of the atmosphere, not per potentiam ab- 
 solutam, but ordinatam, in causing the sun to 
 shine. The same thing is expressed by saying, 
 he acts per causas secundas. 
 
 II. The Biblical Representations of the Omnipotence 
 of God. 
 
 1. The common literal representations which 
 the Bible gives of the omnipotence of God, are 
 rvo and rryo.), i>pyfta, Svya/tij, fiovo$, 8wdatrj^, 
 the Almighty. Jer. x. 12, " He created the earth 
 by his power (ni3)." The plural rvniaj is ap- 
 plied to the actual exertions of the divine power, 
 and so, like 8vi/a/mj, signifies miracles. 
 
 2. Besides these literal, there are many/g-u- 
 rative, anthropomorphical representations of the 
 divine power contained in the Bible. Among; 
 these are the following : the hand, strong Jiand, 
 right hand, of God; also, the arm, the long arm 
 ((Uaxpo^ftp), of God, in opposition to a short arm, 
 the index of weakness, &c. Vide Deut. xxxii. 
 39; Isa. lix. 1, seq. The representation that 
 God works by speaking, by his word, or his 
 command, is also figurative. Vide the history 
 of the creation, Gen. i. 3, seq. In Ps. xxxiii. 
 6, it is said, " by the word of the Lord the hea- 
 vens were formed ;" and in ver. 9, " He spake, 
 and it was done; he commanded, and it stood 
 fast." In this sense ^r t ua Qfov is used, Heb. xi. 
 3 ; and /j^ta 8vvdu.tu>$ (Sfj-afoi') avtov, the word 
 of his power, his command, Heb. i. 3. All these 
 are figurative expressions, intended to shew the 
 ease and certainty with which God performs his 
 works and executes his will. He is represent- 
 ed by this image as a powerful ruler, to whose 
 mere word and command everything is subjpct. 
 He does not need to give bis own hand to the 
 work : it costs him only a word. In other pas- 
 sages, we find that what is done is ascribed more 
 directly to the will of God (for the language of 
 the Bible is wisely varied) e. g., Rev. iv. 11, 
 " Thou hast created all things, xai 8ta rb ^sx^a 
 GOV ^<jav," i. e., they owe their existence to thy 
 mere will. 
 
 3. The following are some of the texts in 
 which unlimited power is ascribed to God in the 
 clearest manner: Ps. cxv. 3, "Our God is in 
 heaven; he does whatsoever he will." Rom. 
 iv. 17, KaXouvroj ta ( u^ ov-r'a, tbj ovfa, he called 
 them from nothing; he created what did not 
 exist. Jer. xxxii. 17, "Thou hast made the 
 heaven and the earth with thy great power, and 
 
 thine outstretched arm." In Ephes. iii. 20, Paul 
 describes the infinity of the divine power by 
 saying that God is able vrtep itdv-ta, rto^oai vrtsp 
 sx Ttfpiaaov u>v voovfifv i. e., to do infinitely more 
 than all that we imagine. In Ephes. i. 19, he 
 speaks of vrttpfidKhov ^tlyt^oj Swdfitcdf avtov. 
 The phrase ovx a8vva,T?r}Gi Ttapa T'O 9 Jtav fopa, 
 Luke, i. 37, is to be classed among the preceding. 
 It is a proverbial phrase, which conveys the 
 meaning that God can perform what may ap- 
 pear to us impossible, or rather, that God is 
 never unable to fulfil his promise, (/r/Jua "vn.) 
 Cf. Gen. xviii. 14, whence these words are 
 taken. 
 
 Morus, p. 50, s. 13. 
 
 SECTION XXII. 
 
 OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 
 
 THIS attribute is ascribed to God, to denote 
 that he possesses the most perfect knowledge. 
 That it is rightly ascribed to him may be easily 
 shewn, even by reasoning a priori. Since God 
 is a Spirit, he possesses cognitive power, and 
 of course knowledge. And since he is the most 
 perfect Spirit, he possesses the most perfect in- 
 tellect and intellection, which is called omni- 
 
 I. The Extent, or the Objects of the Divine 
 Knowledge. 
 
 How the divine intelligence can comprehend 
 and survey so vast a number and exhaustless a 
 variety of objects, is quite inconceivable to our 
 finite and feeble capacities. Paul speaks of the 
 j3c&o$ yycowcos sov, Rom. xi. 33. The Bible 
 often says, "there is no searching of his under- 
 standing," Is. xl. 28 ; " his understanding is in- 
 finite," Ps. cxlvii. 5. The ancient Grecian 
 philosophers frequently express very just and 
 pure conceptions of the omniscience of God. 
 When Thales was asked if some of the actions 
 of men were not unknown to God, he answered, 
 * Not even their thoughts." Xenophop records 
 similar sentiments of Socrates, which are re- 
 peated by Plato in Parmenides. The objects 
 of the divine knowledge have sometimes been 
 divided, in accommodation to the weakness of 
 human understanding, into several classes. 
 
 1. His own nature is one object of the know- 
 ledge of God. And from this knowledge it re- 
 sults that he must have had from all eternity the 
 ideas of the things which he has made, and 
 which were then only possible. This know- 
 led o-e is called by theologians cognitio natura- 
 Hs (i. e ., naturae suae.) It is this of which 
 Paul speaks in 1 Cor. ii. 11, "No man know- 
 eth the thoughts of a man, but the spirit of a man 
 which is in him. OvVo xai ?d rov sov 
 oiSsv, ft [A 1 ?} to rtvtvpa tov 0ov." 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 103 
 
 2. Jill objects EXTRINSIC to himself are also in- 
 cluded in the knowledge of God. These may 
 be divided into 
 
 (a) Possible things, which are known by God, 
 although they may never become real. The 
 knowledge which respects these subjects is 
 called scientia simplicis intelligentiae, because it 
 remains in the mind of God, without calling 
 forth the exercise of his will. In close con- 
 nexion with this knowledge is what is called 
 scientia Dei media, or conditionata, or scientia de 
 futuro conditional, the knowledge of what is 
 conditionally possible i. e., the knowledge of 
 those things which, although they have never 
 come to pass, might have taken place under 
 certain presupposed possible conditions. For 
 example : God foresees that this youth, if he had 
 lived to a certain age, would have become, under 
 particular circumstances and in a particular situ- 
 ation, a very bad man. He therefore takes him 
 from life at an early period, or brings him into 
 a situation in which he is unable to do the in- 
 jury foreseen. This injury, therefore, never 
 becomes real; but God foresaw it per scientiam 
 mediarn, and prevented it from taking place. 
 This scientia media must necessarily be ascribed 
 to God, since many other divine attributes de- 
 pend upon it e. g., the wisdom of God, which 
 j consists in his determining which is the best 
 among many possible things, and his choosing 
 according to this determination. Examples of 
 the exercise of this scientia media are furnished 
 in the Bible, Jer. xxxviii. 17 20; 1 Sam. xxiii. 
 5 14 ; Matt. xi. 21 23. The term media was 
 first employed by Fonseca, a Portuguese Jesuit, 
 and an Aristotelian, of the sixteenth century. 
 But its use in theology was principally author- 
 ized by Lud. Molina, a Spanish Jesuit of the 
 seventeenth century, and a disciple of Fonseca, 
 in his book, De concordia gratiae et liberi arbitrii. 
 He intended, by the introduction of this term, 
 to obviate the objections which had arisen to the 
 doctrine of Augustine concerning predestination. 
 The thing itself, however, which is designated 
 by this term, did not originate with him, but is 
 found in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, 
 Augustine, (De dono perseverentias, c. 9,) and 
 other of the ecclesiastical fathers. 
 
 (6) Real things. God, accordingly, knows 
 the nature of all things, animate and inanimate, 
 physical and moral. He knows the thoughts 
 and desires of the human heart. This know- 
 ledge is called scientia libera, or visionis im- 
 mediate, intuitive knowledge. It is involved 
 in the idea of the most perfect being; it was re- 
 quisite in the creation of the world, and is essen- 
 tial to the rule- and providence which God exer- 
 cises over the works of his hand. He who cre- 
 ated, constructed, and preserves the universe, 
 must necessarily understand it perfectly; and 
 especially the moral Governor of the world must 
 
 perfectly understand the moral character of his 
 subjects, in order to the just distribution of re- 
 wards and punishments. This doctrine is one, 
 therefore, of the highest practical importance. 
 It is calculated, on the one hand, to impart con- 
 solation to the pious, and, on the other, to 
 awaken a salutary dread in the thoughtless and 
 impure, and to urge them to repentance. On this 
 account it is often exhibited in the holy scrip- 
 tures. We read in 1 John, iii. 20, 6j yw^oxtt, 
 and in Heb. iv. 13, rcdvfa ds yvpva xai> 
 T'otj 6$$otyioc$ avtov. The Bible 
 frequently enters into a specific enumeration of 
 the different classes of objects which are com- 
 prehended in the knowledge of God. He knows 
 things animate and inanimate, Matt. vi. 2(5 ; x. 
 29; the destinies of men, Matt. vi. 32; their 
 thoughts and secret purposes, Jer. xi. 18 20 ; 
 Psa. xciv. 11 ; their sufferings and sorrows, Psa. 
 Ivi. 8 ; their virtues and vices, 1 Pet. iii. 12, &c. 
 One of the most sublime descriptions of the 
 knowledge of God is contained in Psa. cxxxix. 
 
 But in consequence of the form of time which 
 is inherent in our constitution, we are compelled 
 to regard objects as past, present, and future; 
 and, the same being transferred to God, his 
 knowledge has been differently denominated, as 
 it respects the first, second, or third of these 
 classes, reminiscentia, visio, and prsescientia. 
 That God should possess recollection and vision, 
 we may easily understand, from the analogy 
 which we find for these attributes in our own 
 minds. But he also possesses prescience, and 
 this relates to future objects of three different 
 classes. (1) Futura necessaria those things 
 which result from the established course of na- 
 ture, or from a fixed divine decree ; (2) futura 
 conditionata those things which will take place 
 only on certain conditions, the evil or good 
 that will be done by a person under given cir- 
 cumstances; (3) futura contingentia those 
 events which depend on the free will of man, 
 or other rational beings, and therefore may or 
 may not come to pass. The knowledge of God 
 relating to the last of these classes is called xcw' 
 E|O^V, his prescience. 
 
 This divine foreknowledge of the events de- 
 pending upon the free will was denied by some 
 of the ancient philosophers. [Cicero uses the 
 following argument: " Si prsescita sunt omnia 
 futura, hoc ordine venient, quo ventura esse 
 praescita sunt. Et si hoc ordine venient, certus 
 est ordo rerum praescienti Deo. Et si est certus 
 ordo rerum, est certus ordo causarum ; non enim 
 aliquid fieri potest, quod non aliqua efficiens 
 causa praecesserit. Si autem certus est ordo 
 causarum, quo fit omne quod fit, fato fiunt om- 
 nia, quse fiunt. Quod si ita est, nihil est in 
 nostra potestate, nullumque est arbitrium volun- 
 tatis." De Divinatione, II. 5 7.] The same 
 ground is taken by some of the schoolmen, and 
 
104 
 
 HRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 by Socinus and his followers. [Socinus says : 
 "Animadvertendum est, infallibilem istam Dei 
 prae notionem a nobis non admitti, nisi prius 
 probetur." " Quasdam sunt quae Deus scire 
 nulla ratione dici potest, nee tamen ipsius omni- 
 scientiae quidquam derogatur." " De futuris 
 contingentibus non est determinata veritas." 
 Praelec. Theol. c. 8 11.] The common argu- 
 ment is briefly this : the foreknowledge of God, 
 which is contended for, invades the freedom of 
 the will in man and other moral beings. For 
 if God foreknows all things, and is infallible in 
 his knowledge, whatever he foreknows must 
 take place, is therefore necessary, and no longer 
 dependent on the freedom of man. 
 
 But this reasoning is fallacious; for man does 
 not perform one action or another because it was 
 foreknown by God ; but God foreknew the ac- 
 tion, because man, in the exercise of his free will, 
 would perform it. Our own knowledge of the 
 future bears some analogy with this, since it is 
 always founded upon a knowledge of the past 
 and present. But on account of the imperfection 
 and limitation of our view, the future is to us 
 only probable, and our knowledge of it only 
 conjectural; while to God the future is certain, 
 and his knowledge with respect to it infallible. 
 [The same answer, in substance, was given by 
 Augustine to the passage above cited from Ci- 
 cero : "Non est consequens, ut si Deo certus 
 est omnium ordo causarum, ideo nihil sit in nos- 
 trae voluntatis arbitrio; et ipsx quippe voluntates 
 nosfrse in causarum ordine sunt, qui certus est 
 Deo, ej usque praescientia continetur, quoniam 
 et humanae voluntates humanorum operum cau- 
 sae sunt. Atque ita, qui omnes rerum causas 
 praescivit, profecto in iis causis etiam nostras 
 voluntates ignorare non potuit. Interim nullo 
 modo cogimur, aut praescientij, Dei retentl tol- 
 lere voluntatis arbitrium, aut retento voluntatis 
 arbitrio Deum negare praescium futurorum, sed 
 utrumque amplectimur, illud, ut bene credamus, 
 hoc, ut bene vivamus." Augustine, De Civ. D. 
 V. c. 9, 10. The same distinction between 
 foreknowing and foreordaining is also suggested 
 by John of Damascus: " Xpjj ywuxtxeiv, wj 
 rtdvta /.LEV Ttpoytvuxjxst o 0f6j, ov rtoWa 8e Ttpoopc- 
 ^i. npcoyti'aKjxft yap xai fa $' i^utv, ov rtpoopt'^f t 
 8e avra, ov yap ^t'tet trjv xaxiav, yij/<5^ai, ov6f 
 j3taWat "frjv apeitinv uxyts -trtf ^ft'aj rtpoyvcotft ixrjs 
 xiXsvaacoj tpyov ea-tiv o 7tpoopW|u6$. npoopt^st, $e 
 fa ovx <j) yuiv xara tr^v rtpoyvcocftv avfov 1 r5^ 
 yap xa-ta -tr}v Ttpoyrcooij' av-fov Ttpoaxptvs rtdWa o 
 565 xata "tr[v dya^ot^ta xai -tr[v 8<,xaioavvrjv 
 avfou.'" "Ex8o<3i$ aspics, x. *. 7,. L. ii. c. 30.] 
 
 Besides, the free actions of men are never 
 wholly arbitrary, but, on the contrary, are per- 
 formed in view of some motive, which, however 
 concealed it may be from our short-sighted eyes, 
 is visible to God, who knows intuitively the 
 whole extent of the present and future ; who is 
 
 the author of the laws by which we act; and 
 who, without this knowledge, would be incom- 
 petent to the government of the world, which 
 must then be abandoned, in a great measure, to 
 the control of chance. [This appears to be the 
 most perfect solution of the difficulty in question. 
 So long as liberty was supposed to consist in a 
 choice undetermined by motives, there remained 
 an irreconcilable disagreement between the di- 
 vine prescience and human freedom ; and con- 
 sistent writers saw themselves compelled to re- 
 ject the one or the other. But when freedom 
 came to be considered more justly, as the power 
 which we possess of determining our actions by 
 the ideas of reason, this disagreement was re- 
 moved. Cf. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. i. s. 
 406; Leipzig, 1828.] 
 
 This doctrine must therefore be admitted to 
 be true, although the mode of it must be for ever 
 unintelligible to us, who look at everything un- 
 der the limitations of time and space. The mis- 
 takes into which we fall on this subject are owing 
 to the words which we employ, and to the po- 
 verty of our conceptions. The terms chance and 
 contingent may facilitate, to our minds, the under- 
 standing of certain ideas, and are intended for 
 the illustration of certain attributes of things ; 
 but to the divine intelligence, in which there 
 is no succession of time, and by which the past, 
 present, and future are immediately compre- 
 hended, nothing can appear contingent. Since 
 every event takes place according to fixed laws, 
 the infinite intelligence must perceive what is 
 free and contingent to be as certain in the course 
 of future events as what is necessary or less con- 
 tingent. The Stoics were accustomed to say 
 that the actions of men were rendered certain, 
 but not necessary, by the divine foreknowledge. 
 [On this subject Augustine inquires, "Quid 
 est praescientia, nisi scientia futurorum ] Quid 
 autem/u/wrwm est Deo, qui omnia supergreditur 
 tempora ? Si enim scientia Dei, res ipsas habet, 
 non sunt eifuturse sed prassentes , ac per hoc non 
 jam preescientia, sed tantum scientia dici po- 
 test," De diversis quaest. 1. ii. Cf. Boethius, 
 De consol. philos, 1. v. pr. 6. " Scientia Dei 
 omnem temporis supergressa motionem, in suae 
 manet sirnplicitate prsesentiae, infinitaque prse- 
 teriti ac futuri spatia complectens, omnia quasi 
 jam gerantur in sua simplici cognitione consi- 
 derat. Itaque si praescientiam pensare veils, 
 qua cuncta dignoscit, non esse praesoientiam, 
 quasi futuri, sed scientiam nunquam deficientis 
 instantiae, rectius aestimabis. Unde non prae- 
 videntia, sed p-ovidentia potius dicitur, qtiod 
 porro ab rebus infimis constituta, quasi ab 
 excelso rerum cacumine cuncta prospiciat."] 
 Vide Leibnitz, Theodicee, under the titles, pre- 
 vision and science de Dieu. Cf. Eherhard, Ver- j 
 mischte Schriften, Num. 5, Verschiedene Aufsatzt 
 uber die Freyhdt des Wilkns; Halle, 1778, 8vo. 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 105 
 
 Callisen, Beytrag die Lehre von der Allwissen- 
 heit Gottes, und die Lehre von der menschlichen 
 Freiheit in Harmonie zu bringen, in Schmidt's 
 Bibliothek der theologischen Literatur, b. viii. 
 s. 247; Giessen, 1805, 8vo. 
 
 We can therefore bring no objection against 
 the Bible, when it ascribes to God this scientia 
 futurorum contin gentium. Vide Psalm cxxxix. 
 1 6, * Thou knewest the whole course of my life, 
 when thou sawest me in the first stages of ex- 
 istence." Cf. v. 2, "Thou understandest my 
 thought afar off," i. e., before I myself think 
 it. Isaiah adduces it as a proof of the greatness 
 of God, that he foresees and announces to his 
 prophets those future contingent things which 
 are beyond the reach of the human understand- 
 ing, ch. xli. 26 ; xliv. 8 ; xlviii. 4 8. 
 
 II. The Mode of the Divine Knowledge. 
 
 The faculties which we possess for the acqui- 
 sition of knowledge are very limited, and the 
 knowledge which we acquire in the use of them 
 is very imperfect. In forming conceptions, 
 therefore, of the divine intelligence, we must ab- 
 stract all those limitations which relate to time 
 and space; and in this way we obtain, for the 
 most part, merely negative ideas. The difference 
 between our understanding and that of God may 
 be rendered evident by the following particu- 
 lars : 
 
 1. Our knowledge is mostly derived from sen- 
 sation, from which we obtain, either directly or 
 indirectly, all our ideas. This is a limit beyond 
 which we cannot pass; and being such, it is 
 wholly inapplicable to the mind of God. Our 
 souls, in the present life, act and feel through 
 the body and its senses. But as these do not 
 belong to God, he cannot be supposed to have 
 either sensation or passions. Vide Morus, p. 
 54, s. 15, not. extr. 
 
 2. Our knowledge is obtained gradually. We 
 first receive our notions from sensation; we 
 then treasure them in our memory ; and after- 
 wards compare them with one another, and form 
 judgments concerning them. We then proceed 
 gradually, by means of the conclusions to which 
 we have arrived, from one truth to another, at- 
 taining sometimes to a probability in our know- 
 ledge, but remaining often uncertain and wholly 
 uninformed. But this process of acquisition is 
 in various ways imperfect, and cannot, therefore, 
 be attributed to God. He does not recollect 
 what is past, nor form images or symbols in his 
 mind, nor come to the conclusions of reason. 
 He does not form abstract ideas ; for to his mind 
 each particular thing is equally present; he re- 
 gards all things with immediate intuition ; and 
 is independent of the aid of memory. Every- 
 thing like succession in knowledge must be 
 absolutely excluded from the knowledge of God. 
 This is called scientia simultanea ; and God is 
 
 H 
 
 said by the schoolmen to know immediate, sine 
 discursu, uno actu. Vide Castner, W T ie die allge- 
 meinen Begriffe im gottlichen Verstande sind ; 
 Altenburg, 1768. 
 
 W 7 hen every imperfection is abstracted from 
 the divine understanding, it appears, from what 
 has been said, to surpass human understanding 
 in the following respects: (a) It is simulta- 
 neous, God knows by one act , (6) most true, 
 without error or mistake ; (c) most clear, with- 
 out darkness or confusion; (rf) most certain, 
 without doubt or ambiguity. 
 
 But those who live in the sphere of sense, 
 and are limited by time and space, are unable to 
 form distinct conceptions of the perfection and 
 immeasurableness of the divine understanding. 
 There is, therefore, in all the languages of men, 
 especially the more ancient, an entire destitution 
 of terms which literally express these ideas ; 
 and even had such terms existed in former 
 times, they would have been unintelligible. 
 There is no way, therefore, when this subject is 
 mentioned, but to take language borrowed from 
 the objects of sense, and to employ it with a 
 purer and more refined meaning. This is the 
 method of the Bible. It speaks of God as re- 
 membering either in a good sense, meaning that 
 he bestows favours after he has for a long time 
 inflicted punishments, (e. g., Gen. viii. 1 ; Acts, 
 x. 4 ;) or in a bad sense, meaning that he calls 
 to mind i. e., punishes, the sins of men, (e. g., 
 Psalm xxv. 7 ; ciii. 9.) In the same manner it 
 speaks of God as forgetting i. e., leaving men 
 without help, or suffering their sins to pass un- 
 punished. It speaks too of his hoping and ex- 
 pecting, and finding his hope and expectation, 
 as it seems to us, disappointed. On the same 
 principle, the terms taken from the bodily or- 
 gans, through which we obtain all our know- 
 ledge, are applied to God e. g., nsn, jjrtf 
 axomiv, which are synonymous with yy, 
 xsw, "\*>n, Jpfwav, &c. 
 
 Morus, p. 46, s. 10. 
 
 SECTION XXIII. 
 
 OF THE OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD. 
 
 I. Statement of the Doctrine. 
 
 THE omnipresence of God is that power by 
 which he is able to act everywhere. This attri- 
 bute, when correctly viewed, cannot be distin- 
 guished from the divine omnipotence and omni- 
 science taken in connexion; and so it is exhibit- 
 ed by Morus. We justly conclude, that he who 
 knows all things (s. 22), and whose power is 
 so unlimited, that he does whatsoever he will 
 (s. 21), must be present in all things, and can- 
 not be separated from them by time or space. 
 
 In thinking on this subject, we have need to 
 guard against gross conceptions, and especially 
 
106 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 against the danger of predicating of God what 
 can only be said of the presence of body. This 
 caution is particularly necessary here, since we 
 are apt to transfer the forms of time and space, 
 which are applicable only to the sphere of sense, 
 into the world of spirits ; and in so doing, to 
 come to conclusions which are false and contra- 
 dictory, and dishonourable to the purely spi- 
 ritual nature of God. Vide s. 20, I. The fol- 
 lowing points should be considered in reference 
 to this subject: 
 
 1. Extension is not predicable of God, who 
 is a Spirit. To say, therefore, that he is in infi- 
 nite space, or, with Philo, the Cabbalists, and 
 many modern writers, that he is himself infinite 
 space, is altogether erroneous. Such expres- 
 sions necessarily involve a material and limited 
 nature. Space is a mode of thought, in which, 
 as in a frame, we must range everything which 
 belongs to the sphere of sense, but within which 
 nothing relating to the spiritual or moral world 
 can be brought. The omnipresence of God was 
 often mentioned by the ancient philosophers 
 who ascribed to him a corporeal nature, or who 
 regarded him and the world as composing one 
 whole. He was called by Novatianus and 
 other Grecian writers, r'ortoj -rw okwv, or tov 
 6tot>, locus omnium rerum ; and by the Rabbins, 
 OipE, spatium universak. But this is an incor- 
 rect notion of the divine omnipresence. Baier 
 and many of our older theologians spoke of the 
 omnipresence of God as subslantialis, or essen- 
 ttalis, in opposition to that which was merely 
 operativa, or actualis. This substantial presence 
 of God they called dStad-r'aaria, or in Latin, in- 
 distantia, or adessentia substantial divinx. These 
 expressions, however, convey no distinct idea, 
 and often lead to erroneous conceptions. 
 
 [Note. Some of the older theologians enter- 
 tained the more scriptural opinion, that both the 
 substantial and efficient presence of God were 
 involved in his omnipresence. Thus Calovius 
 defines the omnipresence of God to be that attri- 
 bute, " vi cujus ille, non tantum substantia? pro- 
 pinquitate, sed etiam efficacia ac operatione, 
 adest creaturis omnibus." System, torn. ii. p. 
 612. He adds, p. 613, Omnipraesentia Dei 
 est attributum svfpy^-r't.sov, nee solum 
 crtav, indistctntiam adessentise, sed 
 operationem preesentis Dei, subinfert." In this 
 view of the subject Calovius was followed by 
 Quenstedt, who writes that this attribute, " non 
 solum essentiae divinae propinquitatem, sive 
 adessentiam Dei ad creaturas, sed etiam opera- 
 tionem quandam, importet." He therefore dis- 
 tinguishes between the immensity and the omni- 
 presence of God, the former of which he supposes 
 to be absolute and eternal, the latter relative, 
 and coeval only with the creation. 
 
 Hahn remarks, that from the history of the 
 
 various opinions which have prevailed respect- 
 ing the omnipresence of God, it appears that 
 most of the errors have arisen from confound- 
 ing the ideas of body and substance. In doing 
 this, our author has followed the example 
 of Reinhard, Morus, Doederlein, and others, 
 who adopted the philosophy of Leibnitz and 
 Wolf. In denying to God a body, and thus 
 avoiding the errors of pantheism, they seemed 
 at the same time unconsciously to deny him 
 substance, and to transmute him into an unessen- 
 tial thought, and then to locate him somewhere 
 beyond the limits of the universe, from whence 
 he looks forth, and exerts his power upon all 
 his works ; in which, therefore, he is no other- 
 wise present than by his knowledge and agency."] 
 2. By the presence of a spiritual being with 
 us, we mean, that he thinks of us, and in this 
 way acts upon us. But in order to this, we need 
 not suppose his local presence, or the approxima- 
 tion of the spiritual substance. We are present 
 in spirit with an absent friend, when we think 
 of him, and thus act upon him. Paul says, 1 
 Cor. v. 3, drtwv ^9 tfwjtaT'fc, rtapwv 8s ^9 rtvsvparfc,, 
 cf. v. 4. We see thus that our minds have an 
 agency, and an agency different from that of 
 matter, though we are ignorant of the mode of 
 their operation. How, then, can we hope to 
 understand the manner in which God acts'? 
 From what we observe of the operation of our 
 own minds, we may, however, reason with re- 
 spect to God, if we are on our guard against 
 transferring to him the imperfection and limita- 
 tions which we perceive in ourselves. He sees 
 and knows all things ; nor is he removed from 
 objects extrinsic to himself in respect either of 
 time or space, as we are, the operation even of 
 whose minds is limited by the sphere of sense, 
 to which we are chained by our connexion with 
 our bodies. The power of his Spirit, or rather, 
 the power of him, as the most perfect Spirit, is 
 infinite; that of our spirits, finite. He therefore 
 understands and controls all things; which is 
 the same as to say, he is present in all things. 
 If we attempt to go beyond this, we fall at once 
 into fruitless subtilties. We should be content 
 to say with Morus, Deus rebus prassens, est Deus 
 in res a gens. 
 
 II. The Scriptural Representations. 
 These are accordant with the views which we 
 have here expressed. The Bible exhibits this 
 attribute of God in such a manner as to lead us 
 to reverence his character, to place our confi- 
 dence in him, and to walk circumspectly before 
 him. And it accomplishes this practical end 
 without the aid of metaphysical subtilties. In 
 Psalm cxxxix. 7 10, the knowledge and power 
 of God are mentioned in close and inseparable 
 connexion with his presence " Whither shall 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 107 
 
 I go from thy spirit 1 If I ascend up into hea- 
 ven, thou art there ; if I dwell in the uttermost 
 parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead 
 me, and thy right hand shall hold me." The 
 omniscience and omnipresence of God are con- 
 nected in the same manner in Jer. xxiii. 23, 24, 
 *' Am I a God who is near, and far from no one ; 
 and can any hide himself in secret places that I 
 shall not see him ?" For other passages, cf. 
 Morus, p. 52, and Hahn, S. 188, s. 43. 
 
 The Bible contains some figurative represen- 
 tations of the omnipresence of God, which are 
 indeed perfectly adapted to popular discourse, 
 but which seem, if not properly understood, to 
 contradict the true idea of this attribute. Among 
 these representations we may mention the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 1. God fills (N'TO) heaven and earth i. e., the 
 universe. Vide Jer. xxiii. 24. This representa- 
 tion does not involve the notion of that spiritual 
 extension of which the Rabbins and some of the 
 schoolmen speak, but is intended to expose the 
 error then prevalent in the east, that God dwelt 
 in heaven, removed from the affairs of the world, 
 and unconcerned in what might befal the chil- 
 dren of men. 
 
 2. He dwells in heaven, or in his temple. We 
 find it very difficult to conceive that it should 
 be otherwise with the presence of God than with 
 our bodily presence. We cannot understand 
 how it is, that his presence should not bear 
 some relation to a particular place, or how it 
 should be possible for him to be at the same 
 time in different places. We are under the neces- 
 sity of using expressions borrowed from space, 
 because it is a form of thought inherent in our 
 minds.. But we should always remember that 
 these expressions, in application to God and 
 divine things, are figurative. Accordingly, 
 we represent God, in general, as at least more 
 present in one place than in another ; we make 
 him in our apprehensions to resemble ourselves ; 
 and are unable to conceive that he should act 
 upon nature, when at a great remove, or that he 
 should not be materially present, although invi- 
 sible, wherever his power is exerted. W'e 
 therefore assign to him an abode, where he is 
 at least eminently present. 
 
 (a) He dwells IN HEAVEN. There he gives 
 the most awful displays of his power, in the 
 lightnings and flying tempests, and thence he 
 sends down the most visible marks of his favour 
 in the light and vital warmth of the sun. The 
 heavens are therefore called the palace, throne, or 
 temple of God; and the earth, in contradistinction, 
 \\isfootstool. For this reason, the face and hands 
 were directed heavenwards in prayer, and the 
 temples and altars of God were built upon 
 mountains and hills. What is intended by these 
 figurative representations may be literary ex- 
 
 pressed after the example which is given even 
 in the scriptures, by the phrase, God is exalted 
 over all. We sometimes find the phrase, he dwells 
 on high, instead of the phrase, he dwells in hea- 
 ven. Vide Psalm cxv. 3 ; Job, xvi. 19. 
 
 (6) He dwells IN HIS TEMPLE, which is some- 
 times called his dwelling-place. The Jews be- 
 lieved that prayer offered there, where they sup- 
 posed God to be specially present among his 
 worshippers, would be more certainly heard 
 than when offered elsewhere; and they there- 
 fore turned their faces and hands thitherward 
 when absent from Jerusalem. They represent- 
 ed God as sitting on a throne above the ark of 
 the covenant, and placing his feet upon its lid. 
 This representation, which occurs frequently in 
 the Bible, and especially in the Old Testament, 
 was doubtless believed literally by some of the 
 Jews. The prophets, however, improved every 
 opportunity of teaching them to raise their 
 thoughts above the mere sensible representation, 
 and to connect with these figures those just and 
 worthy apprehensions of God which they were 
 intended to convey. At the consecration of the 
 temple, (1 Kings, viii. 27,) Solomon inquires, 
 " But will God indeed dwell on the earth ? Be- 
 hold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot 
 contain thee ; how much less this house that I 
 have builded 1" Cf. Is. Ixvi. 1, and Acts, xvii. 
 24, ovx sv #tpo7toMj7'(H$ vootj xatoixsi. Even 
 Homer appears to have had some just views of 
 the presence of God. In IL. xvi. 515, Glaucus 
 thus addresses Apollo : 
 
 aj/a, 05 irov Awa'rjf cv iriovi (Jjy/nw 
 Etj, fl ivi Tpoiy fovaom &t ai> TTUVTOS' aKoveiv. 
 
 The opinion of some of the Jews that God 
 could be rightly worshipped only at Jerusalem, 
 which was contradicted by Christ, (John, iv. 
 20 24,) originated partly from their erroneous 
 views of the presence of God, and partly from 
 that prejudice so dishonourable to him, that they 
 alone had any title to his love and favour. 
 
 3. He approaches his people, or withdraws 
 from them. These also are figurative expres- 
 sions, adapted to popular discourse. W T hen they 
 wished to describe God as knowing anything 
 perfectly, they said, he drew near, and closely in- 
 spected it. The representation that God draws 
 near to any one, or dwells with him, is also used 
 to designate the support, love, and special 
 favour of God, Psalm xci. 15 ; Matt, xxviii. 20 ; 
 John, xiv. 23, 24. It likewise denotes the 
 hearing of prayer, Matt, xviii. 20. On the 
 other hand, when God is said to withdraw from 
 his people, and to be far off, the meaning is, 
 that he withholds his assistance and support, 
 and leaves them helpless. Cf. s. 22, ad finem, 
 and Morus, p. 52, note 4. Cf. Morus, p. 51, 
 seq. s. 14. 
 
108 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 SECTION XXIV. 
 
 THE WISDOM OF GOD. 
 
 I. Statement of the Doctrine. 
 
 THIS attribute of God, as well as his omni- 
 presence, stands in the closet connexion with 
 his omniscience, and can be directly derived 
 from it. The omniscience of God implies that 
 he possesses the clearest knowledge of the con- 
 nexion of all things, and therefore of their rela- 
 tions as means and ends, and this knowledge is 
 commonly called wisdom. And because God pos- 
 sesses the most perfect knowledge of this kind 
 he is said to possess supreme wisdom. He is ac- 
 cordingly styled by Paul, (1 Tim. i. 17), povos 
 cro<j>6$, the all-wise, sapientissimus ; cf. Jude, v. 
 25. The wisdom of God implies two things : 
 
 1. God proposes to himself the best ends 
 (fines, consilia.) The question is here asked, 
 what is the end of God in the creation and pre- 
 servation of the world ? The earlier theologians 
 generally assign the glory and majesty of God as 
 the final cause of the creation, and refer to the 
 texts which speak of him as doing everything 
 for his-own glory i. e., that it might be seen 
 and acknowledged. And we may say, indeed, 
 that in relation to men and other rational beings, 
 who are bound to acknowledge the glory of God, 
 this is one end of the creation. But glory, in 
 itself considered, cannot be looked upon as the 
 sole, universal end, for which the world exists. 
 For God himself can be in nothing dependent 
 on the glory which others ascribe to him, nor 
 can he receive any increase of honour from their 
 praises. Other theologians, therefore, say that 
 the welfare of men was the object of God in the 
 creation of the world. This may be true, if it 
 is not understood to mean that God created 
 everything solely for this object. It were judg- 
 ing very proudly concerning ourselves and very 
 poorly concerning God to suppose that he pro- 
 posed to himself no other object than this, and 
 had created everything for our sake who consti- 
 tute so small a part of the boundless universe. 
 We prefer the following answer to this ques- 
 tion : The end of God in the creation of the world 
 was to impart to all his creatures that degree of 
 perfection of which they are severally suscepti- 
 ble; in accomplishing this end he employs the 
 most suitable means, and thus displays before 
 our eyes his wisdom, power, and goodness. 
 This is what is meant when it is said in the 
 scriptures, he made everything for his own glory. 
 We should learn the majesty and glorious attri- 
 butes of the Creator from the creatures of his 
 hand. But this can be done only by moral 
 beings like ourselves. Vide Psalm xix., et 
 alibi. Cf. s. 18, I. Note. Also s. 48, IV. 
 Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 271. Bretschneider, Hand- 
 buch, band. i. s. 584. 
 
 2. He chooses the best means (media, instru- 
 menta) for the attainment of these ends. He 
 not only knows, as omniscient, what the best 
 means are, but is able, as omnipotent, to employ 
 them. In the choice of means he cannot be de- 
 ceived, since he is omniscient, and consequently 
 infallible. Hence he will never choose unsuit- 
 able, ineffective, or injurious means; nor will 
 he employ means which are superfluous, or 
 more than are necessary for the attainment of 
 his object in the shortest way. To suppose this 
 would be to impeach his omniscience. This is 
 sometimes expressed as follows : God acts by 
 the rule of economy, (ex lege aeconomiae;) Deum 
 ire via brevissimd ; according to the axiom : 
 Quud fieri potest per pauca, non debet fieri per 
 plura. That God acts upon this maxim, both 
 in the material and moral world, we see from 
 innumerable observations. But since we are 
 unable to survey the whole system of things we 
 cannot and should not presume to decide in 
 given cases what might be the shortest way and 
 what might be the best means for attaining the 
 divine ends. Many things appear to us useless, 
 unsuitable, or superfluous. The observation of 
 Paul, (1 Corinthians, i. 25,) that even those 
 actions and works of God which appear to us 
 foolish and unwise far surpass all human wis- 
 dom is abundantly confirmed both in the physi- 
 cal and moral world. Vide Reimarus, Abhand- 
 lungen iiber die Wahrheiten der natiirlichen 
 Religion, s. 206 ; and Jacobi, Betrachtungen 
 iiber die weisen Absichten Gottes, 4 thle. Hano- 
 ver, 1765, 8vo. The science in which the ends 
 and objects of God are investigated is called 
 teleology. Vide s. 15, 68, ad finem. 
 
 II. Scriptural Representations. 
 
 The doctrine of the wisdom of God is in a 
 high degree practical. It is calculated to inspire 
 our hearts with pious, thankful, and reverential 
 feelings towards God. It offers to us an unfail- 
 ing source of consolation and peace in the 
 midst of our cares and sufferings, and is there- 
 fore frequently exhibited by the sacred writers. 
 The most important texts relating to this attri- 
 bute may be divided into two classes. 
 
 1. The texts which treat of our knowledge 
 of the wisdom of God derived from the creation 
 and preservation of the physical world. These 
 are, Psalm civ., especially ver. 24 ; Prov. iii. 
 19, seq. ; Is. xl. 13, seq. ; also Prov. viii. 
 22 30, where the wisdom of God is personi- 
 fied, and in which Solomon bestows upon it all 
 possible praises, and shews that it is that attri- 
 bute by which God so especially glorifies him- 
 self in the creation and preservation of the 
 world. In the preceding and succeeding con- 
 text he describes folly and ignorance by way of 
 contrast. 
 
 2. The texts which treat of the wisdom of 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 109 
 
 God as displayed in the various institutions of 
 the moral world, especially those which he has 
 established to promote the moral perfection and 
 happiness of the human race. For moral per- 
 fection, and the happiness which stands in an 
 immediate connexion with it, are the ultimate 
 destination of men and of all moral creatures. 
 The writers of the New Testament especially 
 love to dwell upon these great plans of God. 
 Christ says, (Matt. xi. 19,) ^ <ro$ta (sov) e8i- 
 xatwjty drto T'UIV r'txwov WVT!^ i. e., the wisdom 
 of God (as displayed in the calling and prepara- 
 tion of teachers, and in the publication of their 
 doctrines) is approved by all the wise. Paul 
 says the same respecting the wisdom of God as 
 displayed in the Christian doctrine so generally 
 condemned at that time, 1 Cor. i. ii. Those 
 very doctrines which appeared the most revolt- 
 ing to Jews and heathen contained, in his 
 view, the greatest proof of the divine wisdom. 
 He calls the doctrine of redemption co<j>ta, by 
 way of eminence, (1 Cor. 1. 25, seq. coll. Rom. 
 xi. 33 ;) although it appeared foolishness to men. 
 Morus, p. 47, note 7. A taste for these moral 
 subjects, and a perception of the wisdom of God 
 in the provisions he has made for the moral 
 improvement and for the recovery of our race, 
 is, as it were, the test by which we can judge 
 of the degree of moral improvement to which 
 any one has attained. He who has no taste for 
 these objects has made as yet but little pro- 
 gress; for the Bible assures us that the most 
 pure and perfect of the moral creatures of God 
 the angels in heaven, admire the wisdom dis- 
 played in his plan for the redemption of men, 
 and ponder them with delight, and inquire into 
 them with earnestness, Ephes. iii. 10; 1 Pet. 
 i. 12. In Col. ii. 3, Paul says that in this plan 
 lie concealed all the treasures of the wisdom of 
 God. 
 
 Note. The Hebrew o^n, and the Greek ffo$oj, 
 signified originally, skilful, expert, and were 
 applied especially to artificers; cf. Ex. xxxi. 3; 
 Homer. II. xv. 412. They signified, seconda- 
 rily, able and knowing in any way. Thus 
 D^pan are docti, Eccl. i. 18; Is. xix. 11 ; 1 Cor. 
 i. 20, (rtov <jo<}>6f ; rtov ypctytjUor'ivj.) They came 
 gradually to have that more general significa- 
 tion which belongs to them in all the ancient 
 languages. The same is true of the correspond- 
 ing substantives nrDn, and ao$ta. 
 
 SECTION XXV. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS RESPECTING THE NA- 
 TURE AND PERFECTIONS OF THE DIVINE WILL. 
 
 I. What is meant by the Will of God. 
 
 WE derive our notions and expressions re- 
 specting this divine attribute, as well as the 
 oth< rs, from what we know of the human soul ; 
 
 rejecting here, as before, all imperfection. 
 This is the only way in which we can come to 
 a knowledge of God. Vide s. 18, ad finem. 
 Now we ascribe to the human soul two powers, 
 or rather, a twofold modification and exercise of 
 its power viz., thinking and choosing, or intel- 
 ligence and will. And we call the attributes of 
 God which are analogous to these by the same 
 name. Of the understanding of God, and of 
 the attributes in which it is principally deve- 
 loped, we have before treated. We now come 
 to speak of the divine will, and the attributes 
 which belong to it. The will with us is de- 
 pendent upon the understanding. We are said 
 to will, when we feel an inclination for any- 
 thing which appears agreeable, and disinclina- 
 tion for anything which appears disagreeable. 
 And it is the same with God. What the will 
 either of men or of God is, must be learned 
 from its effects, or by the actions. 
 
 The following words are used in the Bible to 
 designate the will of God. xcn and the sub- 
 stantive xon; also rwn, and the substantive pin. 
 The former words are translated in the Septua- 
 gint by ^'AM, jSovTio^at, ^c'typa, jSoutoj, and the 
 latter by tvboxtiv and evfioxt'a. The last word 
 often denotes the sovereignty, or rather, the 
 freedom of the divine will (nirp i"fin.) These 
 are the senses, therefore, in which these words 
 are used by the Hellenistic Jews, and the 
 writers of the New Testament. Cf. Ephes. i. 
 11 ; Ps. cxv. 3. These words, moreover, often 
 designate the thing itself which God reveals as 
 his will, or which he commands by his pre- 
 cepts ; as, yfv^rjr'w TO ei#iiM oov, Luke, xi. 2. 
 Cf. Ephes. v. 17 ; Romans, xii. 2. Eov^rj tov 
 (nirv Xjpn, Is. liii. 10,) means the decree of God, 
 or his plan for the good of men ; and so denotes, 
 by way of eminence, the dispensation of grace 
 through Christ, Acts, xx. 27, coll. ver. 20. Con- 
 nected with this, there is one more signification 
 of these words, which deserves to be noticed. 
 When the verbs volendi and eligendi are con- 
 strued, in Hebrew with 3, or in Greek with iv 
 or ft?, (as o 3 sen or ina, and ev&oxew iv tivi,} 
 they signify, to be well-disposed towards any one, 
 to love him, to shew him favour ; i. q., bene cupere, 
 velle, to wish well ; also, to like to do anything ; 
 in short, i. q., <j>o.tv. Indeed, the latter word 
 is used in Luke, xx. 46, instead of ^exstv, which 
 occurs in the parallel text, Mark, xii. 38. The 
 same meaning, to love, to have pleasure in a thing, 
 belongs also to ^E'XEH/ with the accusative, Matt, 
 xxvii. 43. Hence ^eto^a, jSo-uArj, ev&oxia, often 
 signify the GRACIOUS will of God, his benevolence, 
 the proofs which he gives us of his friendship. 
 
 II. Divisions of the Will of God, and Divine 
 
 Decrees. 
 
 The will of God that anything exterior to him- 
 self should take place, is called his determina- 
 K 
 
110 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 tion, or decree. Morus, p. 51, note. The ob- 
 jects of the divine will are as many and various 
 as the objects of the divine knowledge. Cf. s. 
 22, 1. For God, like all rational beings, chooses 
 only such things as are perceived by his under- 
 standing to be good. His will, therefore, as well 
 as that of others, depends always upon his know- 
 ledge. And he chooses or rejects, as the objects 
 which are presented to his mind appear in his 
 judgment desirable or otherwise. Since now 
 his knowledge is the most perfect, his will must 
 be the best. 
 
 God is frequently represented in the Bible as 
 favourably inclined towards all men, and as de- 
 siring their happiness. But in some passages 
 it seems to be intimated that he does not desire 
 the welfare of some men, but, on the contrary, 
 their condemnation. Now, many things which 
 we, in our philosophical style, should say took 
 place under the divine permission, or with the 
 distant concurrence of his will, were ascribed 
 by the ancient world to the immediate agency 
 and express decree of God. Traces of this com- 
 mon opinion appear in Homer and other ancient 
 writers. Passages occur which exhibit the most 
 exalted and worthy conceptions of the Deity, 
 vv.iile other passages ascribe to him the design- 
 ing and performance of such actions as are in- 
 consistent with his perfections. Those of the 
 latter kind, which occur in the holy scriptures, 
 being taken by themselves, and considered by 
 those who were unacquainted with this ancient 
 mode of thinking and speaking, were made to 
 contain a sense which was never intended by 
 the original writers. This mistake gave rise to 
 the vehement controversies respecting predesti- 
 nation, which continued in the Romish church 
 from the fifth even to the eighteenth century, 
 and which raged with great violence between 
 the Lutheran and Reformed churches, especially 
 during the seventeenth century. In the progress 
 of these controversies it was found convenient, 
 in order to remove the apparent contradiction in 
 these texts, and to render the whole subject more 
 intelligible, to introduce various divisions into 
 the divine will. The following are the most 
 common : 
 
 1 . Jlntecedens and consequens. Voluntas ante- 
 cedens is also called prima, or primitiva ; and 
 voluntas consequens is called secunda, finalis, or 
 decretoria. This division is very ancient, and 
 occurs not only in John of Damascus, in the 
 eighth century, (since whose time it has been 
 always preserved by the schoolmen,) but even 
 in Chrysostom, in the fourth century, who dis- 
 tinguishes between ^sx^jua rtpwtfov and Ssvtspov, 
 rtpoyyovftfvov and rt6/j,svov, (Homel, I., in 
 Ephes.,) and who is said by Semler to have de- 
 rived it from Plato. This division is derived 
 from the analogy of the human mind. We pos- 
 sess a certain original bias, or impulse, which, 
 
 as long as it is not directed to any particular ob- 
 ject, is called voluntas antecedens animi humani ,- 
 but as soon as it is directed to definite objects, 
 is called voluntas consequens. Thus love and 
 hate, while not directed to particular objects, 
 belong to the former; when so directed, to the 
 latter. If we apply this to God, we say that he 
 wills the happiness and perfection of all his 
 creatures by his voluntas antecedens,- and that 
 he makes application of this general will to 
 particular objects, by his voluntas consequens. 
 Now when God bestows upon any individual 
 all the good of which he is susceptible, he is 
 said to treat him according to his consequent or 
 determining will. This voluntas consequens is 
 therefore principally exhibited in the decrees of 
 God. These two volitions thus often differ in 
 their results, although they do not clash among 
 themselves ; although there may be succession 
 in the objects of the divine will, there can be no 
 succession in his will itself; for as God knows, 
 so he wills everything instantaneously. Now, 
 if I say God wills to make all men happy, (1 
 Tim. ii. 4,) this is, in the language of the 
 schools, the voluntas antecedens Dei the end or 
 object of God ; but if I add the distinction, that 
 he actually bestows this happiness only on the 
 pious, they alone being susceptible of it, (Mark, 
 xvi. 16,) this is the voluntas consequens. God, 
 then, ex voluntate antecedente, wills the happiness 
 of all men, without exception ; but, ex voluntate 
 consequente, he wills the condemnation of the 
 wicked. 
 
 With regard to the propriety of this division 
 we would say, that so far as it helps us to under- 
 stand and express many things relating to the 
 attributes, decrees, and providence of God, it 
 may be allowed, if what is intended by it be 
 considered, and not the form of expression. 
 For the language in which it is expressed is very 
 inconvenient, and conveys the idea of succes- 
 sion and mutability in the divine decrees. 
 Literally understood it involves a contradiction; 
 for God never, in fact, willed a thing which he 
 is said to have willed antecedenter, but which 
 has never taken place consequenter , since he has 
 no ends which he does not attain. This lan- 
 guage must be understood, therefore, to represent 
 this thing as it appears to us. Vide Tollner, 
 Vermischte Aufsatze, Samml. II., No. I. Kann 
 Gott Endzwecke haben, die er nicht erreichf? 
 
 2. Voluntas absoluta, and conditionata or ordi- 
 nata. This division relates principally to the 
 will of God in regard to moral beings. He is 
 said to will absolutely when he determines any- 
 thing without connecting it with a condition, 
 or, which is the same thing, without having re- 
 spect to the free actions of moral beings. Thus, 
 for example, he frequently allots the external 
 condition of particular men, or of whole nations, 
 without reference to their moral worth. Vide 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Rom. ix. On the other hand he wills condition- 
 ally when he determines anything on certain 
 conditions, or in respect to the free actions of 
 moral beings. Thus he declares o Tturtsvoas 
 ow^jjtfET'af 6 8' aTtKJT^tfas xa-taxpferiastai, Mark, 
 xvi. 16. When the annexed condition is ful- 
 filled on our part, and the will of God thus ac- 
 complished, his will is said to be efficacious 
 (efficax); when the condition is not fulfilled, 
 and the thing falls out differently from what 
 God appeared to have designed, his will is said 
 to be ineffectual (non efficax.) Here again the 
 language employed is very inconvenient; for 
 God always willed that which he foresaw would 
 take place, and never willed that which he fore- 
 saw would not take place. Many other divi- 
 sions have been adopted by theologians, to all 
 of which the remarks made at the close of the 
 first division may be applied. Vide Morus, p. 
 47, s. 11, p. 51, s. 13, note. 
 
 SECTION XXVI. 
 
 OF THE FREEDOM, IMMUTABILITY, AND EFFICACY 
 OF THE DIVINE WILL. 
 
 I. The Freedom of the Divine Will. 
 
 1. WHAT is meant by the freedom of the di- 
 vine will (libertas voluntatis, arbitrium Dei), 
 and why is this attribute ascribed to God 1 
 
 To us in our present circumstances, as related 
 to the two spheres of sense and spirit, this sub- 
 ject is encompassed with difficulties. To in- 
 vestigate and remove these difficulties is not, 
 however, so much the province of theology as 
 of philosophy. The latter has of late done much 
 towards clearing up the ground, by the inqui- 
 ries instituted in the critical school. If by free- 
 dom is meant a power of choosing between dif- 
 ferent objects presented to the mind, without 
 any motive for the choice of one rather than an- 
 other, then the will of God is not free. But 
 freedom is not such a power, and to act in this 
 way is not to zctfreely but arbitrarily, pro lubitu, 
 arbitrio, ut stet pro ratione voluntas ; and to sup- 
 pose this of God is to ascribe to him the greatest 
 imperfection, and to transform him into a fearful 
 tyrant, who pardons or condemns without reason, 
 and may thus make the pious eternally misera- 
 
 ! ble, and the wicked eternally happy. The 
 freedom of a moral being consists rather in his 
 
 i being able to choose and to act according to his 
 views, without being forced to do otherwise, 
 either from an internal or external necessity ; 
 but he cannot choose without having a motive 
 for his choice. For every act of the will in a 
 moral being there must be some ground, and 
 this ground is to be sought in the understanding. 
 The understanding discerns what is good arid 
 bad ; this knowledge awakens affection or aver- 
 sion; this, in its turn, moves the will to elect or 
 
 reject; and the will then determines itself to act 
 accordingly. Whenever, then, any one has 
 chosen according to the dictates of his under- 
 standing, without feeling compulsion from with- 
 in or from without, he has willed freely ; and if 
 under the same circumstances he has acted, he 
 has then acted freely. But, on the contrary, 
 when he has been compelled to choose or to act 
 by passions from within, or by unconquerable 
 difficulties or irresistible power from without, 
 he has not willed or acted freely. 
 
 Freedom of will and action, thus explained, 
 must necessarily and in the highest degree be- 
 long to God, as a pure moral being; in such a 
 manner, however, as not to imply any succession 
 of acts in his mind, s. 25. This freedom must 
 be ascribed to him, (1) because he is a spiritual 
 being, and possessed of the purest moral will. 
 Vide s. 19. We regard it as the greatest per- 
 fection that we and other moral beings are able 
 to choose and act freely, and as the greatest im- 
 perfection to be compelled to choice and action 
 either from within or from without. We there- 
 fore justly conclude, via eminentise, that God 
 must choose and act with the highest degree of 
 freedom. (2) Because he is perfectly inde- 
 pendent, which he could not be without freedom. 
 Throughout the sphere of sense the law of ne- 
 cessity prevails ; but in the moral world, the 
 law of freedom. In the former, everything is 
 limited, conditioned, and subjected to the vicis- 
 situdes of time and space ; but everything in the 
 latter is unlimited, free, and independent of time 
 and space. Of this moral world we ourselves 
 are members in the better portion of our nature, 
 and as such we are possessed of freedom and 
 are capable of understanding what it is, although 
 our connexion with the bodily world makes it 
 difficult for us not only to exercise it, but even 
 to obtain any clear conception of its nature. 
 (3) Because he is the creator, preserver, and 
 wise ruler of the world, which character he could 
 not sustain unless he were possessed of freedom. 
 He has- so constituted and ordered the world 
 that none of his creatures are able to disturb or 
 destroy it with all their skill or power. Cf. 
 what was said respecting the omnipotence and 
 the wisdom of God, s. 21, 24. 
 
 Against this view of the subject the objection 
 has sometimes been made, that God never can 
 act otherwise than from a regard to the ends 
 which he has in view, and can only choose what 
 is the best; that he thus acts and chooses neces- 
 sarily, and that necessity therefore must be 
 predicated of him instead of freedom. But there 
 is a fallacy in this argument, arising from the 
 improper use of words. That is here supposed 
 to be necessary which has its ground in the es- 
 sential and infallible knowledge of God. He, 
 like every other rational spirit, chooses only 
 what his understanding acknowledges as good. 
 
112 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Since now his understanding is infallible, and 
 he sees everything as it actually is, his choice 
 is called necessary, and not at all because it re- 
 sults from any compulsion. The human under- 
 standing is subject to mistake, and our choice 
 is frequently free only in appearance ; but always 
 to will and to do that which the understanding 
 discerns as best is the highest degree of freedom 
 in a moral being. 
 
 2. The doctrine of the Bible respecting the free- 
 dom of the divine will. 
 
 This rests upon the principles above stated, 
 and is to be explained in the same way ; espe- 
 cially as far as it relates to the freedom with 
 which God bestows or withholds his favours. 
 In the ancient languages, however, there were 
 no definite terms answering to the pure idea of 
 freedom ; and if there had been such terms in- 
 vented for the use of the schools of philosophy, 
 they would have been ill adapted to popular in- 
 struction. But they had not learned, at that 
 early period, to discriminate with sufficient ac- 
 curacy between their ideas, and they therefore 
 often employed words which indicate caprice to 
 express the idea of freedom. We observe, how- 
 ever, that just" conceptions on this subject are 
 found everywhere in the Bible, although they 
 are expressed in popular rather than in philoso- 
 phical language. So, when God is said in the 
 Bible to bestow blessings when he will, and to 
 be severe when he will, the meaning is, not that 
 he acts like a tyrant, in passion, or according to 
 blind caprice, but that he does that which in his 
 infinite wisdom he sees to be best. Thus 1 Cor. 
 xii. 11 ; Isaiah, xlv. 9, 10. We regard human 
 rulers as happy on account of the great freedom 
 they possess, and their independence of external 
 control ; they possess the right of pardoning, of 
 condemning, &c. Now the popular language 
 of the Bible ascribes to God this unlimited use 
 of freedom, which we consider as the prerogative 
 of earthly princes and rulers. But this language 
 must be interpreted in such a way as not to in- 
 volve those imperfections which belong only to 
 men. From this language it must not be sup- 
 posed that when God pardons or condemns ac- 
 cording to his own will, he acts, as human rulers 
 often do, from passion or caprice ; for there is no 
 true freedom where the will is not obedient to 
 the understanding. When God, therefore, pros- 
 pers and exalts one particular individual or a 
 whole nation, and afflicts and depresses another, 
 in so doing he acts freely i. e., for wise reasons, 
 though they may be inscrutable to us, and not 
 from wilfulness or caprice. But from the fact 
 that we cannot see the reasons for what God 
 does, we are someiimes disposed to think that 
 he has none in his own mind, and that he acts 
 in an arbitrary manner; and as we think we 
 usually express ourselves. The popular lan- 
 guage, therefore, which seems to affirm that God 
 
 decides and acts in an arbitrary manner, often 
 means no more than that we are ignorant of the 
 reasons which influence his decisions and con- 
 duct. Vide Moms, p. 51, note. And in this 
 sense God's government, even in the intellectual 
 and moral world, is free ; to one people he gives 
 more religious knowledge and more advantages 
 for mental improvement, to another less ; and 
 what he bestows at one time he takes away at 
 another. Cf. Ephes. i. 4 14. To us short- 
 sighted beings there often appears to be some- 
 thing unjust, contradictory, and inexplicable in 
 all this. At such times there is nothing more 
 quieting than the firm conviction that God wills 
 and acts with the most perfect freedom i. e., 
 according to the views of his understanding, by 
 which he always knows infallibly what is best. 
 The passage Rom. ix. is one of the most im- 
 portant in relation to this subject. Paul here 
 contends against the error of the Jews, that God 
 preferred their nation to all others, and looked 
 upon them with exclusive favour. The Jews be- 
 lieved that God could not reject them, and could 
 not transfer to others the blessings he had be- 
 stowed upon them. Paul undertakes to shew 
 that, on the contrary, God proceeded freely in 
 the dispensation of his benefits; that he did not 
 govern himself by the supposed deserts or the 
 personal efforts of men ; and that men could not 
 presume in this matter to prescribe to him, or- 
 to complain of his government. Verse 11, fva 
 vj xat' ixkpyqv rtpo^Etftj lov tov p-tvr[ i. e., the 
 will of God (txXoyjj, libertas in eligendo, as Jo- 
 sephus uses it) must be acknowledged to be 
 free. (Cf. the phrase cvSoxta ^TiT^ar'oj, Eph. 
 i. 5, 11,) Ver. 7, seq., Abraham had many chil- 
 dren, but Isaac only received the promise. Ver. 
 10, seq., Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau, 
 born at the same time. God made the posterity 
 of the one to be subject to that of the other. 
 From these and other examples Paul now con- 
 chides, ver. 18, that God ov ^?i, ttesi- ov 8s 
 ^\st, oxtoypvvft, (Job, xxxix. 16.) Cf. ver. 15, 
 ~XfjcKo ov av \jw, seat oixrftp^tfco ov av otscT'ft.pco, 
 quoted from Exod. xxxiii. 19, I bestow bless- 
 ings at pleasure (pro lubitu), on whomsoever I 
 will, according to my infallible wisdom. Paul 
 afterwards, ver. 22, mentions some reasons why 
 God frequently proceeds in this way. He does 
 so sometimes, to deter men from wickedness, by 
 a display of his anger, or in some manner to pro- 
 mote the general good ; but should we in any 
 case be unable to discover these reasons, we 
 must humbly acquiesce in the divine will, ver. 
 20, 21. This passage, therefore, does not treat 
 of the predestination of particular men to happi- 
 ness or misery by an absolute decree. This pre- 
 destination is not absolute, but dependent on the 
 fulfilment of certain conditions on the part of 
 man. In this passage Paul is speaking of the 
 general government of the world, and of the or- 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 113 
 
 dering of tne external circumstances of indivi- 
 duals and nations ; and he says that in this mat- 
 ter God is not confined to those rules by which 
 we might think his conduct should be regulated. 
 He acts on principles and maxims which, though 
 perfectly wise, are often wholly beyond our com- 
 prehension. Vide Noesselt, Opusc. ad Inter. 
 S. S. Interpr. Gramm. c. ix. ep. ad Rom. 
 Fasc. 1, p. 125, seq. 
 
 II. Immutability of the Divine Will. 
 
 The immutability of the will of God results 
 from that of his nature; vide s. 20, ad finem. 
 Since his will is always founded upon his per- 
 fect knowledge, and his judgment is infallible 
 with regard to whatever it may relate, he cannot 
 be supposed to fluctuate in his choice. The mu- 
 tability of the human will is owing to the un- 
 certainty and defectiveness of human knowledge. 
 The Bible often speaks of the unchangeableness 
 of the divine will. Psalm xxxiii. 10, 11, "Je- 
 hovah bringeth the counsel of the heathen to 
 nought; but his counsel standeth for ever." 
 Ps. cxix. 89 91, Rom. xi. 29, a^Tfa^^a 
 %apics/jt.arfa @ov. 1 Sam. xv. 29, " He is not a 
 man, that he should repent;" coll. s. 20. When 
 therefore we meet with texts in which God is 
 said to repent, (as Gen. vi. 7,) or in which he is 
 said to have done differently from his intentions, 
 (aslsa. xxxviii. 1, seq. ; Jonah, iii. 9,) we must 
 interpret them so as to be consistent with his per- 
 fections ; for Moses and the prophets well knew 
 that Godwasnot a man, that he shouldrepent, Num. 
 xxiii. 19. These representations become consist- 
 ent when we consider that whenever an event 
 occurred otherwise than had been expected, or af- 
 fairs took a turn, under the divine government or 
 permission, different from what had been com- 
 mon in human experience, then, in the customary 
 dialect of antiquity, God was said to repent and 
 alter his purpose. 
 
 III. Efficacy of the Divine Will. 
 
 Whatever God wills, that he can accomplish , 
 and his power has no limitations. And this is 
 his omnipotence, which, as a necessary attribute 
 of the divine nature, was considered in s. 21. 
 
 SECTION XXVII. 
 
 GENERAL REMARKS ON THE MORAL ATTRIBUTES 
 OF THE DIVINE WILL. 
 
 1. WE ascribe truth or veracity to God, so far 
 as whatever he reveals or declares, directly or 
 indirectly, is true and certain, s. 28. 
 
 2. We ascribe goodness or benevolence to God, 
 so far as he is disposed to bestow upon his crea- 
 tures all that happiness of which they are sus- 
 ceptible; s. 28. 
 
 3. We ascribe holiness to God, so far as he 
 possesses all moral perfections, and consequent- 
 
 15 
 
 ]y loves what is good, and hates what is evil ; 
 s. 29. 
 
 4. We ascribe justice to God, so far as he ex- 
 hibits his love of goodness and hatred of wick- 
 edness, in his dealings with his creatures ; s. 
 30, 31. 
 
 Note. Leibnitz, in his Theodicee, (p. ii. s. 
 151,) considers the holiness of God as nothing 
 else than his supreme goodness, or benevolence. 
 In the same manner he explains the justice of 
 God, and in this respect is followed by Wolf, 
 Baumgarten, Eberhard, and many other modern 
 philosophers and theologians, especially those 
 belonging to the school of Wolf. The last-men- 
 tioned writer, following the example of Leib- 
 nitz, defines the justice of God, benignitas ad 
 leges sapiential temperata ; others define it still 
 more briefly, the relative goodness of God. 
 
 These philosophers were led thus to refine 
 upon the idea of justice, by the desire to obviate 
 the objections to which the common idea of it 
 appeared to be exposed. There can be no doubt 
 of the truth which they affirm, that the goodness 
 of God is relative; and whenever we speak of 
 the divine holiness or justice, we must proceed 
 on the principle, that the goodness of God is 
 always directed by his wisdom, and is always 
 and wholly relative, since he bestows blessings 
 upon his creatures in exact proportion to their 
 susceptibility for receiving them. But while 
 this is true, the definition of divine justice given 
 by Leibnitz is not, considered as a definition, 
 sufficiently precise and accurate, as Kant has 
 shewn. Without going at large into the objec- 
 tions which might be urged against it, it will be 
 enough for our present purpose to observe, in the 
 first place, that it is not sufficiently intelligible, 
 and cannot be conveniently used, at least in 
 popular instruction ; and, in the second place, 
 that it does not exhibit the common idea con- 
 nected with this term, which is of itself proof 
 enough that it is not just as a definition. We 
 feel at once, on hearing this definition, that there 
 is something wanting to complete the idea. 
 When we are contemplating the nature of God, 
 we consider it, after the analogy of human be- 
 ings, as different according to the different ob- 
 jects about which it is employed. On this com- 
 mon mode of conception the common use of lan- 
 guage is built, and in conformity with this usage 
 we must make a distinction between the good- 
 ness, holiness, aud justice of God, especially as 
 the scripture follows this common usage. Now 
 the object of the holiness of God is, general, uni- 
 versal good; of his justice and benevolence, the 
 welfare of his creatures. We here see how 
 closely connected these ideas are, and what in- 
 duced Leibnitz to define them as he did. But, 
 following the general usage, we make the fol- 
 lowing distinction in the employment of these 
 terms : one is called good or benevolent who is 
 
 K2 
 
114 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 inclined to benefit another, qui bene cupit, vult ; 
 one is called holy, in respect to the purity and 
 blamelessness of his disposition, one who loves 
 what is good, and hates what is evil, qui rede, 
 sentit, sanctus est ; just, who acts according to 
 this disposition, qui rede agit, and who there- 
 fore actively exhibits his pleasure in what is 
 good, and displeasure at what is evil. But 
 since God has no other end but to promote the 
 welfare of his creatures, he acts, even when he 
 proceeds with justice, at the same time benevo- 
 lently ; and even those things which we call evils 
 and punishments, from the manner in which they 
 affect us, are only so many results and proofs 
 of the divine goodness, as we shall shew here- 
 after. 
 
 SECTION XXVIII. 
 
 OF THE VERACITY AND THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 
 
 I. The Truth or Veracity of God. 
 
 THIS attribute of God is sometimes divided 
 into metaphysical (interna) and moral (externa). 
 By the former is meant merely that he is the 
 true God, in opposition to false, imaginary dei- 
 ties ; and in this sense he is called PON Ss, pnx Ss, 
 Is. xlv. 21 ; so? oa^tvo?, 1 John, v. 20; John, 
 xvii. 3. But we here speak of the truth of God 
 in the moral sense ; and by this is meant that he 
 is true in all which he declares or reveals, and 
 that he does not alter from what he has once 
 spoken; advvarfov 4/fvcrac&<u tov, says Paul, 
 Heb. vi. 18. This attribute is also designated 
 in the Bible by the words npx, ruiox, pn$, -n^, 
 dtoj^ENv and opposed to it is falsehood, varia- 
 bleness in speech, trastlessness, -\pv, w, n"ip, 
 4-i)5oj, x. -t. ?,. This attribute implies, 
 
 1. That the instruction which God gives us 
 contains no untruths or contradictions. Hence 
 it is called in the scriptures, xat' t%o%y]v, rips, 
 
 and Christ says, John, xvii. 17, o koyoj 
 . Cf. Ps. xix. 8 ; cxix. 75, 138. 
 
 2. That all the divine promises and commi- 
 nations are sure, and will be accomplished with- 
 out fail. Since the will of God is immutable, 
 (s. 26, No. II.), whatever he has once an- 
 nounced as his will must inevitably take place. 
 So far as he fulfils his promise or threatening, 
 he is called /CKJT'OJ, joty, and truth nps, rmsx, 
 rti/Wtj, is ascribed to him. Ps. xxxiii. 4, "The 
 promise of the Lord is faithful, and everything 
 which he does is truth." 2 Cor. i. 18, Ttwr'oj 6 
 0oj, and ver. 20, " the divine promises which 
 are given through Jesus Christ (ev avtc>, sc. 
 Xpn?T'9, ver. 19), are TO vai, xai -to a^v i. e., 
 firm, sure. Ilt'of ^ EOT; is opposed to the drttffT'ta 
 d/j/^pcoTtwv, Rom. iii. 3. An important passage 
 in this connexion is found in Ps. cxix. 89 91. 
 This passage contains a proof of the certainty 
 of the divine promise, and the immutability of 
 
 the divine laws drawn from a comparison of 
 them with the laws of the natural world. Sure 
 and immutable as are the laws of the material 
 world, so sure are those laws by which God 
 proceeds in fulfilling his declarations, in reward- 
 ing virtue and punishing vice ; and foolish as it 
 would be to blame the former, equally foolish 
 is it to blame the latter. Cf. Prov. viii. 2226. 
 
 The Bible gives great prominence to this at- 
 tribute of God, and justly, considering the in- 
 fluence which a belief in it must have in pro- 
 moting piety and godliness. Vide Heb. xi. 6, 
 seq. ; Rom. iv. 3. This conviction, and the 
 confidence flowing from it, is called by the very 
 same name as the attribute itself, viz., 7ttWt$* 
 the opposite of which is artifrtia. But the Bible 
 represents God as faithful in fulfilling his threats 
 as well as his promises. Heb. iv. 12, is a class- 
 ical text upon this subject. Zwv ydp 6 ^oyoj tov 
 sou, xai avfpyTfj, xai T'0|iuoT'po$ vrtep Ttoujcw jua^cu- 
 pav Sirrtopov, x. 1. X., xai xprtixb$ tv&vpqasuv xai, 
 pSYaj, "The theatening of God, (xoyoj 
 eov) is active and efficacious, (wv xai 
 not vain and empty,) and sharper than 
 any two edged sword, &c. ; and he sits in judg- 
 ment on the thoughts and purposes of the heart." 
 The gospel is not more full and explicit in its 
 promises to those who comply with its condi- 
 tions, than in its threatenings against those who 
 reject them. 
 
 Note. Some passages of the Bible seem, at 
 first view, to be inconsistent with the veracity 
 of God. On this point we may remark that 
 there are some truths which are not intended for 
 all men of all ages, and which would do more 
 hurt than good if exhibited indiscriminately, 
 without regard to the circumstances of those to 
 whom they may be addressed. The question 
 therefore arises, whenever we undertake to in- 
 struct our fellow-men, whether this or that 
 truth will be useful to them ; whether they are 
 able to bear it ; or whether, considering their 
 circumstances, it may not do them more hurt 
 than good ? To teach men those truths which 
 they are not prepared to reqeive, is like putting 
 useful instruments into the hands of a child, 
 who can turn them to no account, and may per- 
 haps injure himself by using them, and is there- 
 fore inconsistent with true prudence, and with 
 an enlightened regard for their welfare. This 
 is a maxim which must be adopted by all who 
 engage in the work of instruction and educa- 
 tion, or who are in any way conversant with 
 men. It is indeed liable to abuse, and has been 
 abused by human teachers, but it is true not- 
 withstanding ; and we are warranted by all the 
 divine perfections to believe that it will not be 
 abused by God, while, at the same time, we 
 believe that his wisdom and goodness must lead 
 him to proceed in accordance with it, in his deal- 
 ings with men. And so we find, that God has 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 115 
 
 sometimes withheld particular truths from men, 
 or has indulged them in particular prejudices 
 and errors, and this in perfect consistency with 
 his veracity; since it would have been attended 
 with injury for him, considering- the circum- 
 stances of men at that particular period of the 
 world, to have substituted better views in place 
 of those which prevailed among them. The 
 Old Testament furnishes many instances in 
 which prevailing prejudices were indulged, and 
 many truths were left for a time in comparative 
 obscurity, and a more clear revelation was de- 
 ferred to a distant period, when men should be- 
 come more capable of receiving it. Thus God 
 sometimes exhibits in his dealings with men 
 what the Grecian philosophers call avyxaitdfiaais, 
 a condescension to the views and capacities of 
 men, which is as indispensable in the education 
 of nations, and of the whole human race, as in 
 that of individuals. Vide Dr. Senff, Von der 
 Herablassung Gottes. 
 
 As an instance of this condescension, we may 
 mention the fact, that God sometimes appears 
 to remit something of the severity of his threat- 
 enings. And this he does in accommodation to 
 our views of his character ; somewhat, in this 
 case, as the father remits the severity of the 
 punishment which is due to his child, in order 
 to inspire him with more confidence, and to con- 
 vince him, in an unexpected manner, of his entire 
 affection. Cf. Jonah, iii. 4, coll. ver. 9, 10, and 
 iv. 2, 9 11. Add to this, that while some of 
 the promises and threatenings of God are uncon- 
 ditional and absolute, (such as the promise of a 
 numerous posterity to Abraham, and the threat- 
 ening of the servitude of the posterity of Esau,) 
 most of them are conditional, and depend upon 
 the obedience or disobedience of those to whom 
 they are addressed ; but that this condition is 
 sometimes so obvious from the nature of the 
 case, or in some other way so well known, that 
 it is not expressed in words, but only tacitly 
 implied e. g., Jonah, iii. iv. Another example 
 which must be explained on this principle of 
 the condescension of God to the views of men, 
 and the conceptions prevailing in any parti- 
 cular age, is the sacrifice which Abraham was 
 required to make of his son Isaac, Gen. xxii. 
 2, seq. Morus, p. 54. Still another instance 
 of the condescension of God to human opinions 
 and customs : men are accustomed to regard an 
 oath as preeminently sacred ; God, therefore, in 
 order to shew that his declarations agree per- 
 fectly with his mind and will, swears that they 
 are true, Heb. vi. 13, seq. 
 
 It may be remarked, in general, that the more 
 any one is acquainted with the history of men, 
 and with the mode in which they expressed 
 themselves in ancient times, and which still pre- 
 vails among the common people at the present 
 day, the less will the phraseology of the Bible 
 
 appear obscure, strange, or revolting. In this 
 view the study of Homer may be highly recom- 
 mended to theologians. For they are peculiarly 
 liable, from their familiarity with technical and 
 philosophical phraseology, to misunderstand 
 such representations as those under considera- 
 tion, and which are perfectly intelligible to plain 
 and practical men. The latter find little diffi- 
 culty in understanding the most figurative re- 
 presentations of the Bible, and in entering into 
 their full spirit, because they are familiar with 
 such representations ; whereas men of learned 
 pursuits find great difficulty even in obtaining 
 the meaning of a figurative and popular phrase- 
 ology, and greater still in making use of it in 
 their instructions. They have too little inter- 
 course with men in the common walks of life. 
 This is a common fault with us all. 
 
 II. The Goodness or Love of God. 
 
 This attribute consists in the determination 
 or inclination of the will of God to bestow upon 
 his creatures all the good of which they are sus- 
 ceptible. It is ascribed to God, because it 
 tfbrms an essential part of that character which 
 we must ascribe to him as the most perfect be- 
 ing. It is proved in the clearest manner by the 
 fact, that God has so created and constituted the 
 universe, that the whole, and each particular 
 portion, possesses that degree of perfection and 
 well-being of which it is susceptible. It is also 
 proved in the preservation and government of 
 the world, in a manner which must be perfectly 
 satisfactory to every rational being. The proof 
 of the divine goodness derived from the benevo- 
 lent constitution of nature may be exhibited in 
 a very intelligible and practical manner, and on 
 this account is frequently employed in the holy 
 scriptures. The passage in which this proof is 
 exhibited most fully and distinctly is Psalm 
 civ., a good commentary on which may be 
 found in Cicero, Nat. Deor. ii. 39. Cicero 
 says, very truly, (Nat. Deor. i. 44,) that all re- 
 ligious and pious feeling would cease, if love 
 and benevolence were denied to God. If we 
 would excite the heart to affection, obedience, 
 and gratitude towards God, and warm it with 
 religious sentiments, we must bring to view the 
 divine benevolence. John therefore declares, in 
 his first epistle, iv. 8, 16, @?6j q o/yan:^, and 
 Plato says, God is beauty and love itself. But 
 in order that this truth may have its full effect, 
 every one should consider how much goodness 
 God has shewn to him as an individual. The 
 Bible directs our attention particularly to those 
 proofs of the divine benevolence, commonly less 
 regarded, which appear in all which God has 
 done, from time to time, to bring men to happi- 
 ness, in his great plan of instruction and salva- 
 tion. The texts which treat of the blessings 
 conferred by Christianity belong to this con- 
 
116 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 nexion viz., John, iii. 16; 1 John, iv. 9, 10; 
 Rom. v. 612; Tit. ii. 1114. This great 
 proof of the love of God is called, by way of 
 eminence, % wydrtt], #aptj. Morus, p. 56, n. 7. 
 For a further discussion of this subject, vide the 
 Articles concerning Divine Providence, and con- 
 cerning Christ. 
 
 The love of God has different names given it 
 in the Bible, according to the different ways in 
 which it is expressed, and the different relations 
 which it bears to his creatures, and their condi- 
 tion, ion jn, #aptj, &EOJ, are very common 
 names, signifying unmerited love or goodness, 
 and implying God's greatness, and our unwor- 
 thiness. pnx is another common name for this 
 attribute; whence Sixauxsvvr] in the New Testa- 
 ment often signifies benevolence. These He- 
 brew words are sometimes rendered by dya^o- 
 CVVYI and ^p^tJT'oT'^j. So far as the love of God 
 has respect to men in general, it is called phi- 
 lanthropy, ^H^cw^poTtt'a sov, Tit. iii. 4 ; and 
 from the possession of it, God is called the 
 father of men. The texts in which this is done 
 are cited in Morus, p. 55, n. 1. So far as the 
 love of God has respect to the miserable and the 
 suffering, it is called pity and compassion, mise- 
 ricordia, benevolentia erga miseros, D'crn, r'a 
 crrtX-ay^a @?ov, ?tao?. Men in this condition 
 have the promise given them that God will pro- 
 tect and comfort them, and provide a way foT 
 their deliverance where they could see none. 
 And to such persons it must be an inexpressible 
 consolation that God has not merely enabled 
 them to attain a hope, in the use of their reason,, 
 that he would assist and stand by them, but has 
 expressly promised them that he will certainly 
 do this. To the afflicted nothing can be more 
 consoling than the sure promise of God ; and 
 of this the religious teacher should be mindful 
 in his instructions. So far as the love of God 
 is exercised in deferring or abating deserved 
 punishments, it is called forbearance, long-suf- 
 fering, patience, indulgence, D^X 'H'TN, paxpo&v- 
 fiia, waxy, Psa. ciii. 8, seq. ; Rom. ii. 4 ; ix. 22. 
 
 The love of God is described in the scrip- 
 tures as, 
 
 1. Universal and impartial. God bestows 
 upon each of his creatures as much good as he 
 is capable of receiving. Philo says, Ou 7tp6$ to 
 jug'yf^oj jvfpya-m (6 f6g) tuv wvtov ^optVcov 
 rtpoj 8s ta$ T'WV ewpyetov/jiEvuv Swaps' ov yap 
 wj Ttttyvxtv 6 to? sv Tioiflv, cwVco xal to ysvo/jLsvov 
 fv 7td<5%w, x. t. A. De Opif. Mundi, p. 13, ed. 
 Pf. This is the great principle upon which 
 God proceeds in the distribution of his favours, 
 whether greater or smaller, more or less .fre- 
 quent. Psa. cxlv. 9, " The Lord is good to all ; 
 and his tender mercies are over all his works." 
 Cf. Psa. xxxvi. 7; ciii. 1113, "For as the 
 heaven is high above the earth, so great is his 
 mercy toward them that fear him," &c. This 
 
 doctrine of the universal and impartial love of 
 God, though it was believed and taught by the 
 prophets of the Old Testament, was for the first 
 time exhibited in its true light and in its whole 
 extent in the New Testament, in opposition to 
 the prejudices of the Jews, which very much 
 limited the divine goodness. To assert, how- 
 ever, that the teachers of the Old Testament, 
 and especially Moses, were wholly destitute of 
 correct ideas respecting the love of God, is very 
 untrue ; and the contrary may be proved from 
 innumerable passages of scripture. Vide, e. g., 
 Exodus, xxxiv. 6, 7; Num. xiv. 17, 18. The 
 blame of their mistaken views of this subject 
 rested upon the great body of the Jewish nation, 
 and not upon their teachers. The moral percep- 
 tions of the Jews were so perverted that they 
 misunderstood what they were taught respecting 
 the moral attributes of God. 
 
 2. Unmerited, gratuitous. And in this re- 
 spect, particularly, the love of God is called 
 ^aptj, jn, Rom. iv. 4, seq. ; xi. 5. There is no 
 opinion more prejudicial to the interests of true 
 morality than the opinion so prevalent among 
 the Jews at the time of Christ, and recurring 
 under different forms in every age of the church, 
 that the love of God can be merited or procured 
 by men; and accordingly there is no opinion 
 which was more opposed by the writers of the 
 New Testament. It is impossible that desert 
 of any kind should come into consideration with 
 love, as such ; for wherever desert is regarded, 
 love must be exchanged for obligation, Rom. iv. 
 4, seq. The free goodness of God is never ex- 
 ercised, however, inconsistently with his wis- 
 dom and justice. Hence the pious may always 
 be sure that rewards will be bestowed upon 
 them by God; while the wicked can have no 
 such expectation, Rom. ii. 4, 5. Cf. Thomas 
 Balguy, Divine Benevolence Asserted, trans- 
 lated into German by J. A. Eberhard. 
 
 SECTION XXIX. 
 
 OF THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 
 
 THE holiness of God, in the general notion of 
 it, is his moral perfection that attribute by 
 which all moral imperfection is removed from 
 his nature. The holiness of the will of God is 
 that, therefore, by which he chooses, necessa- 
 rily and invariably, what is morally good, and 
 refuses what is morally evil. The holiness and 
 justice of God are, in reality, one and the same 
 thing; the distinction consists in this only, that 
 holiness denotes the internal inclination of the 
 divine will the disposition of God; and jus- 
 tice, the expression of the same by actions. 
 Vide s. 27, ad finein. This attribute implies, 
 
 1. That no sinful or wicked inclination can 
 be found in God. Hence he is said, James, i. 
 13, coll. 17, to be drtstpatfToj xaxuv, incapable 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 117 
 
 of being tempted to evil, (not in the active sense, 
 as it is rendered by the Vulgate and Luther;) 
 and in 1 John, i. 5, to be light, and without dark- 
 ness i. e., holy, and without sin. In this sense 
 he is called iins, xa^opoj dyj>o$, 1 John, iii. 3 ; 
 also D>cn, art^ooj, integer, Psa. xviii. 31. The 
 older writers described this by the word di/a- 
 pMatrjrof, impeccabilis. [The sinlessness of God 
 is also designated in the New Testament by the 
 words teteios, Matt. v. 48; ami 6<y>$, Rev. 
 xvi. 5.] 
 
 2. That he never chooses what is false and 
 deceitful, but only what is truly good what 
 his perfect intelligence recognises as such ; and 
 that he is therefore the most perfect teacher, 
 and the highest exemplar of moral goodness. 
 Hence the Bible declares that he looks with 
 displeasure upon wicked, deceitful courses, Psa. 
 1. 16, seq.; v. 5, (Thou hatest all workers of 
 iniquity ;) but that, on the contrary, he regards 
 the pious with favour, Psa. v. 7, 8 ; xv. 1, seq. ; 
 xviii. 26, seq. ; xxxiii. 18. Cf. the texts cited 
 by Moms, p. 47, s. 11, note 3 5. The ground, 
 therefore, of the holiness God is in his under- 
 standing and the freedom of his will. Vide 
 s. 26. 
 
 As to the use of the words t?-hp and ayioj, 
 some philologists (particularly Zacharia, Bi- 
 blische Theologia, th. i. s. 240, f.) remark, that 
 they are never used in the scriptures, with 
 reference to God, in the sense here ascribed 
 to them, but rather describe him as the object 
 of awe and veneration. And it is true that this 
 is their prevailing meaning e. g., Isa. vi. 9 ; 
 John, xvii. 11, (ayie Ttdtffp ;) and that according- 
 ly dytd^sc&ai signifies, to be esteemed venerable, to 
 be reverenced. Still these words are in many 
 passages applied to God undeniably in a moral 
 sense e. g., Lev. xix. 2, " Be ye holy, for I am 
 holy ;" cf. 1 Pet. i. 1416. Thus also 6^0*17 j 
 Eph. iv. 24, and ayiuavvq, dytao/toj, by which 
 all moral perfection is so frequently designated, 
 especially in the New Testament. The differ- 
 ent meanings of the words ipvy and dyioj stand 
 connected clearly in the following manner (cf. 
 s. 126) viz. these words signify (a) the being 
 externally pure e. g., 2 Sam. xi. 4; Lev. xi. 
 43, 44 ; xx. 7, 25, 26, &c. ; (6) the being sepa- 
 rate, since we are accustomed to divide what is 
 pure from what is impure, and to cast away the 
 latter ; and therefore (c) the possessing of any 
 kind of external advantage, distinction, or worth , 
 so the Jews were said to be holy to God, in op- 
 position to others, who were xowol, profane, 
 common, unconsecrated. Then everything which 
 was without imperfection, disgrace, or blemish, 
 was called holy , and t^i"V?, dytoj, sacrosanctus, 
 came thus to signify what was inviolable, Isa. 
 iv. 3 ; 1 Cor. iii. 17, (hence ehpc, asylum.} 
 They were then used in the more limited sense 
 of chaste, (like the Latin sanctitas) a sense in 
 
 which they are sometimes used in the New 
 Testament e. g., 1 Thess. iv. 3, 7, (cf. Wolf, 
 in loc. ;) but not always, as Stange supposes, 
 (Symmikta, II. 268, f.) They then came to 
 denote any or all internal, moral perfection; 
 and finally, perfection, in the general notion of 
 it, as exclusive of all imperfection. Cf. Morus, 
 p. 47, s. 11. 
 
 SECTION XXX. 
 
 OF THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 
 
 THE justice of God is that attribute by which 
 he actively exhibits his approbation of what is 
 good, and his disapprobation of what is evil. 
 It is therefore the same in essence with his holi- 
 ness, vide s. 29. So far as God has compla- 
 cency in what is good he is called holy , so far 
 as he exhibits this complacency in his actual 
 procedure in the government of the world he is 
 called just. The word holiness, accordingly, 
 refers rather to the internal disposition of God ; 
 and justice, to the display or outward manifesta- 
 tion of this disposition in his actual government. 
 Both of these attributes stand in close connex- 
 ion with the divine benevolence,- they may be 
 deduced from it, and indeed must be regarded 
 as expressions of it. Cf. the remarks made on 
 this subject and on the definition of Leibnitz, s. 
 27, note. 
 
 Respecting the biblical use of the words pnx, 
 pnx, and 8^x0,1,05. In its primary, original mean- 
 ing, p-nx doubtless denotes what is fit, suited, 
 adapted to a particular end, appropriate, right. 
 The Greek Stxatoj has the same signification as 
 fitxcuoj iVtrtoj, Stxcuov dpfta, x. 1. ^., also the 
 Latin Justus, the German gerecht, and the Eng- 
 lish right. These words came afterwards to 
 denote one who acts justly and rightly, a virtuous 
 man in the moral sense. Accordingly pnx, and 
 Sixaioavvq (both in the Septuagint and in the 
 New Testament) signify virtue, piety, also 
 truth, (Isaiah, xlii. 6,) veracity, fidelity, honesty, 
 goodness, beneficence, alms, and then what is 
 more properly called justice, as exercised in 
 courts. Hence pmn, Sixawvv, signify, to acquit, 
 pronounce innocent, pardon, and in general, to 
 favour. The proper meaning must in each case 
 be determined by the connexion. 
 
 God exhibits to men his complacency in what 
 is good and useful, and his disapprobation of 
 what is evil and injurious, in two ways : (1) 
 By laws and various institutes, which are in- 
 tended to teach us, on the one hand, what is 
 good and salutary, and on the other, what is 
 evil and injurious, in order that we may know 
 how to regulate our feelings and our conduct. 
 This is called legislative justice (justitia. legisla- 
 toria, sive antccedens, sive dispnsitiva.} (2) By 
 actions, in which he manifests his approbation 
 of what is good, and of those who practise it; 
 
118 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 and his disapprobation of what is evil, and of 
 those who live wickedly. This is called retri- 
 butive justice, (justitia retributiva, judiciaria, 
 rectoria, distributive compensatrix, consequens.} 
 Since this division, which has long been com- 
 mon in the schools of theology and philosophy, 
 is founded in truth, we shall here adopt it, after 
 the example of Morus. The same thing may 
 be expressed in other words, as follows : God, 
 as he is holy, accurately estimates the distinc- 
 tion between what is morally good and evil, 
 and accordingly between the good and evil ac- 
 tions of men ; he has made known to men this 
 distinction by means of his laws, (to a know- 
 ledge of which we are led by reason, scripture, 
 and experience,) and upon this he insists ; and 
 that men may not only know the difference be- 
 tween good and evil, but experience and feel it, 
 he has inseparably connected certain necessary 
 advantages (rewards) with what is good, and 
 disadvantages (punishments) with what is evil. 
 We proceed, therefore, to treat, 
 
 I. The Legislative Justice of God. 
 
 All the divine laws have respect to the true 
 welfare of men, since they prescribe what is 
 good and useful, and forbid the contrary. Vide 
 Psalm xix. 8 12 ; Rom. xii. 2, ^ua sot) TO 
 aya&bv xai evdpsatov xai titeiov. The divine 
 laws are commonly divided into 
 
 1. Natural i. e., such as necessarily flow 
 from the constitution of human nature. They 
 may be learned from human reason and con- 
 science, and are constantly alluded to, repeated, 
 explained, and enlarged by the Bible. Cf. 
 Introduction, s. 3. 
 
 2. Arbitrary, or positive. Such are those 
 which stand in no necessary connexion with 
 human nature, and cannot therefore be discover- 
 ed or demonstrated by reason, but depend mere- 
 ly upon the express command of God. They 
 are not written upon the human heart, but made 
 known to us by God from without. Among 
 positive laws may be counted those which con- 
 cern the institution of public worship and the 
 ritual, also the political precepts of Moses, and 
 many other precepts and doctrines of religion 
 contained in the scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testament. 
 
 The common belief is, that such positive pre- 
 cepts have been given by God both to Jews and 
 Christians. And this belief is justified by the 
 following reasons: (1) Positive precepts are 
 useful as affording to men an exercise of obedi- 
 ence, piety, and devotion. A father often im- 
 poses upon a child an arbitrary rule in order 
 to accustom it to obedience, or with some other 
 wise intent ; but always with the good of the 
 child in view, although the child may not be 
 able to understand the why and the wherefore. 
 Positive precepts should therefore always be 
 
 obeyed, although they may not appear to us to 
 have any natural or obvious connexion with our 
 welfare ; for they are given by God, who can- 
 not command anything without reference to our 
 good. (2) All experience shews that even the 
 most cultivated men, when left to themselves, 
 fall into absurd religious observances and forms 
 of worship. It cannot, therefore, be improper 
 for God to prescribe even arbitrary services, 
 and to give positive laws and doctrines re- 
 lating to religion. (3) By being expressly 
 revealed and positively prescribed, even natu- 
 ral laws may obtain a positive authority, re- 
 ceive a more solemn sanction, and thus exert 
 a better influence. They may be explained, 
 confirmed, enlarged, and enforced by positive 
 precepts. But since positive precepts are de- 
 signed in many cases to promote particular ob- 
 jects, which cannot be known from the nature 
 of things, they are not necessarily universal and 
 unalterable, unless they are declared to be so by 
 God j nor are they binding upon persons who, 
 without any fault of their own, remain unac- 
 quainted with them. 
 
 Many, on the contrary, deny that God has 
 given any positive precepts, and consider them 
 all as of human origin. They pretend, that 
 much harm has been and will be done in human 
 society by pleading a divine origin for positive 
 precepts and doctrines. So thought Tindal, and 
 many of the English rationalists, and the same 
 opinion has lately been expressed by Dr. Stein- 
 bart in his System der reinen Gliickseligkeits- 
 lehre, s. 6271, 130, ff. Many of the ancient 
 Grecian philosophers, too, believed that the 
 supposition that God had given positive precepts 
 was merely a popular error, since all which were 
 affirmed to be such were obviously contrived by 
 men, and promulgated under the divine authori- 
 ty. In opposition to this argument, Ernesti 
 wrote his Vindiciae arbitrii divini in religione 
 constituenda, Opusc. Theol., p. 187, seq. He 
 was strongly opposed by Tollner, in his In- 
 quiry, Utrum Deus ex mero arbitrio potesta- 
 tem suam legislatoriam exerceat ; also by Eber- 
 hard in his Apologie des Sokrates, th. i. But 
 no objections which are merely a priori can dis- 
 prove the existence of positive precepts. 
 
 The following arguments have been used to 
 render the objection to positive laws somewhat 
 plausible : (1) It is thought that experience 
 proves that the promulgation of positive laws, 
 which are received as of divine origin, exposes 
 natural laws to be neglected and transgressed, 
 and in proof of this the example of the Israelites 
 and Christians is adduced. To this it is justly 
 replied, that the abuse of a thing does not pre- 
 vent its proper use. The fact that many have 
 made an improper use of positive precepts can- 
 not prove that they are without use, injurious, 
 and reprehensible, and that they cannot be of 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 119 
 
 divine origin. The most useful objects and the 
 most benevolent arrangements in the natural 
 world have often been abused by men ; but this 
 is no proof that they were not made and appoint- 
 ed by God. (2) Oppressive burdens and severe 
 and intolerable laws, it is said, will be imposed 
 upon men, on pretence of divine authority, 
 wherever the existence of positive laws is ad- 
 mitted; and in proof of this, the history of the 
 Jews is again referred to. To this it may be re- 
 plied, that these very pretended divine laws have 
 made it so much the more necessary for God to 
 interpose in our behalf by his own positive com- 
 mands. Again : the evil consequences spoken 
 of do not flow from positive divine ordinances, 
 but from arbitrary human ordinances, which 
 men have falsely pretended to be divine. In 
 reply, it is said that both experience and his- 
 tory teach that it must be difficult to distin- 
 guish between those laws which are really of 
 divine origin and those which are only pretended 
 to be such. (3) God founded and arranged 
 everything so wisely in the beginning that no 
 alterations or additions in the established natural 
 laws are necessary ; and that he should do what 
 is unnecessary cannot, it is said, be supposed. 
 To this it may be replied, that positive divine 
 precepts do not alter, contradict, annul, or in 
 any way repeal, the natural laws. To prove, 
 il priori, either that positive laws do not exist or 
 are unnecessary, is quite impossible. Whether 
 there are or are not positive laws is a question 
 of fact; and if it can be shewn that positive di- 
 vine precepts actually exist, all reasoning to the 
 contrary, & priori, is of no avail. If no evil ex- 
 isted in the world, our philosophers would prove 
 & priori, from all the attributes of God, that a 
 world in which evil should exist was utterly 
 impossible. But since the existence of evil is 
 beyond a doubt, they must be content to shew 
 how it is reconcilable with the divine attributes. 
 Cf. Morus, p. 4850, s. 12. 
 
 Note. The following remarks shall suffice 
 us, without going further into the philosophical 
 investigation of this disputed point. The his- 
 tory of man in all ages shews that the natural 
 obligation to perform certain duties cannot be 
 made intelligible to the greater part of mankind 
 by merely rational considerations and proofs. 
 They depend upon authority ; and if authority 
 be wisely employed, more influence over their 
 minds is obtained than in any other way. Nor 
 is this the case with the ignorant and illiterate 
 only, but almost equally with the learned and 
 educated, though they are unwilling to acknow- 
 ledge or believe it. The authority of God must, 
 of course, exert a more powerful influence over 
 the mind than any other authority. Hence from 
 the earliest times, and even among the heathen 
 nations, the natural law has been promulged, as 
 if expressly and orally given by God. Men felt 
 
 the necessity of having positive divine precepts. 
 They must also of necessity have some external 
 rites and ceremonies addressed to the senses in 
 their worship of Cod. But to secure to these 
 rites and ceremonies (so necessary and beneficial 
 to men) the needful authority, and a truly so- 
 lemn sanction, they were prescribed even among 
 the heathen, by those who contrived them, as 
 coming directly from God. The ancient legis- 
 ators published even their ctvt/laws in the same 
 way, and with a similar intention. Hence 
 among the Grecians, Romans, and Mahom- 
 medans, as well as the Israelites, the civil and 
 religious laws were interwoven an^ united. 
 Can it now appear surprising, inconsistent, or 
 contrary to the natural expectations of men, for 
 God to publish positive laws among the Israel- 
 ites, under his own authority, by Moses and the 
 prophets ? By his doing so, the Jews might be 
 preserved from all the positive laws which men 
 would otherwise have imposed upon them. If 
 it is once conceded that authority is necessary 
 for men, and that the authority of God has and 
 must have greater weight than any other, then 
 for God to publish laws on his own authority 
 must be considered as highly beneficial. Whe- 
 ther he has actually done so, by means of im- 
 mediate revelation; whether universally or to a 
 particular people ; are questions of fact which 
 depend upon testimony, and cannot be deter- 
 mined & priori. Vide Introduction, s. 2, 3. 
 
 The writers of the Old and New Testament 
 consider the fact, that God made known his will 
 to the Israelites, and gave them laws, as one of 
 their principal advantages over other people, 
 Psalm cxlvii. 20 ; Rom. iii. 2. But the positive 
 laws given to the Israelites are, in part, of such 
 a nature, that they cannot and ought not to be 
 universally observed. They were mostly in- 
 tended only for a particular age, a single people, 
 country, and climate. By degrees, as circum- 
 stances changed, they were found deficient and 
 inadequate, and gave occasion to various abuses.. 
 At this juncture Christianity appeared. It pro- 
 mulgated the law of nature on divine authority, 
 as had been done in the former dispensation. 
 But with this, its founder enacted various posi- 
 tive religious precepts and laws, which, how- 
 ever, were few in number, and of a nature to be 
 easily and universally obeyed. He then de- 
 clared men free from all those positive laws of 
 the Mosaic dispensation which had not at the 
 same time a natural obligation, or were not 
 again enacted by himself. The ceremonial law 
 had now performed its service. It was not in- 
 tended to be of perpetual and universal obliga- 
 tion. But during that state of ignorance and 
 superstition into which Europe relapsed, this 
 religion, which was simple in its nature and be- 
 nign in its influence, as established by Christ, 
 became so overloaded and corrupted by positive 
 
120 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 precepts, for which divine authority was pre- 
 tended, that Christian nations were in a state 
 little better than that of the Jews at the coining 
 of Christ. This fact, however, so far from dis- 
 proving- the claims of Christianity to be regarded 
 as given by God, proves only the perversions 
 of those to whom it was entrusted. The best 
 gifts of Heaven have been abused by men ; but 
 this abuse does not disprove their divine ori- 
 ginal. 
 
 SECTION XXXI. 
 
 OP THE JUSTICE OF GOD (continued.) 
 H. The Retributive Justice of God. 
 
 WHEN God exhibits his approbation of such 
 actions as correspond with his laws, and his 
 displeasure at such actions as he has forbidden, 
 we see his retributive justice. This approbation 
 which he expresses of what is morally good, is 
 called reward ,- his disapprobation expressed 
 against what is evil, punishment. The former 
 is frequently called in the Bible by the figure 
 synecdoche, o^djtrj tov, and the latter, 6py^ 
 jov, p|N, M-\n, iJi, Rom. i. 18; ii. 8. Those who 
 believe in the existence of God will generally 
 allow that he is not only the supreme ruler, but 
 also the disposer of our destiny ; that our happi- 
 ness and misery are in his power. And since 
 we find, both by experience and observation, 
 that obedience to the divine commands has 
 happy consequences, and disobedience unhappy 
 consequences, we conclude that God rewards 
 virtue and punishes vice ; that happiness is a 
 proof of his love, and misery a proof of his dis- 
 pleasure and anger. According to this simple 
 notion, by which God is represented as acting 
 after the manner of men, the language of the 
 Bible on this subject is to be understood and 
 explained. This notion which we form of God, 
 as acting after the manner of men, and which 
 we express in the language common to men, 
 gives rise to the scholastic division of the di- 
 vine justice, into remuneratoria and punitiva. 
 We shall here exhibit only the general princi- 
 ples upon which we shall proceed in the further 
 discussion of this subject in the Article on Sin, 
 s. 86, 87, where a history of this doctrine will 
 be given. 
 
 1. Remunerative justice. 
 
 When God rewards good actions by favours 
 immediately bestowed or promised hereafter, he 
 exercises his remunerative justice. From these 
 blessings bestowed upon us as rewards, we 
 justly conclude that our actions agree with the 
 divine will, and that God loves and approves us ; 
 and by these blessings we are thus induced to 
 regulate our conduct according to the divine 
 commands: this, then, we may suppose to bs 
 the object which God has in view in the bestow- 
 
 ment of these rewards. Here belong the follow- 
 ing texts of scripture : Ps. xxxvii. 37 ; Ixxiii. 24, 
 seq. ; Rom. ii. 6 10; 1 Cor. iii. 8; Hebrews, 
 vi. 10 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8, &c. The rewards bestow- 
 ed by God are commonly divided into natural 
 and positive. Natural rewards may be explained 
 as follows : God has so wisely constituted the 
 natural world, that good actions have happy 
 consequences; that there is a nexus commodi 
 NECESSARII cum bono, sive recte facto, as Morus 
 expresses it. The advantages spoken of have 
 their ground in the wise constitution which God 
 himself has given to the natural world, and are 
 therefore called praemia naturalia, sive ordinaria. 
 Among these natural rewards may be enume- 
 rated, peace and tranquillity of mind, the appro- 
 bation of the good, the enjoyment of external 
 advantages, bodily strength and health, increase 
 of possessions, &c. Vide Ps. xxxvii. 16 40; 
 cxii. This is what is meant by saying, Virtue 
 rewards itself. Positive rewards are those which 
 stand in no necessary connexion with the actions 
 of men, but are conferred by an express and 
 particular divine appointment, constituting what 
 Morus calls the nexus commodi NON NECESSARII 
 cum bono, sive recte facto. The question is here 
 asked, if positive rewards are ever conferred 
 during the present life ; and if so, what they are ? 
 To this we may answer, that in the Christian 
 dispensation positive rewards during the present 
 life are not universally promised, as in the an- 
 cient dispensation; and that it is impossible to 
 determine, in any particular cases, whether a 
 reward is positive or natural. The texts com- 
 monly cited in proof of present positive rewards 
 refer either to the natural consequences of virtue, 
 (e. g., 1 Tim. iv. 8; Mark, x. 29, 30; Prov. iii. 
 2, seq.,) or to the particular promises made to 
 the Jews, which are no longer valid, (e. g., 
 Num. xxviii. 5, 29 ; Exod. x. 23 ; Ephes. vi. 
 2.) But when speaking of the rewards of the 
 future world, the writers of the New Testament 
 plainly declare, that besides the natural conse- 
 quences of good actions which the righteous 
 will enjoy, God will bestow upon them positive 
 rewards, which cannot be considered as the na- 
 tural consequences of virtue. Vide Article xv. 
 This remunerative justice of God may be farther 
 described as universal; the smallest virtues of 
 every individual man will be rewarded, for they 
 are all known to God, Matt. x. 42 ; 1 Cor. iv. 
 5; Heb. vi. 10. It is also impartial. This is 
 called in the Bible, ajtposurtoty^ia, ?<nj, Rom. 
 ii. 10, 11. Unlike human judges, who are often 
 deceived by external appearances, God rewards 
 actions according to their moral worth, and 
 real, internal excellence. The full display of 
 the divine justice, either in rewards or punish- 
 ments, is not seen in the present life ; but is re- 
 served, as we are taught in the Bible, for the 
 future world. In the Bible we are also taught 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 that our present life is but the feeble commence- 
 ment of our being; and that by far the largest 
 and most important part of our existence our 
 vita vere vitalis will hereafter commence ; and 
 we are thus enabled to comprehend what would 
 otherwise be inscrutable, how it is consistent 
 with the justice of God to appoint affliction to 
 the righteous and prosperity to the wicked, as 
 he often does in the present world. Vide the 
 excellent parable of the tares among the wheat, 
 Matt. xiii. 2430, coll. ver. 3640; Cf. Rom. 
 ii. 512; 2 Thess. i. 412; Luke, iv. 13, 14. 
 
 2. PcnalJustice. 
 
 When we say the justice of God is exhibited 
 in punishment, it is as much as to say that he 
 causes unhappiness to follow upon moral evil, 
 in order to convince men that he disapproves of 
 disobedience to his commands. Nedit commoda 
 bono, sive redefactis ; incommodo malo, sive male 
 factis. 
 
 1. The ends of God in punishing. 
 
 God punishes, (a) in order to prevent or di- 
 minish moral evil, with reference therefore to 
 the good of the whole, and of particular indivi- 
 duals. 1 Cor. xi. 32, Kpivofisvoi vrtb Kvptov 
 
 i. e., the divine punishments suspended over us 
 are intended for our improvement, and unless, 
 warned by them, we really become better, we 
 shall fail of eternal blessedness, and share the 
 fate of the unbelieving world. Isaiah, xxvi. 9, 
 When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabit- 
 ants will learn righteousness. Ps. cxix. 67, Be- 
 fore I was afflicted I went astray ; but now have 
 I kept thy law, lest I should draw upon myself 
 additional afflictions. Ver. 71, It is good for me 
 that I have been afflicted, that I might learn thy 
 statutes. God punishes (&) in order to shew 
 that sin is displeasing to him, and that only the 
 truly obedient can count upon his approbation; 
 in order, therefore, to preserve inviolate among 
 men the authority of his benevolent laws, in- 
 tended for their best good. And since nothing 
 can be more important or desirable to men than 
 the approbation of God, he is actuated by the 
 same benevolence in punishing with this intent 
 as with the former. The Bible teaches us that 
 God has this end in view in the punishments 
 which he inflicts, by saying, he will be sanctified 
 by means of his judgments, Lev. x. 3. This is 
 the same as to say that by punishing men he 
 designs to be seen and acknowledged by them 
 as a holy God, or as one who disapproves of 
 wickedness. The same thing is taught in Rom. 
 i. 18, 'ATtoxakvTttftat, 6'py?} iov irtl jiacrcw 
 doEjStiav xai abixiav <M&pwrtv. But the justice 
 of God also requires that as he rewards the good 
 which others do to us (s. 30), he should also 
 punish the evil which they bring upon us, (2 
 Thess. i. 6, 7; Ps. ix. 5, seq. ; N and this is 
 16 
 
 121 
 
 called, in the popular language which the Bible 
 employs, his revenge, ixStxyais, Rom. xii. 19. 
 
 Thus it appears that the true final cause of 
 the divine judgments upon men is their moral 
 improvement; and in this respect it may be 
 said, with entire truth, that the penal justice of 
 God is his goodness, wisely proportioned to the 
 capacity of its objects. But it is not the im- 
 provement of those only whom he punishes 
 which God intends in the judgments which he 
 inflicts, but that of others also, who may take 
 warning from these examples. So that even 
 should God fail of his object in reforming the 
 offender himself, he would still benefit others 
 who might witness the punishments inflicted 
 upon him. Vide Ps. 1. 16, seq. ; lii. 6, seq. ; 
 Rom. ii. 46; 2 Pet. ii. iii.; 1 Cor. x. 11, 
 Now all these punishments were inflicted upon the 
 Israelites as examples (rvrtot, see ver. 6) to us, 
 who live in the latest period of the world, (in 
 New-Testament times.) Some think, with 
 Michaelis, (Gedanken iiber die Lehre der heili- 
 gen Schrift von der Siinde, u. s. w. Gottingen, 
 1779, 8vo,) that the final cause of the divine 
 judgments is not so much to benefit and reform 
 the offender, as to terrify and deter others from 
 the commission of crime. Michaelis does not 
 indeed deny that punishment might be made to 
 promote the reformation of those who are the 
 subjects of it; but he still thinks that the great 
 end which is contemplated by all judicatories 
 in the punishments which they inflict is to ter- 
 rify and deter from crime, sometimes the male- 
 factor himself, as well as others, but more 
 frequently others only, who may witness his 
 punishment. And this is indeed true with re- 
 gard to human judicatories, which have no such 
 means of punishment within their power as are 
 calculated for the reformation of the culprit, 
 and can therefore only hold him forth as an ex- 
 ample for the warning of others ; but this is an 
 imperfection which is inevitable to these judi- 
 catories as human, and ought not therefore to be 
 transferred to the divine government. It is in 
 consequence of this imperfection incident to 
 human judicatories, by which they are driven 
 to consult for the good of the whole, exclusive 
 of that of the criminal, that they must often in- 
 flict upon him severer penalties than his own 
 benefit would require, merely for the sake of 
 the salutary influence of his punishment on the 
 minds of others. That they are thus compelled 
 to sacrifice an individual to the general good 
 is certainly an evidence of imperfection. Just 
 at that point where punishment ceases to be 
 salutary to the person who endures it, however 
 salutary it may be to others as an example 
 just at that point does it become an evidence 
 of the ignorance and imperfection of those by 
 whom it is inflicted. But how can we suppose 
 L 
 
122 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 that God, who knows what kinds of punish- 
 ment are necessary for the benefit of the offend- 
 er, and who has every mode of punishment at 
 command, would ever punish any one more se- 
 verely than was necessary for his own profit, 
 merely for the sake of making him a terrible 
 example to others'? None upon whom he 
 inflicts punishment, with their good in view, 
 will fail of being benefited by it, unless through 
 their own fault; for he employs those means 
 only which are calculated to produce this effect, 
 and is liable in the choice of means to none of 
 those mistakes and imperfections to which 
 human judicatories are subject. We cannot, 
 therefore, make these human judicatories our 
 standard of judging respecting the divine go- 
 vernment. The judicial authority of God does 
 not rest on the same basis as that of human 
 rulers; and in the judgments which he inflicts 
 none of the imperfections of human judgments 
 appear. We should avoid many mistakes if, 
 when we speak even of the justice of God, we 
 should represent him less under the image of a 
 judge than of a father, who, as we are taught 
 in the Bible, is "good even in his judgments," 
 Ps. cxix. 39. The benevolence by which God 
 is actuated in his severest inflictions is implied 
 in the very words by which his chastisement is 
 denoted e. g., Ttatfota, Hebrews, xii. 5 11; 
 and drtofo/u'a, Rom. xi. 22. The representation 
 of God under the image of a judge is not, how- 
 ever, in itself objectionable, but only on account 
 of its liability to abuse. It is very natural to 
 men, as we see from the present example, to 
 transfer to God the extremely defective ideal 
 which they have derived from human rulers; 
 and k will therefore be wiser for religious 
 teachers to represent God under the image of a 
 father, at least to those who ar.e virtuous, and of 
 a nature to be influenced by kindness and love, 
 and to reserve the image of a severe and right- 
 eous judge for rude and intractable men, who 
 are incapable of being influenced by anything 
 but terror. 
 
 Note 1. Persons cannot be said to be punish- 
 ed when they suffer without any fault of their 
 own, but only when they suffer in consequence 
 of their wickedness. The wretchedness which 
 the prodigal son brought upon himself (Luke, 
 xv.) is properly called punishment ; while the 
 same wretchedness befalling an innocent person 
 would properly be denominated calamity. The 
 Bible teaches us very justly and satisfactorily 
 how such evils and sufferings as befall the vir- 
 tuous must be understood and improved by them 
 and by others. The wise father, in the educa- 
 tion of his children, often finds it necessary to 
 treat even the dutiful with severity, in order to 
 promote their present advantage and real per- 
 manent welfare. In the same manner does God 
 often see it necessary, for wise reasons, to exer- 
 
 cise severity towards those whom he is edu- 
 cating, and to impose sufferings upon them. He 
 sees that afflictions will tend to promote then 
 holiness, strengthen their faith, and restrain their 
 sinful propensities. Habent talia vim disciplinoe^ 
 Morus, p. 50. This is the view of the chastise- 
 ment we receive from God, which is given us 
 by Paul in that excellent passage, Heb. xii. 
 5 11. He there calls the discipline which we 
 receive, TtatSst'av, fatherly correction, and com- 
 pares the conduct of God towards men with 
 that of a father. Ver. 6, n Ov dyarta Kvproj, 
 Ver. 7, Ttj tativ vtoj, 6V ov rtai&fvst 
 In ver. 10 the apostle teaches that 
 God punishes IjtL to avufyipov and proceeds, 
 ver. .11, to say, rtcwSiia ov &OXM #apaj f^at, 
 vdiffpov 8s xaprtov tlpqvtxbv arco8iduai, x. tf. X. 
 The goodness and justice of God which appear 
 in the allotment of such evils to men, is hence 
 called by some theologians, justitia pxdeutica, 
 or paedagogica. The justice of God, when 
 thus exercised, has the same object with his 
 penal justice viz., the improvement and moral 
 perfection of men ; but it differs from that in its 
 internal nature and character, as appears from 
 what has been said. There is an endless diver- 
 sity in the characters of men ; and in his treat- 
 ment of them God governs himself according to 
 this difference of their characters, and guides 
 them to happiness through different ways, and 
 by different means ; and in doing this he clearly 
 exhibits his wisdom and goodness. This truth 
 is strikingly illustrated in Isa. xxviii. 23 29. 
 As the husbandman cannot treat all his lands 
 and all his fruits in the same manner, so neither 
 can God treat all men alike ; but while he seeks 
 for the improvement of all, he promotes it in one 
 by prosperity, in another by adversity. 
 
 [Note 2. The causes for which God does 
 anything, and also the ends which he would at- 
 tain, may be sought either in himself or without 
 himself, in the world which he has made ; in 
 other words, they are either subjective ox objec- 
 tive. But because he is entirely independent 
 and absolutely perfect, the highest and last 
 grounds of what he does must be sought in his 
 own nature ; and to these the objective reasons 
 of his conduct must be subordinate. And so, 
 when we inquire for the final cause of the re- 
 wards and punishments which God distributes 
 in the exercise of his retributive justice, we must 
 look for it in God himself; and to this we must 
 subordinate any ends for this exercise which 
 may be derived from the world which God has 
 created. Now the nature of God, in which the 
 last ground of his retributive justice is to be 
 sought, has infinite moral perfection ; for this 
 perfect moral excellence residing in his nature 
 God must have supreme regard and absolute 
 love, and consequently he must feel an absolute 
 pleasure in what is morally good, and displea- 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 123 
 
 sure in what is morally evil. This necessary 
 love to what is morally perfect is, then, the last 
 ground of the divine justice. But in order to 
 be consistent, he must act according to this love, 
 and exhibit to the view of his moral creatures 
 his approbation of good and disapprobation of 
 evil ; and this is the last end of the retribution 
 which he awards. And if there were no refor- 
 mation of the individual offender, no warning 
 of others, or any objective ground for the exer- 
 cise of retributive justice, there would be suffi- 
 cient ground for all that God does either to 
 punish or reward, in his own absolute love of 
 moral good and hatred of moral evil. The re- 
 presentations of the Bible would certainly lead 
 us to think that the feelings which prompt him 
 in the punishment of the wicked are, his holy 
 disapprobation of their conduct his necessary 
 hatred of their moral character. And when we 
 enter into the feelings of the guilty subject of 
 the divine judgments, does he not find reason 
 enough in his own ill-desert for all which God 
 inflicts upon him ; and would not all which he 
 endures be sufficiently understood by him, if no 
 advantage to himself or others occurred to his 
 mind 1 The justice of God is an absolute attri- 
 bute, and demands itself to be satisfied ; and mo- 
 ral evil has a real, intrinsic ill-desert, and ought 
 to be punished. That God has sometimes the 
 reformation of the offender in view in the pu- 
 nishment which he inflicts, and that he seeks 
 the moral perfection of men in the displays of 
 his attributes, is perfectly true ; these ends, how- 
 ever, so far from being the only or the highest 
 reasons of retribution, are subordinate to the sa- 
 tisfaction of divine justice. TR.] 
 
 2. The different kinds of punishment which 
 God inflicts. 
 
 (a) Natural i. e., such unhappy conse- 
 quences as flow from the internal nature of sin- 
 ful actions ; incommoda nccessaria malo, sive 
 male factis, nexa, as Morus describes them. 
 These, like natural rewards, have their ground 
 in the wise constitution which God himself has 
 given to the natural world. That natural pu- 
 nishments are really inflicted is shewn by daily 
 experience. Sin everywhere draws upon itself 
 remorse, disgrace, bodily disease, &c. And 
 these natural consequences of sin, like the na- 
 tural consequences of virtue, are greater than is 
 commonly supposed, and often unlimited in their 
 extent, as will be hereafter shewn in connexion 
 with the doctrine of endless future punishment. 
 " Sin punishes itself." 
 
 (6) Positive, arbitrary i. e., such as stand 
 in no natural and necessary connexion with the 
 sinful actions of men, or which do not flow 
 from the internal nature of such actions, but are 
 connected with them by the mere will of the 
 legislator, and are additional to the natural con- 
 sequences of sin. According to the common 
 
 theory on this subject, with which the Bible 
 agrees, such positive divine judgments are in- 
 flicted by God, on account of the inadequacy of 
 natural judgments alone to effect the moral im- 
 provement of men, and to deter them from sin. 
 In order, therefore, to preserve inviolate the 
 authority of his law, he connected positive judg- 
 ments with the natural consequences of sin, 
 which alone were insufficient for this purpose. 
 In the infliction of these arbitrary sufferings, he 
 is governed by the rules of infinite wisdom and 
 love, and not by blind caprice. 
 
 Positive punishments are divided into present 
 and future. The present are those which take 
 place in this life ; and in proof of them we may 
 refer to the passages of the Old Testament 
 where they are threatened to the disobedient Is- 
 raelites e. g., 2 Sam. xii. 10, 11, 14; Acts, v. 
 5, 9 ; 1 Cor. vi. 35. 
 
 Future positive punishments are those which 
 are threatened in the next world. From many 
 expressions of the New Testament we are un- 
 doubtedly led to expect positive punishments in 
 the future world. Cf. Art. xv. It must cer- 
 tainly be considered inconsistent for any one to 
 object to positive punishments in another world 
 who expects positive rewards. Such an one 
 has certainly very much the appearance of con- 
 forming his belief to his wishes, and of admit- 
 ting positive rewards because he desires them, 
 and denying positive punishments because he 
 fears them. 
 
 It was with reference to the positive punish- 
 ments of sin that the atonement of Christ was 
 principally made ; for the natural consequences 
 of sin are not wholly removed by virtue of his 
 death. The bodily disorders incurred by the 
 sinner in consequence of his vices do not wholly 
 cease, though they may indeed be abated and 
 alleviated by his becoming a sincere believer in 
 Christ as the Saviour of the world. Those who 
 deny the existence of positive punishments 
 hereafter consider that Christ by his atonement 
 has freed us merely from the fear of punish- 
 menta notion which is inconsistent with the 
 declarations of the New Testament, as will be 
 shewn in the Article respecting Christ. 
 
 In speaking of the positive divine judgments 
 which take place in this life, the teacher of reli- 
 gion is liable to do injury, and should therefore 
 wisely consider his words. It is true, doubt- 
 less, that positive punishments do take place in 
 the present world ; but it is also true that we are 
 unable, in given cases, to determine decisively 
 whether the sufferings which we witness are, or 
 are not, positive judgments from the hand of 
 God. To consider plague, famine, and physical 
 evils of every sort befalling an individual or 
 nation as in every case the consequence of moral 
 evil, is an error to which the multitude is much 
 inclined. They frequently refer in these cases 
 
124 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 to the very sins which have occasioned these 
 divine judgments, as they denominate the cala- 
 mities which befall their fellow men. And this 
 injurious prejudice has been not a little strength- 
 ened by the incautious manner in which the 
 teachers of religion have sometimes spoken on 
 this subject. It is perfectly right to consider 
 pestilence in general as a divine judgment, and 
 for the religious teacher, during such visitations 
 from God, to remind men of their sins ; but it is 
 not right to pronounce, as it were, a definite 
 judicial sentence upon the guilt of a particular 
 person or country visited in such a manner. 
 Experience and scripture both disapprove of 
 this ; for we often see that these calamities cease 
 before the alleged cause of them is removed ; 
 and they befall the good and bad equally, and 
 without distinction. As God causes the sun to 
 shine and the rain to descend upon the evil and 
 the good, so he sends tempest, flood, and con- 
 flagration, upon one as well as the other. In- 
 deed, the best men often suffer, while the worst 
 prosper; from which the fair conclusion is, that 
 nothing can be determined concerning the moral 
 character of men from the allotment of their ex- 
 ternal circumstances. Vide No. I. of this sec- 
 tion. The sacred writers concur entirely in these 
 views. The friends of Job concluded from his 
 bodily ills that he must have committed great 
 sins ; but Job shews (v. 10, 12) that God often 
 visits persons with sufferings which are not 
 occasioned by their sins. Christ says, Luke, 
 xiii. 2, 4, that the Galileans whom Pilate had 
 caused to be executed at Jerusalem, and the 
 eighteen men upon whom a tower had fallen, 
 were not sinners more than others because they 
 had suffered these things. He corrected his 
 disciples when they ascribed the misfortune of 
 the man born blind to the sin of his parents, 
 and taught them that they ought not to conclude 
 that particular misfortunes were the sure conse- 
 quence of particular crimes, John, ix. 3. Those 
 who advocate the practice to which allusion has 
 been made cannot justly plead in their defence 
 the passages in the Old Testament, where pest, 
 famine, failure of the harvest, destruction by 
 enemies, and various other positive punishments 
 in this life are frequently threatened for certain 
 definite transgressions of the divine commands ; 
 for we have now no prophets to come forth among 
 us, as among the Israelites,as the messengers and 
 authorized ambassadors of God. The civil go- 
 vernment of the Israelites was theocratic i. e., 
 God was acknowledged by the Israelites to be 
 their civil ruler ; and the leaders of their armies, 
 their earthly kings, their priests and prophets, 
 were considered by them as his authorized ser- 
 vants. Hence all their laws were published in 
 the name of God i. e., at the divine command, 
 and under the divine authority. And in the 
 same manner the temporal rewards connected 
 
 with obedience, and the temporal punishments 
 connected with disobedience, were announced 
 as coming from him. From what has been 
 said, we draw the conclusion, that external 
 blessings or calamities are not to be considered 
 in particular cases as the reward of good actions, 
 or the punishment of bad, except where God has 
 expressly declared that these very blessings, or 
 these very calamities, are allotted to this indivi- 
 dual person, on account of the good or bad ac- 
 tion specified ; as Lev. xxvi., Deut. xxviii., Re- 
 velation, ii. 22, 23. Additional remarks con- 
 cerning natural and positive punishments will 
 be made in the Article on Sin, s. 86, 87. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 SECT. XXXII. 
 
 OF THE DECREES OF GOD. 
 
 THE doctrine of the divine decrees depends 
 upon the freedom of the will of God, and upon 
 his wisdom, goodness, and justice. It may 
 therefore properly succeed the discussion of 
 these subjects in the foregoing sections. 
 
 I. General Statement, and Scholastic Divisions. 
 
 1. Definitionof the decrees of God. By these 
 we mean, the will of God that anything should 
 come into existence, or be accomplished, (Morus, 
 p. 51,) or, the free determinations of God re- 
 specting the existence of any object extrinsic to 
 himself. 
 
 2. The nature and attributes of the divine de- 
 crees. These are the same as were ascribed to 
 the divine will, because the decrees of God are 
 only expressions of his will. The decrees of 
 God are, properly speaking, (a) only one single 
 decree. They were all made at one and the 
 same time. Before we can come to a determina- 
 tion of the will, it is often necessary for us to 
 institute laborious investigations and inquiries, 
 since we cannot survey all the reasons on both 
 sides of a subject at a single glance. And it is 
 on account of this limitation of our understand- 
 ings that all our determinations are successive. 
 But no such succession takes place in the mind 
 of God ; he knows all things at once. Vide s. 
 22. And so, properly speaking, the decree to 
 make the world, and every single decree re- 
 specting everything which exists, or has been 
 done in it from the beginning, are only one en- 
 tire decree. But we represent to pur minds as 
 many different decrees as there are particulars 
 comprehended in this one universal decree. (6) 
 The divine decrees are/ree. Nothing can com- 
 pel God to decree what is contrary to his 
 will or understanding. His decrees, however, 
 though free, are never blind and groundless. 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 125 
 
 Vide s. 26. Cf. Ephes. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. i. 9. (c) 
 They are benevolent, always intended for the 
 good of the creatures of God, Ephes. i., Rom. 
 viii., ix. That they are so follows from the 
 goodness, holiness, and justice of God ; s. 
 28 31 inclusive, (d) Eternal and unalterable. 
 Vide s. 20, and especially s. 26, ad finem. Cf. 
 Morus, p. 53, s. 15. Whence the Bible often 
 says, God determined such a thing, rtpo xata- 
 j8o7t>jj xdfytov, Ephes. i. 4; an or npb euwvov. 
 IIpo, in Ttpoytvwffxf iv, rtpoopt^siv, x tf. X., denotes 
 the same thing. God existed from eternity; 
 and as he exists without succession of time, all 
 of his decrees must be as eternal as himself, 
 and as immutable as his own nature. Rom. 
 xi. 29, a/jLffafjL^ta. Heb. vi. 17, T'O 
 iJ. (e) Unsearchable, a 
 Romans, xi. 33 36 ; 
 1 Cor. ii. 10 ; Isaiah, Iv. 8. Cf. Morus, p. 46, 
 s. 10, note 4. We see but a small part of the 
 immeasurable whole which God surveys at a 
 glance, and are incapable, therefore, of compre- 
 hending, in its whole extent, the immeasurable 
 and eternal plan of God, or of determining a 
 priori what he ought to have decreed. The 
 attempt to decide what God has determined -to 
 be done by conclusions drawn from particular 
 attributes of his nature, of which we have such 
 imperfect notions in our present state, is attend- 
 ed with the greatest danger of mistake. For us 
 to undertake to say that this and the other thing 
 is good and desirable, and therefore must be, 
 or has been, done by God, is what the Bible 
 calls wishing to teach God, 1 Cor. ii. 16. We 
 can learn what God has actually decreed only 
 from seeing what events have actually taken 
 place. From the existence of the world, we 
 conclude that God decreed to create it; from the 
 existence of evil, we conclude that God decreed 
 to permit it, &c. And although we are taught 
 expressly in the Bible that God decreed to send 
 Christ into the world, (1 Cor. ii. 9, seq.,) we 
 are also taught to note the event, the effects of his 
 mission, and from thence to conclude what the 
 will and purpose of God is. 
 
 3. Division of the divine decrees. They are 
 divided, as far as they relate to moral beings, 
 into absolute and conditional, like the divine 
 will. Vide s. 25, II. 2. 
 
 (a) Absolute decrees are not such as are made 
 without reason in the exercise of arbitrary 
 power, but such as are made without reference 
 to the free actions of moral beings, or without 
 being dependent for their accomplishment upon 
 a condition. The decrees of God to create the 
 world, to send Christ to redeem it, to bestow 
 external prosperity, advantages for intellectual 
 improvement, or the knowledge of the gospel, 
 upon one people or individual, and to deny them 
 to another, and all his determinations of this 
 nature, are called absolute decrees ; because, 
 
 though made in view of wise and good reasons, 
 they do not depend for their accomplishment 
 upon the free actions and the true character of 
 moral beings. In the allotment of temporal or 
 earthly good, riches, honour, health, &c., the 
 rule by which God proceeds is not always the 
 worthiness of men. We do not mean that virtue 
 always and necessarily induces suffering and 
 persecution, (as some have concluded, from a 
 false interpretation of such texts as Matt. v. 10, 
 seq. ; 2 Tim. iii. 12, &c.) Pure Christian vir- 
 tue, on the contrary, often brings along with it 
 great temporal advantages, Rom. xii. 17, seq. 
 We simply mean, that in imparting these exter- 
 nal advantages, God is often governed by other 
 principles than regard to the obedience or dis- 
 obedience of his moral creatures. 
 
 (6) Conditional decrees are those in making 
 which God has respect to the free actions of 
 moral beings. These conditional decrees are 
 founded upon that fore-knowledge of the free 
 actions of men which we are compelled to as- 
 cribe to God. Vide s. 22. God foresaw from 
 eternity how every man would act, and whether 
 he would comply with the conditions under 
 which the designs of God concerning him would 
 take effect, or would reject them ; and upon this 
 fore-knowledge he founded his decree. Of this 
 class are the decrees of God respecting the 
 spiritual and eternal welfare of men. They are 
 always founded upon the free conduct of men, 
 and are never absolute, but always conditional. 
 We are not, however, to regard these spiritual 
 gifts as in any sense deserved by the moral 
 agent, when he complies with the prescribed 
 conditions ; Luke, xvii. 10. The decree re- 
 specting the eternal welfare of men is called, by 
 way of eminence, predestination, in the limited 
 sense; for all God's eternal decrees are called 
 predestination in the larger sense. This name 
 has been used, in this more limited sense espe- 
 cially, since the time of Augustine ; from the 
 fact that the word prsedestinarc was employed 
 by the Vulgate to render the Greek rtpoopt'W, 
 in Rom. viii. 29, 30, which was then referred 
 to the decrees of God respecting the salvation 
 and condemnation of men. The decree of God 
 respecting the eternal blessedness of the pious, 
 was then called electio, decretum electionis, pre- 
 destinatio ad vitam. The decree respecting the 
 punishment of sinners in the future world was 
 called reprobatio, decretum reprobationis, prcdes- 
 tinatio ad mortem. These words too are de- 
 rived from the New Testament, especially from 
 Rom. viii. ; where, however, they are used in a 
 different sense. The election, Ix^oy*?, there 
 spoken of, is the gracious reception of Jews and 
 heathen into the Christian society; and the re- 
 jection is the denial or withdrawment of this 
 and other divine blessings, as will appear from 
 No. II. 
 
 L2 
 
126 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 II. Scriptural Representation, and the Errors occa- 
 sioned by False Interpretation. 
 
 1 . Scriptural representation. 
 
 The following are the principal expressions 
 employed in the Bible in relation to the decrees 
 of God. (a) All the words which signify to 
 say, speak, command. The phrase, God says, 
 often means, he wills, he decrees, Ps. xxxiii. 9. 
 So frequently -01, np, ui. (o) The words 
 which signify to think, are often used to denote 
 the divine decrees; as no?D, rnacviD, 8xkoyKj/ioi, 
 Ps. xxxiii. 10, 11 ; Is. Iv. 8. Hence the phrases, 
 to spzak with one's self, to say in one's heart, often 
 mean, to consider, determine. Saying in his 
 heart, was the manner in which the Hebrew de- 
 noted thinking an instance of the ancient sim- 
 plicity of language, corresponding with the 
 phrase of the Otaheitans, speaking in one's belly. 
 (c) Kptpa, artrp, sentence , representing God as 
 a judge or ruler, who publishes edicts and pro- 
 nounces sentence; Ps. xxxvi. 6, 7 ; Rom. xi. 
 33. (c?) 'OSoj, "H-H, way. The way of God sig- 
 nifies his manner of thinking or acting, his con- 
 duct , Ps. cxlv. 17, " Gracious is Jehovah in all 
 his ways" i. e., decrees; Rom. xi. 33, o8oi 
 
 &80V dl/fft^VtCWT'Ot. 
 
 (e) The following occur more frequently in 
 the New Testament : fo^a, evboxia, in He- 
 brew, pen, jtn, used particularly to denote God's 
 gracious purpose. Vide s. 25. IIpo^<jt,j, Ephes. 
 i. 11, where it is synonymous with fiovhr] $hrj- 
 ju.ato, 2 Tim. i. 9, seq., and Rom. ix. 11, iVa 37 
 tov sov rtpo^-Etftj *ar" txhoyyv p-tvy i. e., SO 
 that the divine purpose must remain free, must 
 be acknowledged to be according to his own 
 choice, npoyivwcmtv. This verb, like the He- 
 brew J7-P, and yvwj/at and s Idivai, very frequently 
 signifies to decree, (metonymia caussae pro 
 effectu.) In this sense it is often used by Philo. 
 In Acts, ii. 23, it is used to denote the purpose 
 of God, that Christ should suffer and die. 
 Now since the verba cognoscendi frequently sig- 
 nify, among the Hebrews, to love, to wish well, 
 Ttpoyvcotftj very often signifies, by way of emi- 
 nence, the gracious and benevolent purpose of 
 God, which he entertained from eternity for the 
 welfare of men. Thus rtpoyvcotftj in 1 Pet. i. 2, 
 denotes the gracious purpose of God respecting 
 the admission of men to the privileges of the 
 Christian church; Rom. viii. 29, ovj rtpolywo, 
 his beloved, those whose welfare he seeks ; Rom. 
 xi. 2. 'Opt&ev and rtpoopi/'^stv, commonly ren- 
 dered in the Vulgate praedestinare. 'Opt'^tv is 
 to determine, in the general sense; and in this 
 sense it is said, Acts, xi. 29, that the apostles 
 wpttfav x. -t. h. The divine purpose is therefore 
 called ibpujjit! vq jSovto?, decretum voluntatis divinse, 
 Acts, ii. 23. In the classics, optcr^os is purpose, 
 determination, npoop^ttv is properly decernere 
 antequam existat / because the decrees of God 
 are eternal, as, Acts, iv. 28, the Jews conspired 
 
 to do "whatever thy counsel 
 before determined to be done." The word rtpoopt- 
 ', when used in reference to men, never de- 
 notes exclusively the divine purpose respecting 
 their eternal salvation or condemnation, but rather 
 respecting their admission to the Christian 
 church, to partake both of the rights and privi- 
 leges, and also of the sorrows and sufferings of 
 Christians. So it is used, Ephes. i. 5, npooptsaj 
 rjfjia-S ttj uto^ftftav 5ia 'I^croiJ XpttfT'ov i. e., he 
 purposed to bring us into the Christian church, 
 and thus to make us his children his beloved 
 friends. That this is the meaning of the apos- 
 tle appears from verses 11, 12. The same is 
 true of the passage, Romans, ix., which does 
 not treat of the eternal salvation or condemnation 
 of men, but of the temporal benefits, and the ex- 
 ternal civil and church privileges, which God 
 confers upon particular persons and nations in 
 preference to others. Vide s. 26. The passage, 
 Rom. viii. 28, 29, seq., so often and entirely 
 misunderstood, must be interpreted in a similar 
 manner. Paul had spoken, verses 19, 20, seq., 
 of the sufferings and persecutions which Chris- 
 tians were at that time called to endure. He 
 endeavours to console them in the midst of their 
 distresses, and to shew the blessedness in 
 which their afflictions might result. " We are 
 confident that all things (even afflictions and 
 persecutions) will conspire for the good of those 
 who love God, and are called, in pursuance of 
 the purpose of God, to partake of Christian pri- 
 vileges, (tfoiV xata rtpo&aiv x"kritol$ olaiv .) For 
 he has predestinated (rtpowptte) us, whom he 
 thus graciously regarded from eternity (rtpotyvu^ 
 to be conformed to the example of his Son, 
 (viz., as in suffering, so in reward,) whom God 
 has designed to be the forerunner (jtpototoxov ) 
 of his many brethren, (first in suffering, then in 
 reward.) But those whom he thus destined 
 (to a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ) he 
 adopts as members of the Christian church 
 (tovtovg txatefja), and alleviates the sorrows 
 which they endure (for the sake of Christ) by 
 granting forgiveness of their sins, and the hope 
 of that future glory, (which Christ their fore- 
 runner has received, and to which he will raise 
 them.)" This passage, therefore, does not teach 
 that God elects men to salvation, or dooms them 
 to destruction, without respect to their moral 
 conduct, but that the present sufferings of Chris- 
 tians are alleviated by the external advantages 
 which they enjoy as members of Christian so- 
 ciety. Vide No. I. 
 
 In the bestowment of spiritual and eternal 
 blessings, it is absolutely essential that God 
 should be governed solely by the moral conduct 
 of men. His goodness, justice, indeed, all his 
 moral perfections, are infringed by the contrary 
 supposition. We are taught also by the express 
 assurances of scripture, standing on almost every 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 127 
 
 page of the New Testament, and especially of 
 the epistles of Paul, that God will reward and 
 punish every man according to his works, Rom, 
 ii. 61 1 ; Matt. xvi. 27 ; 2 Cor. v. 19. The de- 
 crees of election and reprobation, then, according 
 to the doctrine of scripture, are not absolute, but 
 conditional, Mark, xvi. 16. 
 
 The terms commonly employed in the schools 
 respecting the decrees of God may be illustrated 
 by the following syllogism : MAJOR : whoever 
 believes in Christ to the end of his life, shall be 
 saved, (this is rtpo^scrtj, or txtoyr/, the voluntas 
 Dei antecedens.} MINOR: Paul will believe to 
 the end of his life (this is ftpoywxttj, prsevisio.') 
 CONCLUSION : Therefore Paul will be saved, (this 
 is Ttpoopiffjudj, voluntas Dei consequens, decretum.} 
 Since, now, the major term is here an universal 
 proposition, but the minor particular, it is easily 
 seen in what sense the grace of God can be 
 scripturally denominated universal and particu- 
 lar. It is the same with the decree of reproba- 
 tion. 
 
 2. Errors occasioned principally by false inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 The opinion has long existed in the church, 
 that the decrees of election and reprobation were 
 absolute i. e., that without respect to their mo- 
 ral character, God selected from the human race 
 a certain number, (many say very few,) and 
 destined them to eternal happiness ; and, on the 
 other hand, rejected others (by far the greater 
 part of the human race, seven perhaps in ten) 
 in the same arbitrary manner, and destined them 
 to eternal condemnation. This error is called 
 predestination, and the advocates of it predestina- 
 tionists, or particularists. This doctrine, it has 
 been justly remarked, if carried out into all its 
 logical consequences, would destroy the freedom 
 of the human will, and thus undermine the foun- 
 dations of morality. But it has not been carried 
 out to its legitimate consequences, in theory or 
 practice, by those who have professed it. And 
 many of the soundest moralists and most vir- 
 tuous men are found, by a happy inconsistency, 
 among the advocates of this doctrine. 
 
 The principal sources of this error are the fol- 
 lowing: (a) False opinions respecting the free- 
 dom of the divine will, by which it is represented 
 as a blind caprice, in the exercise of which God 
 pardons or condemns without reason, like a hu- 
 man despot, (vide s. 26,) and in connexion with 
 these, false conceptions of the goodness, justice, 
 and other moral attributes of God, and of their 
 connexion with his natural attributes. (6) The 
 want of discrimination between the decrees of 
 God respecting the allotment of temporal and 
 earthly good, and those respecting the gift of 
 spiritual blessings and eternal life. But more 
 than all, (c) the misinterpretation of Rom. viii. 
 9, by which these passages are made to relate 
 to eternal salvation and condemnation, instead 
 
 of temporal privileges. This interpretation was 
 introduced by Augustine, who, however excel- 
 lent in other respects, was deficient in his ac- 
 quaintance with the language of scripture, and 
 therefore exhibits here none of his usual ability. 
 Vide s. 26. (rf) A similar misunderstanding 
 of other texts of scripture, especially of the de- 
 claration of Christ, Matt. xx. 16, jtoMoi tiru 
 jeto/T'ot, o^tyoc 6f extexrol* This has been sup- 
 posed to mean, that there are many who are 
 nominally and externally Christians, but few 
 only who are chosen to eternal salvation. But 
 the txtextol are here only the more eminent, 
 select saints, (the Hebrew D-nTD.) Thus the 
 passage would mean : among the many who are 
 externally Christians, (admitted into the Chris- 
 tian church,) there are only a few whom God 
 counts as his peculiar people i. e., few who live 
 conformably to the precepts of Christianity, and 
 are in all respects such as they should be. That 
 this is the true sense of these words appears 
 from the parable, Matt. xxii. 2 13, at the end 
 of which (ver. 14) they are repeated. 
 
 Again: the text, Acts, xiii. 48, has been ap- 
 pealed to in proof of this doctrine, from igno- 
 rance of the usus loquendi of the Bible; xai 
 ertiatMSav booi fyav fstay/jiivoi, ft? ar]v aiuviov. 
 Those who believed are here opposed to those 
 who (ver. 46) made themselves unworthy of eter- 
 nal life (viz. by unbelief.) The phrase is syno- 
 nymous with ol cwtov$ T'a|avT'f j t ij ^COT^V aiuviov, 
 those who prepared themselves for eternal life the 
 pious, virtuous. The Greeks frequently express 
 reciprocal action by passive verbs, especially in 
 the "preter. The meaning here becomes suffi- 
 ciently evident by a comparison of ver. 46. 
 
 Brief history of the doctrine of unconditional 
 decrees. 
 
 The controversy in which Augustine engaged 
 with the Pelagians led him to maintain the doc- 
 trine of absolute decrees. In contending against 
 the errors of his opponents he fell into the oppo- 
 site extreme, and asserted the doctrine of uncon- 
 ditional decrees concerning salvation and con- 
 demnation, and then his doctrine de gratia 
 particulari et irresistibili, (s. 132.) In conse- 
 quence of the high authority of Augustine, this 
 doctrine prevailed extensively in the African and 
 Latin churches during the fifth and sixth centu- 
 ries. During the former part of this period, 
 particularly, it was urged against the doctrine 
 of the Pelagians by Prosper of Aquitania and 
 Lucid us, presbyter in France. And indeed it 
 was alternately defended and opposed in the 
 western church during the whole of this and 
 the following century. 
 
 This doctrine was again maintained in the 
 ninth century by Gottschalk, a monk at Orbais, 
 in France, and a zealous follower of Augustine. 
 It became the subject of vehement discussion, 
 and was at length condemned as heretical by a 
 
128 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 council at Chiersy, in the year 849. But this 
 decision was not universally accepted ; and the 
 doctrine of predestination still had many advo- 
 cates, among whom were Thomas Aquinas, in 
 the thirteenth century, and his followers, the 
 Dominicans and other Thomists. 
 
 This controversy was renewed with great 
 vehemence in the Romish church during the 
 seventeenth century, on occasion of the writings 
 of Jansenius, Bishop at Ypern, in the Nether- 
 lands. The Jesuits and the* Pope took sides 
 against the doctrine of absolute decrees. But 
 the Dominicans, and other warm admirers of 
 Augustine, agreed with Jansenius, and there are 
 many stanch Jansenists in France at the pre- 
 sent day. 
 
 This doctrine, which owes its origin to Augus- 
 tine, was adopted again in the sixteenth century 
 by Calvin and Beza, the Swiss reformers, and 
 by them disseminated through their church. 
 [The symbols of the reformed church, in which 
 the doctrine of Calvin is acknowledged, are, 
 the Concensus pastorum eccl. Genev., (1551 an 
 1554,) Conf. Galicana, Art. xi., (1559,) 
 Conf. Belgica, Art. xvi., Catechismus Heidel- 
 bergensis, (1562 and 1563.)] At first, this doc- 
 trine was at least partially believed even by 
 Luther and Melancthon, but there is no trace of 
 it in the writings of Zuingle. 
 
 It was not without controversy, however, that 
 the doctrine of Calvin prevailed in the reformed 
 church. During the seventeenth century it was 
 opposed by Arminius and his followers. But it 
 was at length established as an article of faith 
 in the reformed church by the national synod at 
 Dordrecht, in the years 1618, 1619, and the Ar- 
 minians were placed beyond the pale of the 
 church. By degrees, however, this severe doc- 
 trine has been abandoned even in the reformed 
 church, its hardest features being first softened 
 down through the influence of the doctrine of 
 universal redemption. It was maintained for the 
 longest time in the Netherlands and in Switzer- 
 land ; though it has but few advocates in the Ne- 
 therlands at the present day. In England the 
 number of its friends is still considerable. Cf. 
 the history of the doctrine of grace, s. 132. 
 
 Note. In the above statement of the Lutheran 
 view of the doctrine of divine decrees, there is of 
 course much which must be objectionable to a 
 Calvinist; far less, however, than in the state- 
 ment of this subject usually made by Lutheran 
 writers. Our author treats the doctrine of his 
 Calvinistic opponents with a justice and mild- 
 ness quite unusual with the theologians of his 
 church. In general, there are no epithets too vio- 
 lent for them to heap upon the doctrine of abso- 
 lute decrees, and no evasions too weak for them 
 to employ to escape the force of the arguments 
 by which it is supported. That the Calvinistic 
 doctrine >f decrees should be rejected and ca 
 
 lumniated by men who reject those scriptural 
 truths upon which it depends, might be expected ; 
 but that it should be thus treated by those who 
 hold, in common with its advocates, those doc- 
 trines of grace from which it inevitably results, 
 is somewhat surprising. After taking the li- 
 berty to make a few general remarks upon some 
 particular representations of our author, I shall 
 endeavour to shew, that the Lutherans are charge- 
 able with obvious inconsistency in opposing the 
 Calvinistic theory of decrees, while they adhere to 
 the standard confession of their church. With re- 
 gard to the representations of Dr. Knapp, it may 
 be remarked, 
 
 First. That he is not exactly just in describ- 
 ing the theory of absolute decrees as involving 
 the election and reprobation of men without re- 
 spect to conditions. The advocates of this theory 
 insist, equally with others, that men must be- 
 lieve in order to be saved ; and the question be- 
 tween them and their opponents is, In what re- 
 lation this faith, which is essential to salvation, 
 stands to the purpose of God? 
 
 Secondly. When he describes the called, 
 chosen, elect, so often mentioned in the New 
 Testament as those who were made partakers 
 only of the external privileges of Christianity, 
 and not those who were heirs of future happi- 
 ness, does he not violate the whole spirit and 
 usage of the New Testament, without yet avoid- 
 ing the difficulty 1 If the intimate connexion be- 
 tween the enjoyment of the external privileges of 
 Christianity and securing its spiritual and ever- 
 lasting blessings is considered, will there not be 
 the same objections to the sovereign appointment 
 of men to one as to the other 7 
 
 Thirdly. Instead of saying that predestina- 
 tionists are distinguished for depth of religious 
 sentiment and strictness of moral practice not- 
 withstanding their principles, as our auther and 
 others generously concede, is it not apparent 
 that they are so inconsequence of their principles? 
 The perfect safety of their theory of election has 
 been often satisfactorily proved by reformed the- 
 ologians in answer to the objections urged against 
 its moral tendencies. But its direct bearing 
 upon the religious life has not been so often ex- 
 hibited. It is therefore the more worthy of no- 
 tice, that Tholuck (whose Commentary on the 
 ninth of Romans will sufficiently free him from 
 any suspicion of leaning towards Calvinism) 
 concedes, in his Treatise on Oriental Mysticism, 
 that the doctrine of predestination, so far from 
 producing the despondency and inaction often 
 ascribed to it, on the contrary, moves and excites 
 the inmost soul, by the self-surrender which it 
 demands to the all-prevailing will of God. To 
 the influence of this doctrine he attributes what- 
 ever of religious life there exists among those 
 who receive the sensual dogmas of the Koran. 
 Every one, he says, acquainted with eastern lite- 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 129 
 
 fature, knows that the most strong and vivid 
 religious experiences are connected with and 
 arise from the belief in predestination. And 
 Calvinism, he allows, is incomparably more fa- 
 vourable to the deeper religious life than that 
 doctrine by which the will of "God is limited or 
 conditioned by tjie human will i. e., the syn- 
 cretism of the Lutheran church. 
 
 Fourthly. The suggestion of Dr. Knapp, that 
 Augustine was first induced to adopt his theory 
 of election by his controversy with Pelagius, 
 contains the implication that this theory owes 
 its origin to polemical excitement, and was 
 adopted by its author in order to extricate him- 
 self from some embarrassments, or as the oppo- 
 site extreme of the theory against which he con- 
 tended. But this is not only wanting in historical 
 evidence, but is in itself improbable. The De- 
 cretum Absolution of Augustine is the direct result 
 of his views of the natural character of man, and 
 is necessary to complete that system of truth 
 which he adopted. To the belief of this doc- 
 trine he would naturally be led by the cool deli- 
 beration of the closet, and it therefore more pro- 
 bably belonged to those original convictions 
 which impelled him to the controversy with Pe- 
 lagius, and animated him in prosecuting it, than 
 to any after convictions to which he might have 
 been driven by opposition. Which now, it may 
 be asked, looks most like the offspring of the 
 contrivance and heat of controversy, the theory 
 of Augustine, coming forward with direct affirm- 
 ations, and belonging essentially to his system, 
 or the opposite theory, consisting mostly of eva- 
 sions, negations, and limitations? To assert 
 the doctrine of the divine sovereignty and of the 
 all-controlling will of God would seem to be the 
 part of the consistent, philosophical theologian ; 
 to deny it, the business of a timorous modera- 
 tion, of a time-serving policy, or of the native 
 pride and self-sufficiency of man. 
 
 The inconsistency chargeable upon the Lu- 
 theran theologians who oppose the Calvinistic 
 theory of decrees may be briefly stated thus: 
 According to their theory, God ordains to salva- 
 tion those of whom he foresees that they will 
 believe; but according to the Augsburg Con- 
 fession, it is the Holy Spirit qui EFFICIT FIDEM, 
 QUANDO et UBI visum est Deo, who produces faith 
 when and where it seems good to God; both com- 
 bined, therefore, furnish us the doctrine that God 
 ordains to salvation those of whom he foresees that 
 he who causes faith to exist when and where it 
 seems good to him, will give them the Holy Spirit 
 to produce faith in their hearts, which is the Cal- 
 vinistic doctrine so often opposed and denounced 
 by the Lutherans. They join together, in thei 
 Book of Concord, the Augsburg Confession, in 
 which man's moral inability and entire depend- 
 ence on divine grace are strongly asserted, anc 
 their Declaration, in which the absolute decrees 
 17 
 
 if God an inevitable consequence of these doc- 
 rines is denounced as unscriptural and dan- 
 gerous. Surely here Concord.ia is discors. 
 
 This discrepancy could not long remain urino- 
 iced in a country where theological opinions are 
 lubjected to so rigid a scrutiny. The Lutheran 
 heologtans appear, however, to have imagined, 
 or a time, that they could reconcile the opposing 
 endencies of their system, and attempted so to 
 modify the doctrine of man's moral inability as 
 o guard against any approach to Calvinism. 
 The best attempt of this nature is exhibited by 
 Storr, in his Biblical Theology; but it cannot 
 >e thought successful. To many it soon became 
 evident that they were reduced to the alternative 
 of retaining the Augsburg Confession and the 
 doctrine of man's moral inability, and then ad- 
 mitting, as its inevitable consequence, the Cal- 
 vinistic doctrine of election, or of rejecting the 
 Augsburg Confession, and thus escaping the 
 necessity of Calvinism. 
 
 During the recent attempt to unite the Lu- 
 theran and reformed churches, their doctrinal dif- 
 ferences came of course into new consideration ; 
 and Dr. Bretschneider, in his Aphorisms pub- 
 ished on that occasion, frankly acknowledged, 
 what had not been done before, the inconsistency 
 now charged upon the theologians of his church; 
 and being himself somewhat inclined towards 
 Pelagianism, unhesitatingly chose the seond 
 of the two courses above stated, and, in order 
 to avoid Calvinism, willingly surrendered the 
 Augsburg Confession, with the doctrine of man's 
 inability and entire dependence on divine grace. 
 But the Augsburg Confession had long been es- 
 teemed the palladium of the Lutheran church; 
 and the doctrine of man's inability and depend- 
 ence was dearer than almost any other to the 
 heart of Luther, and was too firmly believed by 
 the most distinguished theologians of his church, 
 and had become too thoroughly interwoven with 
 their system of faith, to be thus easily aban- 
 doned. The only course remaining for those 
 who wished to be consistent seemed therefore 
 to be, to hold fast to the Augsburg Confession 
 and its Anti-Pelagian doctrines, and to admit 
 the Calvinistic theory of election as their natu- 
 ral consequence. And this course was boldly 
 adopted by Schleiermacher, one of the pro- 
 foundest theologians of his church, and strenu- 
 ously recommended by him in the first article 
 of his " Theologische Zeitschrift." He there 
 acknowledges that he had long been unable to 
 sympathize with most of his contemporaries in 
 condemning the theory of Augustine and Calvin 
 as irrational and unscripturaL 
 
 This unexpected publication gave a new im- 
 pulse to the discussion of this doctrine, and some 
 of the most distinguished theologians of Ger- 
 many have been enlisted as d isputants. Whether 
 under the auspices of Schleiermacher this doc- 
 
130 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 trine will fare better than under Gottschalk and 
 Jansenius cannot be foretold. Long 1 established 
 prejudice may yet prevail over the love of truth 
 and consistency. But whatever may be the re- 
 sult, of this local controversy, the doctrine has 
 nothing to fear, being based on the triple found- 
 ation of sound reason, Christian experience, and 
 the word of God. TR.] 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 OF THE DOCTRINE OF FATHER, SON, AND 
 HOLY GHOST. 
 
 SECTION XXXIII. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 1. IT is an established truth, that there are 
 many things in the divine nature which are un- 
 like anything which belongs to us, and of which, 
 therefore, we have no knowledge. For, as has 
 been already shewn, s. 18, II., it is impossible 
 for us to form a distinct notion of any attributes 
 or perfections which we ourselves do not pos- 
 sess, or even to see at all how such attributes 
 can exist. To conclude, therefore, that any par- 
 ticular attribute could not belong to the Divine 
 Being, simply because we might be unable to 
 understand it wholly, or perhaps at all, would be 
 extremly foolish. Vide Introduction, s. 6, ad 
 finem. If the Bible contains a more particular 
 revelation of God, and if this revelation, in a clear 
 and incontrovertible manner, proposes a doctrine 
 of faith, then must such doctrine, however incom- 
 prehensible and inexplicable, be received by us as 
 true. That the Bible does contain such a reve- 
 lation has already been maintained in the Intro- 
 duction, and in the Article on the Holy Scrip- 
 tures; that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught 
 in this revelation remains now to be proved ; and 
 upon the truth of these two propositions the 
 whole subject depends. 
 
 2. The doctrine of a Trinity in the godhead 
 includes the three following particulars, (vide 
 Morus, p. 69, s. 13,) viz., (a) There is only 
 one God, one divine nature, s. 16 ; (6) but in this 
 divine nature there is the distinction of Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, as three, (called subjects, 
 persons, and other names of similar import in 
 the language of the schools ;) and (c) these three 
 have equally, and in common with one another, 
 the nature and perfections of supreme divinity. 
 This is the true, simple doctrine of the Trinity, 
 when stripped of refined and learned distinctions. 
 According to this doctrine there are in the divine 
 nature THREE, inseparably connected with one 
 another, possessing equal glory, but making 
 unitedly only ONE God. 
 
 This doctrine thus exhibited is called a mys- 
 tery (in the theological sense), because there is 
 much in the mode and manner of it which is 
 unintelligible. The obscurity and mystery of 
 this subject arise from our inability to answer 
 the question, In what sense and in what manner 
 do these three so share the divine nature as to make 
 only one God? But as the learned employed 
 themselves in attempting to answer this ques- 
 tion, and endeavoured, by the help of philosophy, 
 to establish certain distinctions, they fell, of 
 course, into explanations more or less opposed, 
 and from this diversity of opinion, into strife and 
 contention. They began to persecute those who 
 dissented from some learned distinctions which 
 they regarded as true, to denounce them as he- 
 rectics, and to exclude them from salvation. 
 In their zeal for their philosophical theories, 
 they neglected to inculcate the practical conse- 
 quences of this doctrine, and instead of joyfully 
 partaking of the undeserved benefits which are 
 bestowed by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 they disputed respecting the manner of the 
 union of three persons in one God. 
 
 Jesus requires that all his followers should 
 profess their belief in the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, (Matt, xxviii. 19;) and by so doing, he 
 places this doctrine among the first and most es- 
 sential doctrines of his religion. That it is so 
 is proved from many other declarations both of 
 Jesus and his apostles. The doctrine is, more- 
 over, intimately connected with the whole exhi- 
 bition of Christian truth. It is not, therefore, a 
 doctrine which any one may set aside at plea- 
 sure, as if it were unessential, and wholly dis- 
 connected with the system of Christianity. But 
 while Jesus requires us to believe in the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit, he has nowhere taught us 
 or required us to believe the learned distinctions 
 respecting this doctrine which have been intro- 
 duced since the fourth century. The unde- 
 served benefits which they had received from 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were the 
 great subjects to which Jesus pointed his fol- 
 lowers in the passage above cited, and in 
 others ; that they were now able to understand 
 and worship God in a more perfect manner, 
 to approach him as their father and benefactor 
 in spirit and in truth; that their minds were 
 now enlightened by the instructions given 
 them by the Son of God, who had been sent 
 into the world to be their teacher, and that their 
 souls were redeemed by his death; that in con- 
 sequence of what Christ had already done, and 
 would yet do, they might be advanced in moral 
 perfection, and made holy a work specially 
 ascribed to the aids and influence of the Holy 
 Spirit; these are the great truths which Jesus 
 requires his followers to believe from the heart, 
 in being baptized in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost. He did not reveal this 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 131 
 
 doctrine to men to furnish them with matter for 
 speculation and dispute, and did not, therefore, 
 prescribe any formulas by which the one or the 
 other could have been excited. The same is 
 true of this doctrine as of the Lord's supper. 
 Those who partake of this ordinance in the man- 
 ner which Christ commanded, answer the ends 
 for which it was instituted, and secure their 
 spiritual profit, however much their views may 
 differ with regard to the manner of Christ's pre- 
 sence in the symbols. 
 
 Besides, it is certain that no particular distinc- 
 tions respecting this doctrine were enforced by 
 the church as necessary conditions of commu- 
 nion during the first three centuries. And ac- 
 cordingly we find that Justin the Martyr, Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria, Origen, and other distin- 
 guished men of the catholic party, made use of 
 expressions and representations on this subject 
 which are hoth discordant with each other, and 
 which differ totally from those which were 
 afterwards established in the fourth century. 
 Then for the first time, at the Nicene Council, 
 under tb.3 influence of Athanasius, and in oppo- 
 sition to the Arians, were those learned and 
 philosophical formulas, which have since been 
 retained in the system of the church, established 
 and enforced. That a belief in these formulas 
 should be declared essential to salvation, as is 
 done in the Athanasian creed, cannot but be 
 disapproved. This creed, however, was not 
 composed by Athanasius nor was it even 
 ascribed to him before the seventh century, 
 though it was probably composed in the fifth. 
 The principle that any one who holds different 
 views respecting the Trinity, salvus esse non 
 poterit, (to use the language of this symbol,) 
 would lead us to exclude from salvation the 
 great majority even of those Christians who re- 
 ceive the doctrine and language of the Council 
 of Nice; for common Christians, after all the 
 efforts of their teachers, will not unfrequently 
 conceive of three Gods in the three persons of the 
 Godhead, and thus entertain an opinion which 
 the creed condemns. But if the many pious 
 believers in common life who entertain this 
 theoretical error may yet be saved, then others 
 who believe in Christ from the heart, and obey 
 his precepts, who have a personal experience 
 of the practical effects of this doctrine may 
 also be saved, though they may adopt other 
 particular theories and formulas respecting 
 the Trinity different from that commonly re- 
 ceived. These particular formulas and theo- 
 ries, however much they may be regarded and 
 insisted upon, have nothing to do with salva- 
 tion. And this leads us to remark, that learned 
 hypotheses, refined distinctions, and technical 
 phrases, should never be introduced into popu- 
 lar instruction. They will never be intelligible 
 to a common audience, and will involve the 
 
 minds of the common people and of the young 
 in the greatest perplexity and confusion. So 
 judged at one time the Emperor Constantine: 
 ov 6ft tfo/as ^T'^cJftj fOjWov tivo^ avayxy Ttpocrr dif- 
 f ECV, oiiSt T'at j ftdvtuv dxoatj drtpovojrwj TttcfTtvEtv, 
 Epist. ad Arium, Ap. Socr. i. 7. Would that 
 he himself had afterwards remained true to 
 these principles ! [Vide Neander, Allg. Gesch. 
 Christ, Rel., b. i. Abth. 2. s. 616.] 
 
 Plan pursued in this Article. 
 
 The theologians of former times generally 
 blended their own speculations and those of 
 others on the subject of the Trinity with the 
 statement of the doctrine of the Bible. Within 
 a few years a better plan has been adopted, 
 which is, to exhibit first the simple doctrine of 
 the Bible, and afterwards, in a separate part, 
 the speculations of the learned respecting it. 
 In pursuance of this plan we shall divide the 
 present Article into two chapters, of which the 
 FIRST will contain the Biblical Doctrine of the 
 Trinity, and the SECOND, the History of this 
 Doctrine, of all the changes it has undergone, 
 and of the distinctions and hypotheses by which 
 the learned in different ages have endeavoured 
 to define and illustrate it. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 SECTION XXXIV. 
 
 IS THIS DOCTRINE TAUGHT IN THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT? 
 
 IT has always been allowed that the doctrine 
 of the Trinity was not fully revealed before the 
 time of Christ, and is clearly taught only in the 
 New Testament. But, at the same time, it was 
 supposed from some passages in the Old Testa- 
 ment that this doctrine was to a greater or less 
 degree known to the Israelites at the time when 
 the New Testament was written, at least that a 
 plurality in the godhead was believed by them, 
 although perhaps not exactly a Trinity. In 
 proof of this opinion, such passages as Gen. i. 
 26 were cited by Justin Martyr, Irenseus, 
 Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Theodoret, Gre- 
 gory of Nyssa, Basil, and other ecclesiastical 
 fathers. Vide Mangey on Philo, De Opif. 
 mundi, p. 17. 
 
 This opinion was universal in the protestant 
 church during the sixteenth century, and at the 
 beginning of the seventeenth. The first who 
 questioned it was G. Calixtus, of Helmstadt, 
 who in 1645 published an Essay, De Trinitate, 
 and in 1649, another, De myster. Trinitatis, an 
 
132 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ex solius V. T. libris possit demonstrari ? He 
 was, however, vehemently opposed by Abr. 
 Calovius, and others. And the opinion for- 
 merly held by the theologians continued to 
 prevail even into the eighteenth century. But 
 the opinion of Calixtus has since been revived, 
 and has gradually obtained the approbation of 
 most theologians of the present time, although 
 there are still some who declare themselves in 
 favour of the ancient opinion. 
 
 The truth on this subject will probably be 
 found in a medium between the extreme to 
 which writers on both sides have frequently 
 gone. (I) It is true, that if the New Testa- 
 ment did not exist we could not derive the 
 doctrine of the Trinity from the Old Testament 
 alone. But (2) it is equally true, that by the 
 manner in which God revealed himself in the Old 
 Testament, the way was prepared for the more 
 full disclosure of his nature that was afterwards 
 made. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are 
 frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, 
 and the Son is represented as one through 
 whom God will bestow blessings upon men, 
 and the Holy Spirit is said to be granted to 
 them for their sanctification. Vide Morus, p. 
 59, s. 1, note 1, 2. But (3) respecting the in- 
 timate connexion of these persons, or respecting 
 other distinctions which belong to the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, there is nothing said in the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 Many objections may be made against each 
 particular text of the Old Testament, in which 
 an allusion is perceived to a trinity or plurality 
 in God. But these texts are so many in num- 
 ber and so various in kind, that they impress 
 an unprejudiced person, who considers them 
 all in connexion, with the opinion that such a 
 plurality in God is indicated in the Old Testa- 
 ment, though it was not fully developed or 
 clearly defined before the Christian revela- 
 tion. 
 
 These texts may be arranged in the following 
 classes : 
 
 1. Those in which the names of God have 
 the form of the plural, and in which, therefore, 
 a plurality in his nature seems to be indicated. 
 The names D^riSs, -OIK, o^c'-hp, ui, are cited as 
 examples ; but they afford no certain proof, as 
 they may be only thepluralis majestaticus of the 
 Oriental languages. Vide s. 17. 
 
 2. Texts in which God speaks of himself as 
 many. But the plural in many of these cases 
 can be accounted for from the use of the plural 
 nouns o>n">N, -ons, to. Philo thinks, (De Opif. 
 Mundi, p. I?', ed. Mangey,) that in the pas- 
 sage, Gen. i. 26, Let vs^make man, God ad- 
 dresses the angels. Maimonides thinks the 
 same of the passage, Gen. xi. 7, Let us go down 
 and confound their language. Vide Mangey, 
 in loc. It is not uncommon in Hebrew for 
 
 kings to speak of themselves in the plural 
 e. g., 1 Kings, xii. 9; 2 Chron. x. 9; Ezra, iv. 
 18. In Isaiah, vi. 8, God asks, who will go for 
 us (ly?)] where the plural form may be explain- 
 ed either as the pluralis majestaticus, or as de- 
 noting an assembly for consultation. The 
 chiefs of heaven (n-'QT^) are described as there 
 collected ; and God puts to them the question, 
 whom shall we make our messenger ? as 1 Kings, 
 xxii. 20, seq. 
 
 3. Texts in which rnrv is distinguished from 
 nirr>, and DiriSs from D>nSx. Jehovah rained brim- 
 stone and fire from Jehovah, Gen. xix. 24. 
 our GOD, hear the prayer of thy servant, for the 
 LORD'S (Christ's 1) sake, Dan. ix. 17. But these 
 texts, by themselves, do not furnish any deci- 
 sive proof; for in the simplicity of ancient style 
 the noun is often repeated instead of using the 
 pronoun ; and so, from Jehovah may- mean from 
 himself; and for the Lord's sake may mean for 
 thine own sake i. e., on account of thy promise. 
 Many other texts may be explained in the same 
 way; as Hosea, i. 7; Zach. x. 12. In this con- 
 nexion the passage, Ps. xlv. 7, is often cited : 
 therefore, God (Messiah?), thy God (the Fa- 
 ther) hath anointed thee. But the name D^rrw is 
 sometimes given to earthly kings. It does not, 
 therefore, necessarily prove that the person to 
 whom it is here given must be of the divine na- 
 ture. The passage, Ps. ex. 1, vhsV nirv D^J, 
 "Jehovah said to my Lord," &c. is also cited. 
 But -ons (Messiah) is here distinguished from 
 Jehovah, and is not described as participating 
 in the divine nature, but only in the divine go- 
 vernment, as far as he was constituted Messiah 
 by God. 
 
 4. Texts in which express mention is made 
 of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 (a) Of the Son of God. The principal .text 
 in this class is Ps. ii. 7, Thou art my Son ; this 
 day have I begotten thee, coll. Psalm Ixxii. 1 ; 
 Ixxxix. 27. This Psalm was always under- 
 stood by the Jews, and by the writers of the 
 New Testament, to relate to the Messiah. But 
 he is here represented under the image of a 
 king, to whose government, according to the 
 will of God, all must submit. And it is the 
 dignity of this office of king, or Messiah, of 
 which the Psalmist appears here to speak. The 
 name Son of God was not unfrequently given to 
 kings ; it is not, therefore, nomen essentise, but 
 dignitatis messiansB. The passage would then 
 mean, Thou art the king (Messiah) of my ap- 
 pointment: this day have I solemnly declared 
 thee such. That the phrase to-day alludes to the 
 resurrection of Christ is proved by a reference 
 to Acts, xiii. 30 34. The writers of the New 
 Testament everywhere teach that Christ was 
 proved to be the Messiah by his resurrection 
 from the dead. Cf. Rom. i. 3, 4. In this 
 Psalm, therefore, the Messiah is rather exhibited 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 133 
 
 as king, divinely-appointed ruler, and head of 
 the church, than as belonging to the divine 
 nature. 
 
 (b) Of the Holy Spirit. There are many texts 
 of this class, but none from which, taken by 
 themselves, the personality of the Holy Spirit 
 can be proved, as it can easily he from passages 
 in the New Testament. The term Holy Spirit 
 may mean, in these texts, (1) The divine nature 
 in general ; (2) particular divine attributes, as 
 omnipotence, knowledge, or omniscience ; (3) 
 the divine agency, which is its more common 
 meaning. Vide s. 19, II. The principal pas- 
 sage here cited is Isaiah, xlviii. 1G, where the 
 whole doctrine of the Trinity is supposed to be 
 taught; inn) -onS!? nvp ijis nnyi, And now Jehovah 
 (the Father) and his Spirit (the Holy Ghost) 
 hath sent me (the Messiah), -inn has usually 
 been rendered as if it were in the accusative ; 
 but it is more properly rendered as a nominative 
 in the Septuagint, the Syriac Version, also by 
 Luther, and the English translators. It means 
 here, as it always does when used by the pro-, 
 phets in this connexion, the direct, immediate, 
 command of God. Cf. Acts, xiii. 2, 4. To say, 
 then, the Lord AND HIS SPIRIT hath sent me, is 
 the same as to say, the Lord hath sent me by a 
 direct, immediate command. 
 
 5. Texts in which three persons are expressly 
 mentioned, or in which there is a clear reference 
 to the number three. In this class the text, Ps. 
 xxxiii. 6, was formerly placed : the heavens were 
 made by the word (Aoyo$, Messiah) of Jehovah 
 (the Father) ; and all the host of them by the 
 spirit of his mouth. But by the word of the Lord, 
 and the spirit of his mouth, nothing more is 
 meant than by his command, will, as appears 
 from the account of the creation. Cf. verse 9, 
 "He spake and it was done; he commanded, 
 and it stood fast." The threefold repetition of 
 the name Jehovah in the benediction of the high 
 priest, Num. vi. 24, is more remarkable : Jtho- 
 vah bless thee, and keep thee ; Jehovah be gracious 
 to thee ; Jehovah give thee'peace. But the know- 
 ledge of the Trinity at that early period cannot 
 be concluded from a mere threefold repetition 
 of the name of Jehovah, unless it is elsewhere 
 exhibited in the writings of the same author. 
 Of the same nature is the threefold repetition of 
 the word holy by the seraphs, the invisible ser- 
 vants of God, Isa. vi. 3. To account for this 
 repetition we might suppose there were three 
 heavenly choirs; but the question might then 
 be asked, why these choirs were exactly three? 
 It is certainly not impossible that the idea of a 
 trinity in the godhead may be here presupposed, 
 and also in the threefold benediction of the high 
 priest. These choirs are represented in the com- 
 mencement of the verse as singing one after 
 another, in alternate response, nHjs rn *np. The 
 word irvp might have been sung by each choir 
 
 separately; and the last words, the whole earth 
 is full of thy glory, by the three choirs united. 
 
 Thus it appears that no one of the passages 
 cited from the Old Testament in proof of the 
 Trinity is conclusive, when taken by itself; but, 
 as was before stated, when they are all taken 
 together, they convey the impression that at 
 least a plurality in the godhead was obscurely 
 indicated in the Jewish scriptures. 
 
 SECTION XXXV. 
 
 OF THOSE TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN 
 WHICH FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE 
 MENTIONED IN CONNEXION. 
 
 SINCE the Old Testament proves nothing 
 clearly or decidedly upon this subject, we must 
 now turn to the New Testament. The texts 
 from the New Testament which relate to the 
 doctrine in question may be divided into two 
 principal classes : (a) Those in which Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned in connexion ,- 
 (6) Those in which these three subjects are men- 
 tioned separately, and in which their nature and 
 mutual relation is more particularly described. 
 In this section we shall treat only of the first 
 class. But the student will need to be on his 
 guard here, lest he should deduce more from 
 these texts, separately considered, than they 
 actually teach. The doctrine of the Trinity 
 in all its extent and in all its modifications is 
 taught in no single passages in the New Testa- 
 ment. The writings of the apostles always 
 presuppose the oral instructions which they had 
 given to the Christians whom they addressed, 
 and do not therefore exhibit any regular and 
 formal system of doctrines. Hence, in order 
 to ascertain what the doctrines of the gospel 
 are, we must compare different texts, and form 
 our conclusion from the whole. The first class 
 of texts, taken by itself, proves only that there 
 are the three subjects above named, and that 
 there is a difference between them; that the 
 Father in certain respects differs from the Son, 
 &c. ; but it does not prove, by itself, that all the 
 three belong necessarily to the divine nature, 
 and possess equal divine honour. In proof of 
 this, the second class of texts must be adduced. 
 The following texts are placed in this class : 
 1 Matt, xxviii. 18 20. While Jesus con- 
 tinued in the world, he, and his disciples by his 
 direction, had preached the gospel only among 
 the Jews, Matt. x. 5. But now, as he is about 
 to leave the earth, he commissions them to pub- 
 lish his religion everywhere, without any dis- 
 tinction of nation. He had received authority 
 from God to establish a new church, to receive 
 all men into it, and to exhibit himself as Lord of 
 all, ver. 18 ; cf. John, xvii. 2, Jtotm'a rtci^j 
 crapjcoj. Wherefore he requires his disciples, 
 ver. 19, to o-o forth and proselyte all nations, 
 M 
 
134 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 TtdvTfa fa fv>?.) They were to 
 do this in two ways, viz., by baptizing (j3art- 
 tiovts$, ver. 19), and by instructing, (faSdaxov- 
 T'EJ, ver. 20.) They were required to baptize 
 their converts, ? tj -to ovopa (nra) ?ov Ilarpoj xat 
 tov Tlov, xai> -tov aytou IIvfv^u.aT'oj 1. e., ft$ T'OV 
 IlaTfpa, x. f. a.. To baptize in the name of a 
 person or thing, means, according to the usus 
 loquendi of the Jews, to bind one by baptism to 
 profess his belief, or give his assent, or yield obe- 
 dience, to a certain person or thing. The Tal- 
 mudists say, the Samaritans circumcise their 
 children in the name of Mount Gerizim, and 
 Christians are asked, 1 Cor. i. 13, 15, were ye 
 baptized in the name of Paul? In 1 Cor. x. 3, 
 it is said, rtdvt$ (rtaftpsj) tfiaTtTfiaavto stj 
 Mco<jjJ>, and in Acts, xix. 4, that John the Bap- 
 tist tfidrttiaz ftj -tbv tp%6uvov. This text, taken 
 by itself, would not prove decisively either the 
 personality of the three subjects mentioned, or 
 their equality, or divinity. For (a) the subject 
 into which one is baptized is not necessarily a 
 person, but may be a doctrine, or religion ,- as, 
 to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim. 
 (6) The person in whom one is baptized is not 
 necessarily God, asjSartr^ftf $ Mcoo^v, Havhov, 
 x. t. h. (c) The connexion of these three sub- 
 jects does not prove their personality or equality. 
 A subject may swear fealty to his king, to the 
 officer under whose immediate government he is 
 placed, and to the laws of the land. But does 
 this prove that the king, officer, and laws are 
 three persons, and equal to one another? And 
 so, the objector might say, the converts to 
 Christianity might be required to profess by 
 baptism their acknowledgment of theFather, (the 
 author of the great plan of salvation;) of the Son, 
 (who had executed it;) and of the doctrines re- 
 vealed by God (rtvsvfjta aytov), for the knowledge 
 of which they were indebted to both the Father 
 and the Son. But let it be once shewn from other 
 texts that these subjects here mentioned are 
 persons, and that they are equal to one another, 
 and this construction is inadmissible. One 
 thing, however, is evident from this text viz., 
 that Christ considered the doctrine respecting 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a fundamental 
 doctrine of his religion, because he requires all 
 his followers to be bound to a profession of 
 it immediately on their being admitted as mem- 
 bers of his church, by the initiatory rite of bap- 
 tism. Vide Morus, p. 59, s. 2. 
 
 2. 1 Pet. i. 2. Peter sends his salutations 
 to Christians, and says to them, that they were 
 admitted into the Christian church xa-fa rtpo- 
 ywotftv tov rtarp6j, (i. e., according to the gra- 
 cious decree of God,) iv dyt-actyt^ (for si$ a 
 
 qaov Xpiflfou, plainly referring to the 
 above-mentioned obligations assumed by Chris- 
 tians at baptism. The sense is, Ye are become 
 
 Christians according to the eternal decree of God 
 the Father, to the intent that ye should be made 
 holy (morally perfect) through the Holy Spirit; 
 and that ye should obey Jesus Christ, and obtain 
 forgiveness through faith in his blnod. But from 
 what is here said of the Holy Spirit, it does not 
 necessarily follow that he is a personal subject; 
 nor from the predicates here ascribed to Christ, 
 that he is necessarily divine ; and so this pas- 
 sage also, taken by itself, is insufficient. 
 
 3. 2 Cor. xiii. 14, The grace of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the 
 Holy Spirit, be with you all. From the paral- 
 lelism of the third member of this passage with 
 the two former, we might perhaps infer the 
 personality of the Holy Spirit. But from the 
 mere collocation of the names of these persons, 
 we could not justly infer that they possessed 
 equal authority, or the same nature. 
 
 4. John, xiv. 26. Here are three different 
 personal subjects, viz., 6 IlapaxTi^T'oj, 
 Hvfvpa to aytov, 6 rtt/ji^fL o Ilatf^p v 
 
 .^9 ovop.a'ti /MOV (Xptfft'oi;). But that these 
 three subjects have equal divine honour, and be- 
 long to one divine nature, is not sufficiently 
 proved from this passage, and can be argued 
 with certainty only from texts of the second 
 class. 
 
 5. Matt. iii. 16, 17, where the baptism of 
 Jesus by John is narrated, has been considered 
 as a locus classicus upon this subject. So the 
 ecclesiastical fathers considered it. Whence 
 the celebrated formula, lad Jordanam, et vide' 
 bis Trinitatem. This text was called by the 
 ancients $o$avsi,d. Three personal subjects 
 are indeed here mentioned viz., the voice of 
 the Father, the symbol of the Holy Spirit 
 (rtfpttfr'Epa), and Christ; but nothing is here 
 said respecting their nature ; and the phrase, 
 Ttoj fov (ver. 17) does not always indicate the 
 divine nature of Christ. This passage then, 
 taken by itself, does not contain the whole doc- 
 trine of the Trinity. 
 
 But the sense of all these texts can be fully 
 determined by the texts of the second class. 
 
 As to the passage 1 John, v. 7, 8; the words 
 from lv -T9 orpttKp, to tv ty yy, must be allowed, 
 on all critical principles, to be spurious. But 
 even allowing the text to be genuine, it would 
 afford no strong proof of the entire doctrine of 
 the Trinity. Three subjects are indeed enume- 
 rated, 6 Ila-r^p, o Aoyof, and tfo ayiov Hvsvpa* 
 but their nature and essential connexion are not 
 determined ; for the expression, ovtoi ot tfpfts ev 
 sltii, at the end of ver. 7, does not refer ad uni- 
 tatem essentise, and thus signify that they make 
 together one divine being ; but ad unitatem vo- 
 luntatis, and so means, as appears from the con- 
 text, that they are agreed, unanimous, idem con- 
 firmant. This is the meaning at the end of ver. 
 8, as all are compelled to admit, and it is the 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 135 
 
 meaning of ev tlvat, whenever it occurs in the 
 writings of John, as John, x. 30; xvii. 11, &c. 
 Cf. on these verses : Sernler, Historische und 
 kritische Sammlungen iiber die sogenannten 
 Beweisstellen der Dogmatik, Erstes Stuck ; 
 Halle, 1764, 8vo; also his Vertheidigung und 
 Zusatze, 2n St. 1768. Michaelis, Einleit. ins 
 N. T., th. ii. ; and especially Griesbach, Dia- 
 tribe in loc. 1 John, v. Appendix, N. T. Ed. ii. 
 
 SECTION XXXVI. 
 
 OF THOSE TEXTS IN WHICH THE FATHER, SON, 
 AND HOLY GHOST ARE SEPARATELY MENTIONED, 
 AND IN WHICH THEIR NATURE AND MUTUAL 
 RELATION ARE TAUGHT. 
 
 THESE texts form the second class above men- 
 tioned, s. 35 ; and they shew how the texts of 
 the first class are to be understood. They prove 
 (a) that the Son and Holy Spirit, according to 
 the doctrine of the New Testament, are divine, 
 or belong to the one divine nature; and (6) that 
 the three subjects are personal and equal. In 
 popular instruction it will be found best to ex- 
 hibit this class of texts before the other. In 
 examining these texts we shall exhibit (1) those 
 which teach the divinity of the Father; (2) of 
 the Son; (3) of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The Deity of the Father. 
 
 When the term Father is applied to God it 
 often designates the whole godhead, or the whole 
 divine nature ; as foj 6 Ila-z^p, 1 Cor. viii. 
 4 6 ; John, xvii. 1 3. He is often called 6j 
 jcat, Hatr ( p i. e., f6j 6 TLaTfrfi, or EOJ 65 eaT'i- 
 rj-p, as Gal. i. 4, (a Hebraism, like the use 
 of i for the relative ntw.) All the arguments, 
 therefore, which prove the existence of God (vide 
 s. 15 17), prove also the deity of the Father. 
 In the scriptures God is called Father, 
 
 1. Inasmuch as he is the creator and preserver. 
 Deut. xxxii. 6, Is he not thy Father, who hath 
 made thee and established thee? 1 Cor. viii. 6, 
 so? 6 Ila-r^p E"! ov ta rtdvta, Ephes. iv. 6, 6 
 
 WTjp rtdvtuv. The Hebrews call the author, 
 inventor, teacher of anything, the father of it; 
 as Gen. iv. 2022, Jubal, the father nf all who 
 play on the harp, &c. ; Job, xxxviii. 28, God, the 
 Father of rain. 
 
 2. Inasmuch as he is the benefactor, guardian, 
 and guide of men. Psalm Ixviii. 5, The father 
 of the fatherless. Job says of himself, (xxix. 16,) 
 I was the father of the poor. Isaiah, Ixiii. 16, 
 "Thou (God) art our father and redeemer." 
 Psalm ciii. 13, "As a father pitieth his children, 
 so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." It was 
 a great object with Christ to diffuse just appre- 
 hensions respecting the universal paternal love 
 of God to men. Cf. Romans, viii. 15, 16, also 
 s. 28, 30, 31. Hence he frequently calls God, 
 Father, heavenly Father, &c. The name chil- 
 
 dren of God sometimes denotes his favourites, 
 those beloved by him; sometimes those who en- 
 deavour to resemble him, especially in purity, 
 love, and beneficence; sometimes both those 
 who love and follow him as children a father, 
 and those whom he loves as a father does duti- 
 ful children. In this respect, too, God is often 
 called the Father of men i. e., their example, 
 pattern, the being whom they imitate. When 
 the name Father is applied to God in either of 
 these respects, as creator or as benefactor, the 
 whole godhead is intended. 
 
 3. God is frequently called in the New Tes- 
 tament, o f6f scat Haivjp tov Kvpi/ou 'Ij^aov Xpw- 
 tov, Romans, xv. 6 ; 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Ephes. i. 3, 
 &c. This expression in many texts indicates, 
 (a) The relation in which Christ, as the Sa- 
 viour of men, stands to God ; in which relation 
 he is frequently called the Son of God, s. 37. 
 God is represented in the Bible as properly the 
 author and institutor (IIcwijp) of Christianity ; 
 and also as the father of Christ, in that he sent 
 him into the world, and commissioned him as a 
 man to instruct and to redeem our race. It is 
 clear from John that Christ himself often calls 
 God his father, in reference to this charge and 
 commission which God had given him. John, 
 xvii. 1 3, IXai'fp, 5df aflov sov tov Ttov tScoxaj 
 atj-fcp tloufli/'av 7tdar]$ oapxoj tVa yu'woxcotft at, tbv 
 povov ofarj^rLvbv fov, xai ov arttatsihas, 'Ir t aovv 
 XptOTov. This is quite accordant with that 
 scriptural usage before specified, by which the 
 author of a thing is called its father. And be- 
 sides, teachers were called by the Jews fathers, 
 and those taught by them, children. 2 Kings, 
 ii. 12; vi. 21. Christ says to his disciples, 
 Matt, xxiii. 9, Let none call you FATHER (as 
 teachers are called), for one is your Father, 
 (teacher, instructor,) who is in heaven. 
 
 (6) This phrase, the Father of Jesus Christ, in 
 many passages, undoubtedly indicates a certain 
 internal relation existing in the godhead of the 
 deity of Christ to the deity of the Father, the 
 peculiar nature of which relation is nowhere dis- 
 closed in the Bible, and probably cannot be 
 clearly understood by men. We know, how- 
 ever, that while Christ always acknowledged 
 that he derived everything from the Father, he 
 made himself equal to him. Vide Morus, p. 
 63, s. 8. In this sense, Christ uses the phrase 
 in many passages, and among others, in his 
 discourse, John, v. This even the Jews noticed, 
 and accused him of blasphemy, because he 
 called God natftpa I8tov, and so made himself 
 equal to God, (ver. 18.) Nor does Christ blame 
 them, in his answer, for understanding him in 
 this way ; but, on the contrary, goes on to say, 
 ver. 23, that all should honour the Son even as 
 they honour the Father. Cf. John, x. 30, seq. ; 
 Luke, ii. 49. Theologians therefore say : Pater 
 dicitur duplicitcr ; (a) i>?to<jT'<mxwj, personaliter, 
 
136 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 incommunicabiliter, (de prima persona;) (6) 
 ovcruoSwj, essentialiter ; sic tribus personis esse 
 commune. Moms, p. 60, note ad. s. 4. 
 
 SECTION XXXVII. 
 
 OF THE TEXTS IN WHICH DIVINE NAMES ARE 
 GIVEN TO CHRIST. 
 
 THE deity of Christ is proved from three 
 classes of texts. Morus, p. 60, seq. s. 5 9. 
 (a) Texts in which divine names are ascribed to 
 him, s. 37. But from most of these texts, in 
 themselves considered, we can derive no very 
 strong argument for the supreme or essential 
 deity of Christ. They rather prove his divine- 
 ness than his deify. In order to prove the deity 
 of Christ, we depend upon (6) texts in which 
 divine attributes and works, and (c) divine honour 
 or worship (cultus divinus) are ascribed to him. 
 Both of these classes will be considered in s. 
 38, coll. s. 100. From all these texts in con- 
 junction the result is, that Christ is called God 
 on account of his divine attributes and works. 
 Morus, p. 63. 
 
 Note 1. Works in defence of the deity of 
 Christ. Among the more ancient writers, Ca- 
 lixtus, Whitby, Spener, Venema, defended this 
 doctrine. Among the more modern, G. F. Seiler 
 has written, and with reference to the present 
 controversies, Ueber die Gottheit Christi ; Leip- 
 zig, 1775, 8vo. Semler, Ueber die Beweisstellen 
 u. s. w. 1772, 4to; particularly his historical 
 notes. "Gottheit Christi, 1st sie wohl aus 
 seinen eignen Reden zu erweisenT" (printed 
 without name of the place, 1790, 8vo.) In the 
 year 1786, the King of England gave, as the 
 subject of a premium-essay, the proof of the divi- 
 nity of Christ (in the sense of the Lutheran 
 church), and appointed the theological faculty 
 at Gottingen to award the prize, (a medal, worth 
 50 ducats.) This gave occasion to the follow- 
 ing work of Semler, Vorbereitung auf die 
 Konigl. Grossbrit. Preisfrage von der Gottheit 
 Christi ; Halle, 1787, 8vo. From twenty-seven 
 essays that were offered, none were judged wor- 
 thy of the prize. The faculty, however, pub- 
 lished the following essay as the best: Jo. Frid. 
 Flatt, Commentatio, in qua symbolica ecclesise 
 nostrae dei deitate Christi sententia probatur et 
 vindicatur ; Gottingae, 1788, 8vo. The follow- 
 ing able and intelligent letters, written under 
 fictitious names, owed their origin to this prize : 
 lo. Aspontani ad Rud. Plimrnelium, de deitate 
 Jesu Christi, epistolae quatuor; Lips. 1789, 
 8vo. Martini, Versuch einer pragmatischen 
 Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheit Christi, 
 in den vier ersten Jahrhunderten; Rostock und 
 Leipzig, 1800. 
 
 Note 2. Morus, p. 65, s. 9, makes the follow- 
 ing just observation Christ has laid the human 
 
 race under infinite obligations, by the special 
 blessings relating to our salvation, which he 
 has bestowed upon us. But these benefits de- 
 rive an additional value from the exalted cha- 
 racter of the person to whom we owe them. 
 And the gratitude which we shall feel towards 
 him, and our willingness to obey his precepts 
 and to believe his doctrine, will therefore proba- 
 bly be in proportion to the idea we form of his 
 character. It is not then, as many would have 
 us suppose, a matter of no consequence to un- 
 dervalue the character of Christ, or degrade him 
 to the level of a man. The truth of this obser- 
 vation is abundantly confirmed both by scripture 
 and experience ; and it should be seriously pon- 
 dered by every teacher of religion. 
 
 The following are the principal texts in which 
 the names of deity are given to Christ; 
 
 1. John, i. 1, 2. Christ is here called o 
 Tioyoj- Morus, p. 71, note. John is the only 
 one of the New-Testament writers who applies 
 this name to Christ. He wrote among the 
 Grecian Jews, and for the Hellenistic Chris- 
 tians, among whom probably this appellation 
 of Christ must at that time have been very com- 
 mon ; which is the reason why he does not more 
 fully explain it. It signifies among the Jews 
 and other ancient people, when applied to God, 
 everything by which God reveals himself to men, 
 and makes known to them his will. Hence those 
 who made known the divine will to men were 
 called by the Hellenists xoyot, otherwise ayy?tot, 
 Soviet ov' as, 0$ ^PTJT'OU Xoyoij, Philo, Migrat. 
 Abrah. Vide Book of Wisdom, xviii. 15, on 
 which cf. Grotius. Now this word was proba- 
 bly applied to the Messiah, by way of eminence, 
 because he was considered as the greatest divine 
 messenger; Rev. xix. 13. 
 
 The Hellenists, however, frequently asso- 
 ciated very erroneous ideas with this word ; and 
 on this account John undertakes here to correct 
 their mistakes respecting it, and gives it a very 
 elevated meaning. He says : o Aoyoj (the de- 
 clarer, revealer of God} existed v upzy viz. t lav 
 xoa/j-ov (rws"!?, Gen. i. 1 i. e., ab asterno.} 
 Did he exist before the creation of the world, he 
 must be God,- for before the creation nothing 
 but God himself existed. This pre-existence 
 of Christ is also taught in his discourses, John, 
 viii. 58 ; xvii. 5, 24. And the. Aoyo? was with 
 God viz., before he revealed himself to men. 
 K(u ?6j %v 6 Aoyoj, propositio inversa, as in 
 John, iv. 24. 'O Aoyoj is the subject ; the Logos 
 was God. Crell's conjectural reading, &eov %v 
 6 Ttoyoj, must be rejected at once, since all the 
 MSS. agree in the common reading, which is 
 undoubtedly correct. Vide 5. 100. In thie 
 passage the principal proof does not lie in the 
 word Tioyoj, nor even in the word ^eoj, which in 
 a larger sense is often applied to kings and 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 137 
 
 earthly rulers, but to what is predicated of the 
 Aoyo^-viz., that he existed from eternity with 
 God ; that the world was made by him, &c. This 
 text belongs, therefore, to the following general 
 class, as well as to this. 
 
 2. John, xx. 28. Here Thomas, at last con- 
 vinced that Christ was actually risen from the 
 dead, thus addresses him : 6 Kvptoj p>u xai 6 so$ 
 pov. The nominative instead of the vocative. 
 Ef av, or some similar phrase, must be supplied, 
 in order to complete the sense : " Thou art truly 
 he, my Lord and my God." It is not an ex- 
 clamation of wonder, as some have understood 
 it ; for it is preceded by the phrase tltte v avTf^, 
 he said this to him; addressed him in these 
 words. In the same manner the Romans, after 
 the time of Tiberius, used the expression Domi- 
 nus ae Deus noster, in relation to the emperors, 
 whom they deified. Thomas probably remem- 
 bered what Jesus had often said respecting his 
 superhuman origin, John, v. 8, 10, 17, seq.; and 
 he now saw it all confirmed by his resurrection 
 from the dead. Christ seems to have approved 
 of the manner in which he was addressed by 
 Thomas. 
 
 3. Philip, ii. 6, where it is said of Christ that 
 he is ioa 0fGJ, Deo sequalis , not opoio $ EU, cw- 
 ft^foj, to wesT-os, similis Deo terms applied by 
 Homer to kings and heroes. The term t<jo$ 
 9, or the contrary, is never applied to a finite 
 or created being. Hence the Jews, John, v. 
 18, considered it as blasphemy in Christ to make 
 himself IGOV 9 Vide s. 38. 
 
 4. Rom. ix. 5. Paul is speaking of the privi- 
 leges of the Jewish nation, and mentions among 
 others the circumstance, that Christ was derived 
 from them, as to his bodily nature, <Lv 6 Xpuj- 
 f6$ to xaTfa cfapxa' and then adds, o wv irtl 7tdv- 
 tu>v EO^, ivtoyijtos s tj -foiij atwyaj ! If this re- 
 fers to Christ, it is a very strong proof of his 
 divinity. For the phrase 0s6j svtoyq'tos is ap- 
 plied only to the supreme God, Romans, i. 25 ; 
 Mark, xiv. 61. Besides o wv is used for 6j i<ttt, 
 which usually relates to the immediate antece- 
 dent. 
 
 But the passage is sometimes differently 
 pointed, a full stop being placed after 0apxa, 
 and then this whole proposition is referred to 
 the Father. So Origen, Eusebius, and many 
 of the ecclesiastical fathers ; vide Wetstein and 
 Semler. But (a) it must then read, according 
 to the usus loquendi of the Greeks : 6 irti itdviw, 
 without wv or o t 6j, o l*i itdvtw (wv) ; though 
 in answer to this, it might indeed be said that 
 Paul was little versed in the Grecian idiorn, 
 and has many ungrammatical constructions. 
 But an ungrammatical construction of such a na- 
 ture is found nowhere else, either in Paul, or 
 the other writers of the New Testament. (6) 
 In all the passages, without exception, in which 
 
 ia 
 
 these words are used as a doxology, 
 (Tina) stands first in the clause ; accordingly, if 
 it referred to the Father, it would read fitfioy^i'df 
 6 EOJ o tril jtdvtuv. This usage is as fixed and 
 invariable in Greek, as in German to say Gott- 
 lob ! instead of Lobgott ! (c) Since Paul has 
 elsewhere ascribed divine perfection to Christ 
 in the distinctest manner, as will be proved s. 
 38, there is no reason why the natural meaning 
 of his language in this passage should be per- 
 verted. And if this passage were read in an 
 unprejudiced manner, it would undoubtedly be 
 referred by every one to Christ. 
 
 5. John, x. 2830, lyw xai o Ilaf i}p Iv taptv. 
 These words are not to be understood to denote 
 so much an equality of nature, as unanimity of 
 feeling and purpose ; s. 35, note, ad finem. Still 
 the passage is quite remarkable ; because Christ 
 professes to do his work in common with his 
 Father; and this is more than any man, pro- 
 phet, or even angel, is ever said in the Bible to 
 do. These perform their works through God, 
 and by his assistance. Indeed, they do nothing 
 themselves, and God does everything. That 
 being one with God, therefore, which Jesus here 
 asserts for himself, is something peculiar, and 
 which belongs to him only as he is a being of a 
 higher nature. Cf. John, v. 18, seq. 
 
 6. Some of the texts in which Christ is called 
 the Son of God. It is evident that this name is 
 given in the New Testament to Christ in more 
 than one relation, and consequently is used in 
 more than one signification ; vide s. 36, ad 
 finem. Morus, p. 63, note 2. Three different 
 senses of this name may be distinguished. 
 
 (<z) In many passages it is synonymous with 
 ^PKJT'OJ, Messiah, or king. In the oriental lan- 
 guages, kings are commonly called the sons 
 nf God, by way of eminence, (so in Greek 
 Sioytv^s and Stomps <jWj 5 ) and the most distin- 
 guished among them his Jirst'born, Ps. Ixxxix. 
 27. They were considered as the vicegerents 
 of God upon earth, as his representatives, 
 bearing his image, and entrusted with his autho- 
 rity, Ps. Ixxii. 2. The idea of a king, there- 
 fore, is frequently implied in the appellation 
 Sod of God, applied to Christ ; which then is 
 synonymous with rytyc, Xptofoj, Xpi-j-roj sov. 
 This title was very commonly given to the Mes- 
 siah by the Jews; vide Matt. xvi. 16; Luke, 
 ix. 20; Matt, xxvii. 40; Luke, xxiii. 35; also 
 the Talmud and Rabbins. It was undoubtedly 
 taken originally from Ps. ii. 7, and 2 Sam. vii. 
 14, both of which texts were referred by the 
 Jews to the Messiah. If this title is understood 
 in this way, it is easy to see how Paul can say, 
 1 Cor. xv. 28, that hereafter, when the church 
 on earth shall cease, the Son of God will lay 
 down his jSowttotcw, and as Ttoj become subject 
 to the Father. In this same sense namely, to 
 
 M2 
 
138 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 denote his Messiahship Jesus also sometimes 
 appropriates this name to himself. He says, 
 Mark, xiii. 32, that he himself, as Ttoj, knew not 
 the time of th judgment of Jerusalem. To con- 
 tend, therefore, that this appellation always de- 
 notes the divine nature of Christ, would involve 
 us in unnecessary difficulty. But the meaning 
 which we have now given will by no means 
 apply in all the cases in which this appellation 
 occurs. It sometimes denotes, 
 
 (6) The higher nature of Christ e. g., Rom. 
 i. 3, 4. Christ is here spoken of in two re- 
 spects : first, xa-ta, odpxa, in his inferior nature, 
 his humanity, and in this he is called Tt6$ 
 AauiS : secondly, xata, rivsvpu a/yuotfvi'jjj, as to 
 his higher, more perfect nature, to $iiov, and in 
 this he is called Ttoj ?ov, and solemnly de- 
 clared to be such by God in his resurrection 
 from the dead. Jesus, moreover, uses this title 
 of himself in this sense, John, v. 17, seq. ; and 
 the Jews well understood that by thus using it 
 he made himself equal to God; cf. x. 30, 33. 
 Nor did Christ charge them with misunder- 
 standing him, but, on the contrary, admitted the 
 sense they had put upon his words ; cf. ver. 18, 
 23 ; and x. 34. Again, the predicates connected 
 with this appellation, John, i. and Heb. i. ii., 
 are such as are never used in respect to any 
 man, or any created spirit. Thus Christ is 
 called pwoymp. Moreover, XPKJT-O? is often 
 distinguished from Ttoj Qsov. Thus, Matt. xvi. 
 16, where Peter answers a question of Jesus, 
 by saying, thou art the Christ, the San of God .- 
 cf. John, xx. 31. 
 
 (c) He is also called Son of God, Luke, i. 35, 
 to designate the immediate power of God in the 
 miraculous production of his human nature. In 
 the same sense, Adam, who was immediately 
 created by God, is called the Son of God, Luke, 
 iii. 38. 
 
 7. Tit. ii. 13, We expect the glorious appear- 
 ance, the trtitydvkiav tij$ 86%y$ tov ^u-syaXor 
 sov xai tfwT^poj 3fluwt> 'irjaov Xpitftfov. Here 
 it is objected, that if so? ^e'ya? related to Christ, 
 the xai would be omitted. But since tov is 
 omitted before tfw-r'^pof, both ^yaTiov &sov and 
 flw-r^poj must be construed as in apposition with 
 'I^tfov ~Xpurtov, according to a known usage of 
 the Greek language ; and so they are construed 
 by many of the ancient writers. Besides, ertt- 
 $>ava is the word by which the solemn coming 
 of Christ is appropriately designated. The pas- 
 sage therefore, is regarded, even by Henke, as 
 referring to Christ. 
 
 These are the most important texts of this 
 class. Other texts are sometimes placed in con- 
 nexion with these, which are less capable of de- 
 fence, either on critical or philological grounds. 
 Such are 1 John, v. 20; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Acts, 
 xx. 28. 
 
 SECTION XXXVIII. 
 
 OF THE TEXTS IN WHICH DIVINE ATTRIBUTES 
 AND WORKS ARE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST ; AND IN 
 WHICH DIVINE HONOUR IS REQUIRED FOR HIM. 
 
 I. Texts in which Divine Attributes and Works are 
 ascribed to Christ. 
 
 THIS is the second class of the division men- 
 tioned in the first part of s. 37. Many doubtful 
 texts are often placed in this class, in order to 
 make out the proof, that all the divine attributes 
 are ascribed to Christ in the Bible. But the 
 proof of this is not at all important. For if it 
 be allowed that one single divine attribute is 
 ascribed to Christ in the Bible, the conclusion is 
 inevitable, that he must possess all the rest. 
 The divine attributes cannot be separated or 
 disjoined ; where one of them exists, all of 
 them must be found. And the truth of this 
 cannot be disputed. Vide s. 18. The follow- 
 ing divine attributes and works are distinctly 
 ascribed to Christ in the scriptures viz., 
 
 1. Eternity. Cf. Morus, p. 60, 61, s. 6. 
 This attribute is ascribed to him in those texts 
 in which he is said to have existed before the 
 foundation of the world; for this is the way in 
 which eternity a parte ante is always described. 
 Vide s. 20. Here belongs the text, John, i. 1 
 (s. 37); and also John, xvii. 5, Glorify me 
 with that glory which I had with thee rtpo tov 
 lov xoapov flvcu. The glory here spoken of 
 could not be that derived from the government 
 of the kingdom of God, or of the church ; be- 
 cause neither of them existed before the crea- 
 tion of the world ; it can therefore be nothing 
 else than divine glory. Here, two, belongs the 
 passage, John, viii. 58, where Christ describes 
 his higher nature, by saying, Before Abraham 
 was, I AM (f fyu) ; for by this same verb, in the 
 present tense, does God describe his own un- 
 changeable being. Accordingly the Jews un- 
 derstood him to assert for himself a divine attri- 
 bute, and therefore charged him with blasphemy, 
 and sought to stone him, (ver. 59.) And so fre- 
 quently, according to the testimony of John and 
 the other evangelists, Christ spoke of himself, 
 in a manner in which it would have been pre- 
 sumption and blasphemy for a prophet or any 
 created being to speak. 
 
 2. The creation and preservation of the world. 
 This is ascribed to him, John, i. 1 3, Hdvta, 
 81 av-tov eysysro, xai #coptj avtov tysvfto ov8t fv, 
 6 yiyovsv. Ver. 10, 'O xofytoj 6t' avtov eyevfro. 
 Col. i. 15 17, IIpcoT'oT'oxoj rtdaqs x*fi>SftA$, not, 
 primus inter res creatas, which would be incon- 
 sistent with the context, ver. 16, where the rea- 
 son is given why he Avas itputotoxor but, rex, 
 the ruler or governor (rfpwfEvwv tv rtdaiv, princi- 
 patum tenens, Col. i. 18) ; in which sense 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 139 
 
 Christ is also called ftp>t6toxo$ in Heb. i. 6, and 
 
 j} (i. e., ap^cov) trfi xti6tu$ aov, Rev. iii. 14. 
 By him were all things in the universe created, 
 (si/ 0/0*9 iasfto&7 to, ftdvta fa iv toi$ orpavotj xai 
 trti tr^s yjfO the material and spiritual world, 
 (ta opata xat aopata ,) everything which is ele- 
 vated, great, and powerful, (^povot xvpi,6tr]tf$, 
 dpat, x. -r*. 7u >) all things were created by him 
 (6t airtov} and on his account, or for his service 
 (stj a-Otov). He exists from eternity (rfpo ndv- 
 tfwi/), and from him everything derives its exist- 
 ence (to. rtdvta sv avtq avveatqxs). Philo and 
 Josephus often speak of God, the Creator, in 
 the same way. Heb. i. 2, 3. Christ is here 
 described as $t pcov, (i. e., conservans ; cf. Nirj, Is. 
 xlvi. 3 ; and the phrase S^D nSip applied to God) 
 td rtdvta tfcp ftr^ati t ^j Svva^ttfwj av-roi)' i. e., by 
 his almighty will or command. That in the 
 clause, 8i' ov xai tov$ ouwfaj ijtoirjosv, the word 
 6ta may denote not merely the instrumental, but 
 also the efficient cause, is evident from many 
 texts e. g., John, iii. 17 ; Romans, i. 5 ; 1 Cor. 
 i. 9 ; and especially from Heb. ii. 10, where 
 the same word is used in reference to the Fa- 
 ther, 81 ov td ftdvta. And that the meaning of 
 Paul was, that the Son himself was the creator 
 of the universe, is placed beyond a doubt from 
 the text, Heb. i. 10, where Ps. cii. 26 (7%ow, 
 Lord, hast founded the earth ,- the heavens are the 
 work of thy hands,') is quoted and applied to 
 Christ. Therefore inasmuch as the eternal 
 power and majesty of the Father are declared 
 by the creation, so far as it is his work (Rom. 
 i. 20) ; the eternal power and majesty of the 
 Son are declared by this same creation, so far 
 as it is his work. For further remarks respect- 
 ing the creation of the world by the Son, vide 
 s. 47. 
 
 3. Omnipotence is ascribed to Christ, Phil. iii. 
 21 ; omniscience, Matt. xi. 27. John, vi. 46, 
 He only, Jwpaxf tov rtatspa. John, ii. 24, 25. 
 He is also described as the searcher of hearts, 
 ivho knows and will bring to light the most hid- 
 den things, 1 Cor. iv. 5. Indeed, it follows of 
 course, that if Christ has created, governs, and 
 preserves all things, he must possess omnipo- 
 tence and omniscience. Here it is objected, 
 that from other texts it is clear that Christ re- 
 ceived both his doctrine and his power from the 
 Father e. g., Matt. xi. 27, rtdvta, pot, rtapfoofy 
 vrto tov rtatpos. John, viii. 26; xii. 49; Matt. 
 xxviii. 18, all power in heaven and in earth is 
 GIVEN me. John, iii. 35 ; v. 26 ; the Father hath 
 given power to the Son to raise the dead, &c. 
 But in these passages Christ is spoken of as 
 MESSIAH, or as an ambassador appointed by 
 God. And here it is evident, that he is consi- 
 dered in the New Testament both as God, and 
 as God united with man. Vide s. 100, seq. 
 
 Note. The passage Col. ii. 9, sv avt 9 xatoixei 
 rtav to rtTujpc-yta **$ Stbtajtos cK-ytcWwcwj, is quoted 
 
 to prove that Christ possesses all divine perfec- 
 tions. But the text must be explained by the 
 parallel texts, Col. i. 19, Iv avtc? fvooxyas rtav 
 to Tttojpcojiia xatoixyaat,, and Ephes. iii. 19, where 
 the phrase n^r^fia sov occurs instead of 
 7tA.rjpt.yta Ssbtqtos, so that ^SOT^J is abstract for 
 concrete, like tHptofqt instead of Kvptoj. n?ij- 
 means multitude, collection ; as rttojpwva 
 j/cov, Rom. xi. 25. By the phrase, then, 
 jtav to rfXTjpccyta tys s6trjto$, the whole multi- 
 tude of men living under the divine government 
 are intended, and when of these it is said, that 
 they tv avtq (XptUT'9) xatoixsi, it is the same as 
 to say, All men without distinction, whether 
 Jews or Greeks, have citizenship in the Chris- 
 tian church, all are the people of God. 2w/ta- 
 is equivalent to w$ a^/jia, and must be ex- 
 plained by the parallel texts, Col. i. 18; Ephes. 
 i. 22 ; iv. 15; according to which the meaning 
 of the phrase is, they compose the BODY, or church, 
 of which Christ is the head (xs^atoj.) Ncesselt, 
 in his Weihnachts programm. of 1785, gives 
 another explanation. He supposes the allu- 
 sion is to the perfect divine instruction which 
 is given by Christ, and that in a real and dis- 
 tinct manner (G^at^xM^] ; and not in symbols 
 and images, as in the Mosaic religion. 
 
 II. Texts in which Divine Honour is required for 
 
 Christ. 
 
 This is the third class of texts in proof of the 
 divinity of Christ. Christ and his apostles ex- 
 pressly teach that divine honour and worship 
 must be paid to God only. Vide Matt. iv. 10, 
 coll. Deut. vi. 13; Rev. xix. 10. And in this 
 they agree entirely with the prophets of the Old 
 Testament. Vide Isa. xlii. 8 ; xlviii. 11. Hence 
 it is just to conclude, that when Christ himself 
 and his apostles require that divine worship 
 should be paid to him, they acknowledge that 
 he is God ; otherwise they would require what, 
 according to their own principles, would be 
 blasphemy. The following are the principal 
 texts of this class : 
 
 1. John, v. 23, Jill should honour the Son, even 
 as they honour the Father , whoso honours not the 
 Son, honours not the Father who hath sent him. 
 We reason thus: If the worship due to the 
 Father should be paid to the Son, and if he who 
 withholds from the Son such worship as is due 
 to the Father, is regarded as if he honoured not 
 the Father, it follows that equal honour is due 
 to the Son with the Father. But Christ, ac- 
 cording to his own maxims, could have laid no 
 claim to this honour if he were less than the 
 Father, or, which is the same thing, were not 
 God. Now the Son is honoured as the Father, 
 his instructions and precepts are embraced and 
 obeyed as those of the Father ; when the same 
 unlimited confidence is placed in him as is 
 placed in the Father ; when all our salvation is 
 
140 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 expected from him as it is from the Father : and 
 this is what Jesus requires of his disciples. 
 
 2. That the apostles and primitive Christians 
 must have understood and explained these and 
 similar expressions of Christ in this manner, 
 appears from their example. For (a) the apos- 
 tles and first Christians directed their prayers 
 to Christ e. g., in the choice of an apostle, 
 Acts, i. 24 : 2v, Kvptc, xapStoyvwcrr'a rtdvtw, 
 coll. v. 21, where Jesus is called Kvpwj. The 
 o Kvptoj, whom Paul invoked, 2 Cor. xii. 8, was 
 Christ; for it was that the power of Christ 
 (&vvoyu; Xpttffov) might be manifested in sup- 
 porting him that he was willing to suffer; cf. 
 Acts, vii. 59. Besides, in the early ages of 
 Christianity, it was well known even among 
 the heathen, that Christians worshipped Christ 
 as a God. Pliny (X. Epist. 97) says, he was 
 assured that in their meetings, carmen Christo 
 quasi Deo soliti essent dicerc secum invicem. (6) 
 The apostles frequently refer to Christ the texts 
 of the Old Testament which speak of the honour 
 and worship of God e. g., Heb. i. 6, Let all 
 the angels of God worship him, from Psalm 
 xcvii. 7; also Rom. xiv. 11, from Is. xlv. 3. 
 
 3. Phil. ii. 10, At the name, of Jesus (i. e., 
 when they hear the name of Jesus, 6 Kvptoj, the 
 Lord over all, ver. 9, 11,) every knee should bow, 
 of angels, (or the inhabitants of heaven,) of the 
 inhabitants of earth, and the inhabitants of the 
 kingdom of the dead, (xafa^^ovto,;) in short, all 
 in the universe, without exception. Should it 
 be objected here that these words do not require 
 that divine, honour should be given to Jesus, but 
 that adoration only which is due to him as king. 
 Messiah, head of the church, (since in ver. 9, 11, 
 he is spoken of in the latter character, and not 
 as God,) it might be replied, that in the pre- 
 ceding context he is expressly described as I<?a 
 9. So that Paul here requires that same di- 
 vine honour to be paid to Christ which he re- 
 quires elsewhere, and which he himself ren- 
 dered : All should worship as God this equal of 
 God (ver. 6), whenever they heard his name, 
 which is above every other. 
 
 4. Here belong also the texts in which the 
 apostles shew that they place their whole reli- 
 ance on Christ; looked to him for all temporal 
 and spiritual blessings, those relating to time 
 and to eternity ; and in which they exhort all 
 Christians to do the same ; and this reliance on 
 Christ is expressed by them in the same lan- 
 guage in which they speak elsewhere of their 
 confidence in God and his providence, and 
 which is never employed in reference to men or 
 angels; 2 Cor. v. 811 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17, 18. 
 The texts in which the apostles profess to work 
 miracles sv ovofia-ti XPKJT'OV, as his messengers, 
 and by his power, are to be reckoned among the 
 foregoing proofs e. g., Acts, iii. 6, seq. &c. ; 
 
 also the oaths and protestations which the apos- 
 tles uttered by Christ, since, according to Chris- 
 tian rules, they could swear by God alone 
 e. g., Rom. ix. 1, iv Xpttffc^, by Christ! 2 Tim. 
 ii. 7;. finally, the texts in which the apostles 
 supplicate grace from Christ, as well as from 
 the Father, for all Christians. 
 
 We see, then, from all these texts, that while 
 the Bible always teaches that Christ receives 
 all his endowments from the Father, (vide Mo- 
 rus, p. 63, s. 8,) and that the Father acts 
 through him ; and bestows all good through 
 him; it still describes him as literally God, and 
 equal with the Father. And this is sufficient 
 to establish our faith ; and further than this we 
 should not attempt to go. 
 
 SECTION XXXIX. 
 
 OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND HIS PERSONALITY. 
 
 I. Meaning of the term Holy Spirit. 
 
 ONE of the principal difficulties in the discus- 
 sion of this doctrine arises from the various 
 meanings of the words nn and jtvfvpa, and of 
 the compounds tfnp nn, D\"J I ?N nn, 101, Hvfvpa, 
 aytov, Hvsvfiu &eov, x. t. 7,. These meanings, 
 however, are needlessly multiplied by the sub- 
 tleties of interpreters and lexicographers. It 
 may also be remarked that the terms ^1-9. D n 
 and a^rfw nn, TLvsvfia, ayiov and Ilw^ua s ov, are 
 interchanged as synonymous, since aywv, ; VP, 
 signify what is reverenced, venerable, and then 
 more specifically what is divine. Hence the 
 expression occurring 1 Pet. iv. 14, TO 
 (i. e., sv8ol*ov or aytov) xo,l (i. e.) to tov 
 
 In order to understand thoroughly the ground 
 of the various significations of this term as used 
 in the Bible, and especially in the New Testa- 
 ment, the reader must consult the general re- 
 marks respecting the use of these words, and 
 respecting the derivations of their significations 
 contained in s. 19, II.; col. s. 9, III. IV. In 
 continuation of what is there said, (supposing 
 it now to be understood by the student,) the fol- 
 lowing remarks, relating particularly to the New 
 Testament, are here added. 
 
 wip_ nn frequently signifies, the divine nature, 
 or God himself,- but it also denotes the divine 
 power, as displayed both in the material and 
 spiritual world ; also the divine understanding 
 and knowledge, and the communication of it to 
 men. But in speaking of the effects of the di- 
 vine power, there was not in ancient times that 
 nice distinction which is now made between 
 what is mediately and immediately done by God, 
 since his agency is not less real in one case than 
 in the other. This distinction is not therefore 
 found in the holy scriptures ; no practical pur- 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 141 
 
 pose could have been answered by introducing 
 it; and indeed, to have made it would often have 
 been injurious. 
 
 Accordingly, throughout the Old Testament, 
 the trnp nn, or o\"rVN nn, is represented as 
 having an agency, sometimes mediate, some- 
 times immediate, in everything which is done; 
 and to it everything great and elevated know- 
 ledge, talents, discoveries, arts, great actions, 
 good governments, exemplary virtue and piety, 
 &c., are uniformly ascribed. Vide s. 9, III. 
 
 The same mode of expression and representa- 
 tion is adopted in the New Testament, and was 
 common among the first Christians. As the 
 people of God, they were bound to distinguish 
 themselves from other men by their knowledge 
 of the sacred truths of religion; they were 
 bound to live in a virtuous and truly pious man- 
 ner; to place their confidence in God and in 
 Jesus Christ; with the promise that thus they 
 should enjoy in an eminent degree the blessing 
 of God and the grace of Christ, and be greatly 
 prospered in their endeavours for the promotion 
 of Christianity. Now all this knowledge, holi- 
 ness, faith, and success in their undertakings 
 was ascribed by them Ilvsv/jLa-et 0719 or eov. 
 Vide 1 Cor. xii. 3, seq. ; from which passage 
 we also learn that the influences and operations 
 of this divine Spirit were different, according to 
 the difference found in individual Christians. 
 
 (a) It was the duty of all Christians to possess 
 a fundamental knowledge, and a firm and un- 
 wavering belief of the principal truths of Chris- 
 tianity; to live in a manner corresponding to 
 this knowledge; to have a faith in God and in 
 Jesus Christ, made active by love. And so this 
 knowledge of the truths of religion, and this 
 correspondent Christian temper and disposition, 
 were ascribed to the Holy Spirit, and were called 
 Tlvsvpa ciytov, Hvevva 6fov, Xptfftfov, or Tiov. 
 Vide Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. v. 16, 22, 23; vi. 8. 
 The gospel itself, or Christianity, was also called 
 by the same name, it being the most perfect, and 
 a divinely instituted religion. 
 
 (6) But some Christians were distinguished 
 from the rest by eminent abilities, talents, gifts, 
 and capacities; by zeal, activity, &c. These 
 were made teachers and other officers of the 
 church, according to their various gifts and abi- 
 lities. Now all these various gifts, abilities, 
 and talents, of whatever sort, by which such 
 persons became useful to the church, were 
 ascribed to the Holy Spirit, derived and named 
 from him ; for in these various endowments the 
 agency of this divine co-operating power was 
 unusually conspicuous. These extraordinary 
 qualifications are commonly called miraculous 
 gifts the gift of teaching, of tongues, of healing, 
 of working miracles, &c., all of which pro- 
 moted the glory and ad vancement of Christianity. 
 Vide Matt. iii. 11 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 12; 1 Thess. v. 
 
 19. On this account it is that all who oppose 
 the truth of God, or persecute the prophets who 
 teach it, even those who put hindrances in the 
 way of the influence of religion over themselves 
 or others, are said to resist the Holy Spirit, to 
 afflict, to grieve it, &c. Isa. Ixiii. 10 ; Ephes. 
 iv. 30; Acts, vii. 51. 
 
 Since now the sacred writers, like all others, 
 make use of the figure prosopopeia, and personify 
 these divine influences- speaking of them as 
 the Holy Spirit, as they often do of the wisdom 
 and other attributes of God we should be cau- 
 tious in the selection of texts from which the 
 personality of the Holy Spirit is to be proved. 
 We should rest content with those which are 
 most clear and explicit ; for nothing is gained by 
 collecting a large number. 
 
 Cf. Lang, Zur Befordening des richtigen Ge- 
 brauchs des Teller'schen Worterbuchs iiber das 
 N. T. unter dem Worte Geist. Schleusner. Diss. 
 de vocabuli rtvevpa, in libris N. T. vario usu, 
 Gottingae, 1791, 4to. Scripca Varii Argument}, 
 No. IV., De Spiritu Sancto et Christo paracletis,- 
 Halae, 1790. 
 
 II. Personality of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The Holy Spirit is represented in the New 
 Testament, not only as different from the Father 
 and Son, and not merely as the personification 
 of some attribute of God, or of some effect which 
 he has produced, but as a literal person. Vide 
 Semler, Disp. Spiritum Sanctum recte describi 
 personam. The proof of this is thus made out 
 from the following texts : 
 
 1. From the texts, John, xiv. 16, 17, 26; xv. 
 26. The Holy Spirit is here called rtapdxtytos, 
 not comforter, advocate, nor even merely teacher, 
 as Ernesti renders it, but helper, assistant, coun- 
 sellor, in which sense it is used by Philo, when 
 he says, God needs no Ttapaxhrj-tos, (monitor.) 
 Of the Paracletus Christ says, that the Father 
 will send him in his (Christ's) name, (i. e., in 
 his place,) to instruct his disciples. To these 
 three subjects similar personal predicates are 
 here equally applied ; and the Paracletus is not 
 designated by the abstract word auxilium, but 
 by the concrete auxiliator , so that we have the 
 Father, who sent him ; the Son, in whose place 
 he comes ; and the Holy Spirit, who is sent. 
 His office is to carry forward the great work of 
 teaching and saving nen, which Christ com- 
 menced, and to be to the disciples of Christ what 
 Christ himself was while he continued upon 
 the earth. John, xv. 26, When the Paracletus 
 shall come, whom I will send to you from the Fa- 
 ther, (Imean, the Spirit i. e., teacher of truth, 
 who proceeds from the Father}, he will instruct 
 you further in my religion,- where it should be 
 remarked, that the phrase txrtopfvtaScu rtopa 
 Ilarpoj means to be sent or commissioned by the 
 Father. Cf. John, xiv. 16, (6w0 vplv 
 
142 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 and xvi. 28, (E'&^OV rtopa Xlafpo*, missus sum,} 
 and NX> in Hebrew. This procession of the 
 Holy Spirit from the Father does not imply, 
 then, as it is used in the Bible, the communi- 
 cation of the divine nature to the Spirit, or his 
 internal connexion with the Father. Vide 
 s.43. 
 
 2. 1 Cor. xii. 4 11, There are various gifts 
 (^opto/towa) , but there is one and the same Spirit 
 (ro av-fo Hvfvfia>^from whom they all proceed. 
 Here the gapt'o/taf a are expressly distinguished 
 from the Spirit, who is the author of them. In 
 ver. 5, this same person is distinguished from 
 Christ (o Kvptof), and in ver. 6, from o t oj. In 
 ver. 11 it is said, all these (various gifts) work- 
 eth one and the selfsame Spirit, who imparteth to 
 every man his own, as he will (xc&wj jSovtatfat). 
 
 3. Those texts in which such attributes and 
 works are ascribed to the Holy Spirit as can be 
 predicated of no other than a personal subject. 
 In John, xvi. 13, seq., he is said hateiv, dxovs LV, 
 3ux/43av6iv, x. t. A. 1 Cor. ii. 10, God hath re- 
 vealed the doctrines of Christianity to us BY HIS 
 SPIRIT, (the rfapaxtojT'os before mentioned, who 
 was sent to give us this more perfect instruction.) 
 And this Spirit searches (cptwp) all things, even 
 the most secret divine purposes, (jSaJty iov, cf. 
 Rom. xi. 33. seq. ;) in his instruction, therefore, 
 we may safely confide. The expressions, the 
 Holy Spirit speaks, sends any one, appoints any 
 one for a particular purpose, and others, which 
 occur so frequently in the Acts and elsewhere, 
 shew that the Holy Spirit was understood by the 
 early Christians to be a personal agent. Acts, 
 xiii. 2, 4; xx. 28; xxi. 11, seq. 
 
 4. The formula of baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19, 
 and other similar texts, such as 2 Cor. xiii. 14, 
 where Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are men- 
 tioned in distinction, (s. 35,) may now be used 
 in proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, 
 since the other texts upon which the meaning 
 of these depends have already been cited. We 
 may now safely conclude that the Holy Spirit 
 mentioned in these texts was understood by the 
 early Christians to be a person; although this 
 could not be proved from this class of texts se- 
 parately considered. Vide s. 35, I. 
 
 From all these texts taken together, we may 
 form the following result : The Holy Spirit is 
 represented in the Bible as a personal subject, 
 and as such is distinguished from the Father 
 and the Son. In relation to the human race he 
 is described as sent and commissioned by the 
 Father and the Son, and as occupying the place 
 which Christ, who preceded him, held. In this 
 respect he depends (to speak after the manner 
 of men) upon the Father (John, xiv. 16) and 
 upon the Son, (John, xiv. 10, 26, also xvi. 14, 
 ex tov efJiov KrityloA ;) and in this sense he pro- 
 ceeds from them both, or is sent by them both. 
 This may be expressed more literally as fol- 
 
 lows: The great work of converting, sanctify- 
 ing, and saving men, which the Father com- 
 menced through the Son, will be carried on by 
 the Father and Son, through the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Note. The objectors to this doctrine fre- 
 quently say, that the imaginative orientalists 
 were accustomed to represent many things as 
 personal subjects, and to introduce them as 
 speaking and acting, which, however, they 
 themselves did not consider as persons, and did 
 not intend to have so considered by others. 
 And to this oriental usage they think that Christ 
 and his apostles might here, as in other cases, 
 have conformed. But whenever Christ and his 
 apostles spoke in figurative language, they al- 
 ways shewed, by the explanations which they 
 gave, that they did not intend to be understood 
 literally. But they have given no such expla- 
 nation of the language which they employ with 
 regard to the Holy Spirit. We therefore fairly 
 conclude that they intended that their language 
 should be understood literally ; otherwise they 
 would have led their readers and hearers into 
 error ; and the more so, as they well knew that 
 their readers and hearers were accustomed to 
 personifications. 
 
 SECTION XL. 
 
 OF THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 WE shall now offer the texts from which the 
 proof is drawn that the Holy Spirit is God ; or 
 that the personal subject, called Hvfvpa, aytov, 
 possesses the same divine perfections which are 
 ascribed to the Father and the Son. Morus, p. 
 65, 66, s. 10. These texts may be divided into 
 those which are more important, and those which 
 are less convincing, or which, though frequently 
 cited, have no relation to this subject. 
 
 I. Texts in which Divine Attributes, 4-c., are 
 ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 
 
 On this subject we reason as follows : If the 
 texts in which the Holy Spirit is distinguished 
 from the Father and the Son, and in which he 
 is spoken of as a personal subject, also ascribe 
 to him, as well as .to them, divine attributes and 
 perfections, it is just to conclude that he is God 
 in the same sense in which the Father and the 
 Son are so. On account of the various mean- 
 ings of the word jtvtvp,u, we may not be able, 
 nor can it be at all necessary, to offer a great 
 multitude of texts in proof of the divinity of the 
 Holy Spirit. If one divine attribute is in any 
 passage clearly ascribed to him, his divinity is 
 as firmly established as if it were proved from a 
 great variety of texts that all the divine perfec-r 
 tions belong to him ; for the divine perfections 
 are inseparably connected, and the possession 
 of one of them involves the possession of all 
 the rest. Vide s. 18, 38. 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 143 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 9 13, nvcvjta tptvva, *a |3c&7 tot;, 
 where omniscience is evidently ascribed to the 
 Spirit. Vide s. 39 ; John, xvi. 13 ; where he is 
 said to know future events, (futura contingen- 
 tia,) which are concealed from every created 
 being, and known to God only, (ev yovvcwt tuv 
 xfltoA, Horn.,) except so far as he reveals this 
 knowledge to men. The Holy Spirit, then, to 
 whom they are known, and who himself reveals 
 them to others, must be God. 1 Cor.xii. 4, 11. 
 Omnipotence and omniscience necessarily belong 
 to an agent, who, according to his own good 
 pleasure, imparts such various gifts, and does 
 all which is here ascribed to the spirit of God. 
 The revealing of divine truth to the minds of 
 prophets and apostles ; their inspiration ; the mi- 
 racles wrought through their instrumentality, and 
 other things often spoken of as the peculiar work 
 of God, are elsewhere ascribed to the Holy Spirit 
 as the efficient agent, and considered as his 
 proper work,- from which it justly follows, that 
 the Holy Spirit was regarded as God. Cf. 
 John, xiv. 17 ; 1 Cor. xii. ; 1 Pet. i. 21, seq. The 
 improvement of the moral character is described 
 as the work of the Holy Spirit, John, iii. 5, seq., 
 and often elsewhere as the work of God, on ac- 
 count of the difficulties and obstacles with which 
 it is attended, and which are so great as to prove 
 wholly insurmountable by the unassisted efforts 
 of man. 
 
 The proof that divine worship was paid to the 
 Holy Spirit is not so abundant and satisfactory 
 as that adduced to prove that divine worship 
 was rendered to Christ, s. 38. Still, however, 
 it is sufficient, when taken in connexion with 
 what has already been offered in proof of his 
 divinity. In Rom. ix. 1, Paul swears by the 
 Holy Spirit, ev TLvtvpaiH, 0719, as he does by 
 Christ in the same passage. This must be con- 
 sidered an act of divine worship, since both 
 Mosaic and Christian rules forbid swearing by 
 any but the supreme God, Matt. v. 33 36. 
 To swear by God, and to honour or worship him 
 were synonymous terms in the Old Testament. 
 In Matt. xii. 31, to speak against the Holy Spirit 
 is represented by Christ as blasphemy. 
 
 We are not destitute, then, of passages which 
 distinctly ascribe divine attributes and works to 
 the Holy Spirit, although these texts are not so 
 many nor so clear as those which relate to the 
 divinity of the Son. Some have taken occasion 
 from this fact to represent the doctrine of the 
 divinity of the Holy Spirit as doubtful or unim- 
 portant; but 
 
 (a) In this connexion we would repeat the 
 observation before made, s. 12 viz., that we 
 can conclude nothing respecting the interna 
 importance of a doctrine from the more or less 
 frequent mention of it in the New Testament. 
 The books of the New Testament were written 
 with primary reference to the condition of men 
 
 t the time when they were written, and always 
 >resuppose a more full oral instruction. 
 
 (6) The most important consideration, how- 
 ever, is this: that by the Ilffv^a oiytov, 
 something divine (jfi $tlov) was always under- 
 stood by the Jews and Christians of ancient 
 imes. So soon, therefore, as the early Chris- 
 ,ians understood that the Ilvsvpa, oyiov was a 
 person, they immediately regarded him as God 
 
 subject belonging to the godhead. It was not 
 necessary, therefore, in the first Christian instruc- 
 tion, to speak often and expressly of his divine 
 nature, and attributes. These were very easily 
 understood from the ideas commonly entertained 
 n ancient times respecting the divine Spirit. 
 Vide Morus, p. 66, Note 5. The case was dif- 
 ferent with respect to Christ, since the Jews 
 did not commonly suppose that the Messiah was 
 divine, as appears from Matt. xxii. 43 46. 
 They understood his title, Son of God, in the 
 general sense of a great king, s. 37. 
 
 II. Texts in which the Holy Spirit is called 
 God, 4-c. 
 
 These are sometimes used to prove the divi- 
 nity of the Holy Spirit, but are either inferior to 
 the former in evidence, or have no bearing upon 
 the subject. The observations just made, No. 
 I. (a) of this section, have not always been duly 
 regarded. Writers have thought too much of 
 the number of texts, and have collected indiscri- 
 minately many which have only an apparent 
 relation to the subject. Especially they have 
 endeavoured to search out a multitude of texts 
 in which the Holy Spirit is expressly called God. 
 But (a) the simple appellation God, is not of 
 itself sufficient to prove the supreme divinity of 
 the subject to whom it is given, as Christ him- 
 self declared, John, x. 34, 35, coll. s. 37. The 
 texts therefore which ascribe divine attributes 
 and works to the Spirit are far more important 
 than texts of this class, and prove all that is 
 essential. (6) It is doubtful in many of these 
 texts, in which the predicate God is used, whe- 
 ther the Holy Spirit as a person is intended. 
 Many of them, at least, may be explained with- 
 out necessarily supposing a personal subject, ac- 
 cording to the analogy of the texts mentioned, 
 s. 39, I. 
 
 The following texts are often quoted : Acts, 
 v. 3, 4. Peter tells Ananias (ver. 3) that Satan 
 had induced him ^svaaOcKM, to Hvsvpa aytov, and 
 afterwards (ver. 4) ovx i^futfw dv^pwrtotj, <xM.a 
 1*9 9. The same subject who is called the 
 Holy Spirit in one place is called God in the 
 other. But from the comparison of other pas- 
 sages, it might be thought that the live vpn oiytov 
 was here to be understood in the subjective sense, 
 and denoted the Spirit dwelling in the apostles; 
 the higher knowledge and gifts with which they 
 were endowed ; their miraculous powers, as in 
 
144 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ver. 32 ; and the passage could accordingly be 
 explained thus : your crime is not to be considered 
 as if you had intended to deceive mere men, be- 
 cause you knew that God had endowed us with 
 supernatural knowledge. This explanation is 
 confirmed by the very clear text, 1 Thess. iv. 8, 
 He who despises ws, despises not men, but God, 
 -fbv Sovta fb Hvfv/Jia avfov rb ayiov stj 57/1*01?. 
 Cf. Ex. xvi M where it is said, ver. 2, that the 
 Israelites rebelled against Moses and Aaron ; but 
 Moses tells them, ver. 8, your rebellion is not 
 against us, but against God, whose messengers 
 we are. Does this prove that Moses and Aaron 
 belong to the godhead ? Bat when it is proved 
 from other texts that Christ, the apostles, and the 
 early Christians, understood theHvevpa ayiov to 
 be a personal subject, belonging to the godhead, 
 (as those concerned in this event undoubtedly 
 did,) then this text and many of the following 
 may be regarded as satisfactory proof of the divi- 
 nity of this Spirit. But when introduced before 
 these texts, by which their meaning is deter- 
 mined, or out of their relation to them, they prove 
 nothing. The sense of the text in Acts, as deter- 
 mined by the preceding texts, is plainly this : 
 for you to intend to deceive us who are apos- 
 tles us, whom you knew to be under the spe- 
 cial influence of the Holy Spirit is to be con- 
 sidered the same as if you had intended to deceive 
 God ; for you knew that he from whom this 
 influence proceeds is regarded by us as God. 
 The same may be said with respect to the for- 
 mula of baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19. It cannot, in 
 itself considered, be used as a proof-text, be- 
 cause the mere collocation of the name Holy 
 Spirit with that of the Father and Son does not 
 prove that he possesses divine nature in com- 
 mon with them. Vide s. 35. But when his 
 divinity has been proved by other texts, then this 
 also may be cited ; because from the former we 
 learn how the latter must be understood, and 
 was actually understood in the first ages of the 
 church. The passage, 2 Cor. iii. 17, 'O 8s K-uptoj 
 rb Hvv/*d i6ti has sometimes been translated, 
 the Spirit is Jehovah himself. But the meaning 
 is, Christ is the true Spirit of the Old Testa- 
 ment i. e., the Old Testament contains essen- 
 tially the same doctrine which Christ taught 
 viz., the necessity of the renewal of the heart, 
 and inward piety. Some have endeavoured to 
 prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit from a 
 comparison of different texts; but in doing this 
 they have often resorted to forced and unnatural 
 interpretations. An instance of this may be 
 seen in the comparison of the texts Isa. vii. 
 8 10 and Acts, xxviii. 26, 27. In the former 
 of these we read, JEHOVAH said, Go to this people, 
 &c. ; but in the latter, Hvevpa r 6 aytov iiMtytis 
 8ia Hffai'ov xsyov, x.t. k. Here the same per- 
 son who in the former text is called ntv, in the 
 latter is called Ilvsv/ta ayiov. 
 
 may be used in its more general sense for the 
 Deity, and does not here necessarily designate 
 the person of the Holy Ghost. Vide s. 39, I., 
 and s. 19, II. 
 
 We have now considered some of the most 
 important texts of scripture in which we are 
 taught the doctrine that (1) there is only one 
 God; but that (2) in this one divine nature 
 there are also three, described as personal sub- 
 jects, and called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; 
 and that (3) these three possess in common the 
 divine nature. Respecting the manner in 
 which these three make one God, we are taught 
 nothing in the Bible, since the subject is of such 
 a nature as not to admit of its being explained 
 to us. Vide s. 33. It is not therefore strange 
 that in their attempts to illustrate it theologians 
 should have pursued such different methods; that 
 in endeavouring to explain what is inexplicable, 
 they should have been compelled to call in the 
 aids of human philosophy ; and that, for the 
 very reason that the whole subject is beyond 
 their reach, they should have differed so widely 
 from each other in the opinions which they 
 have entertained respecting it. We should here 
 therefore refer to the remarks made upon this- 
 subject, s. 33. A general view of the whole 
 will be given at the end of Chapter Second, to 
 which we now proceed. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 SECTION XLI. 
 
 ARE THERE IN JEWISH OR HEATHEN WRITINGS 
 ANY TRACES OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY" 
 WHICH WERE NOT DERIVED FROM CHRISTIAN 
 
 SOURCES ? 
 
 I. Traces of this Doctrine in the Old Testament, the 
 Apocrypha, and the Chaldaic Paraphrases, 
 
 SOME have endeavoured to prove that the 
 Jews had some knowledge of the Trinity, or at 
 least of a plurality of persons in the godhead, 
 from all these sources. But (a) the texts cited 
 from the Old Testament in proof of this point do 
 not by themselves perfectly establish it, as has- 
 been shown, s. 34. Neither (6) are the texts 
 cited from the Apocrypha altogether satisfactory. 
 The appellation a,oyoj sov, which occurs fre- 
 quently in the Book of Wisdom and in Sirach, 
 cannot be clearly proved in any one instance to 
 designate a person of the godhead, but signifies 
 either the divine oracles and revelations, as Sir. i. 
 5, or the divine decrees and will, as Sir. xliii. 26, 
 ev 7toy9 avfov ovyxsrtat, rtdvta. Book of Wis- 
 dom, xviii. 15, koyo? EOV rfavT'oSvj/a/tof, coll. ix. 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 145 
 
 I, xvi. 12. Nor does the appellation Son of 
 God, in the Book of Wisdom, ii. 1320, desig- 
 nate the Messiah, but, in a more general sense, 
 a favourite of God, one approved by Heaven, a 
 righteous person. The phrase Holy Spirit, used 
 in the same book, (chap. ix. 17, 18,) there 
 means only a holy temper, virtue, temperance, 
 continence, sanctitas animi; cf. ix. 4, 10. (c) 
 The terms H Nnp>p, D->nSN K-WD are used very 
 frequently in the Chaldaic paraphrases, and 
 seem, as there employed, to designate a person, 
 
 id have therefore been compared with the ap- 
 pellation Tuiyoj eou, and considered as indi- 
 cating the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a 
 very important argument. It is doubtful, 
 however, whether these terms were understood 
 by the Jews contemporary with the paraphrasts 
 as titles of the Messiah, or whether, as many sup- 
 pose, they were regarded as synonymous with 
 numen, majestas divina. The whole subject 
 needs a new investigation. Vide Paulus, Zum 
 Anf. des. Evang. Johannis. 
 
 [Note. Whatever may be said of the use of 
 the term 7.070$ in the Apocryphal writings, it 
 cannot be doubted that the term <TO<J>X, in the 
 Book of Wisdom, an .-Egyptico-Jewish produc- 
 tion, is used hypostatically. Wisdom is there 
 represented as a being of the purest light, pro- 
 ceeding before the creation from the substance 
 of God, as his perfect image, and the creator 
 and governor of the world. Cf. i. 6; vii. 
 2227; viii. 1, 3; ix. 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 18, x. 
 The writer of this book had before him the per- 
 sonification of this divine attribute in the Old 
 Testament, the nDDn of Prov. viii. xi. ; but his 
 representations very much surpass that in bold- 
 ness ; and this must be ascribed to the influence 
 of that extravagant philosophy, strangely com- 
 posed of oriental and Platonic ideas, which 
 then prevailed at Alexandria, and which, not 
 content with personifying, distinctly hyposta- 
 tized the divine attributes.^ The influence of 
 this philosophy was more strongly exhibited in 
 the hypostases of Philo and the Cabbalists, and 
 afterwards, in the peculiar modifications of some 
 Christian doctrines, adopted by the Alexandrine 
 catechists. These different systems of inde- 
 pendent powers, proceeding from the source of 
 all being, formed, as they were, upon these 
 hints in the Old Testament, under the influence 
 of a foreign and corrupting philosophy, bear but 
 little resemblance, indeed, to the Trinity of the 
 New Testament. And notwithstanding all 
 these presentiments of the truth found in unin- 
 spired writers before the Christian era, the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity must be regarded as alto- 
 gether an articulus purus. TR.] 
 
 II. Traces of this Doctrine in the Writings of Plato, 
 the New Platonists, Philo, the Cabbalists, <fc. 
 
 We find clear evidence of a belief in a certain 
 19 
 
 sort of trinity in all these writers, although they 
 differ in the mode of explaining it, and under- 
 stand by it something very different from the 
 Trinity of the Bible. This evidence is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 1. Plato believed in a supreme being existing 
 from eternity, but he also believed in an un- 
 created, eternal matter, the former the source of 
 all good, the latter, of all evil. The origin of 
 the visible world, its relation to God, and his 
 influence upon it, were explained by him from, 
 the principles of the system of emanation a 
 system which the mind naturally adopts when 
 it begins to speculate on subjects of this nature, 
 and which is, accordingly, more ancient and 
 universal than any other system of philosophy. 
 (It is probable that, in conformity with the ge- 
 neral principles of this philosophy, the ideas of 
 which Plato spake were material ; though this 
 is disputed. Vide Plessing, Versuehe zur Auf- 
 klarung der Philosophic des altesten Alter- 
 thums; Leipzig, 1788, 8vo.) The system of 
 Plato may be thus stated : God first produced 
 the ideal world i. e., his infinite understanding 
 conceived of the existence of the world, and 
 formed, as it were, the plan of the creation. 
 The real world was then formed after this ideal 
 world, as its model; and this was done by 
 uniting the soul of the world, which proceeded 
 from the Divine Being, with matter, by which 
 the world became an animated, sensitive, ra- 
 tional creature, guided, pervaded, and held to- 
 gether by this rational soul The three princi- 
 ples of Plato were thus, (a) the supreme God, 
 whom he calls Hafjjp ; (6) the divine understand- 
 ing, which he calls, vovj, Sj^tuoupyoj, xoyoj, sco-r^p, 
 cro^ta, x. n. X. ; and (c) the soul of the world. 
 He indeed distinguished the two last principles, 
 in some respects, from the supreme God, but 
 still accounted them as belonging by derivation 
 to the divine nature. These views are fully 
 developed in his Timaeus, and elsewhere. It 
 appears, then, that Plato believed in a Trinity, 
 or three principles in the Divine Being; but 
 whether he actually hypostasized these princi- 
 ples is doubtful, though it is affirmed by the 
 New Platonists. 
 
 A somewhat different statement of the Pla- 
 tonic system is given by Oelrich, in his " Com- 
 mentatio de doctrina Platonica de Deo," &c. 
 According to him, Plato divided all things into 
 two classes that which is real, unproduced, im 
 mutable, capable of being discerned only by the 
 reason, (vorjitos, intelligibilis ; ) and opposed to 
 this, that which is produced, mutable, material, 
 and cognizable by the senses, atcr^r'of, sensibi- 
 lis.) The latter must have a cause of its exist- 
 ence; and this cause is the Creator of the 
 world, who, in imitation of the perfect ideal in 
 his understanding, in which all the reality, sub 
 stance, and true being of things was contained, 
 N 
 
146 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 wrought rude matter into the present sensible 
 world. But since what is animated is more per- 
 fect than what is inanimate, and God, as the 
 most perfect being, could not make anything 
 otherwise than perfect, he imparted a soul to 
 this sensible world. But this soul of the world 
 is not a self-existing divine principle, since its 
 nature participates in what is material and mu- 
 table, as well as in what is real and immutable, 
 and consequently is neither one thing nor the 
 other, but an intermediate being composed of 
 the two. According to this statement, Plato 
 did not conceive of a number of hypostases in 
 the Deity ; for the divine understanding (xoyoj) 
 could not be imagined to be different from God 
 himself, and the soul of the world belonged nei- 
 ther to the being of God, nor was regarded as a 
 self-subsistent principle. Many passages in his 
 writings, however, were so perverted and mis- 
 applied by the New Platonists, that they seem- 
 ed to afford ground for their assertion that he 
 really distinguished a number of hypostases in 
 the Divine Being. Hence the strange and 
 manifold form in which the Platonic doctrine of 
 God was exhibited by Numenius, Plotinus, 
 Porphyry, Jamblicus, Proclus, Chalcidius, Ma- 
 crobius, and other New Platonists, and also by 
 the Christian fathers of the second and third 
 century. 
 
 [Note. In favour of the alleged Triad of 
 Plato, cf. Souverain, Le Platonisme devoile, 
 translated by Loffler into the German, under 
 the title Versuch iiber den Platonismus der 
 Kirchenvater. Ben. Carpzov, Trinitas Pla- 
 tonis, &c. ; Lipsiae, 1693. Cudworth, Systema 
 intellectuale hujus universi. In opposition to 
 the Triad of Plato, cf. Tiedemann, Geist der 
 speculativen Philosophic, 2 bd. s. 118, ff. 
 Tennemann, System der Platon. Philosophic, 
 3 bd. s. 149. Geschichte der Philosophic, 2 
 bd. s. 387. Paulus, Memorabilien, an Essay, 
 Ueber den gottlichen Verstand aus der Platon. 
 Philosophic. TR.] 
 
 2. The New Platonists eagerly embraced 
 these ideas of Plato, and during the second and 
 third centuries after the birth of Christ, seemed 
 to labour to outdo one another in explaining, 
 defending, and more fully developing them. 
 We have, for example, a work of Plotinus, rtepi 
 tfuiv r'pnov op6xu>i/ vrtocS'taGEcov (i. e., Deus su- 
 premus, mens, anima mundi.} These New 
 Platonists, however, not only differ widely from 
 Plato, but often disagree among themselves 
 in their mode of thinking, and in their phraseo- 
 logy- 
 
 3. The learned Jews, who lived beyond the 
 bounds of Palestine, especially those who re- 
 sided in Egypt, and in the other Grecian pro- 
 vinces, had imbibed, at an early period, (doubt- 
 less a considerable time before the coming of 
 
 Christ,) many of the principles of the philoso- 
 phy prevailing in the regions where they re- 
 sided, and had connected, and as it were incor- 
 porated them with their previous opinions, and 
 with their established religious system. They 
 first received the principles of the Grecian, and 
 especially of the Platonic philosophy, as then 
 taught, into their own belief; and afterwards, 
 as is common with theologians, endeavoured 
 to find them in the ancient sacred books of their 
 own nation; and in order to this, they inter- 
 preted many expressions of their sacred books 
 in accordance with their newfangled notions. 
 They were encouraged to do this the more, 
 from the opinion which they entertained, that 
 Plato had derived many of his ideas from 
 Moses and other Hebrew writers. These fo- 
 reign learned Jews seem also to have been in- 
 fluenced in their speculations by the principles 
 of the theory of emanation. This oriental ele- 
 ment may have been introduced in different 
 ways into the later Jewish philosophy. The 
 Jews must have become acquainted with this 
 system during their residence in Chaldaea, where 
 it appears to have formerly prevailed ; and they 
 probably brought many of its principles with 
 them on their return to Judea; and in this way 
 it may have passed into the system of the later 
 philosophizing Jews. They must also have re- 
 ceived a large portion of this orientalism, when 
 they adopted the Platonic, or rather New Pla- 
 tonic philosophy, since the latter is wholly based 
 upon the system of emanation. But, from 
 whatever source derived, this system is found 
 in the oldest writings of the Cabbalists, those 
 of the second century; and from these writings 
 it is obvious that it was not of recent origin, but 
 had been received by many learned Jews, before 
 and at the Christian era. Vide Joh. Fr. Kleuker, 
 Ueber die Natur und den Ursprung der Emana- 
 tionslehre bey den Kabbalisten; Riga, 1786, 
 8vo. These principles were indeed wholly un- 
 known to most of the Jews who lived within 
 the bounds of Palestine during the lifetime of 
 Christ, and afterwards. They were satisfied 
 with their Pharisao-rabbinic theology, and look- 
 ed for the Messiah as a religious reformer, and 
 a temporal king. This was not the case, how- 
 ever, with the Jews who lived beyond the bounds 
 of Palestine, and who were educated under the 
 influence of the Grecian philosophy; they for 
 the most part abandoned the expectation of a 
 future Messiah, or regarded his kingdom as en- 
 tirely of a moral nature. It is among these 
 learned Jews out of Palestine that the theory of 
 the Tioyoj is found as early as the first century. 
 They regarded the 7.6yoj as existing before the 
 creation of the world, and as the instrument 
 through whom God made all things. They 
 entertained also the same notions respecting the 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 147 
 
 spiritual world and the emanation of spiritual 
 substances, or aeons, from the divine nature, 
 &c., as are found among the Platonists of that 
 day. And entertaining these views, derived 
 from the Platonists, they endeavoured to find 
 them in the OJd Testament; and, as appears from 
 the example of Philo, carried all their precon- 
 ceived opinions, by means of allegorical inter- 
 pretation, into their ancient books. Philo speaks 
 often in the Platonic manner of the A6yo$, call- 
 ing him the Son of God, the FIRST-BORN Son of 
 God, (in distinction from the world, which was 
 the younger son,) the first servant of God, 
 fovtspoj 0f6>-, x. *. JL. The Cabbalists fre- 
 quently speak in their writings of Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit,- and there are many passages 
 in the books of Philo in which a kind of trinity 
 is taught, and in which his Platonic ideas are 
 clothed in Biblical language. Thus, for exam- 
 ple, in his work " De opificio Mundi," there is 
 mention of a supreme God, and of one begotten 
 of him, (elsewhere called lipuibtoxos, Xoyoj, 
 vov{, x. t. X.,) who was fulltfoi; eiov Ilvfvftatoj. 
 Vide Carpzov, Philoniana, p. 157. 
 
 4. When now, at a later period, the Christian 
 doctrine became known to these Grecian Jews, 
 and was embraced by them, they began to con- 
 nect with it the philosophical notions then pre- 
 valent respecting the invisible world, the gra- 
 dation of spirits, the superior aeon, who was of 
 divine origin, &c. They affirmed that the Son 
 of God existed long before the man Jesus, and 
 that in process of time he united himself with 
 this man, in order that he might be better able 
 to benefit men by his instructions, to exert his 
 influence upon spirits, and to weaken the power 
 which evil beings exercised to the injury of our 
 race. They regarded the Holy Spirit as the all- 
 enlivening and ever-active power, which flows 
 forth from God, and is equally efficient in the 
 physical and moral world. These opinions, de- 
 rived partly from Grecian philosophy, and partly 
 from Jewish and Christian theology, grew gra- 
 dually in favour with the more learned Chris- 
 tians ; they were variously developed and modi- 
 fied by the different parties of the early Chris- 
 tian church; until at length, in the fourth cen- 
 tury, one party obtained ascendancy for its own 
 peculiar theory and phraseology, to the exclusion 
 of all the rest. 
 
 From the foregoing statements we arrive at 
 the following conclusion : viz., (a) It cannot 
 be denied that many of the ancient heathen phi- 
 losophers (e. g., the Platonists') believed in a 
 trinity in the divine nature ; and that they were 
 led to entertain that belief by the principles of 
 the theory of emanation, which they had first 
 adopted. From this source many learned Jews, 
 who lived beyond the bounds of Palestine, drew 
 their opinions e. g., the Alexandrine Jews, 
 
 Philo, and the Cabbalists. These Grecian 
 Jews did not, however, simply adopt the pure 
 ideas of Plato, which were variously represented 
 even by the New Platonists, but they mixed 
 and incorporated them with their own national 
 opinions and their own religious principles, and 
 thus endeavoured to reconcile Platonism with 
 the language and doctrines of the Bible. That 
 a trinity, in this sense, was known and professed 
 by philosophers and Jews who were not Chris- 
 tians, is admitted. But (6) the representations 
 of this subject which are found in the writings 
 of Plato and his followers, whether pagans or 
 Jews, by no means agree with the simple repre- 
 sentations of the Trinity contained in the word 
 of God, nor even with those which prevailed 
 among Christians throughout the Roman em- 
 pire, after the Nicene Council in the fourth cen- 
 tury. For, according to the Platonists, the 
 second and third principles belonging to the 
 Deity were widely distinguished from the su- 
 preme God ; they were produced from him, were 
 subordinate to him, and altogether less than he; 
 though yet, from their derivation, they were re- 
 garded as belonging to the Divine Being, and 
 were often, indeed, called God. Such, however, 
 is not the representation of the Trinity contained 
 in the Bible, or in the distinctions established at 
 the Nicene Council. But although the Platonic 
 trinity differs thus widely from the scriptural 
 doctrine, and also from the established theory 
 of the church, it is yet possible that the scho- 
 lastic and technical language in use on this 
 subject was originally borrowed by Christians 
 from the Platonic theology. 
 
 [Note. Besides these traces of a trinity in 
 the godhead found among the Platonists, Alex- 
 andrine Jews, Cabbalists, &c., we may mention 
 those found among the Indians in their trimurti 
 (triad), composed of three spirits, Brahma, 
 Vischnu, and Schiva, produced from the su- 
 preme Deity. For a fuller account of this, cf. 
 Fr. v. Schlegel, Weisheit der Indier, s. 108; 
 Heidelberg, 1808, 8vo. J. K. F. Schlegel, 
 Ueber den Geist der Religiositat aller Zeiten 
 und Volker, 2 th. s. 7, f.; Hanover, 1814, 8vo. 
 Maurice, Indian Antiquities; London, 1796. 
 In vols. iv. v. the oriental triads are extensively 
 investigated. The author finds " the holy Tri- 
 nity" in all his travels in the East. The 
 Egyptians also have a trinity, consisting of 
 Knuph, the eternal, all-pervading soul of the 
 world, connected with Phtha (original light) 
 and Nei'th (Wisdom.) For an account of this, 
 cf. besides the above-named work of J. K. F. 
 Schlegel, 1 th., s. 192, Fr. Kreuzer, Symbolik 
 und Mythologie der alten Volker, s. 78, f. of 
 Moser's abridgment. On the general subject, 
 cf. Tholuck, Die speculative Trinitatslehre der 
 neuern Orientalen; Berlin, 1826, 8vo TR.] 
 
148 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 SECTION XLII. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DUR- 
 ING THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES BEFORE 
 THE NICENE COUNCIL. 
 
 Notice of some of the works which cast light on this 
 portion of Dogmatic History. 
 
 VOL. ii. of the work of Dionysius Petavius, 
 the Jesuit, "De Theologicis Dogmatibus," 
 Ed. 2, 6 vols. ; Antwerpise, 1700, fol. contains 
 a collection of passages from the early fathers 
 relating to the doctrine of the Trinity ; but should 
 be consulted rather for the passages themselves 
 than for the compiler's exposition of them. 
 Book ii. of the work of Jo. Forbesius, & Corse, 
 " Institutiones historico-theologicae;" Amstel. 
 1645. Both of these writers endeavour to prove 
 the agreement of the earliest Christian writers 
 with the common orthodox doctrine as esta- 
 blished in the fourth century. But this agree- 
 ment of the ante and post Nicene writers cannot 
 be proved merely from their having used the 
 same words and phrases, as has often been very 
 plausibly contended ; for the earlier writers often 
 used these words and phrases in an entirely dif- 
 ferent sense from that in which they have been 
 employed since the fourth century. This re- 
 mark must be kept in mind in forming an esti- 
 mate of those works which were written with 
 the professed object of proving the entire agree- 
 ment of the doctrine of the Trinity as held by 
 the earliest Christian fathers and as established 
 in the fourth century at the council of Nice e. 
 g., G. Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, 2 vols. ; 
 Londini, 1703. Burscher, Scriptorum antiquis- 
 simorum Doctrina de DeoTriuno et J. Christo; 
 Lipsiae, 1780, 8vo. 
 
 The following works are composed with great 
 critical accuracy, and with a careful regard to 
 the peculiarities of the writers of different pe- 
 riods viz., Dr. Semler, Einleitung in die 
 Geschichte der christlichen Glaubenslehre, pre- 
 fixed to the three parts of Baumgarten's Po- 
 lemik ; also his Sammlung iiber die Beweisstel- 
 len in der Dogmatik, th. ii. s. 1 ; Halle, 1768, 
 8vo. Souverain, Platonisme devoile, 1700; 
 translated into German, under the title, Versuch 
 iiber den Platonismus der Kirchenvater, with 
 notes and a preface by Loffler, 1782, 8vo; re- 
 published with an additional Essay by Loffler, 
 Ueber das Entstehen der Dreyeinigkeitslehre 
 unter den Christen, Ziillichau, 1792, 8vo. Cf. 
 the Review of this work in the Lit. Zeit. Nr. 
 295297, 1793. C. F. Rossler, Lehrbegriff 
 der christlichen Kirche in den drey ersten 
 Jahrhunderten ; Frankfort am Main, 1775; also 
 his greater work, Bibliothek der Kirchenvater, 
 10 thle; Leipzig, 177686, 8vo; in which he 
 gives extracts from the doctrinal writings of the 
 ecclesiastical fathers. The works of Meiners 
 
 and Oelrichs on Platonism must be noticed here, 
 though referred to more particularly under an- , 
 other division of this section. The new works 
 of Lange, Muenscher, and Augusti, on dogmatic 
 history, must also be here cited. 
 
 [Note. The latest and most distinguished 
 investigators of this difficult portion of dogmatic 
 history are, Neander, Gieseler, and Schleierma- 
 cher. The first of these, in that portion of his 
 Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion 
 und Kirche, devoted to the history of doctrines, 
 is thought to have given the best history of this 
 doctrine yet offered to the public. The Kirchen- 
 Geschichte of Gieseler is principally valuable 
 for a full and excellent selection of extracts from 
 the fathers. Schleiermacher has entered upon 
 an investigation of the opposition between the 
 Sabellian and Athanasian theories a sphere of 
 inquiry which had been nearly overlooked in the 
 zeal and diligence with which every ramification 
 of the more urgent and threatening heresy of 
 Arius had long been examined. 
 
 The results to which these writers have come, 
 while they confirm the general view of the his- 
 tory of this doctrine given by Dr. Knapp, differ, 
 however, in several important particulars. Some 
 of these different results the translator had in- 
 tended to introduce as notes, in their appropriate 
 places, and thus to render this history more 
 complete, and in some parts more correct. But 
 he found this undertaking attended with great 
 inconveniences, and that it would swell this 
 chapter, already very much extended, to an im- 
 moderate length. He therefore concluded to 
 publish this history as given by Dr. Knapp, with 
 only an occasional reference to the authors where 
 other views may be found, and with here and 
 there a brief additional statement. It may, how- 
 ever, be hoped that some fruits of the labours of 
 Neander, Gieseler, and Schleiermacher, will be 
 reaped ere long by the American public. TR.] 
 
 I. Doctrine of the Trinity as held by Primitive 
 Christians. 
 
 Christians from the earliest times were re- 
 quired, agreeably to the command of Jesus, to 
 profess their belief in the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, at the time of their baptism ; and these 
 names were often used on other occasions, and 
 were introduced, as appears from the New Tes- 
 tament, as opportunity presented, in all the dis- 
 courses intended for Christian instruction and 
 edification. It will of course be presumed that 
 the first teachers of Christianity did not merely 
 repeat these names before those to whom they 
 administered the ordinance of baptism ; they must 
 also have exhibited the ideas to be connected 
 with these names, and have explained the whole 
 purport of that profession which was required. 
 What this instruction was we cannot learn ex- 
 actly, since, beside the New Testament, we have 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 149 
 
 no credible written records of the first century 
 containing information on this point. From the 
 New Testament, however, and from the frag- 
 ments of the oldest symbols, (collected by 
 Walch in his Bibliotheca symbolica vetus; 
 Lemgo, 1770, 8vo,) we may be satisfied thus 
 far, that this instruction was short and simple, 
 and wholly free from subtle and learned dis- 
 tinctions. The early teachers of Christianity 
 were satisfied with instructing the people re- 
 specting the works of God (ceconomicis operi- 
 bus), and in pointing out to them the various 
 and undeserved benefits for which they were 
 indebted either to the Father, Son, or Holy Spi- 
 rit, according to the nature of these benefits ; 
 and they abstained in their instructions from re- 
 fined and scholastic distinctions. This is evi- 
 dent from the writings of the oldest church 
 fathers, Justin the Martyr, Irenseus, and Tertul- 
 lian. Justin the Martyr, for example, says that 
 Christians bound themselves to believe in the 
 Father, as the supreme God and the Governor 
 of the world ; in Jesus, as the Messiah (Xpwrroj) 
 and Saviour (Swfjjp), who had died for them; 
 and in the Holy Spirit, who foretold by the pro- 
 phets everything relating to Christ, and who 
 counsels and guides those who believe in him. 
 These ancient symbols were gradually enlarged 
 by various additions intended to oppose the va- 
 rious errors which from time to time arose. 
 Such, however, as has been represented, was 
 the simplicity with which this doctrine was at 
 first taught. And even Origen, in his Books 
 rtspt op^wt/, states the sum of the doctrines for- 
 merly taught to the people to be, the doctrine 
 of the Father, as creator and preserver ; of the 
 Son, as the highest ambassador of God, and 
 himself both God and man ; and of the Holy 
 Spirit, as holding a place beside the Father and 
 the Son, and entitled to equal honour. As these 
 primitive Christians were not, as a general 
 thing, scientifically educated, were wholly un- 
 accustomed to speculate on religious subjects, 
 and contented with those practical views which 
 they obtained from their teachers, and which 
 they found most conducive to their comfort and 
 edification ; so their teachers were contented to 
 present the simple truths of religion without any 
 minute and philosophical distinctions : and this 
 was the right course, and they found the advan- 
 tage of pursuing it. 
 
 II. Doctrine of the Trinity as held in the Second 
 
 and Third Centuries. 
 
 Towards the end of the first century, and 
 during the second, many learned men came over 
 both from Judaism and paganism to Christi- 
 anity. At that period the New Platonic philo- 
 sophy was becoming more and more prevalent 
 in the Grecian provinces, and especially in 
 d indeed had been embraced before 
 
 this, in the first century, by many of the learned 
 Grecian Jews. Vide s. 41 ; and Meiners, 
 Beitrag zur Geschichte der Denkart der ersten 
 Jahrhunderte nach Christi Geburt, in einigen 
 Betrachtungen iiber die neuplatonische Philo- 
 sophic; Leipzig, 1782, 8vo ; and Jo. Jac. Oel- 
 richs, Comment, de doctrina Platonica de Deo, 
 &c. ; Marburg, 1788, 8vo an able and funda- 
 mental work. These learned Jews and pagans 
 brought over with them into the Christian 
 schools of theology their Platonic ideas and 
 phraseology, and they especially borrowed from 
 the philosophical writings of Philo. And as 
 they found in the religious dialect of the New 
 Testament some expressions which apparently 
 resembled those to which they had been before 
 accustomed in their philosophical dialect, it was 
 no difficult matter for them to annex their pre- 
 conceived philosophical notions to the language 
 of scripture, and thus to carry their whole philo- 
 sophical system into the Bible ; exactly as 
 Philo had before carried his peculiar system 
 into the Jewish scriptures of the Old Testament. 
 Vide s. 41. 
 
 But we find that those learned Christians of 
 the second century confined themselves, in their 
 philosophizing respecting the Trinity, princi- 
 pally to the LOGOS; and this was very natural, 
 since the name Aoyo? is applied even in the New 
 Testament to Christ, and since so much had 
 been said and written respecting him by the Pla- 
 tonists. These philosophizing Christians con- 
 nected in general the same ideas with the name 
 Xoyoj, as had been done before by Philo and 
 other Platonists, (vide s. 41 ;) and differed only 
 in this, that they referred the whole to the person 
 of Christ, and endeavoured to associate their 
 philosophical speculations with Christian truth. 
 Such in general is the fact with respect to the 
 earliest ecclesiastical fathers e. g., Justin the 
 Marty, (Dial. cum. Tryph. lud. c. Gl,) Tatian, 
 Athenagoras, (in his Apology,) and Tertullian, 
 (Adv. Praxeas, c. 2, seq.;) the latter of whom 
 in this respect follows the example of the Gre- 
 cian fathers. On several smaller points these 
 writers indeed differ from one another ; but in the 
 following general views, all of which are based 
 upon the Platonic system, they perfectly agree 
 viz., The Logos existed before the creation of 
 the world ; he was begotten, however, by God, 
 and sent forth from him. By this Logos, the 
 New Platonists understood the infinite under- 
 standing of God, which they conceived to be, 
 as it were, a substance which emanated, with 
 its functions, from God. They supposed that 
 it belonged from eternity to his nature as apower, 
 but that, agreeably to the divine will, (jSovX^/tarc 
 fov, as Justin expresses it, in the passage above 
 cited,) it began to exist out of the divine nature, 
 and is therefore different from God its creator 
 and father, and yet, as begotten of him, is en- 
 
 N2 
 
150 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 tirely divine. Hence the Logos is denominated 
 by Athenagoras rtpw-roi/ ytwrjpa,, the first-begot- 
 ten; and Justin, in the passage above cited, says, 
 
 y t, x r ( v, which was sometimes called 6%a 
 sometimes Ttoj, <ro<j><,'a, ayyfXoj, and sometimes 
 60$, Krptoj, and Aoyoj. By means of this 
 Logos they supposed that God at first created, 
 and now preserves and governs the universe. 
 
 The Holy Spirit was more rarely mentioned 
 by these early fathers, and their views respect- 
 ing him are far less clearly expressed than con- 
 cerning the Son. Most of them, however, agreed 
 in considering him a substance (the term used 
 by Tertullian) emanating from the Father and 
 the Son, to whom, on this account, divinity 
 must be ascribed. Tertullian says, Est Spiritus 
 a Patreper Filium. [Vide Neander, b. i. Abth. 
 3. s. 1039, ff.] 
 
 Respecting these three, the early fathers con- 
 tended that they were one. Athenagoras says, 
 that with these three there was swots tv 8v(idpsi>, 
 but iv ty ralet 6u'pf0i?. Origen and Novatian 
 make exactly the same representation in the 
 third century. It is obvious, however, that the 
 unity (fWtftj, unitas) of which many of these 
 philosophical fathers speak is nothing more than 
 unanimity, agreement, correspondence in feelings, 
 consent in will, in power, and in the application 
 of power to particular objects. They do not 
 mean, by the use of this word, to signify that 
 the Son and Holy Spirit were GOD, in the full 
 meaning of the word, and in the same sense in 
 which the Father is God. In short, these phi- 
 losophical Christians asserted rather the divine- 
 ness of the Son and Spirit, and their divine ori- 
 gin, than their equal deity with the Father. 
 Justin the Martyr expressly declares that the 
 Son is in God what the understanding (j/ovj) 
 is in man, and that the Holy Spirit is that divine 
 power to act and execute which Plato calls dp^. 
 With this representation, Theophilus of Antioch, 
 Clemens of Alexandria, and Origen, substan- 
 tially agree. The name Father is used, according 
 to them, in relation to all existing things; the 
 name Aoyoj to Tioywea, and Holy Spirit to moral 
 perfections. According to Tertullian, the per- 
 sons of the Trinity are gradus, formse, species 
 unius Dei. Thus it is obvious that these philo- 
 sophical fathers of the church entertained far 
 different views of the divinity of the Son and 
 Spirit, of which they often speak, than we do 
 at the present time ; and this because they were 
 more influenced by their Platonic ideas than by 
 the declarations of the holy scriptures. 
 
 But when, in after ages, the learned were no 
 longer familiar with the Platonic ideas by which 
 these early fathers were influenced, they very 
 naturally misunderstood their writings, and, de- 
 ceived by some resemblance of phraseology, 
 attributed to them that system of belief which 
 
 was afterwards established as orthodox. Into 
 this mistake, Bull, Burscher, and many others, 
 have fallen. Various causes conspired to give 
 the opinions on the subject of the Logos, which 
 have now been described, an extensive influence 
 among Christians of a learned and philosophical 
 cast, during the second and third centuries : 
 these opinions were advocated by the most dis- 
 tinguished teachers of that period ; and espe- 
 cially they were in entire agreement with the 
 principles of the Emanation and Platonic phi- 
 losophies, which were then so universally preva- 
 lent. It thus becomes evident that Arianism 
 existed in the church long before the time of 
 Arius ; and that he was only the means of bring- 
 ing to a more full development, and to a more 
 consistent and systematic form, a doctrine which 
 had arisen in a much earlier period. Indeed, 
 the belief in the subordination of the Son to the 
 Father, for which Arianism is the later name, 
 flowing as it did directly from Platonic prin- 
 ciples, was commonly adopted by most of those 
 fathers of the second and third centuries who 
 assented in general to the philosophy of Plato. 
 And had not Divine Providence interposed in a 
 special manner, there is reason to think it would 
 have been the established doctrine of the church. 
 But there was another class of learned, philo- 
 sophizing Christians, who either rejected the 
 principles of the Platonic philosophy, or applied 
 them differently from the orthodox fathers ; and 
 these substituted another theory in place of that 
 which had prevailed on the subject of the Tri- 
 nity, which however, no less than the one which 
 they rejected, was formed rather from their philo- 
 sophical ideas than from the instructions of the 
 Bible. Among the writers of this class was 
 Praxeas, of the second century, to the confuta- 
 tion of whose errors Tertullian devoted an en- 
 tire book. Praxeas contended that the Father, 
 Son, and Spirit were not distinguished from 
 each other as individual subjects; but that God 
 was called Father, so far as he was the creator 
 and governor of the world ; Son (Aoyo$) so far 
 as he had endowed the man Jesus with extra- 
 ordinary powers, and enabled him to teach and 
 to suffer for the good of the world, &c. In ac- 
 cordance with this view, Theodotus denied any 
 higher, pre-existing nature in Christ; and with 
 him Artemon agreed, and in the third century 
 Noetus and Beryllus of Bostra. They agreed 
 in rejecting the existence of the Logos, as a 
 particular subject in God, before the birth of 
 Jesus ; and supposed that what was extraordi- 
 nary in the person of Christ was merely the 
 divine influence of the Father, (called Son, 
 Logos, &c.,) which dwelt in Jesus, and acted 
 through him. But among these opinions, which 
 arose in opposition to the general doctrine of the 
 orthodox fathers, the theory of Sabellius, who 
 flourished in the third century, was the most 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 151 
 
 celebrated. Sabellius regarded the terms Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit, as merely describing; dif- 
 ferent divine works, and various modes of divine 
 i revelation. According to him there is only one 
 divine person (pa vrtoataot^, but a threefold 
 divine work, or three forms (rp/a Ttpotfwrta), in 
 which God has revealed himself to men. With 
 Sabellius agreed, for the most part, Paul of Sa- 
 mosata, who also flourished in the third century. 
 He rejected the personal distinction in the god- 
 head, and in opposition to it, contended that the 
 Son was Ojuoorcrtoj or awovaios ^9 Hatpi i. e., 
 unum idemque cum Patre. It was in this sense 
 of the word 6^00^105, as involving the denial of 
 a personal distinction in the godhead, that it was 
 condemned by the third council held at Antioch. 
 In opposition to these theories, the disciples of 
 the Alexandrine school contended with great 
 ; zeal for the ifadv vrtoataaiv, the proper personality 
 \ of the Logos. 
 
 [Note. The seceders from the catholic faith 
 here described were in the early ages commonly 
 i denominated Monarchians, because they insisted 
 I upon the unity of God, which they supposed in- 
 I fringed by the common doctrine which placed 
 ! three eternal persons in the divine nature. JfeTo- 
 j narchiam tenemus, they said often, when compar- 
 i ing themselves with the orthodox fathers. But 
 j this general class comprehended many who dif- 
 ! fered more from each other than they did even 
 [from those reputed orthodox, and who indeed 
 j had nothing in common but a great zeal for 
 monotheism, and a fear lest the unity of God 
 should be endangered by the hypostases of the 
 I Alexandrine fathers. Without any regard, how- 
 I ever, to these essential differences, all who, in 
 j behalf of the divine unity, in the first centuries, 
 rejected the doctrine of distinct persons in the 
 Deity, are here thrown promiscuously together, 
 as they have commonly been. And Theodotus, 
 Artemon, and Paul of Samosata, are placed by 
 the side of Praxeas, Noetus, Beryllus of Bos- 
 tra, and Sabellius, between whom and them- 
 selves, on every essential point of Christian 
 doctrine, there was a total opposition. They 
 agreed only in denying that the prophoric Lo- 
 gos, whom they admitted as a power or ma- 
 nifestation of the Deity, existed before his in- 
 carnation as a distinct person; while with re- 
 gard to the manner of his being in Christ they 
 differed as widely as possible. Theodotus and 
 his followers supposed this divine energy to be 
 in Christ merely as influence exerted upon him, 
 in the same way as upon the ancient prophets, 
 though in a higher degree. They thus regarded 
 Christ as a man inspired and commissioned by 
 God ; and differed but little in opinion respecting 
 him from the ancient Ebionites, or from modern 
 Unitarians. Praxeas, on the contrary, and those 
 of his school, supposed that this divine, though 
 impersonal energy, or God himself, was in 
 
 Christ, in a manner altogether new and peculiar, 
 not acting upon, but dwelling in and forming 
 one with him. In Christ, then, they saw a full 
 and complete representation of the Deity, and 
 went beyond even the catholic fathers in the 
 views which they entertained of his divinity; 
 so that, in answer to the objections urged against 
 his doctrines, Praxeas is said to have asked his 
 opponents, ri xaxbv rtotw 8o%dtdv "Xpia-tov ', It 
 was on account of this intimate union, and 
 almost identity, for which they contended, be- 
 tween God and Christ, that they were charged 
 by their opponents with teaching that the Father 
 himself suffered in the passion of Christ, and 
 were hence called ^fortaer^tVcu, patripassiani, 
 patripassians. There is plainly, therefore, oc- 
 casion for a subdivision among those who agree 
 in rejecting the previous hypostatical existence 
 of the Logos. 
 
 In the following table the writers of the three 
 first centuries on the subject of the Trinity are 
 ranged according to their opinions. 
 
 CATHOLIC. 
 
 1. Justin the Martyr 
 
 2. Theophilus of Antioch 
 
 3. Athenagoras 
 
 4. Irenseus 
 
 5. Clemens Alexandrinus 
 
 6. Tertullian 
 
 7. Origen 
 
 8. Dionysius Alexandrinus 
 
 9. Cyprian 
 
 10. Novatian 
 
 11. Dionysius Romanus. 
 
 MoifARCHIANS. 
 
 (N) Unitarians. 
 \. Theodotus 
 
 2. Artemon 
 
 3. Paul of Samosata. 
 
 (a) Patripassians. 
 
 1. Praxeas 
 
 2. Noetus 
 
 3. Beryllus of Bostra 
 
 4. Sabellius. 
 
 TK.] 
 
 III. Terms employed in the Discussion of this Doc- 
 trine during the Second and Third Centuries. 
 
 The theologians of this period, in the learned 
 discussion and the scientific statement of this 
 doctrine, made use of some peculiar and appro- 
 priate terms, which they found convenient, as 
 concerted watchwords, to distinguish those of 
 their own party from others who differed from 
 them. Vide Morus, p. 67, 68, s. 12. The 
 more the prevailing theory was controverted, 
 the greater was the number of new terms in- 
 vented by the different parties, who laboured to 
 state their opinions as clearly and distinctly as 
 possible, and thus to secure their system from 
 contradiction. These new modes of expression 
 were first employed in the Oriental church, and 
 were introduced into it from schools of heathen 
 philosophy ; indeed, they can most of them now 
 be found in the writings of Plotinus, Porphyry, 
 Proclus, and other Platonists of that age ; and 
 even those which do not seem to be directly 
 borrowed from this foreign dialect, are yet ana- 
 logous to the terms employed by these Platonic 
 philosophers, and are used in the same sense 
 and spirit which they give to their terms. This 
 newly-invented phraseology was afterwards in- 
 
152 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 troduced from the Grecian church into the Latin, 
 by Tertullian, who enlarged it by some terms 
 of his own. He therefore must be regarded as 
 the principal author of that ecclesiastical dialect 
 on the doctrine of the Trinity, (as well as on 
 the other doctrines,) which was first adopted in 
 the African church, and afterwards generally 
 throughout the Latin church, and which has 
 come down to us improved and extended by his 
 successors. Among the terms which were em- 
 ployed in the discussion of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity during the second and third centuries, 
 the following are the most common viz. : 
 . 1. Tpi'aj. This term is among those which 
 were employed by the Platonic philosophers, 
 Plotinus, Proclus, &c., who spoke of many tri- 
 ads in the Deity. It was first introduced into 
 the discussion of the Trinity among Christians, 
 as far as we can learn, by Theophilus of Anti- 
 och, of the second century ; and was afterwards 
 often used by Origen in the third century. It 
 was translated into the Latin by Tertullian, by 
 the word trinitas; and the phrase trinitatis 
 unitas, answering to the iWutj of Athenagoras, 
 occurs in his book, Adver. Praxeam, c. 2, 3, &c. 
 [Of this word the English trinity is the exact 
 translation.] It is less correctly rendered in 
 German by the word Dreyeinigkeit [the usual 
 term for denoting the Trinity among German 
 theologians; less accurate, however, than the 
 word trinity i because it expresses agreement of 
 affection and will merely, and therefore seems 
 to lean towards tritheism. It contains the same 
 implication as would be expressed in the Eng- 
 lish word trianimity, if such a word may be 
 supposed.] It was at first rendered into German 
 by the word Dreyfaltigkeit [Anglice, triplicity~\, 
 which, however, was opposed by Luther, as fa- 
 vouring the Sabellian view of the divine nature. 
 Basedow recommends that the word Dreyeinheit 
 [triunity~\ be used to denote this doctrine, and 
 to render the Latin trinitas. And this word, it 
 must be confessed, would better express the 
 scriptural doctrine and the theory of the church 
 at the present day than the term commonly 
 employed. It is less proper, however, than 
 Dreyeinigkeit, to express what was intended in 
 the second and third centuries by the terms 
 tfpt'aj, trinitas, trinitatis unitas, which was not 
 so much the unity and perfect equality of nature 
 as simple agreement of will, which is exactly 
 rendered by the word Dreyeinigkeit. The lat- 
 ter word, on the other hand, taken in its common 
 and literal acceptation, does not express the 
 doctrine of the Bible and of the church at the 
 present day, so well as the term Dreyeinheit 
 \triunity.~\ If we wished to designate this 
 doctrine by a German word as various and com- 
 prehensive in its meaning as the Latin trinitas, 
 [English, trinity,] the word Dreyheit would be 
 the best; but if we wished to express more ex- 
 
 actly the doctrine of the Bible, and the present 
 belief of the church, we must prefer the word 
 which Basedow has recommended viz., Drey- 
 einheit [triunity.~\ 
 
 2. Ovtft'a vrtouratftj. These terms were not 
 sufficiently distinguished from each other by 
 the Greek fathers of the second and third cen- 
 turies, and were often used by them as entirely 
 synonymous. Tertullian translates avola, by 
 substantia, and affirms substantial unitatem in the 
 Trinity. By the word vrtoataw the older Greek 
 fathers understood only a really existing subject, 
 in opposition to a nonentity, or to a merely ideal 
 existence; in which sense they also not unfre- 
 quently used the word ovala,. Thus, according 
 to the Platonists, the Aoyos existed in God even 
 from eternity, but at first as an impersonal idea, 
 and became an hypostasis only shortly before the 
 creation of the world, in order that the world 
 might be created by him. The New Platonists 
 employed the word vtyiatdvat, in reference to the 
 deity in itself, and called their triads vrtoatdtifif, 
 or to, vfyiataptva,. Vide Proclus, Tim. p. 131, 
 177. But the meaning of this word has gradu- 
 ally been altered in later times, especially since 
 the fourth century. Vide s. 43, II. 2. 
 
 3. Persona. This word was first employed by 
 Tertullian, in the passage above cited ; and by 
 it he means, an individual, (subjectum intelli- 
 gens,~y a single being, distinguished from others 
 by certain peculiar qualities, attributes, and re- 
 lations ; and so he calls Pater, Filius, Spirit us 
 Sanctus, ires personse, at the same time that be 
 ascribes to them unitas substantiae, because they 
 belong to the divine nature (o-vca'a) existing from 
 eternity. He asserts this in opposition to Prax- 
 eas, who would allow of no distinction between 
 Father, Son, and Spirit. Among the Greeks, 
 Origen is the first who used the word vrtoa-caoif 
 in a sense like that which Tertullian connects 
 with persona ; and he accordingly says, We be- 
 lieve in three vrtocff affiij, Ilowcpa, Tlov, xai ILvsv- 
 ua aycoy. 
 
 ECTION XLIIL 
 
 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DUR- 
 ING THE FOURTH CENTURY ; AND OF THE DIS- 
 TINCTIONS ESTABLISHED AT THE NICENE COUN- 
 CIL, AND SINCE ADOPTED IN THE ORTHODOX 
 CHURCH, 
 
 I. The Trinity, as held in the Fourth Century. 
 
 IT had already been settled by many councils 
 held during the third century, and in the sym- 
 bols which they had adopted in opposition to 
 Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, that the Father 
 must be regarded as really distinguished from 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinguished 
 from both. But there had been as yet no con- 
 troversy among the learned respecting the mu- 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 153 
 
 ual relation of the three persons of the Trinity, 
 >r respecting the question in what the distinction 
 jetween them properly consists ; and these sub- 
 ets were accordingly left as yet undetermined 
 >y the decisions of councils and symbols. Vide 
 s, 42. The learned men of this period, there- 
 ore, entertained different opinions on these sub- 
 ects, and were at liberty to express themselves 
 according to their own convictions. At length, 
 icwever, one of these opinions prevailed over 
 the rest, and through the influence of those 
 athers by whom it was advocated, and through 
 he patronage of the imperial court, was adopted 
 jy the Nicene Council, and authoritatively pre- 
 ;ribed as* a rule of faith of universal obligation. 
 
 Origen and his followers had maintained 
 gainst the Sabellians that there were in God 
 s i>7tocfT'affi$, (tres personae,) but fw*v oi3<yt'av, 
 [una substantia,) which was common to the 
 hree. They had not, however, or at least but 
 efw of them, as yet taught, that these three per- 
 ons were entirely equal to one another ; but, on 
 he contrary, had allowed, in accordance with 
 heir Platonic principles, that the Son, though 
 >elonging to the. divine nature, was yet subor- 
 dinate to the Father. But at length, in the be- 
 rinningof the fourth century, Alexander, Bishop 
 >f Alexandria, and Athanasius, his successor, 
 attempted to unite the hypotheses of Origen-and 
 Sabellius, thinking that the truth lay between 
 he two extremes, and that the subordinate per- 
 sons of Origen, or the one undistinguished na- 
 ture of Sabellius, were alike inconsistent with 
 the representations of the Bible. In forming 
 his theory, Athanasius exhibited great sagacity 
 ind penetration, and it must be allowed to have 
 i decided superiority over the partial and un- 
 scriptural theory of Arius. He stated the per- 
 sonal distinction of the Father and the Son to 
 je, that the former was without beginning and 
 unbcgotten, (amp^os, dysvi/^foj,) while the latter 
 was eternally begotten (ysvi^-i'ds) by the Father, 
 and equally eternal with the Father and the 
 Spirit. 
 
 The Arian controversy began about the year 
 320. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, had 
 taught the doctrine tv tfpuxSt pwaSa sivat. This 
 doctrine was disputed by Arius, a presbyter of 
 Alexandria, who affirmed that it was inconsist- 
 ent with the personal distinction in the Deity, 
 and therefore favoured the Sabellian theory. As 
 the controversy proceeded, the breach widened, 
 and Arius at last distinctly affirmed, in opposi- 
 tion to the Sabellians, that there were not only 
 three persons in God, but that they were unequal 
 in glory (6d|atj oi^ 6/totat) ; that the Father 
 alone was the supreme God (dyaj/i/^oj), and 
 God in a higher sense than the Son ; that the 
 Son derived his divinity from the Father before 
 the creation of the world, and that he owed his 
 existence to the divine will (^Tuj^atfc sen) T 
 20 
 
 Ttpo ouwj/cov xt'ta&atf) ; and that the 
 Holy Spirit was likewise divine in a sense in- 
 ferior to that in which the Father is so. These 
 doctrines were not in reality different from those 
 entertained by the early Christian fathers, who 
 had come under the influence of the New Pla- 
 tonic Philosophy. They were, however, carried 
 out by Arius to all their legitimate consequences, 
 and stated by him in a more distinct form than 
 had been done by any who preceded him. [For 
 a more particular statement of the system of 
 Arius, from his own writings, vide Hahn, Lehr- 
 buch des christ. Glaubens, s. 242 ; Gieseler, 
 b. i. s. 334. Cf. Neander, Allg. Gesch. b. ii. 
 Abth. 2, s. 770.] 
 
 It was not long, however, before different 
 parties arose among the followers of Arius, who 
 adopted different modes of expression. Some 
 maintained that the Son is in all respects unlike 
 the Father, (xata navta, cw/djttots.) [These are 
 called by different names, descriptive of their 
 doctrine viz., avojumot, rfnomoians, also Hete- 
 rousians ; and also after their leaders, Aetius, 
 Bishop at Alexandria, 362 ; Eunomius, Bishop 
 at Cyzicus, 392; Acacius, Eudoxius, &c. 
 This party prevailed at a council held at Sir- 
 miuin, 357, and their confession of faith is con- 
 tained in the Formula Synodi Sirmiensis. TR.] 
 Others contended that the Son, though not of 
 the same, was yet of a similar nature with the 
 Father, (o^otoutftoj ^9 Ttowpt.) [These were 
 called oftoiovGio.G'tai,, 'tfyuapsiot, Semi-Brians^ 
 also Eusebians, from Eusebius, Bishop of Nico- 
 media, who endeavoured to reconcile the ad- 
 herents of Arius and Athanasius. At first, this 
 party was outnumbered by the stricter Arians 
 in the council above mentioned, held at Sir- 
 mium, 357. But under their leaders, Basilius, 
 Bishop of Ancyra, and Georgius, Bishop of 
 Laodicea, they united the year following in a 
 synod at Ancyra, where they rejected alike the 
 Arian and Nicene formulas, and anathematized 
 alike those that held that the Son is avopoiov 
 tc> Tta-r'pc., or that he is 6/j.oovaiov 17 
 tq rtafpu TR.] All the Arians, 
 of whatever party, agreed in rejecting the term 
 o/toovtfios, because, in their view, it set aside the 
 personal distinction in the Deity, and made the 
 Son unum idemque cum Patre. For the same 
 reason, the orthodox of the third century had 
 condemned it in Paul of Samosata. Vide s. 42. 
 But in opposing the Arians, some of the 
 teachers of this period fell into the opposite ex- 
 treme, and professed a scheme substantially the 
 same with that of Sabellius. Of this class were 
 Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, and Photinus, 
 Bishop of Sirmium. [The former of these was 
 a zealous advocate of the Nicene formula, and 
 was probably betrayed by his zeal for the 
 o^toovoftoj, unconsciously, into the error of Sa- 
 bellius. Though condemned by the Arians and 
 
154 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Semi-Arians in a council held at Constantinople, 
 (33l>,) he was approved by the Council held at 
 Sardica, and was favourably regarded by Atha- 
 nasius, and generally in the Western church. 
 Vide Neander, b. ii. Abth. 3, s. 841. Photi- 
 nus, on the other hand, boldly and deliberately 
 advocated Sabellianism, and was condemned 
 not only by the Eusebians, in the second Coun- 
 cil at Antioch, (343,) but also by the Western 
 church in the Council at Milan, (346.) The 
 opposition of the Arians and Semi-Arians 
 against these men, in the council at Sirmiam, 
 very much conduced to the union of all anti- 
 Athanasians. TR.] 
 
 In opposition to all these, and various other 
 theories, Athanasius and his adherents contended 
 with great zeal. Their great object was to find 
 the true medium between Arianism and Sabel- 
 lianism, and to establish certain formulas in op- 
 position to both. And in this they succeeded ; 
 and at a general council at Nice, in the year 325, 
 a symbol was adopted, which was designed to 
 be thenceforward the only standard of orthodoxy. 
 [The Nicene symbol is as follows : " TLiofev- 
 Ojitfv atj sva *6v, Hattpa rtavtoxpdtopu, ndvtu>v 
 updtwv ts xal aopdt&v rtoiqtqv. Kat ftj tva 
 Kuptov 'Inflow XptffT'oi', tov Ttov tov EOU, ysv- 
 vr^ivta, tx tov TLatpos, p.ovo'ytvr], tovttativ, tx 
 Crfi ovataj tov Ila-fpoj, &sov tx fov, (J>u>j ix <J>wros, 
 tbv afarj&vbv ix sou aKyfewov, ysvvrj^svta, ov 
 rtoirj'&tvtn, o/jioovijiov tct Hatpi, 01 ov fa rtavta 
 fytvtto, to, ts iv tq ovpavci xai fa ev ty yjy, tov 
 8t' fjfia,^ tov$ di^ptoTtovj xai Sid, trjv g^u.st'Epav cjcot rj- 
 piav xo,tsk$6vta, xai aapxco^tv-r'a, xai f 
 oav-r'a, rta&bvta xai, avarftctvta ty tpit 1 *] ^jut 
 
 t$ tov$ ovpavoi)$, xai IftjfOfUVW xpivat, 
 xai vtxpov$. Kat t$ -to dyiov 
 8s Xeyoi'T'aj, OT't r/v rto-tf bts ovx ^v, xat 
 ^tvai ovx iv, xai oi?i> t| ovx 
 
 i^ Tiov -rov SOD, 
 
 17 xa^oXtxjy ^xx^crta."] This sym- 
 bol was confirmed at the council held at Con- 
 stantinople in the year 381, under Theodosius 
 the Great, and so enlarged as to meet certain 
 heresies which had in the meantime arisen. [A 
 sect called rtvsvpaifopdzoi, Pneumatomachians^ 
 who agreed generally in opinion with the Semi- 
 Arians, maintained that the Holy Spirit has not 
 the same relation to the Father which the Son 
 has, but derives his existence directly from the 
 Son. Those of this sect were afterwards called 
 Macedonians, in honour of Macedonius, who 
 was deposed from office by the stricter Arians 
 on account of his adherence to this doctrine. 
 In opposition to this doctrine it was that the fol- 
 lowing addition was made to the Nicene formula 
 respecting the Holy Spirit: TL^-ttvo^v st? to 
 oytov IIvi) j u.a, (T*O Kvptov, to cfwortotov, to tx 
 tov IlaT'poj exrtope vopf vov, to avv Horfpi, 
 xai Tt(j> avfATCpoiSxvvovpwov xat rfwdolioU^usi/oi/, to 
 
 8id tMV rtpo^t'cav.) Respecting the 
 clause to ix tov TJarpoj txrtopEvo/juvov, a serioos 
 difference afterwards arose, which ended at 
 length, in the eleventh century, in the entire 
 division of the Eastern and Western churches 
 which still subsists. Vide No. III. I. (c) 
 Third, of this section. TR.] 
 
 The distinctions established at the Councils 
 of Nice and Constantinople were often re-en- 
 acted at various councils during the succeeding 
 ages. To the Arians, however, and to many 
 who were not Arians, they still appeared to be 
 not only unfounded but injurious. They in- 
 sisted that trithtism was the inevitable conse- 
 quence of the admission of these distinctions, 
 though Athanasius strongly protested against 
 this conclusion. Some were actually accused 
 of tritheism during the sixth century, though 
 they probably were chargeable with no other 
 fault than an unguarded use of language. [The 
 principal writers who fell under suspicion of 
 tritheism were John Ascosnages, a learned 
 Syrian, and teacher of philosophy at Constan- 
 tinople, A. D. 565; and his disciple, John Phi- 
 loponus, a celebrated grammarian of Alexandria, 
 A. D. 641. Among the schoolmen, Roscellinus, 
 Gilbert de la Porree, Peter Abellard, and Jo- 
 achim of Flora, were condemned on account of 
 tritheism. TR.] 
 
 Notwithstanding all opposition, however, the 
 distinctions adopted in the Council at Nice re- 
 mained in force; and so carefully were they 
 guarded, that during the whole period between 
 the fourth and the sixteenth centuries but few 
 were found bold enough to dissent, or to broach 
 any novelties, and those few found scarcely any 
 adherents. Even the schoolmen, who were so 
 much addicted to speculate and refine on other 
 subjects, remained faithful, as a body, to the 
 distinctions once established on the subject of 
 the Trinity. 
 
 II. Terms employed in the Discussion of this Doc- 
 trine since the Nicene Council. 
 
 1. Ovai'a, substantia. This term, like all the 
 others in common use in the discussion of this 
 doctrine, is in itself very ambiguous, and was 
 employed in various senses even by the ecclesi- 
 astical fathers of this period. It was used to 
 signify (a) whatever really exists, in opposition 
 to what has no existence, or exists merely in 
 imagination. Vide s. 42. (&) Whatever exists 
 for itself has personal self-subsistence, in short, a 
 person. Hence some, in opposition to Sabellius, 
 spake of -rpftj ovviai, ev SQ. (c) The entire sum 
 of the attributes which belong to a thing, its na- 
 ture. In this sense it was employed when it 
 was said that three persons belonged to the 
 owJa wv. Hence the phrase o^toovtjtoj, con- 
 substaniialis. 
 
 2. "^rtoafatftj and rtotfwtoi'. The former 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 155 
 
 of these words gave occasion to much contro- 
 versy on account of its ambiguity, some con- 
 tending for jjiiav V7t6(ffaijiv, others for T'PEIJ iuto- 
 or*i<mj. Before the Nicene Council, as we 
 have seen, s. 42, vrtoataois and cnkrux were em- 
 ployed by the ecclesiastical fathers as synony- 
 mous ; even in the Nicene symbol they appear 
 as interchangeable words, (vrt.6<rta<jt,s <?j orcaa;) 
 and Hieronyinus, still later, contended for unam 
 hypostasin (i. e., trtWow) in God. But, as we 
 before said, Origen had previously contended 
 that there were fpstj vrtoatdasis and JJLIO, ovaia 
 in God, making a distinction between these 
 words. In this he was followed by many 
 writers; and at length this distinction which he 
 had introduced was established by ecclesiastical 
 authority in opposition to the Arians; although 
 many still continued, according to the ancient 
 custom, to use vrtorstaais and ovaia one for the 
 other. In order to obviate the perplexity thus 
 occasioned, and to put an end to the strife about 
 words, many writers in the Greek church be- 
 gan, shortly after the Nicene Council, to use 
 the word -tpocrwrtov instead of vTtov-taa^. The 
 former of these is an exact translation of the 
 persona, which had been before introduced into 
 the Latin church by Tertullian. But neither 
 was this word free from ambiguity ; and it was 
 objected to by many, because it seemed to fa- 
 vour the theory of Sabellius, who was willing 
 to admit that in the divine nature there were 
 three Ttpoaurta,, meaning by the word different 
 aspects or forms in which God revealed himself 
 to men. The orthodox, however, employed this 
 term in the sense in which it had been used by 
 Tertullian, and afterwards by Augustine and 
 others. Vide s. 42. The sense they intended 
 to convey by it was, that the three subjects 
 spoken of were truly distinguished from each 
 other, and acted each for himself, eos esse a se 
 iirvicem sic distinctos, ut singulis sua intelligentia 
 et sua actio tribuenda sit, Morus, p. 67, s. 12. 
 And that this is a truth taught in the Bible must 
 be evident to all who impartially examine its 
 instructions. It was with a particular reference 
 to the Sabellian theory that this word was 
 adopted by the fathers. In opposition to this 
 theory they also sometimes said, the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit were datoj xai uM.o$ i. e., 
 different subjects, though not aMx> xai aMx> i. 
 e., of different nature, as the Arians affirmed. 
 
 3. 'Ctyiooutftoj, consubstantialis, Morus, p. 69, 
 s. 13, No. 2 one of the most difficult and con- 
 troverted of all the terms employed on this doc- 
 trine. According to the oldest Greek usage it 
 signifies, what belongs to the same species, or has 
 the same nature, being, properties, with another 
 thing. Thus Aristotle says, rtdv-ta fa oujr'pa 
 opoovoia, and Plato says, respecting souls, that 
 they are O/AOOVGKU ^9. Thus, too, Chrysostom 
 says, Adam was upoovsios with Eve, and re- 
 
 specting Jupiter and Neptune, Horner says, 
 a^oTs'poKjtv ofibv ylvoj, both were of one race, 
 born of one father, II. xiii. 354, seq. This term 
 had been used by the Sabellians and Paul of 
 Samosata, in the third century, to signify an en- 
 tire indentity of nature; and when they said the 
 Son was o^oovcaoj 1-9 jtatpi., they meant that he 
 was unum idemque, so that no personal distinc- 
 tion existed between them. Hence this term 
 was rejected by the orthodox of that period. 
 Vide s. 42. But when, in the fourth century, 
 at the Nicene Council, the Arians too rejected 
 it, supposing it to mean, what they denied, that 
 the nature of the Son was the same with that of 
 the Father; the orthodox then adopted it, ex- 
 pressly guarding, however, against the Sabel- 
 lian misinterpretation. They explained them- 
 selves thus : The Son was not created (XTHG- 
 &i,$, rtoM^sij), but eternally generated 
 from the nature of the Father, 
 oj,) and is therefore in all respects equal to 
 him, and no more different, as to nature, from. 
 God than a human son is from his father, and 
 so cannot be separated from the Father. In this 
 way was the term o^oovcftoj denned by the ortho- 
 dox fathers, so as to guard alike against the 
 Arians and Sabellians. What the relation de- 
 signated by this term is they never positively 
 explained ; nor could they do so, since we are 
 unable to form any ideas respecting the internal 
 connexion in the godhead. All that they meant 
 to teach by the use of this word was, that the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had the divine na- 
 ture and divine perfections so in common that 
 one did not possess more and another less; 
 without asserting, however, that there were 
 three Gods; in short, that in the godhead there 
 were tres distincti, unitate essentias conjuneti. 
 This is the doctrine contained in the creeds of 
 the Lutheran church. It admits of a simple 
 and intelligible explanation, and in the manner 
 now pointed out may be kept clear from refine- 
 ment and subtlety. Vide Morus, p. 69, 70, s. 
 13, extr. n. 2. Moreover, it is a doctrine which 
 is taught in the Bible, as we have seen in chap- 
 ter first of this article. 
 
 III. The characteristics by which these persons may 
 be distinguished from one another. 
 
 If these three supposita are really distinguished 
 from one another, there must be some signs by 
 which this distinction can be recognised; and 
 these signs must be of such a nature as to indi- 
 cate a real personal distinction. In short, we 
 must be able by these signs to distinguish these 
 subjects, not merely as different names or attri- 
 butes of God, or as different modes by which he 
 has revealed himself to men, but as really dis- 
 tinct persons. Now there are two classes of 
 signs (characteres personaks, sive hypostatict, 
 a tfitw^a-fa axftixa} by which theolo- 
 
156 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 gians undertake to distinguish these persons 
 from one another. 
 
 1. Internal, characteres interni. These are 
 distinctive signs which arise from the internal 
 relation of the three persons in the godhead to 
 each other, and which indicate the mode of the 
 divine existence, (peculiaris subsistendi modus, 
 tpojtos o>7tapf fcoj.) They are also called proprie- 
 tates personales. To discover and explain what 
 is this internal relation which exists in the god- 
 head is indeed a difficult task, since we have no 
 definite notions respecting the internal nature 
 of the Divine Being. But rather than pass the 
 subject in silence, theologians have laid down 
 the following distinctions, which they derive 
 from the names Father, Son, and Spirit, and 
 from some other Biblical phraseology. 
 
 (a) The Father generates the Son, and emits 
 the Holy Spirit, general Filium, spiral Spiritum 
 Sanctum ; and possesses, therefore, as his per- 
 sonal attributes, generatio activa and spiratio 
 activa. By these representations nothing more 
 is intended than that the divine nature was com- 
 municated from eternity to the Son and Holy 
 Spirit, and that there is a certain internal, ne- 
 cessary, and eternal relation between the Father, 
 Son, and Spirit, which, however, we are not able 
 fully to explain. This personal characteristic 
 of the Father was called by the early writers 
 apapgMh paternitas. "I5toi> tov narpo$ 
 ta, said Gregory Nazianzen, Oral. 31. 
 " Pair is est GENERARE, non GENERARI." Ac- 
 cordingly, the Father was said to be avap^oj 
 wyivvrjtos, artj'fixJT'oj, aiJT'o^foj, rt^yjj, alrt,a,fons, 
 radix, principium divinitatis. 
 
 (6) The Son is generated by the Father ; Filii 
 
 est GENERARI, non GENERARE ', ibiov -toy Tlov q 
 
 ytw^u;, according to Gregory, in the passage 
 above cited. So that the Son possesses as his 
 personal attributes, yzcMpTM, filiatio generatio 
 passiva, and also, as he is supposed to emit the 
 Spirit in conjunction with the Father, spiratio 
 activa ; with regard to the latter characteristic, 
 however, there was dispute between the Eastern 
 and Western church, of which we shall shortly 
 
 (c) The Holy Spirit neither generates nor is 
 generated, but proceeds from the Father and Son; 
 Spiritus Sancti est, nee generare nee generari, sed 
 PROCEDERE ; tStov ifov TLvv l ud'to$ fy 
 said Gregory, as above. What he calls I 
 is called by other Greek writers, ttvoq, rfpoj3oa,jj, 
 and by Basilius, rfpoo5o$ i x QBOV. 
 
 Respecting these attempts to determine ex- 
 actly in what the internal distinction between 
 the persons in the godhead consists, we have to 
 remark, 
 
 First, that they were wholly unknown to the 
 oldest writers, both of the Greek and Latin 
 church, and were first made by the catholic party 
 of the fourth century, when they wished to draw 
 
 the line of distinction between themselves ai.d 
 the Arians on the one hand, and the Sabellians 
 on the other, as finely as possible, as we have 
 already seen in No. I. 
 
 Secondly. In stating these internal personal 
 characteristics of the three persons in the god- 
 head, theologians have indeed selected terms 
 which occur in the Bible, (such as beget, proceed, 
 &c.,) and would seem to have drawn their whole 
 phraseology on this subject directly from thence. 
 But even if we should allow that these terms are 
 always used in the Bible to denote the internal 
 relation existing between these divine persons, 
 we should not be at all advanced by them in oui 
 knowledge of what this relation is, since we aro 
 wholly unable to detect that secret meaning 
 which lies concealed beneath them, and which 
 God has not seen fit to reveal. We cannot con- 
 cede, however, that all these terms are used in 
 the Bible to denote the communication of the 
 divine nature and the internal relation existing 
 between the persons of the Trinity; certainly 
 not, that they are always so used. The term to 
 beget, for example, denotes in many passages, 
 not the communication of the divine nature to the 
 Son of God, but his appointment to the kingly 
 office, or the Messiahship. Thus the passage, 
 Psa. ii. 7, Thou art my Son, this day have I be- 
 gotten thee, though often cited in the New Tes- 
 tament, is never brought to prove the divine na- 
 ture of the Son of God, but is always supposed 
 to refer to the confirmation of his Messiahship 
 by his resurrection from the dead. The same 
 might be said of many other passages in which 
 similar phraseology is used. Vide s. 34, No. 
 4; s. 37, ad finem; and Morus, p. 64, n. 2. 
 The name Son of God is indeed, in some pas- 
 sages, given to Christ, in designation of his 
 higher nature, his equality with the Father, and 
 his internal relation to him ; though even then it 
 does not enable us to understand what this re- 
 lation is, which we have reason to think lies 
 beyond the reach of our knowledge. All the 
 idea which we are justified in deriving from this 
 name is, that Christ as truly participates in the 
 divine nature as the Father, tea fp Ilatpi, just 
 as, among men, the son as truly participates in 
 human nature as the father, laa Hatpi, av^purtq. 
 Again, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the 
 Father, which is spoken of, John xv. 26, denotes 
 merely his being sent and commissioned, and by 
 no means his divine nature and internal relation 
 to the Father and the Son. Vide s. 39, II. 1 ; 
 and Morus, p. 67, note. 
 
 Thirdly. With regard to the Holy Spirit more 
 particularly, we may remark, that during the 
 first three centuries of the Christian era there 
 was nothing decided by ecclesiastical authority 
 respecting his nature, the characteristics of his 
 person, or his relation to the Father and the Son. 
 The learned men of this period, therefore, being 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 157 
 
 left unshackled by authority, indulged them- 
 selves freely in philosophizing upon this subject, 
 and adopted very different theories; as we find 
 in the writings of Justin the Martyr, Origen, and 
 others. Cf. s. 42. Nor was anything more 
 definite with regard to his nature and his rela- 
 tion to the other persons of the Trinity than what 
 has already been stated, established by the 
 council at Nice, or even by that at Constantino- 
 ple. To believe in the Holy Spirit, to ovv 
 llcwpi) XM Tt^j (Sv/Artpoaxwovpsvov, and tx tov 
 Hatpos fxTtopsuo^f vov, was all that was 
 required in the symbol there adopted. It was 
 i not long, however, before dissension arose with 
 i regard to the latter phrase between the Greek 
 j and Latin church. The Greek fathers adhered 
 
 * for the most part to this formula, without going 
 ; into any more minute distinctions; so Basilius, 
 j Gregory of Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, and 
 
 others ; though Epiphanius added to the formula, 
 ; tx fov riatpos xjtopf.v6[Avov, the explanatory 
 
 clause, tx Tfov Ttov ka^jSou/ov, according to John, 
 xvi. 15; and John of Damascus, in the eighth 
 ; century, represented that the Spirit did not pro- 
 ceed from the Son, but from the Father through 
 \ the Son a representation which had before been 
 i made by Novatian, (Spiritum Sanctum a Paire 
 per Filium procedere,} and which undoubtedly 
 i \vas derived from John, xv. 26, I will send you 
 ike. Comforter from the Father. With this modi- 
 fication the formula adopted by the Council at 
 Constantinople, and appended to the Nicene 
 symbol, was retained in the Greek church. But 
 there were many, especially in the Latin church, 
 who maintained that the Holy Spirit did not 
 proceed from the Father only, but also from the 
 Son. They appealed to John, xvi. 13, and to 
 the texts where the Holy Spirit is called the 
 Spirit of Christ e. g., Rom. viii. 9, seq. To 
 this doctrine the Greeks were for the most part 
 opposed, because they did not find that the Spirit 
 was ever expressly said in the New Testament 
 to proceed from the Son. It prevailed, however, 
 more and more in the Latin church; and when, 
 in the fifth and sixth centuries, the Arians, who 
 then prevailed very much in Spain, urged it as 
 an argument against the equality of Christ with 
 the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeded from 
 the Father only, and not from the Son, the ca- 
 tholic churches of that region began to hold more 
 decidedly that the Holy Spirit proceeded from 
 both, (ab utroque,*) and to insert the adjunct Fi- 
 lioque after Paire in the Symbolum Nicseno-Con- 
 xtuntinopolitanum. In this the churches of Spain 
 were followed, first by those of France, and at a 
 later period by nearly all the Western churches. 
 But as the Eastern church still adhered substan- 
 tially to the more' ancient formula, it accused the 
 Western church of falsifying the Nicene sym- 
 bol ; and thus at different periods, and especially 
 in the seventh and ninth centuries, violent con- 
 
 troversies arose between them. The true causes 
 of these unhappy dissensions were, however, 
 very different from those which were alleged ; 
 and we have reason to suspect that they were 
 less animated by zeal for the truth than by the 
 mutual jealousies of the Roman and Byzantine 
 bishops. But to whatever cause they are to be 
 ascribed, these disputes terminated in the ele- 
 venth century in that entire separation of the 
 Eastern and Western churches which continues 
 to the present time. Cf. Morus, p. 67, s. 11, 
 note. Walch, Historia Controversies Graecorum 
 Latinorumque de processione Spiritus Sancti ; 
 Jense, 1751, 8vo. Ziegler, Geschichtsentwicke- 
 lung des Dogma vom hejligen Geist, th. i. 
 Num. 2 of his "Theologische Abhandlungen," 
 where he gives an historical account of the doc- 
 trine of the Holy Spirit from the time of Justin 
 the Martyr. Cf. especially s. 204, ff. of this 
 essay. [Respecting the controversy in the 
 Eastern and Western church concerning the 
 Holy Spirit, cf. also Neander, b. ii. Abth. 2, s. 
 891 ; and Hahn, Lehrbuch, &c., s. 247, s. 57.] 
 Note. Since these ecclesiastical terms de cha- 
 raderibus personalibus internis have now become 
 common, they cannot be entirely omitted in the 
 religious instruction of the people. Let the doc- 
 trine, therefore, (according to the advice of 
 Morus, p. 64, No. 2, and p. 67, Note extr.) be 
 first expressed plainly and scripturally thus: 
 The Son is equal to the Father, and has the same 
 nature with him ; but has this from eternity 
 through the Father. It may then be remarked, 
 that this doctrine is briefly expressed by the 
 words, the Son is generated by the Father. Re- 
 specting the Holy Spirit, let it be said, That he 
 is equal to the Father and Son, and possesses 
 the same nature with them; and it may then be 
 added, that this is commonly expressed by the 
 words, he proceeds from the Father and from the 
 Son. 
 
 2. External, characteres externi. Morus, p. 
 68. Note 3. These are characteristics of the 
 persons of the Trinity arising from the works of 
 the Deity relating to objects extrinsic to itself, 
 and called opera externa, sive, ad extra. They 
 are twofold : 
 
 (a) Opera Dei seconomica, those institutions 
 which God has founded for the salvation of the 
 human race. They are the following: The 
 Father sent the Son to redeem men, John, iii. 
 Ifi, 17. He also gives or sends the Holy Spirit, 
 John, xiv. 26. The Son is sent from the Father 
 to accomplish the work of redemption, and sends 
 the Holy Spirit from the Father, John, xv. 26. 
 The Holy Spirit formed the human nature of 
 Christ, Luke, i. 35, and anointed it, (unxit, Acts, 
 x. 38,) i. e., endowed it with gifts; and is sent 
 into the hearts of men, and carries them forward 
 towards moral perfection. 
 
 (6) Opera Dei attributiva, such divine works 
 
158 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 as are common to the three persons, and are 
 sometimes predicated of them all; but which 
 still are frequently ascribed (attributive) to one 
 of the three. Theologians, therefore, have the 
 rule, Opera ad extra (attributiva), tribus personis 
 sunt communia. To the Father is ascribed the 
 decree to create the world, the actual creation, 
 and the preservation of it. To the Son also, the 
 creation, preservation, and government of the 
 world is ascribed ; also the raising of the dead 
 and sitting in judgment. To the Holy Spirit is 
 ascribed the immediate revelation of the divine 
 will to the prophets, the continuation of the 
 great work of salvation commenced by Christ, 
 and the communication and application to men 
 of the means of grace. [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, 
 s. 238.] 
 
 SECTION XLIV. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 
 SINCE THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION. 
 
 IF we consider how obscure and full of diffi- 
 culties the doctrine of the Trinity must have 
 been, as commonly taught after the Nicene 
 Council, we shall not wonder, that when, in the 
 sixteenth century, the spirit of inquiry and spe- 
 culation revived in the West, many attempts 
 should have been made to illustrate and explain 
 the prevailing theory, to rectify its mistakes, or 
 wholly to abandon it for another more rational 
 and scriptural. Many of the writers, whose in- 
 tention it was to explain and vindicate the an- 
 cient theory adopted at the Council of Nice, 
 unconsciously deviated from it, and thus placed 
 themselves in the ranks of the heretics. None, 
 however, of the very numerous attempts which 
 have been made since the sixteenth century to 
 illustrate this doctrine, and vindicate it against 
 the objections of reason, can lay claim to entire 
 originality. The germ, at least, of many mo- 
 dern hypotheses may be found in the writings 
 which belong to the period between the second 
 and fourth centuries ; arid after all the inquiries 
 then made, and the theories then published, it 
 is not probable that much remains to be said. 
 Nearly all, therefore, of those who have written 
 on this subject since the Reformation, belong to 
 some one of the general classes which have been 
 before mentioned ; though it needs to be re- 
 marked, that those who bear a common name 
 often belong to very different classes. This 
 was the case with those who spread from Italy 
 in such numbers in the sixteenth century, under 
 the general name of Unitarians. 
 
 1. Some have attempted to illustrate and ex- 
 plain this doctrine by philosophy ; and not a few 
 have gone so far as to think that they could 
 prove the Trinity a priori, and that reason alone 
 furnishes sufficient arguments for its truth ; 
 though others of this class have looked to reason 
 
 for nothing more than an illustration of this faol 
 with regard to the divine existence, for the know- 
 ledge of wrftch they believed man indebted to 
 revelation alone. In the latter class we may 
 place Philip Melancthon, who, in his " Loci 
 Theologici," explained the Trinity in the fol- 
 lowing somewhat Platonic manner : God, from 
 his infinite understanding, produces thought, 
 which is the image of himself. Our minds, too, 
 produce thoughts, which are the images of 
 things; but we are not able to impart personal 
 existence to our thoughts; to his thought, how- 
 exer, God can do this; and this his thought 
 bears the impress of the Father, is his likeness 
 and resemblance, and is hence called by John, 
 Xoyoj. This illustration of the Trinity was re- 
 received without offence or suspicion, until the 
 heresy which lurks beneath it was detected and 
 exposed by Flacius. In connexion with this 
 illustration, we may mention those drawn from 
 nature. Many such are found in the writings 
 of the fathers. Take, for example, that of Au- 
 gustine, drawn from the human sou/, which, he 
 says, is one substance, with three principal pow- 
 ers, memory, understanding, and will; respect- 
 ing which it may be remarked, that it is hard to 
 see why many other powers might not have been 
 named as well as these. Vide Semler, Inst. ad 
 doctrinam Christianam, 305. Or take, as an- 
 other example, that illustration of the Trinity 
 given at an earlier period by Lactantius, who 
 compares it with light, which unites in itself 
 fire, splendour, and heat. In all illustrations 
 of this nature the fault is, that the mere powers 
 and qualities of things which have no personal 
 existence are used to represent the subsistence 
 of a trinity in unity. Hence such illustrations 
 are more favourable to the theory of Sabellius 
 than to the doctrine of the Trinity drawn from 
 the Bible, and established at the Council atNice. 
 The latest attempt to explain the Trinity in this 
 manner may be found in the September number 
 of the " Berliner Monatschrift," for the year 
 1790, s. 280, where there is an article entitled, 
 " Neues Gleichniss von der Dreyeinigkeit," 
 written by Schwab, counsellor, and professor 
 at Stuttgard. Space, he says, cannot be seen, 
 felt, or recognised by any of our senses, and yet 
 must be regarded, he thinks, as something sub- 
 stantial. It is, indeed, extended, and still one. 
 This one substance has, however, three distinct 
 dimensions, which are not arbitrarily assumed, 
 and which cannot be considered merely as parts 
 or accidents of space, but which belong essen- 
 tially to it viz., length, breadth, and thickness. 
 Some chemists and theosophists suppose that 
 there is, throughout the whole kingdom of na- 
 ture, and even in material bodies, a threefold 
 elementary principle, (as to the nature of which, 
 however, they are not agreed,) and they refer to 
 this as an illustration of the Trinity. 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 159 
 
 But, as we have said, there were others who 
 supposed that the Trinity could not only be 
 illustrated by reason, but mathematically proved 
 & priori. Among these were Bartholomew Kec- 
 kermann, who wrote a " SystemaTheologicum," 
 Peter Poiret, and Daries, who published an Es- 
 say, " in qua pluralitas personarum in Deitate e 
 sojis rationis principiis, method o Mathemati- 
 corum, demonstratur;" Leovardiae, 1735, 8vo. 
 The attempt of this kind which deserves most 
 attention is that made by Reusch, a celebrated 
 theologian and philosopher of Jena, in his "In- 
 troductioin theologiam revelatam," an attempt 
 which was regarded by the late Dr. Gruner as 
 entirely successful, and was adopted by him 
 substantially in his "Institutions theol. dog- 
 mat," 1. i. c. 5. This demonstration is very 
 much as follows : In the divine understanding 
 lere are three acts : (a) God comprehends in 
 understanding the ideas of all things which 
 can be conceived, and so far as he does this he 
 is called Father,- (b) he connects these ideas 
 as means to an end, and devises all possible 
 schemes or connexions of things in the possible 
 world, and so far he is called Son; (c) from all 
 these possible schemes, he selects, by his infi- 
 nite wisdom, that which is best, and so far is 
 I called Holy Spirit. These acts of the divine 
 understanding, in each of which there must have 
 been a special exercise of the divine will, must 
 be supposed distinct from each other; and yet, 
 being in God, they cannot have been successive ; 
 and, finally, they must be regarded as personal, 
 or as actus hypostatici, and be designated by 
 particular personal names. But how this last 
 consequence follows, it is hard to see ; and where 
 is the text from which it can he made to appear 
 that any one of the inspired writers connected 
 any such ideas with the names Father, Son, and 
 Spirit? Another metaphysical demonstration 
 has been proposed by Dr. Cludius, in his inau- 
 gural disputation, Philosophica expositio et de- 
 fensio dogmatis orthodoxi de Trinitate ; Gottin- 
 
 
 2. There have also been some in modern times 
 who have expressed themselves so boldly on the 
 subject of the Trinity that they have seemed to 
 approximate towards tritheism, like those whom 
 we have already mentioned in the sixth century. 
 Vide s. 43, I. ad finem. To pass by those who 
 have merely been unguarded in the manner in 
 which they have defended and interpreted the 
 Athanasian theory, we may mention in this class, 
 Matthew Gribaldus, a Jurist of Padua, who flou- 
 rished in the sixteenth century, and was for 
 some time professor at Tubingen. He main- 
 tained that the divine nature consisted of three 
 equally eternal spirits, between whom, however, 
 he admitted a distinction in respect to rank and 
 perfections. [Henry Nicolai, William Sher- 
 lock, and Pierre Faydit, belong to this class.] 
 
 3. Other modern writers have inclined to 
 adopt the Sabellian theory as the ground of their 
 views on the Trinity. Among these is Michael 
 Serveto, or Seryetus, a native of Spain in the 
 sixteenth century, who published his views in 
 seven books, "De trinitatis erroribus," and in 
 his Dialogues, " De Trinitate." He taughtthat 
 there is one God, who, however, has made known 
 his will to men in two personales represeniationes 
 i. e., personal, or personified modes of reve- 
 lation, called Aoyoj and HVEVJJ.O, ayiov. For these 
 opinions he was brought to the stake by Calvin, 
 at Geneva, 1553. Vide Mosheim, Leben Ser- 
 vet's ; Helmstadt, 1748, 8vo, republished with 
 additions at the same place, 1750. The repre- 
 sentation of the Trinity which Grotius gives in 
 his " Silvee Sacrs" leans towards Sabellianism, 
 and agrees substantially with the theory ad- 
 vanced by Stephen Nye, an Englishman, in his 
 " Doctrine of the Trinity ;" London, 170K 
 God, he said, is a being who knew and loved 
 himself from eternity; and his understanding is 
 the Son, and his affection the Holy Spirit. [For 
 a more full statement of this supposed demon- 
 stration of the Trinity, vide Lessing, Das Chris- 
 tenthum und die Vernunft; Berlin, 1784, 8vo. 
 Mich. Sailer, Theorie des weisen ; Spottes, 
 1781, 8vo. Marheinecke, Grundlehren der 
 christ. Dogmatik, s. 129, 370, seq.; Berlin, 
 1819. Leibnitz, Defensio logica Trinitatis.] 
 
 In this class we must place the hypothesis of 
 Le Clerc, who supposes that the terms Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit, designate the different 
 modifications of the divine understanding, and 
 the plans which God forms. God is called the 
 Father, so far as his understanding comprehends 
 all things and surveys them at once ; Son and 
 Holy Spirit, so far as he produces and executes 
 a particular thought. Of the same nature is the 
 view of the Trinity which Dr. Loffler has ap- 
 pended to his translation of Souverain. In God, 
 he says, according to the New Testament, there- 
 is but one subject,- the Logos and Spirit are his 
 attributes, powers, relations, or modes of opera- 
 tion, and the term, Son of God, so far as it de- 
 notes a personal subject, is applicable only to 
 the man Jesus. Among the Arminians, and 
 even among the Puritans of England, there have' 
 always been many who have inclined towards- 
 Sabellianism. [This is the error into which 
 Weigel and Jacob Boehmen fell, and which has- 
 always proved more seductive than any other to- 
 mystics and pietists, and persons who have- 
 mingled feeling and imagination with philoso- 
 phical investigation. In this divergency from 
 the established creed of the church, by far a 
 greater proportion of the modern theologians 
 and philosophers of Germany are found than in 
 the Arian heresy, which was formerly so much 
 more prevalent. They have so explained the 
 Trinity as to lose the idea of three divine persons 
 
160 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 in the godhead, for which they have substituted 
 either three distinct powers or attributes, (as 
 Meier, Seiler, Cludius, and Tollner,) or a three- 
 fold agency in God three eternal actions dis- 
 tinct from each other, as S. G. Schlegel, Kant, 
 Tieftrunk, Daub, Schelling, De Wette, and 
 Fessler. Among these Sabellian hypotheses, 
 the one which is less devious from scriptural 
 truth, and which is defended with the most so- 
 ber argument, is that of Schleiermacher, who 
 supposes that the established doctrine of the 
 Trinity is a proposition which connects what 
 we are taught in the scripture as to the three- 
 fold mode of the divine existence viz., the 
 being of God in himself, absolutely considered ; 
 his being in Christ(the Son,) and his being in 
 the Christian church (the Spirit.) To this view 
 Neander appears inclined, from his general re- 
 marks prefixed to his history of this doctrine, 
 and also Tholuck, from various passages in his 
 Commentary on John. For a more full state- 
 ment of these modern Sabellian hypotheses, cf. 
 Hahn, s. 57, Anm. 3, a.; and s. 58, Anm. 
 2, /. ; Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 68, 
 82. TR.] 
 
 4. The Arian theory (which, however, we 
 have shewn, s. 43, to be in every important re- 
 spect older than Arius) has also found advocates 
 among protestant theologians, especially those 
 of the eighteenth century. Some, especially in 
 England, embraced and zealously defended the 
 entire system of the high Arians of former times 
 e. g., Whiston, Harwood, and even Wetstein. 
 But the system which has met with the most 
 approbation is that more refined subordinationism 
 taught by Sam. Clark, in his " Scripture Doc- 
 trine of the Trinity ;" London, 1712; which was 
 translated into German, and published with a 
 preface by Semler , Leipzig, 1774. Vide Morus, 
 p. 69, s. 15, note 1. It had not a few advocates 
 among the English, especially of the presbyte- 
 rian order, and among the Armenian theolo- 
 gians of Holland, as well as among protestants 
 elsewhere. The names of Whitby, Benson, 
 and (Priestley]) are found on the list of its de- 
 fenders in England. This theory is as fol- 
 lows: God is the author of all things. With 
 him existed from the beginning (so indefinite 
 is the statement of Clark) the Logos and the 
 Spirit, both as personal subjects. What their 
 real internal nature and connexion is cannot 
 indeed be known, but so much the scrip- 
 ture reveals, that the Father alone is self-ex- 
 istent avtoovGios) and the source and author 
 of all the works and agency of the Son and 
 Holy Spirit. How the Son received his be- 
 ing before the creation of the world cannot be 
 determined ; but he has in fact received, com- 
 municated to him from the Father, all the com- 
 municable divine perfections. He is not to be 
 
 regarded as himself the creator of the world, but 
 was employed by the Father as his organ in 
 this work. Though subordinate to the Father, 
 he yet claims from us divine honour. The 
 Holy Spirit derives his origin from the Father, 
 is dependent upon the Father and the Son, and 
 subordinate to them ; he yet has a nature supe- 
 rior to that of angels, and is intermediate, as it 
 were, between them and the Son. The subor- 
 dination of persons taught in this theory, though 
 subtile, is yet so evident that its advocates are 
 justly called subordinationists. This mode of 
 representation is by no means new, and, as we 
 have shewn, s. 42, 43, was common in the se- 
 cond and third centuries, long before Arius ap- 
 peared. It resulted naturally from the applica- 
 tion of the principles of the Platonic philosophy 
 to the declarations of the Bible. The hypothe- 
 sis of Paul Maty, a Netherlander, in some re- 
 spects resembles this. According to him there 
 are three persons in the godhead, distinct from 
 each other. The first is the entire Deity, who 
 created and governs all things, and is called the 
 Father. This God, before the creation of the 
 world, produced two finite beings, with whom 
 he entered into a most intimate connexion, in 
 such a way that he with them composes three 
 persons, somewhat in the same manner as the 
 divine nature in Christ is connected with the 
 human. So that the union between the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit may be called a personal 
 union. According to this theory, the only union 
 which exists between the persons of the Trinity 
 is an unio moralis, and the whole representation 
 is very similar to that which was adopted by 
 the Council at Antioch, 343. But it wants the 
 support of scripture, and fails, as much as any 
 other theory, of shewing any ground or neces- 
 sity for this union of persons. There is nothing 
 in reality either illustrated or explained by it. 
 
 Note. The real source of the Arian hypothe- 
 sis is the New Platonic philosophy, to which 
 it can be traced much more directly than to the 
 holy scriptures. One strong objection to this 
 theory is, that it presents to view a plurality of 
 unequal gods, thus encourages the worship of 
 higher spirits, and so leads on to the most mul- 
 tiform superstition. In this point, as well as 
 in others, the doctrine of the numerical unity of 
 the divine nature has greatly the advantage over 
 Arianism. 
 
 5. Still another class of modern sectarians 
 remains to be mentioned the Socinians, some- 
 times called Photinians, because they agree in 
 the main with Photinus, who flourished in the 
 fourth century, and whose scheme was noticed, 
 s. 43. The founders of this sect were Lcelius 
 Socinus and his nephew Faustus Socinus, both 
 of whom flourished in the sixteenth century. 
 They maintained that the Nicene theory leads 
 
DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 
 
 161 
 
 to tritheism, and on account of the uncommon 
 purity in which they supposed themselves to 
 hold the doctrine of the divine unity, called 
 themselves Unitarians. They brought over con- 
 siderable numbers to their doctrine in Poland 
 and Transylvania, whom they formed into sepa- 
 rate societies ; and since their death their sys- 
 tem has prevailed to some extent both in Eng- 
 land and Germany. The Socinian theory is 
 briefly as follows : The Father is the only true 
 God. Christ is the son of Mary, and a man 
 like ourselves, though produced by a miracu- 
 lous divine influence. When, therefore, he is 
 called God, it cannot be in the same sense in 
 which the Father is so called. He was endow- 
 ed by God with very unusual gifts and qualifi- 
 cations, and after his ascension to heaven was 
 promoted above all other created beings, and 
 exalted to divine honour. The Holy Ghost is 
 not a person, but merely an attribute of God, or 
 a mode of divine operation. On the question, 
 whether divine worship should be paid to Christ, 
 they were not themselves agreed ; and although 
 most of them answered in the affirmative, it was 
 not without dissent from others of their number. 
 With regard to this theory, it may be remarked 
 that it stands in direct opposition to the most 
 express declarations of the writers of the New 
 Testament, and especially of John and Paul, 
 much of whose writings cannot be reconciled 
 with it without great violence. Nor is it at all 
 more capable of being reconciled with sound 
 philosophy, which rejects at once the idea of a 
 deified man a deus factitius. 
 
 6. A new theory on the Trinity was proposed 
 by Dr. Urlsperger, in a number of essays, the 
 views of which were condensed by himself into 
 a work entitled, " Kurzgefasstes System seines 
 Vortrags von Gottes Dreyeinigkeit," published 
 at Augsburg, where he was then pastor, 1777, 
 8vo. His theory bears a general resemblance 
 to that of Marcellus of Ancyra, and, like that, 
 was condemned by many as favouring Sabel- 
 lianism. In this, however, they were manifestly 
 unjust; since his object was to unite the three 
 principal ancient theories the Arian, Sabellian, 
 and Nicene, making the latter the foundation of 
 his system. He endeavoured to effect this com- 
 bination by making a distinction between tri- 
 nitas essentialis, the internal threefold distinction 
 necessarily belonging to the divine nature ; and 
 trinitas ceconomica, the three persons revealed to 
 us in the work of redemption. But this theory 
 derives no support from the scriptures. Vide 
 Revision der deutsch. Lit. Ite St. for the year 
 1776. [Cf. Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 
 474.] 
 
 Concluding Remarks. 
 
 From all that has now been said, the conclu- 
 21 
 
 sion is obvious, that, while we are taught by the 
 scriptures to believe in three equal subjects in the 
 godhead, who are described as persons, we are still 
 unable, after all that has been done by theologians 
 and interpreters, to determine IN WHAT MANNER 
 or IN WHAT SENSE these three have the divine na- 
 ture so in common that there is only ONE God. 
 Vide s. 33. It must therefore be unwise for the 
 religious teacher to enlarge in his public instruc- 
 tions upon those points where the scriptures are 
 silent; and he will do well to confine himself to 
 what is clearly taught in the Bible, and has a 
 practical influence upon the feelings and con- 
 duct; for this doctrine was not given us to em- 
 ploy our understanding in speculating upon it, 
 but to encourage our hearts by the disclosures 
 which it makes of the Divine Being, to incite 
 us to a grateful remembrance of the benefits 
 which the Father, Son, and Spirit bestow upon 
 us, and to lead us to avail ourselves of these 
 benefits. Instead, then, of perplexing his hear- 
 ers with learned speculations, let the minister 
 of the gospel content himself with teaching the 
 doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as 
 represented in the holy scriptures, describing 
 them as three distinct subjects, designating the 
 distinction between them by the word person, 
 shewing that to three, and to one as much as 
 another, divinity and equal divine perfections 
 belong, while still there is only one God ; and 
 especially insisting upon the benefits which 
 these persons confer upon men, the opera 
 ad extra which we mentioned in the last sec- 
 tion. 
 
 As Christians, we should repose our confi- 
 dence in the FATHER, as the author and giver of 
 all good, and especially as the author of salva- 
 tion. He bestows this good and these blessings 
 upon us (a) through the Son, to whom we are 
 indebted for making known the way of salvation 
 for the remission of sins, on condition of faith 
 in his sufferings and death, and for eternal bless- 
 edness; and (6) through the Holy Spirit, who 
 continues the great work of enlightening and 
 saving men, which Christ began, and who, in 
 the use of appointed means, carries us forward 
 from one stage to another of moral improvement. 
 If such is the light in which we regard this doc- 
 trine, (and such is the light in which it is pre- 
 sented in the scriptures,) we then yield the 
 Father, Son, and Spirit the religious worship 
 required, and receive the favours which they be- 
 stow as divine favours, for which we are indebt- 
 ed to none but God himself. Whatever more 
 than this it may be necessary for others to know 
 with regard to this doctrine, the Christian, as 
 such, needs to know nothing more; he can dis- 
 pense with the learned subtleties with which 
 many are chiefly employed. He does not wish 
 to know this truth, merely for its own sake, but 
 o2 
 
162 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 for that higher end for which all religious know- 
 ledge should be sought viz., that he may con- 
 form in feeling and practice to the truth which 
 is known. When this is the case with Chris- 
 
 tians, and not till then, the groat doctrines of re- 
 ligion will exert their proper influence upon the 
 heart and the life. Vide Morus, p. 70, s. 14; 
 and Griesbach, Praktische Dogmatik, s. 62. 
 
 PART II.-THE WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 
 
 SECTION XLV. 
 
 OF THE MEANING OF THE WORD "WORLD,' 
 OF SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 
 
 AND 
 
 HE attentive study and con- 
 templation of the visible 
 world leads us to the know- 
 ledge of the Divine Being 
 and of his glorious attri- 
 butes. Paul well says, 
 Rom. i. 20, that the attri- 
 butes of God, which are in themselves 
 invisible, are brought within the sight 
 and cognizance of man since the world 
 has been created. The Bible accord- 
 L ingly earnestly recommends this source 
 of divine knowledge, (vide Ps. viii. 1; xix. 
 1 6, coll. s. 15;) and it should therefore be 
 ranked among the first and most essential 
 parts of religious instruction. The practical 
 import of this doctrine is exhibited by Morus, 
 p. 74, s. 4, 5. The first of these works of God 
 is the creation of the world; and to the consi- 
 deration of this we shall now proceed. 
 
 Meaning of the. word "World" and of other 
 Synonymous Words. 
 
 World, in the strict, philosophical sense, 
 means everything extrinsic to God the animate 
 and inanimate, rational and irrational creation. 
 Rude and uncultivated nations do not commonly 
 have any idea of a world; certainly they do not 
 concern themselves with the question how it 
 originated, or perhaps believe that only particu- 
 lar parts of it were created. The Caffres have 
 no idea of a creation ; they believe that the world 
 always existed, and will always continue as it 
 is. Vide Le Vaillant, Reise ins Innere Afrika's, 
 s. 365, translated by Forster, in his " Magazin 
 von merkwiirdigen neuen Reisebeschreibun- 
 gen," th. ii. But when the first early inquirers 
 into nature attained to the principle that every- 
 thing which exists must have a beginning, they 
 unconsciously fell into the belief that chance or 
 necessity was the cause of all things. Vide Mei- 
 
 i ners, Historia doctrinae de vero Deo, p. i. It 
 was only by slow degrees that they proceeded 
 to those higher inquiries which are indicated in 
 s. 46. Their gradual progress in the knowledge 
 of this subject is strikingly exhibited in the 
 terms which at different periods they employed 
 to designate the general notion they had of the 
 world ; on these terms, therefore, we shall offer 
 a few remarks. 
 
 1. When men first began to reflect upon the 
 objects which surrounded them, they naturally 
 divided the whole universe into two great por- 
 tions viz., the earth, upon which they dwelt, 
 and the heavens, which they saw above them. 
 Accordingly, we find that in most of the ancient 
 languages the general notion of the universe is 
 expressed by the simple and original phrase, the 
 heavens and earth. So we find it frequently 
 among the Hebrews. Gen. i. 1 ; ii. 1 ; Psalm 
 cxv. 15. The nations who inhabited the sea- 
 coasts, and beheld the boundless expanse of the 
 ocean, frequently divided the universe into three 
 portions heaven, earth, and sea. So too the He- 
 brews, Ps. cxlvi. 6; Acts, xvii. 24. This was 
 the most ancient mode of describing the universe 
 even among the Greeks. Homer conceived of 
 the universe as divided into these three por- 
 tions heaven, earth, and sea. Odys. i. 52 54, 
 coll. II. xv. 189, seq. This ancient phraseology 
 is the ground of Aristotle's definition of the 
 world, Koftytoj tati Gvatq/jLa ^f ovpavov xai y?f 
 xai *twv ev to-ufois rtfpt^o^wvwv ^utffwv, De M un- 
 do, c. 1. 
 
 2. But in process of time other terms were 
 introduced into the various languages, by which 
 this idea was expressed more briefly and dis- 
 tinctly. These terms were derived from various 
 sources ; most of them from certain obvious at- 
 tributes, whether perfections or imperfections, 
 of the world. The following may be here stated 
 as those best known ; 
 
 (a) The Hebrews, Chaldaeans, and Syrians 
 called the world oSty, D^pSijr, to which correspond 
 the atwv, aiuvts, of the Grecian Jews. This 
 term was derived from the duration and age of 
 the world. Cf. s. 20, III. No passage, how- 
 ever, occurs in the books written before the Ba- 
 bylonian exile, in which these words are clearly 
 used in the sense now ascribed to them. In 
 the earlier books they stand simply for the ideas 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 163 
 
 of continuance, duration, age. The word * 
 which occurs in Ps. xlix. 2, is of similar origin, 
 being derived from nSn; although in this pas- 
 sage it rather means the earth than the world. 
 Vide Anmerk zu Ps. xvii. 14. The word *?-tn, 
 on the contrary, which occurs, Isaiah, xxxviii. 
 11, in the sense of world, or earth, is of exactly 
 an opposite origin, the mutability and perishable- 
 ness of the world being the foundation of this 
 appellation, although some consider the reading 
 incorrect, and wish to substitute iSn. Corres- 
 ponding with the former appellation of the 
 world, taken from its long duration, is the Ger- 
 man word Welt, or, as it is always written in 
 the old books, Werelt, and in the Danish Weret, 
 which is derived from the word wdhren, to con- 
 tinue, endure; though, according to others, it is 
 abbreviated from Werld, and so derived from 
 werlen, to revolve, turn round, the earth being 
 considered as an oval surface. On the latter 
 supposition this term would resemble the Latin 
 ORBIS terrarum, and the English world. 
 
 (6) From the beautiful and wonderful order 
 and arrangement of all parts of the world, the 
 Greeks called it 6 xoapos, and the Latins, mun- 
 dus, which is a mere translation of the Greek 
 
 /j,os. This term, however, does not occur in 
 Homer ; nor indeed is the notion of world ever 
 expressed by a single word either in Homer or 
 Moses. The word x6>j(jio$ was employed by the 
 oldest Grecian writers, to denote merely the 
 starry firmament, from its beauty and splendour. 
 And in a similar limitation the word mundus 
 was frequently used by Lucretius and other 
 Latin poets, and even by Seneca. Afterwards 
 the Sophists i. e., the learned, or the philoso- 
 phers, began to apply this word to the whole 
 universe, as was the case with Socrates as cited 
 by Xenophon. When, therefore, Xenophon 
 3 rnploys the term in this sense, he is careful to 
 say, o vjtb tftov Gotyitrtidv xa'kov^vo^ xottytoj . After 
 his time it gradually passed in this sense into 
 the language of common life. Pythagoras is 
 usually esteemed the first who employed the 
 term xoapos to denote the whole universe. Cf. 
 Scr. var. arg. p. 532, seq. This word was 
 afterwards used in various other significations 
 which occur in the writings of the Grecian Jews, 
 and in the New Testament. Among these is 
 the sense of the earth, olxov^vri, Spn ; and also of 
 particular provinces of it a meaning which be- 
 longs to the words just mentioned, and to the 
 Latin orbis terrarum. Koff^oj was also used in 
 the sense of the world of men, the whole human 
 > ace, and then, the wicked as a whole, the heathen. 
 By Christian writers it was sometimes used to 
 denote the Jewish world. Finally, xo<tyto$ was 
 used to denote'rmi/e, perishable, earthly things 
 and possessions, (res terrenx, extern^, ad corpus 
 pertinentes,*) in opposition to things invisible, 
 heavenly, and divine. 
 
 (c) Metaphorical appellations of the world, 
 like those of the Greeks and Latins, occur also 
 among the Jews. The Hebrews called the stars 
 the host, tax, host of heaven, host of God, Judges, 
 v. 20. But afterwards they called all created 
 things the host of God, which they represented 
 as standing in his service and accomplishing his 
 will, Ps. ciii. 21, coll. ver. 20, 22 ; also Gen. ii. 
 1 . The heavens and the earth, and all the host of 
 them, Diax. Sai. Hence the supreme God is call- 
 ed mo* nw, Lord of hosts i. e., of the world. 
 Cf. s. 17. This term resembles the xbap.o$ of 
 the Greeks, in that it was originally applied to 
 the heavens only, and afterwards so extended 
 in its signification as to embrace all created ob- 
 jects. 
 
 (d) After the belief in spirits and demons be- 
 came common among the Israelites, the phrase 
 tfa opotfa xal aopatfa was employed to designate 
 the sum of created objects, and occurs in this 
 sense, Col. i. 16. 
 
 The Greek term, to rtav (universum), is the 
 appropriate philosophical appellation of the 
 world, and does not occur in the New Testa- 
 ment, except indeed in the plural, 
 
 SECTION XLVI. 
 
 WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SPEAK OF THE CREA- 
 TION OF THE WORLD ? THE PROOF OF A CREA- 
 TION ; THE MATERIAL FROM WHICH IT WAS 
 MADE ; WITH A SKETCH O.F THE VARIOUS OPI- 
 NIONS ENTERTAINED ON THIS SUBJECT. 
 
 I.DefinitionandProofofthe Creation of the World. 
 
 BY creation we understand that act of God by 
 which he gave existence to the world, or to things 
 exterior to himself; or, as it is commonly ex- 
 pressed, by which he made the world OUT OF NO- 
 THING; which last definition will be considered 
 at length in No. II. The proof of the position 
 that the world derives its existence from God, 
 is made out from reason, by the very same argu- 
 ments by which we prove from nature that there 
 is a God; respecting which, vide s. 15. For 
 from the very reason that the world could not 
 produce itself, we conclude that there must be a 
 God who produced it. Vide ubi supra. We 
 proceed, therefore, to the more important inquiry 
 respecting 
 
 [I. The Material from which the World was formed, 
 and the Various Opinions entertained upon this 
 subject. 
 
 1. Philosophers have always allowed the ex- 
 istence of a first material, since otherwise they 
 would be compelled to admit a progrcssio caus- 
 sarum in infinitum, which is not supposable. 
 But, 
 
 2. The ancients found great difficulty in ex- 
 ilaining the origin of this first material. The 
 
164 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Grecian philosophers and other ancient writers 
 insisted upon the principle, ex nihilo nihil fit ; 
 and could not admit, therefore, that it was even 
 possible for God to create the world out of no- 
 thing. Accordingly, they believed almost uni- 
 versally in two eternal, original principles viz., 
 God, and self-existent matter, neither of which is 
 the ground of the other. The former they sup- 
 posed to be a rational and thinking principle, 
 and the author of all good ; the other, irrational 
 and unintelligent, and the author of all evil. 
 
 As to the question, how the world arose from 
 this pre-existing matter, the opinions of the an- 
 cients were very various. Plato taught, that 
 God, of his own will, united himself with matter, 
 and produced the world from it; so that he could 
 say that the world was not eternal and uncre- 
 ated, although matter might be so. Aristotle, 
 the peripatetic, and Zeno, the stoic, taught that 
 this union of God with the world was necessary ; 
 and accordingly they affirmed the eternity of the 
 world, (Cic. Qu. Acad. iv. 38,) although they 
 differed from one another in explaining the man- 
 ner of this connexion. Epicurus separated God 
 entirely from the world, and taught that matter 
 consists of innumerable small atoms, which from 
 eternity had floated about, like dust on the water 
 or in the air, untH at last they assumed the form 
 of the present world. This ancient opinion of 
 the eternity of matter found an advocate in mo- 
 dern times in Bayle, who was of opinion that it 
 resulted necessarily from the principle, which 
 cannot be disputed, ex nihilo nihil fit. But as 
 we have before shewn, s. 15, II., the doctrine, 
 that matter is eternal and necessary, is the foun- 
 dation of a theoretical atheism. 
 
 If we follow the principles of philosophy in 
 its present improved state, or rather, if we fol- 
 low the Bible, to which alone our modern phi- 
 losophy is indebted for its improvement, we 
 shall be unable to admit the validity of the 
 maxim ex nihilo nihil fit, in opposition to the 
 doctrine of creation from nothing. This maxim 
 is indeed incontrovertibly true when applied to 
 the causa materialis ; for there must be in every 
 case a ground a prima materia from which 
 whatever exists proceeds. But it is not true if 
 understood of the causa efficiens, to which omni- 
 potence is ascribed. Consequently, if our theory 
 respecting God and his attributes is well esta- 
 blished, this principle applied to him as the effi- 
 cient cause must be regarded as false; for if God 
 is omnipotent, he can of course from nothing 
 produce something, or bring into existence what 
 did not exist before. If he could not do this, he 
 would not be omnipotent. Moreover, if it is true 
 that matter is not necessary, (vide s. 15,) it can- 
 not exist of itself, but must derive its existence 
 from God, or depend upon God, who at first cre- 
 ated it out of nothing. 
 
 The greatest philosophers of antiquity appear 
 
 therefore to have stopped short of the truth, and 
 to have been inconsistent, when they worshipped 
 God as the creator of the world, indeed, but not 
 of matter. They admitted merely a creatio me- 
 diata, ex praeexistente materia, and not imme- 
 diata i. e., they did not believe in the produc- 
 tion of matter itself from nothing. God, with 
 them, was merely the builder, and not the cre- 
 ator, of the world. 
 
 The ancient Greeks, as we perceive, reasoned 
 upon this subject from principles entirely dif- 
 ferent from those which we at present adopt; 
 and not one of them ever advanced to the dis- 
 tinct conception of a creation from nothing. It 
 is no valid objection, however, against the posi- 
 tion that God made matter from nothing, that 
 we cannot conceive how what is possible should 
 become real, through the mere will of God; for 
 this is a matter of which we have never had any 
 experience ; and yet experience assures us of the 
 reality of many events, the manner of whose 
 occurrence is incomprehensible to the human 
 understanding. How much less, then, are we 
 capable of judging respecting things of which 
 we have had and can have no experience ! 
 
 The truth, that everything which exists was 
 created by God from nothing, is the uniform 
 doctrine of the Bible of the old Jewish pro- 
 phets, and of the Christian teachers. In respect 
 to this important doctrine of religion they were 
 far in advance of the other cultivated nations of 
 antiquity, though confessedly behind them in 
 general intellectual improvement. This sublime 
 truth, which appears to us so simple, since we 
 have been taught it, was unknown to the an- 
 cient philosophers, long after it had been taught 
 by the writers of the neglected Jewish scrip- 
 tures ; and indeed it is from these that our mo- 
 dern philosophers have derived, however un- 
 willingly, all their better views on this subject. 
 To the sacred writers we owe the doctrine that 
 God gave existence to what was not. They do 
 not, indeed, dwell so much on the theoretical 
 ground of this truth as notice its practical con- 
 sequences ; they were, however, the first who 
 established the position itself. Philosophers 
 have only reinvestigated the doctrine which 
 they established, and developed the reasons of 
 the truth which they taught. 
 
 But it may be asked Is then the doctrine dt 
 creatione ex nihilo really so important 1 is it not 
 rather a doctrine interesting only to speculative 
 philosophers? To these questions we must 
 answer, that this doctrine is, on the contrary, 
 one of great practical importance, which is the 
 reason why the holy scriptures so frequently 
 and urgently inculcate it. For (a) if matter 
 was created by God from nothing, it follows 
 that he must fully understand it in all its parts ; 
 he must have wisely assigned to everything j 
 its definite position in space, and have pre- i 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 lf,5 
 
 served it as he originally created it. But in 
 case he were not the creator, but only the 
 former of the world, according to the opinion 
 of the ancients, it would then be necessary 
 for him to acquaint himself with this mat- 
 ter, which he himself had not produced, and 
 which was foreign to his own nature. But we 
 may confidently affirm, that he never would have 
 become acquainted with matter if he had not 
 himself made it, (as even Malebranche con- 
 cludes;) because he derives all his knowledge 
 from himself alone, and nothing exterior to him- 
 self can either add to his information, or in any 
 j way exert an influence upon him. (6) A mere 
 builder may leave his building, when it is once 
 completed, and concern himself no further about 
 it, except perhaps in certain extraordinary cases. 
 And considering that almost all of the philoso- 
 ! pliers and religious teachers of the heathen world 
 'proceeded upon the notion that God was the 
 'former only, or builder of the world, and not its 
 creator, it is not strange that their ideas of Pro- 
 vidence were no more pure and consonant to the 
 divine nature. They generally believed, either 
 | that God concerned himself not at all with the 
 world, or, at least, that his providence did not 
 extend to small and minute affairs. When once 
 Phaeton had misguided the chariot of the sun, 
 Jupiter indeed found it necessary to see whether 
 the firmament had been shattered ; but except in 
 such extraordinary cases, he remained uncon- 
 cerned with the aifairs of the world, and every- 
 thing here below was supposed to be left to go 
 on, like a clock, when it has been once wound 
 up. Thus it appears, that the belief that the world 
 was created from nothing has an important in- 
 fluence on the doctrine concerning providence, 
 and so is of great practical consequence. This 
 belief alone excites in us ideas of providence 
 which do honour to God, and are consonant with 
 his character. If God is the creator of the world, 
 we may be sure -that he not only understands 
 and provides for the whole, but that his know- 
 ledge and providence extend to every particular 
 part of the universe, though ever so small. The 
 schoolmen, with entire truth, called the pre- 
 servation of the world a continued creation. And 
 the Bible frequently argues from the fact that 
 God created all things in the universe, that he 
 j must be perfectly acquainted with them, and that 
 they depend for their preservation solely upon 
 his will. Vide Psa. xciv. 8 11 ; cxxxix. Cf. 
 Kastner, Ueber die Lehre der Schopfung aus 
 Nichts, und deren praktische Wichtigkeit; 
 Gottingen, 1770, 4to. Heydenreich, Progr. 
 Num ratio humana sua vi, et sponte contingere 
 possit notionem creationis ex nihilo ] Lips. 1790. 
 He shews that this is the only reasonable opi- 
 nion respecting the origin of the world. [Re- 
 specting the practical importance of this doc- 
 trine, cf. also, Neander, Allgem. Gesch. der 
 
 christ. Rel., b. i. abth. 3, s. 974. Also Hahn, 
 Lehrbuch, s. 271. ] 
 
 Note. The phrase itself, to create from no- 
 thing, does not occur in the canonical books of 
 the Bible, although the idea is scriptural. The 
 phrase is taken from 2 Mace. vii. 28; in the 
 Vulgate, ex nihilo fecit Deus cailum et terram, in 
 the Greek, i| ovx ov-tuv. The phrase fa prj 
 tyaivo/j,fva,, which occurs, Heb. xi. 3, is of the 
 same import. Morus (p. 72) and some others 
 have rejected the phrase, creation from nothing, 
 because it seems to imply that nothing is the 
 material from which the world was made. But 
 this subtilty is unnecessary, since the same lan- 
 guage is used in other cases, and is never mis- 
 understood. When we say, for example, there 
 is NOTHING in the chest, there is NOBODY there, we 
 do not mean to imply that there is in the first 
 case a material substance, and, in the second, 
 a person existing in the places intended. 
 
 III. The Nature of the First Material. 
 
 The idea of chaos resulted very naturally from 
 the opinion of the ancient Greeks that matter is 
 eternal and uncreated, and that God merely ar- 
 ranged and combined the materials which he, as 
 the great architect, found furnished for his use. 
 The word #ao$ is derived by some from ^aw, 
 hio, vacuus sum,- by others from %tu,fundo, be- 
 cause they imagine chaos to be something mov- 
 able and fluid. The corresponding Latin word is 
 silva, which denotes what is confused, unar- 
 ranged, and then, unorganized material from 
 which anything is made; as, silva rerum, sen- 
 tentiarum, Cicero; silva medicinas, Pliny. The 
 Greek word which is used by Plato and other 
 philosophers is, v^rj, which signifies both silva 
 and materia. The ancients imagined that these 
 primordia the unorganized elements of things 
 were of the nature of a thin air, or a subtle 
 ether, fluid and movable, without order or con- 
 nexion, rudis indigestaque moles. Vide Ovid, 
 Met. i. 7, seq. But the whole conception of 
 chaos is rather poetical than philosophical the 
 progeny of fancy, and not of reason. The phi- 
 losopher can see no satisfactory reason for be- 
 lieving that disorder must have preceded the 
 present system. The poet, however, fancies a 
 state before the world was formed, like that 
 which would appear if all the objects of the pre- 
 sent world were torn to pieces, dissolved, and 
 thrown together ; and this state he calls chaos, 
 and supposes that there the elements of things 
 conflicted with one another, until the Deity at 
 length interposed to end the strife. The Greeks 
 now supposed that the universe proceeded from 
 this state, as from a fluid and fermenting mass; 
 the Hebrews, on the contrary, represented the 
 origin of the world under the image of a build- 
 ing, of the materials of which, as well as of the 
 structure itself, God was the author. Cf. the 
 
(Kosmogenie?), in his " Memorabilien," No. 
 III. Stuck 4; Leipzig, 1793, 8vo. Some have 
 thought they perceived a description of chaos in 
 the iriai trin of the Mosaic account of the crea- 
 tion, Gen. i. 2. But Moses says this merely of 
 the earth. After God had created the universe, 
 (the heavens and the earth,) the earth was still 
 waste, empty, and unfinished. There is nothing 
 in the Mosaic account to justify the idea of the 
 Grecian chaos, in which everything in the uni- 
 verse lay together in a promiscuous and disor- 
 derly mass, of which God was no more the cre- 
 ator than the architect is of the pile of stones 
 from which he forms his edifice. 
 
 The history of the opinions of ancient and 
 modern philosophers respecting the nature of the 
 first material of the universe belongs appropri- 
 ately to the history of philosophy. The follow- 
 ing remarks must suffice for this place. 
 
 We cannot form any distinct notion of the ele- 
 ments, and of the primitive, essential, and con- 
 stituent parts of the bodies which now exist, 
 since our senses are not adapted to take cog- 
 nizance of them. That such elements actually 
 exist, however, there is no doubt; and that each 
 of these particles has properties which distin- 
 guish it from every other its peculiar use, size, 
 shape, &c. is equally clear ; for otherwise there 
 could be no distinction, variety, or alteration 
 in the world. Pythagoras proceeded on this 
 ground, when he taught that the povds was the 
 origin and ground of all things. For as num- 
 bers consist of their units, as constituent parts, 
 so he supposed the world was composed of many 
 such units or monades. This thought led Leib- 
 nitz to his theory of monades. According to 
 this theory, these monades are what God ori- 
 ginally produced from nothing; and all the va- 
 riety of things, the world itself, has arisen from 
 their original difference, and their various com- 
 binations. This theory, therefore, clearly in- 
 volves the doctrine of a creation from nothing. 
 But what is the nature, and what are the quali- 
 ties of these first productions of creative power, 
 we cannot know, because our senses do not reach 
 so far. And when the atomic system, or mona- 
 dology, is extended to inquiries like these, it 
 .becomes, as Kant has well shewn, merely hy- 
 pothetical, and without any practical interest. 
 The science which has for its object the powers 
 and/orces which act in the world dynamics, as 
 it is called is more important to us than the 
 science which relates merely to the minute 
 atoms or particles of which bodies are composed, 
 whether they are called monades or any other 
 name. 
 
 In this whole subject we must guard against 
 the supposition of any successive acts in God ; 
 as if she had first created the materials, and then 
 
 step by step, like a human artist. Vide s. 20, 
 respecting the immutability of God. In God, 
 thought and execution are one and the same act. 
 He speaks, and U is done, Ps. xxxiii. 9. He says, 
 Let there be light, and there is light, Gen. i. 3. 
 Nor is any alteration produced in God by the 
 creation of the world. He designed from eter- 
 nity that the world should exist at a certain time. 
 Morus expresses this differently, p. 72, s. 2. 
 Cf. on this particular point, and on the general 
 subject, Ziegler, Kritik iiber den Artikel von 
 der Schopfung, nach unserer gewohnlichen 
 Dogmatik, in Henke's " Magazin fur Religions- 
 philosophie," b. ii. st. 1, Abhandl. 1. 
 
 SECTION XLVII. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE AND LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLICAL 
 WRITERS RESPECTING THE CREATION IN GENE- 
 RAL, AND HOW THEY ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD. 
 
 I. Respecting the Eternity of Matter. 
 
 THE holy scriptures constantly describe God 
 as the author and creator of the world ; not mere- 
 ly of the form which it now has, as the ancient 
 philosophers supposed, but of the materials 
 themselves from which it is formed. With this 
 fundamental principle Moses begins his geo- 
 gony, Gen. i. 1. We find this mentioned as the 
 principal characteristic of the true God, through- 
 out the Bible ; Is. xlii. 5 ; Ps. cxv. 3, seq. ; Acts, 
 xvii. 24; and the other passages cited s. 14, ad 
 finem, and Morus, p. 72, s. 2, note 1. It may 
 be considered as an established point, that the 
 eternity of the world is nowhere affirmed in the 
 Bible. Vide Ps. xc.,2; cii. 26, coll. s. 20. 
 
 But notwithstanding this, there have always 
 been philosophers and theologians, even among 
 Christians, who have advocated the eternity of 
 the world, or at least of matter. The Platonists 
 among the first Christians very naturally fol- 
 lowed Plato, who believed in the eternity of 
 matter, though not of the world. Vide s. 46. 
 Thus Justin the Martyr affirmed, that God 
 formed the world from an eternal, misshapen, 
 unorganized material, Apol. i. 39; though in 
 other parts of his writings he appears to derive 
 matter originally from God as its author, and 
 thus to differ from Plato. 
 
 The schoolmen, who followed Aristotle, and 
 wished to defend his opinion respecting the eter- 
 nity of the world (s. 46), taught that we might 
 say, God had CREATED the world from eternity 
 a statement in which its dependence upon God 
 would be vindicated at the same time that its 
 eternity was maintained. This opinion was 
 expressed by Boethius as early as the fifth and 
 beginning of the sixth century. Others, how- 
 ever, only wished that the possibility of this sup- 
 
position should be granted. The schoolmen 
 made this distinction : Deus est ^TERNUS ; 
 mundus est AB ^STERNO, sc. productus & Deo. 
 For God, they said, had the power to act from 
 eternity, and we can see no reason why he 
 should not have exerted this power. 
 
 Some protestant theologians of modern times 
 have also asserted the possibility of the eternity 
 of the world. Some have thought it to be a con- 
 tradiction to speak of an eternal God who is not 
 an eternal creator. Even Wolf, in his metaphy- 
 sics, affirmed that it could not be shewn from 
 philosophy that the world and the human race 
 have had a beginning. But even if the world 
 had been produced from eternity by God, it 
 would not therefore be eternal in the same sense 
 as God is. It would only have existed through 
 infinite time, while God is anterior to, and inde- 
 pendent of time. It would perhaps be better to 
 say, that eternity (a parte ante} is a necessary 
 attribute of God, but not of the world : the world 
 is eternal because God willed its existence from 
 the first ; and not from an internal necessity of 
 its existence, as there is of the existence of God. 
 The followers of Wolf, Ribbow, and others, 
 -held the same opinion. Others contend, that 
 this opinion does violence to the laws of the 
 human understanding. If the word eternity is 
 understood in the proper sense, in which it ex- 
 cludes time (s. 20), it is hard to see how it can 
 be said, with propriety, that the world was cre- 
 ated by^God from eternity. For as soon as we 
 suppose that the world was created, we neces- 
 sarily admit that it had a beginning; and if it 
 had a beginning, it exists in time; and time ex- 
 cludes eternity. We may imagine, if we please, 
 an eternal series of created things ; but such a 
 series can have no real existence ; for a series 
 consisting of things which have a beginning 
 cannot be without a beginning. 
 
 But the reason why we never obtain satisfac- 
 tion, after all our philosophizing, upon this sub 
 ject, and why we find so many difficulties attend- 
 ing any supposition we may make respecting 
 the eternity of the world, is this, that the whole 
 subject far transcends our limited capacities. The 
 forms of time and space, which are inherent in 
 our mental constitution, so limit our minds that 
 we cannot conceive of anything as existing 
 without them. Vide s. 20, I. Time takes its 
 origin from the succession of one thing after 
 another. It is a notion of finite beings, who can 
 think of only one thing at a time, in whom, 
 therefore, one idea must succeed another ; and 
 is not a quality of external objects. Vide lo. 
 Ernesti Schubert, Diss. de impossibilitate mun- 
 di aeterni; Jenae, 1741. Kant, Kritik der reinen 
 Vernunft. When Augustine was asked the 
 question what God had done before the creation 
 of the world 1 he replied, Nescio, quod nescio. 
 
 The simple doctrine of the Bible is, that God 
 lad an eternal purpose to make the world ; it 
 does not teach us that he did create it from eter- 
 nity ; but rather the contrary. Vide the texts 
 cited in Morus, p. 72, s. 2, Note 1. 
 
 II. Respecting Creation from Nothing. 
 
 1. The importance of the doctrine of creation 
 from nothing, its philosophical proof, its scrip- 
 ural ground, &c., have been already exhibited, 
 s. 46. It only remains to cite the most import- 
 ant texts relating to this subject. But before 
 Droceeding to do this, it is important to repeat 
 the remark, that the Bible makes no mention of 
 a chaos, in the sense of the Grecian fabulists 
 and philosophers. Moses, in his first book, and 
 the other sacred writers, always exhibit the 
 simple, great idea, that God by his mere will 
 rought into existence the world, which did not 
 before exist i. e., in other words, that he cre- 
 ated it from nothing ; that he willed that what 
 was not should be, and it was ; Morus, p. 72. 
 So Paul says, Heb. xi. 3, By faith in God (i. e., 
 his declaration, assurance in the scriptures) we 
 are certain that the world (aiwvas) was created 
 f^pT'tff^at, |i3), by the decree or will ((j^a-r't) 
 of God; so that what we see (fttcrtyuva and |8te- 
 
 psva, what appears or exists,) was made out 
 of nothing, (ta \n.Tr\ (Jxufo/iEva.) The phrase "to, 
 pri <j>awo,tiva is here synonymous with to, ovx 
 ov-ta, which occurs in 2 Mace. vii. 28, God made 
 heaven and earth, t| ovx ovtuv. Here too the 
 text, Rom. iv. 17, is cited : Abraham trusted in 
 God tov ^coortotovvT'oj T'OVJ vsxpov$ xal xahovv- 
 T?O$ (creantis) TO, ^ ovto, wj owta*. The phrase- 
 ology in this text is, indeed, derived from that 
 used to describe the creation from nothing ; but 
 it is here figuratively applied to the numerous 
 posterity of Abraham, which did not yet exist, 
 and of which there was no probability; but 
 which was afterwards brought into being. The 
 word xatecp here answers to the word NI,% Isa. 
 xli. 4; xliv. 7, and signifies creare, producere. 
 So Philo says, ta ^u>2 ovfa, Ixateatv si$ to sivai. 
 Vide Carpzov on Heb. xi. 3. The doctrine that 
 God made the world from nothing, is also im- 
 plied, where it is said that he created the world 
 by his word, his decree, or by the breath which 
 proceeded out of his mouth. Vide Ps. xxxiiu 
 6, 9. Gen. i. " He spake, and it was done,' r 
 &c. Cf. s. 34, No. 5. It is said in Rev. iv. 11, 
 <jv s xtiaas Ttdwta, xai 8 ta -to ^cX^^ta ( ttip3, 
 Daniel, viii. 4; xi. 3, 16) aov tiai, "Thou hast 
 made all things, and they depend for existence 
 upon thy will." 
 
 2. Nothing can be determined from the Bible 
 respecting the particular manner in which God, 
 by his mere will, created the world from no- 
 thing; and we are unable even to form any con- 
 ception of the subject, as we have nothing ana- 
 
1G3 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 logous to wnich we can compare it. The New 
 Testament usually ascribes the work of creation 
 to the Father ; and God is called Father, (Ila-r^p 
 maj/T'cov,) so far as he is creator and preserver of 
 all things. Theologians say, Creatio est opus 
 Dei ad extra, quod Patri adscribitur appropria- 
 tivd sive terminative, Morus, p. 72, note 1. 
 
 But creation is also ascribed to the Son, or to 
 the Aoyo$ (vide s. 38, I. 2) ; as John, i. 3, Hdvta 
 8t,' avtov (Aoyov, ver. 1, 2) sysveto, x. t. 7,. ; and 
 again, in ver. 10, o xocr^toj 6t' avtov iysvsto. It 
 is the object of this passage to describe the rela- 
 tion of the Logos to the world and created things. 
 The particle Sia with the genitive frequently, in- 
 deed, denotes merely the causa instrumentalist 
 (so Luke, i. 70;) but it also denotes the causa 
 effidens ; as Rom. i. 5, and 1 Cor. i. 9, (o$. 5t' 
 ov ix%.i7&??,) and Hebrews, ii. 10, (0f6j oY ov 
 to, Ttdvta.*) That it is used in this sense here 
 may be shewn from the analogy of other pas- 
 sages e. g., Col. i. 15 17, and Heb. ii., where 
 it is expressly said that everything in the uni- 
 verse was created by the Son. Cf. the texts 
 cited in s. 38. But some theologians have en- 
 deavoured to explain all these passages as figu- 
 rative, and as exhibiting a mere personification 
 of the divine understanding, and of its plan exe- 
 cuted in the creation; somewhat as Wisdom is 
 said in Prov. viii. to have assisted God in the 
 creation, and to have been the instrument by 
 which he made the world. Vide s. 37, and s. 
 41, II. This interpretation is embraced by those 
 who favour the Sabellian theory ; but certainly 
 it is not scriptural. The most just, scriptural, 
 and at the same time simple view, is perhaps 
 the following. Since the New Testament 
 makes the Son of God equal (t'cra) with the Fa- 
 ther, it designs to teach in all texts of this kind 
 that he stands in the very same relation to the 
 world, and to all created objects, as the Father 
 does, and that whatever is said of the Father is 
 true also of the Son. Hence theologians have 
 the canon, Opera Dei ad extra (attributiva) sunt 
 tribus personis communia , intending thereby to 
 intimate their equality with one another. Vide 
 s. 43, ad finem. Those who are inclined to 
 Arianism have often referred, in behalf of their 
 hypothesis, to Heb. i. 2, where it is said, " God 
 appointed his Son Lord (x^povopw) over all. 
 6V ov xai T'OVJ atwvas iitobjtiev '. the meaning of 
 which they suppose to be summed up, and ex- 
 pressed in ver. 3, " He (the Son) upholds all 
 things (<j>pcov ta rtavr'a) by his power, (jj^an 
 Swa^fw?.)" The phrase, the Father created 
 the world through the Son, occurs only this once 
 in the New Testament, for which reason Dr. 
 Griesbach advises to alter the reading, and to 
 substitute Sto-r't xai for 6V ov xai, Progr. De 
 mundo a Deo Patre condito per Filium ; Jenae, 
 1781. But no sufficient reason can be given for 
 
 this alteration; and, as theologians have justly 
 remarked, it does not follow from this phrase- 
 ology that the Son is less than the Father, as the 
 Arians and Subordinationists (e. g., Dr. Clark) 
 have concluded. For the person through whom 
 I accomplish anything, so far from being neces- 
 sarily inferior to myself, may be equal or even 
 greater. I may, for example, secure a favour to 
 any one from the king, through the influence of 
 the minister. Some of the old theologians at- 
 tempted to prove from Gen. i. 2, that a share in 
 creation was expressly ascribed to the Holy 
 Spirit, considered as a person. But it is at least 
 doubtful whether in this text the person of the 
 Holy Spirit is spoken of. Ps. xxxiii. 6 has no 
 relation to this subject. Vide s. 50, 1. 
 
 3. The following are the principal words and 
 phrases used in the Bible in respect to the crea- 
 tion of the world, and of the earth. 
 
 (a) sn3, to create, produce, Gen. i. 1, et passim. 
 This word, however, by itself, does not signify 
 to create from nothing. It frequently denotes 
 the formation of a thing from a pre-existing ma- 
 terial, and answers to xni^eiv. So in Gen. i. 
 27, it is used in relation to the formation of man 
 from the earth ; and hence to denote his being 
 born and begotten ; so Ps. civ. 30. It often 
 signifies, too, par are., condere, facere, reddere ; 
 so Is. xliii. 7; Num. xvi. 30, seq. Cf. s. 
 48, I. 
 
 (&) All the words which signify to make, to 
 prepare, to form ; as nrp, (hence ni?j?c, a work, 
 created thing, rtow/jua, f'pyov,) "s% to form ,- ]}3, 
 xaTfap^i^siv, to prepare, to arrange, Ps. viii. 4 ; 
 xxxviii. 18. The corresponding verb and the 
 derivate substantive have the same meaning in 
 Arabic. 
 
 (c) All the words which relate to building, to 
 the erecting of the superstructure, or the laying 
 of the foundation. np% ^f^f^idco, to found, to 
 establish, is applied, particularly in poetic lan- 
 guage, to the creation of the earth ; Ps. cii. 26. 
 Hence the Hellenistic phrase xatafiohri xoapov, 
 John, xvii. 24, coll. ver. 5, and Eph. i. 4. The 
 Hebrews considered the earth as being in the 
 centre of the universe, and represented the hea- 
 vens as a tent spread over it, according to their 
 natural appearance ; and to these popular no- 
 tions the sacred writers everywhere conform ; 
 and so because the earth is firm, and undeviating 
 in its course, they represented it as established 
 upon pillars ; Ps. civ. 5. HJS, to build, &c. ; but 
 it also signifies to propagate the race, to acquire 
 posterity, Gen. xvi. 2 ; hence J3, son, (the builder 
 of the family.) 
 
 (d) The words which signify to say, speak, 
 call, (call forth,) command,- as, nps, Nnp, respect- 
 ing which, cf. No. I. These are the words 
 more commonly employed to designate creation 
 from nothing. 
 
SECTION XLVIII. 
 
 THE WORK OF CREATION TWOFOLD ; DIFFERENT 
 CLASSES OF CREATURES; OUR KNOWLEDGE OF 
 
 THEM ; END OF GOD IN THE CREATION OF THE 
 WORLD J THE BEST WORLD. 
 
 I. The Work of Creation twofold. 
 
 CREATION is divided into prima or immediate^ 
 and sccunda or mediata. The immediate creation 
 is that which took place when God first gave 
 existence to all this variety of things, when be- 
 fore there was nothing. The mediate creation is 
 that which is seen since the original creation was 
 completed, in the production of plants, the ge- 
 neration of animate creatures, and the whole na- 
 tural propagation of the various kinds of beings. 
 God works, since the creation is completed, not 
 immediately, but generally, by means of the 
 powers of nature which he himself has bestowed 
 and regulated. It is not uncommon to speak of 
 God's having left the world to the powers of na- 
 ture. But such phraseology should be carefully 
 avoided in religious instruction. It seems to 
 remove God to a distance from us, and very na- 
 turally suggests the idea that he has given up 
 the world, and concerns himself no more about 
 it. More injury is done by such expressions, 
 especially in an age that forgets God, than is 
 ever supposed. Instead of such language it 
 would be better, therefore, to say, God works by 
 means of nature, or, by means of the powers which 
 he has bestowed upon nature, or with which he has 
 furnished his creatures. Even Moses says ex- 
 pressly, Gen. i. 22, 28, that God gave his crea- 
 tures the ability to preserve and propagate their 
 own kind. Still, however, all creatures, both 
 animate and inanimate, which are thus mediately 
 produced, are called, with perfect truth, crea- 
 tures of God, considering that God first esta- 
 blished and upholds this natural constitution by 
 means of which they come into being. Vide 
 Job, x. 8 ; xxxiii. 4 ; Ps. cxxxix. 1316. The 
 word xi3 and the derivative noun are used in 
 both of these senses ; in the first, that of imme- 
 diate creation, Gen. i. 1, 27; ii. 2, seq. ; Is. xlv. 
 18; Ps. cxlviii. 5; in the second, that of me- 
 diate creation, Psalm civ. 30, "They (men) are 
 created" i. e., born. Hence tra and nS> are 
 interchanged as synonymous : as, s-qj op, popu- 
 lus creandus, Psalm cii. 19; and nSu 037, populus 
 nascendus, Psalm xxii. 32. Hence to create, 
 signifies metaphorically, in the scriptures, to re- 
 new, to found, to be the author of anything ; Is. 
 xlviii. 7 ; Ps. li. 12. The same is true ofxtt&w 
 and jcr'ttfts, Eph. ii. 10, 15; iii. 9 ; and also of 
 the Latin creare ; as, " Romulus CREATOR urbis." 
 u Terra CREAVIT genus humanum," Lucretius. 
 CREARE regem, magistratum, &c. 
 
 Every good, therefore, which we derive from 
 any of the creatures of God, is truly a gift and 
 22 
 
 favour of God himself, who gave to his creatures 
 all their various powers with the intention of 
 making them useful to others. Cf. Hos. ii. 21, 
 seq.; Matt. vi. 25, seq.; Acts, xvii. 25, seq. 
 Consequently we are under obligation to be 
 thankful to God himself for these advantages, 
 which we derive from his creatures. Vide 
 Psalm civ. 1, seq., and other texts of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 II. Different Classes of Creatures. 
 
 The kingdom of God is so vast, and compre- 
 hends such an innumerable host, (to use a scrip- 
 tural term,) that we are able to survey but a 
 very small portion of it at once, and are wholly 
 inadequate suitably to estimate the perfection, 
 beauty, and harmony of the whole. What, 
 then, we cannot survey at once, we must exa- 
 mine in separate portions, and by this partition 
 we may relieve the weakness of our under- 
 standing; and this course is both reasonable in 
 itself and according to the example of scripture. 
 
 The ancient Hebrews divided the universe 
 into heaven, earth, and sea, (s. 45,) which v are 
 properly styled the provinces (nicpp) of the 
 kingdom of God by the author of Psalm ciii. ; 
 and this is the division according to which the 
 ancient Hebrew prophets always proceed in the 
 classification of the works of God. Vide 
 Psalm civ., cxlviii. The former of these 
 Psalms is an admirable ode on the creation and 
 the wise constitution of the world. The various 
 objects in heaven, on the earth, and in the 
 waters, are there mentioned in their natural 
 order; their dependence on God is shewn, and 
 their uses, and the ends for which they were 
 made, is described. The sublime descriptions 
 in Job, xxxvi. and xli., may be cited in this 
 connexion. Cf. Ps. cxlv. cxlvii. 
 
 The Bible always gives the preference to ani- 
 mate creatures (creatures who have breath; in 
 whom is the breath of life, as Moses says) over 
 the inanimate creation. It justly considers 
 them as the more noble, exalted, and perfect 
 work of God ; and it assigns to man a pre-emi- 
 nence among the creatures which belong to the 
 earth. Vide Gen. i. 26, seq., and Ps. viii., 
 which treat of the dignity of man, and of his 
 superiority to the other creatures of the earth, es- 
 pecially ver. 4 9. This passage may be consi- 
 dered as a comment upon Gen. i. 26, seq. 
 There it is said that God made man in his own 
 image, and placed him over the rest of the 
 creation. This pre-eminence consists in the ra- 
 tional and moral nature, and the freedom of will 
 which man alone possesses among all the crea- 
 tures by which he is surrounded. 
 
 Respecting the division of creatures into 
 
 visible (corporeal) and invisible, (immaterial, 
 
 spiritual,) which occurs, Col. i. 16, vide s. 45, 
 
 ad finem. JLngels and the human soul belong 
 
 P 
 
170 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 to the second class; but the whole man belongs 
 alike to the corporeal and spiritual kingdom. 
 
 III. The Knowledge of the Works of God. 
 
 The ancients had a very imperfect acquaint- 
 ance with natural science. They remained con- 
 tented for the most part with the first impres- 
 sions which were made upon their senses, with- 
 out being able to penetrate into the internal na- 
 ture of the objects around them. We cannot, 
 therefore, expect to find any very thorough and 
 accurate acquaintance with natural science in 
 the writings of a nation in so early a stage of 
 improvement as the ancient Hebrews were. 
 They were wholly incapable of a high degree 
 of the knowledge of nature. And although 
 some have thought they discovered it in the 
 geogony of Moses, they have done so only by 
 ascribing their own thoughts to his words, and 
 embodying their own information in his account. 
 The ancient hearers and readers of this history 
 had no taste for all this, and would not have 
 understood it. 
 
 The more cultivated nations of antiquity, es- 
 pecially the Greeks, and their disciples the Ro- 
 mans, advanced indeed much beyond the He- 
 brews in natural science. But they too were 
 destitute of the requisite instruments and helps, 
 and often trusted more to reasoning a priori 
 than to experiment; and consequently their 
 knowledge of nature, as a whole, bears no com- 
 parison with ours, though in particular depart- 
 ments they did much, considering the age in 
 which they lived ; as appears from the works 
 of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Hippocrates, Galen, 
 Pliny, Seneca, and others. More considerable 
 advances, however, have been made by Euro- 
 peans in modern times, especially since the fif- 
 teenth century, by means of the telescope, mi- 
 croscope, and other newly invented philosophi- 
 cal instruments, by which the secrets of nature 
 have been disclosed. 
 
 We have made these observations upon the 
 study of nature in this place, not only because 
 this study, and the general prevalence of correct 
 natural science, contribute greatly to intellectual 
 improvement, and in many respects to the en- 
 nobling of man, but especially because they 
 stand in intimate connexion with religion. On 
 these accounts it must appear to be the duty of 
 every man of education, and especially of the 
 religious teacher, to acquaint himself with 
 natural science, and also to give instruction to 
 the common people and the young in those 
 parts of it which they are capable of learning 
 always employing it, however, for religious 
 purposes. This knowledge can and should be 
 used 
 
 1. As a very easy and practical means of at- 
 taining to the knowledge of the existence and 
 attributes of God, and as well adapted to pro- 
 
 mote a disposition and conduct corresponding to 
 such knowledge, vide s. 15, I., where some 
 physico-theological works are mentioned ; abo, 
 Morus, p. 74, s. 4, 5. 
 
 2. As a preventive of superstition, and a re- 
 medy for its evil consequences. The supersti- 
 tious are those who believe things to be real, of 
 whose reality they have no evidence, and who 
 expect things will come to pass without the 
 least reason for so doing. This is their pecu- 
 liar infirmity ; and the only suitable remedy is, 
 for them to learn to judge correctly respecting 
 the reality of things; to observe closely and 
 examine properly the evidence of what they be- 
 lieve, and then to believe only so far as their 
 observation and evidence will warrant. The 
 superstitious easily believe that an event ac- 
 complished by natural means is accomplished 
 by direct supernatural agency, and thus allow 
 themselves to be deceived by tricks and artifices. 
 These false views cannot be proved to them to 
 be groundless in any way so clearly and effec- 
 tually as by giving them a thorough knowledge 
 of nature ; since by this we can shew them that 
 an event which they had regarded as superna- 
 tural was entirely in the usual course. This 
 will have more influence than all the laws 
 which could be enacted against superstitious 
 practices, magic, and fortune-telling, and more 
 than all the punishments which could be inflict- 
 ed upon magicians and fortune-tellers. The best 
 laws and regulations of this kind are of little 
 use, if the first source of such superstitious no- 
 tions cannot be discovered and removed by 
 proper instruction. This is the reason why 
 even the wise regulations of Moses upon this 
 subject were ineffectual among the Israelites. 
 
 Natural science ought, therefore, by no means 
 to be neglected in the instruction of the common 
 people and of the young; since it contributes so 
 much to mental and moral improvement, to ge- 
 nuine religion, and to the whole happiness of 
 man. Cicero has an excellent remark upon this 
 subject: Omnium rerum naturd cognitd levamur 
 super siitione, non conturbamur ignoratione re- 
 rum, e qua ipsd horribiles ssepe existunt formi- 
 dines ,- denique etiam morati melius erimus, De 
 Fin. i. 19. Bayle's work on comets should be 
 read, as a thorough antidote to superstition. 
 Cf. Wiegleb, Natiirliche Magie, continued by 
 Rosenthal, which explains by natural causes 
 many things considered by the common people 
 as supernatural. 
 
 In giving this instruction in natural science 
 which has now been recommended, the religious 
 teacher must carefully avoid all learned specula- 
 tions and hypotheses, and introduce only that 
 which can be made intelligible to the least im- 
 proved understanding. He must not come for- 
 ward in the character of a naturalist, for the 
 purpose of merely instructing his people in 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 171 
 
 natural science. This is not his calling. He 
 must give this instruction only as a means of 
 inspiring his people with reverence for God, of 
 promoting their piety towards him and confi- 
 dence in him, and of making them more happy 
 and contented in their condition. He should 
 exhibit it in connexion with the positive truths 
 of Christianity, and in such a way that it will 
 have no tendency to produce doubts and scepti- 
 cism with regard to our holy religion. Cf. 
 Flatt's Magazin, Ueber den Inhalt offentlicher 
 Religionsvortrage an erwachsene Christen, St. 
 i. Num. 7, and St. v. Num. 3. 
 
 IV. End of God in the Creation. 
 
 The scriptures declare expressly, that every- 
 thing which God has made is good i. e., ac- 
 complishes exactly the purpose for which he 
 made it. Moses represents God as testifying 
 his pleasure in all that he had done, when the 
 creation was completed, Gen. i. 31. The truth 
 of the principle, that God has given to all his 
 creatures the highest possible degree of per- 
 fection, is evident both from his wisdom and 
 his goodness. Vide s. 24, 28. Either our 
 former theory respecting these attributes is 
 untrue, (quod non potest esse,) or this principle 
 is true. Acting under the guidance of infinite 
 wisdom, and under the impulse of infinite good- 
 ness, God could not, but choose what is best. 
 
 Upon this principle rests the doctrine of the 
 best world, or optimism, which is found even in 
 Plato, the stoics, and other ancient writers. 
 According to Seneca, (Ep. 65,) Plato said, 
 Deus mundum fecit quam optimum potuit. In 
 modern times, this doctrine has found a decided 
 advocate in Leibnitz, in his Theodicee, th. i. 
 cap. 8. Wolf, in his Metaphysik, and others 
 after him, have more fully developed it. If we 
 presuppose that God could have conceived of 
 many worlds as possible, the present world, 
 which he preferred to the others, and to which 
 therefore he gave existence, must be the best. 
 If not, then God might prefer the worse and 
 less perfect to the best and most perfect; which 
 would bespeak an imperfection both of intelli- 
 gence and will. When God created the world, 
 he foresaw, most clearly and infallibly, all his 
 creatures their nature, actions, and their con- 
 nexion with the whole system. He must also 
 be supposed to have had the best end in view 
 in the creation of the world, and to have been 
 able to apply the best means for the attainment 
 of it; s. 24, 28. Moreover, his power is so 
 unlimited that nothing could prevent him from 
 giving the world a different constitution from 
 that which it now has ; or, which is same thing, 
 from creating a different world from that which 
 now exists. Now since he has created the pre- 
 sent world, it follows that no other world is so 
 well adapted to the attainment of the divine 
 
 purposes as this. W T e are, indeed, unacquaint- 
 ed with his designs, or with the final cause of 
 the creation of the world. God, doubtless, had 
 many ends in view, which we do not know, and 
 of which we do not even think. Vide Morus, 
 p. 75, s. 6. So far, however, as we consider 
 the designs of God in respect to his creatures, 
 (and in this respect alone can we consider 
 them,) it was his object to give them indivi- 
 dually that degree of perfection and of well- 
 being of which they might be susceptible. 
 This what is meant in the Bible, when it is said, 
 He created everything for his own glory, (rather, 
 glorification,} in reference to us rational beings, 
 who are to learn his majesty and his glorious 
 perfections from the works of his hand. This 
 is enough for us to know in order to make a 
 wise use of the world. The theological doc- 
 trine, that God had his own glory as his highest 
 object in the creation of the world, when thus 
 explained, is just and scriptural. Cf. s. 24, 1; 
 s. 18, I. Note. 
 
 Now if optimism be thus defined, and if the 
 supposition that many worlds were possible is 
 admitted, it is a true doctrine. When, however, 
 Leibnitz and Wolf maintained that the best 
 world could not exist without imperfection, evil, 
 and sin, (which will be farther considered in 
 the articles on Providence and the Apostasy,) 
 the theologians of that age were unable to re- 
 concile it with their common theories and modes 
 of expression, and supposed that by this doc- 
 trine God was made the author of sin. This 
 was the case with Buddeus, Lange, Weismann, 
 and others. Vide Baumeister, Historia doc- 
 trinae recentius controversy de mundo optimo; 
 Gorlit. 1741. 
 
 The philosophy of Kant sets aside the theory 
 of optimism as incapable of proof, and resting 
 upon arbitrary notions of the moral attributes 
 of God. Kant's objections against this doc- 
 trine, or rather, against the abuse of it, may be 
 found in his Kritik der Urtheilskraft ; Berlin, 
 1790, 8vo; and in Rehberg, Verhaltniss der 
 Metaphysik zur Religion, Abschn. 5, 6. [Cf. 
 Hahn, s. 60, Anmerk. 4, 5. Bretschneider, b. 
 i. s. 584.] 
 
 SECTION XLIX. 
 
 OF THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION, 
 ITS OBJECT, AND THE VARIOUS HYPOTHESES 
 ADOPTED TO EXPLAIN IT. 
 
 I. Object of this Narration, and whence it was 
 derived. 
 
 THESE points must be determined before we 
 can attain a position from which we can survey 
 the whole subject in all its bearings. Moses 
 wrote primarily for his own nation, the Israel- 
 ites. And the surest way to determine what 
 
172 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 end he had in view in writing this narrative, is 
 to consider the circumstances and wants of the 
 Jews at the time he wrote ; and these are best 
 learned from his own books. 
 
 1. One principal object which Moses had in 
 view in this account, was to shew that the God 
 whom the Israelites worshipped was the being 
 from whom all things derived their existence^ and 
 that, consequently, their national God was the 
 God and Lord of the whole universe, and not a 
 being of so limited a nature as the national dei- 
 ties at that time were usually imagined. The 
 Israelites had a very strong propensity to the 
 polytheism then prevalent. Even many among 
 them, who worshipped Jehovah as their national 
 God, still considered the heathen idols as dei- 
 ties having rule over other nations and coun- 
 tries. And so they frequently regarded Jehovah 
 as the God of their own nation only, and their 
 own land ; and not of the whole earth, or world. 
 Vide s. 16. And as they had seen image-wor- 
 ship in Egypt, they frequently worshipped their 
 own God under various forms e. g. that of a 
 golden calf, Ex. xxxii. This tendency among 
 the Jews gave rise to those severe laws which 
 Moses enacted against image and idol worship, 
 Ex. xx. 4; Deut. iv. 1517. Many of the Is- 
 raelites worshipped the stars. Vide the texts 
 above cited. 
 
 Now this history of the creation clearly shews 
 that the God whom the Israelites worshipped is 
 the Creator and Lord of the whole universe; 
 that the firmament and the stars, as well as the 
 earth and its inhabitants, are his work, and his 
 alone; that there are not many gods, but ONE 
 only, the author of all things ; that these things 
 were created by God for the good, advantage, 
 and service of man, and not to be worshipped 
 by him, and that, on the contrary, he himself is 
 appointed by God to be the lord and ruler of the 
 earth, and of all the inferior creatures that in- 
 habit it. 
 
 Such a history was the more necessary, from 
 the fact that almost all the ancient books of le- 
 gislation and religion began with cosmogonies. 
 This was the case with the books of the Pheni- 
 cians, Greeks, &c. The same might therefore 
 have been expected from Moses by his country- 
 men, especially as many of the cosmogonies of 
 other nations were false, and needed to be cor- 
 rected. 
 
 2. Moses intended, also, by this account, to 
 confirm, impress, and solemnize many of his 
 positive institutions and laws. Thus what he 
 says, in the account of the work of the fourth 
 day, (ver. 14,) respecting the use of the sun and 
 moon in the reckoning of time, was designed to 
 recommend the custom which he had instituted 
 among the Israelites of reckoning time, and ob- 
 serving feasts and public solemnities, according 
 to moons and lunar years. And thus, especially 
 
 in the account which he gives of the seventh day 
 (ii. 2, 3), on which God rested when his labours 
 were done, he has an obvious reference to the 
 institution of the Sabbath. This becomes still 
 more evident on a comparison of these verses 
 with Ex. xx. 8 11; for it is there expressly 
 said respecting the Mosaic institution of the 
 Sabbath, " that no labour should be done in it, 
 because God laboured only six days, as it were, 
 and rested on the seventh day ; wherefore God 
 consecrated (-112) the seventh day, and appoint- 
 ed it for a festival (inch^)." In what way, 
 now, could this solemn festival of the Jewish 
 nation have received a higher sanction and inte- 
 rest, than from such a consideration as this 1 The 
 Sabbath was thus consecrated as a solemn festi- 
 val in remembrance of the creation, and in it the 
 Jews were required to rest from their labour in 
 honour of God, their creator and the creator of the 
 world, and to employ this rest in religious me- 
 ditation, and in celebrating his perfections. 
 Hence the Hebrew psalms intended for the Sab- 
 bath day were hymns of praise to God for his 
 greatness, as manifested in his works e. g., 
 Ps. xcii. 1, seq. This reference of Moses to 
 the institution of the Sabbath in what he says 
 of the consecration of the seventh day in his 
 history of the creation, is so evident, that it was 
 perceived by many of the ecclesiastical fathers 
 e. g., Philoponus, in the sixth century, in his 
 Hexaemer, 1. i. c. 3. 
 
 Eichhorn,inhis "Urgeschichte," has endea- 
 voured, very ingeniously, to carry out this idea 
 respecting the object for which Moses wrote. 
 Vide Repertor. fur bibl. Lit. th. iv. s. 129172 ; 
 Leipzig, 1779; and, Eichhorn's Urgeschichte, 
 herausgegeben mil Einleitung und Anmerkun- 
 gen, von Dr. Job. Phil. Gabler, 1 th. Altorf und 
 Nurenberg, 1790, 8vo, and Ite Abth. des 2n th., 
 at the same place, 1791. Cf. Gabler, Neuer 
 Versuch iiber die Mosaische Schopfungsges- 
 chichte aus der hohern Kritik; Altorf, 1795, 
 8vo ; and, Vater, in his " Commentar zu dem 
 Pentateuch," th. iii. Eichhorn, however, main- 
 tains that Moses fabricated this whole history 
 of the creation, for the mere purpose of esta- 
 blishing some truth, or of sanctioning some of 
 his religious institutions. But this opinion 
 cannot be proved, and only involves us in new 
 difficulties. There is no reason to regard this 
 history as a fabrication of Moses himself, be- 
 cause he is not known in any other case to have 
 invented fables to recommend his most import- 
 ant laws and institutions. Others are of opi- 
 nion, that he found this history previously ex- 
 isting, and applied it to the confirmation of his 
 institutions. That such was the case cannot, 
 however, be proved, as he himself is silent upon 
 the subject. Such might have been the case; 
 and the supposition detracts nothing from the 
 author of the book of Genesis. This opinion 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 173 
 
 was maintained long since by Astriic in his 
 "Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont 
 il paroit que Moses s'est servi pour composer le 
 livre de la Genese," (Bruxelles, 1753, 8vo,) and 
 by Jerusalem, in his " Briefe ueber die Mosa- 
 ische Schrift und Philosophic," (Braunschw. 
 1762, 8vo;) who endeavoured to shew, that 
 Moses, in his first book, made use of ancient 
 narratives orally transmitted, and of written me- 
 morials, derived in part from the antediluvian 
 world. The design, then, of Moses, (as the 
 following chapters of his first book shew,) was 
 to preserve in Genesis such venerable remnants 
 of antiquity as had been handed down from the 
 patriarchal age. Now if it is apparent, as even 
 Eichhorn allows, that Moses made use of such 
 fragments in the composition of the second and 
 third chapters, it is hard to see why he should 
 be supposed to have fabricated the whole narra- 
 tive in the first chapter. Besides, it is common 
 for the ancient traditions and religious memo- 
 rials of a nation to begin with cosmogonies. 
 And it is therefore probable, that an ancient ac- 
 count of the creation had been transmitted, 
 which Moses either inserted as he found it, or 
 remodelled to suit his own purpose. All this, 
 however, is mere hypothesis and ingenious con- 
 jecture. 
 
 The number seven has been a sacred number 
 in all the East from the earliest times. Here, 
 say some, is the ground of the representation 
 that the creation lasted to the seventh day. 
 But how can this be proved 1 With as much 
 reason one might reverse the statement, and 
 say, this account of the creation, which was 
 widely circulated in the ages before and after 
 the deluge, was the reason why the number 
 seven was adopted as the sacred number. And 
 no one is able to disprove this. Such hypothe- 
 ses never lead to a certain result. 
 
 As respects the Sabbath, it was not first in- 
 stituted by Moses, but was an ancient usage, as 
 Michaelis has shewn in his "Mosaisches Recht," 
 and others after him, with much reason. Moses, 
 however, found it necessary to enact new laws 
 for the observance of this ancient institution. 
 Eichhorn, indeed, considers this opinion un- 
 founded, though without sufficient reason. For 
 we find this day hallowed as a day of rest among 
 the Israelites, even before the legislation of Moses 
 commenced. Vide Ex. xvi. 23. The Sabbath 
 is there called a day of holy rest in honour of 
 Jehovah. Cf. J. W. Ran, Progr. de fictione 
 Mosaica, falso adserta; Erlang. 1779. Beck, 
 De fontibus sententiarum de creatione ; Lipsag, 
 1782, 4to. Paulus, Abhandlung ueber die An- 
 lage und den Zweck des ersten und zweyten 
 Fragments der altesten Mosaischen Menschen- 
 geschichte, in his Neu. Reper. fur bibl. und 
 morgendland. Lit. th. ii. Num. 5; Jena, 1790, 
 6vo. He considers the first chapter of Genesis 
 
 as an ancient Sabbath-hymn, which owes its 
 whole form and structure to the division of time 
 into six days for labour, and a day of rest. 
 
 II. Consequences from these General Remarks. 
 
 If the remarks made in No. I. are true, the 
 following rules and principles must be adopted 
 in the interpretation of the history of the crea- 
 tion: 
 
 1. Moses did not write as a naturalist or phi- 
 losopher, intending to make his account the basis 
 of a scientific physiology. Vide Morus, p. 73, 
 s. 3, Num. 2. He did not design to shew, as a 
 naturalist would have done, the manner in which 
 particular things were created. The opinion was 
 formerly very prevalent, especially among the 
 Jews, that the Bible was a general repository of 
 every kind of knowledge, as well as of the doc- 
 trines of faith and morality, or at least that it 
 contained the first germ of all the sciences; and 
 as improvements were gradually made in natural 
 science, they were supposed to be contained in 
 the Bible, and from the general and comprehen- 
 sive nature of scriptural language, often with 
 great appearance of truth. But in this attempt 
 the true object of the Bible was overlooked ; 
 which was the reason, also, that allegorical in- 
 terpretation found so much approbation for- 
 merly. 
 
 The writings of Homer met with the same 
 fate among the Greeks which those of Moses 
 have experienced among the Jews and Chris- 
 tians. Everybody forced his own system upon 
 these writings, and found it confirmed by them, 
 without ever thinking that learned sciences did 
 not exist at so early an age of the world, and 
 that they are unsuitable to the common people 
 of any age. They could not have been pos- 
 sessed by the writers to whom they are attri- 
 buted, nor could they have been understood by 
 their contemporaries. 
 
 The whole representation which Moses has 
 given of the creation of the world is as simple 
 as possible, and such as doubtless was perfectly 
 intelligible to those who lived in that infant age 
 of the world, and is still so to men in common 
 life. The more familiar one becomes with the 
 views and wants of men at large the more he 
 is able to place himself in their condition, the 
 more justly will he be able to explain this pas- 
 sage, and the more fully will he enter into the 
 spirit of its author. In the Bible, God speaks 
 with men after the manner of men, and not in a 
 language which is beyond the comprehension 
 of most of them, as the learned would fain make 
 it to be. Well, indeed, is it for the great mass 
 of mankind that the learned were not consulted 
 respecting the manner in which the Bible should 
 be written ! 
 
 W T hen the study of nature became more pre 
 valent in the seventeenth century, it was very 
 p2 
 
174 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 common among Christian interpreters, who at 
 that time adopted the principle before stated, 
 either to derive their systems of physiology from 
 the writings of Moses, or to force them upon 
 him. The first fault was committed, though 
 with the best intentions, by the otherwise very 
 deserving Job. Amos Comenius, in his " Synopsi 
 physices ad lumen divinum reformatse." He 
 had many followers. The latter fault was first 
 committed by some adherents of the Cartesian 
 philosophy. They believed that they found 
 many of the peculiar doctrines of Des Cartes 
 very clearly exhibited in the writings of Moses. 
 Des Cartes himself appeared to be of this opi- 
 nion. Vide, e. g., Job. Amerpoel (Cartesius 
 Mosaizans), Beaufort, Rambert, and others. 
 
 The same was done in the eighteenth century, 
 and in still more modern times. There have 
 always been some who have believed that they 
 found the various philosophical systems of New- 
 ton, Wolf, Buffon, and Bergmann in the writings 
 of Moses, or at least that they could reconcile 
 these philosophers with him. But Moses will 
 as little confirm the theories of one philosopher 
 as he will contradict those of another. All the 
 attempts made by different philosophers to an- 
 swer objections to their own theory drawn from 
 the Mosaic geogony, or to draw arguments from 
 it to confute the theories of others, are labour 
 thrown away. Cf. Silberschlag, Geogonie, oder, 
 Erklarung der Mosaischen Erderschaffung nach 
 physikalischen und mathematischen Grundsat- 
 zen, 3 thle; Berlin, 178083, a work which 
 contains much of the sort above mentioned. Cf. 
 the "Neue Theorie der Erde," by the same 
 author, containing many very good scientific 
 observations, but also many rash and untenable 
 positions. Vide also, De Liic., Lettres phy- 
 siques et morales sur 1'histoire de la terre et de 
 1'homme, & la Haye, 6 torn. 1779, 8vo. Dr. Ro- 
 senmuller, Antiquiss. telluris Historia ; UlmaR, 
 1776, 8vo, is very useful as a collection of ma- 
 terials for a history of opinions, &c. 
 
 2. In this description of the creation regard is 
 shewn to the comprehension of common men, 
 especially of men in that early age ; and it is 
 not improbable, as remarked before, that it may 
 foave been composed by Moses from ancient 
 written records. 
 
 The general subject of this passage is indi- 
 cated in ver. 1. This is then enlarged upon in 
 the following verses, not to gratify the curiosity 
 of scientific men, but to meet the wants of those 
 who lived in the age in which it was written, 
 -and of common men in aM ages. This amplifi- 
 cation is entirely simple and popular ; and when 
 the work of creation is here represented as a six- 
 days 1 work, it is to be considered as a picture, in 
 which God appears as a human workman, who 
 accomplishes what he undertakes only by piece- 
 meal, and on each successive day lays out and 
 
 performs a separate portion of his business. By 
 such a representation the notion of the creation 
 is made easy to every mind ; and common peo- 
 ple, seeing it so distinctly portrayed, can form 
 some clear conceptions concerning it, and read 
 or hear the account of it with interest. 
 
 Many modern writers (e. g., Paul us) are of 
 opinion that Moses, or the author of this history, 
 whoever he may be, designed this description 
 merely as a philosopheme respecting the manner 
 in which the creation might have taken place, 
 not intending that it should be understood as 
 literal fact. And it cannot be denied that we 
 find many difficulties in the whole narration con- 
 sidered as literally true. These difficulties, how- 
 ever, do not justify us in affirming that Moses 
 did not design to represent these events as ac- 
 tually taking place. On the contrary, it clearly 
 appears from many other texts in his writings 
 that he did intend to relate these events as literal 
 facts. He himself elsewhere alludes to the 
 creation, as Morus justly remarks, (p. 73, s. 3, 
 n. 2,) as to res in facto posita; as Ex. xx. 11 ; 
 xxxi. 17. 
 
 This Mosaic history of the creation teaches us 
 the three following truths : (a) that the world 
 began to exist, and that God was its author, 
 (Gen. i. 1 ;) and that the world therefore is not 
 eternal, and God is wholly distinct from the 
 world. (6) That the constitution, connexion, 
 and final destination of all existing things are 
 from God alone, ver. 2, seq. (c) That the uni- 
 verse, and especially our earth, was not brought 
 at once by the hand of its Creator into the forr/i 
 and state in which we now see it ; but yet within 
 a moderately short time. 
 
 Herder's " Aelteste Urkunde des Menschen- 
 geschlechts" contains many very valuable re- 
 marks which may assist one in placing this his- 
 tory in its proper light. His statements, how- 
 ever, are frequently obscure and enigmatical, 
 and built in a great measure upon hypothesis. 
 Vide a review of this work in the " Allgem. 
 deutschen Bibl.," thle. 25, 30. But the Ur- 
 geschichte" of Eichhorn is the most important 
 work on this subject. It was first published in 
 the "Repert. fur bibl. Liter." th. 4; Leipzig, 
 1779 ; and edited with notes, by Gabler ; Altorf, 
 1790. These are also a number of essays on 
 this subject by Dr. Paulus and others, in his Re- 
 pertorium, Memorabilien, and Theological Jour- 
 nal. Cf. Ilgen, Urkunde des Jerusalenrschen 
 Tempelarchivs, and Vater, Commentar iiber 
 den Pentateuch. 
 
 3. From this history of the creation it follows, 
 that our globe, and the race of men that now 
 dwells upon it, is about six thousand years old. 
 I say, about six thousand years. For Moses 
 does not give us an exact chronology, and time 
 cannot be reckoned with certainty from the ge- 
 nealogies of the patriarchs, because only the 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 175 
 
 most remarkable men and their families are 
 mentioned, while less distinguished names and 
 generations are omitted. This is the common 
 custom in oriental genealogies; and is the case 
 in the first of Matthew. Besides, there is a 
 great difference between our present Hebrew 
 text and the Cod. Sam. and the LXX., in respect 
 to the number of years ; although the readings 
 of our texts, on the whole, are far better sup- 
 ported than the others. 
 
 The human race is much older than this, ac- 
 cording to the belief of some other nations 
 e. g., the Chinese and Indian. The whole sub- 
 ject, indeed, presents many difficulties; it is, 
 however, strange, that Voltaire and other ene- 
 mies of the Bible should have embraced in such 
 a credulous and partial manner the monstrous 
 and unfounded calculations of the Chinese and 
 Indians in preference to the evidence which may 
 be derived from Moses. Some have endeavoured 
 to confirm the truth of the Mosaic account of the 
 later origin of the human race from the more 
 recent origin of the arts and sciences among men 
 than would be consistent with the theories be- 
 fore mentioned, and from many other considera- 
 tions ; which, however, in themselves, are riot 
 satisfactory. 
 
 One important question in relation to this sub- 
 ject remains to be investigated : Does Moses 
 speak in the first chapter of ihe first creation of 
 the globe, or only of a new creation, a remodel- 
 ling of it, and planting it with a new race "\ Cf. 
 Morus, p. 73, n. 6. Many modern naturalists 
 affirm that the earth must have existed much 
 earlier than the time of which Moses speaks, 
 perhaps a thousand years ; and that during this 
 earliest period it must have undergone astonish- 
 ing revolutions, to which, however, no history 
 can of course extend, as they took place before 
 the existence of the present race of men. They 
 think these tremendous revolutions are proved 
 by the sea-animals which are found, sometimes 
 singly and sometimes in whole layers, upon the 
 highest mountains and in the deepest clefts 
 of the earth, far distant from the present bed 
 of the ocean; by the remnants of plants and 
 beasts found in climates entirely different from 
 those in which they are native e. g., the bones 
 of the elephant found in Liberia, &c. ; by the pe- 
 trifactions which are found deep in the interior 
 of the earth, &c. All these appearances are con- 
 sidered by some as proof that great alterations 
 have taken place in the earth which He far be- 
 yond the reach of our history. Vide Biiffon and 
 Justi, Geschichte des Erdbodens aus seinen 
 innerlichen und aiisserlichen BescharTenheiten 
 hergeleitet und erwiesen; Berlin, 1771, 8vo; 
 Bergmann, Physikalische Beschreibung der 
 Erdkugel; Greifswald, 1769. Other great na- 
 turalists, however, even Linneus, Haller, De 
 Li'ic, and Silberschlag, do not think these facts 
 
 are incontrovertible proof of what many have so 
 confidently deduced from them. 
 
 Many modern interpreters and theologians 
 have supposed, in order to reconcile more easily 
 the account of Moses with the assertions and 
 hypotheses of modern naturalists, that Moses 
 speaks of the creation of the whole universe in 
 the first verse only ; and that from ver. 2 on- 
 wards he turns exclusively to the earth, and then 
 describes, not its first creation, but only a re- 
 formation and new constitution of it. They sup- 
 pose, accordingly, that in the first verse he in- 
 tends to say simply, God created the whole 
 universe, without determining when, and that in 
 the following verses he has particular reference 
 to the earth, and describes its present formation, 
 without determining whether it took place at the 
 very time when God created the universe or a 
 thousand years afterwards, when the earth may 
 have been already once or many times inhabited 
 by different races of beings. They have endea- 
 voured once to establish this hypothesis even by 
 other texts of scripture, as Ps. civ. 6 9, which 
 indeed is an amplification of the Mosaic account 
 of the creation, but which gives no information 
 respecting the time or the duration of this revolu- 
 tion, and none respecting a race of creatures 
 previously existing upon the earth. The pas- 
 sage, 2 Pet. iii. 6, is cited with still less propriety 
 in support of this hypothesis. The o nbtt xoa- 
 juoj refers undoubtedly to the men who lived be- 
 fore the flood ; as appears from chap. ii. 5. 
 
 The following remarks may enable us to de- 
 cide with regard to this hypothesis : 
 
 It is true that, from ver. 2 onwards, Moses 
 confines himself principally to our globe, though 
 still, in ver. 14 19, he describes the creation 
 of the heavenly bodies ; which description, ac- 
 cording to this hypothesis, must be considered 
 as merely optical, intended to convey the idea 
 that these bodies then for the first time became 
 visible from the newly-formed earth. But it 
 cannot be proved that Moses intended from ver. 
 2 to describe only a new formation of the earth. 
 
 1. He always distinctly connects the creation 
 of the earth with that of the rest of the universe, 
 and he uses expressions so entirely similar re- 
 specting the two that open violence must be done 
 to his words before they can be understood to 
 refer at one time to a re-formation of the earth, 
 and at another to its original creation, according 
 to this modern hypothesis e. g., Gen. ii. I r 
 "Thus the heavens and the earth were com- 
 pleted, and all the host of them" i. e., all crea- 
 tures. Ex. xx. 11, "In six days, God made 
 heaven and earth and sea, and all which there- 
 in is." 
 
 2. Those who consider this history of the 
 creation as a mere human production, as is very 
 common at the present day, cannot consistently 
 admit that Moses intended to describe only a 
 
176 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 remodelling of the earth. For this notion is too 
 little in the spirit of the ancient world, and too 
 nicely adjusted to our present physiological and 
 astronomical knowledge, to have occurred to an 
 uninspired historian. The ancients always sup- 
 posed the earth to be the centre of the universe, 
 and the author of this history, living at that early 
 period, and left to himself, could hardly have 
 conjectured that it had previously undergone any 
 such revolutions and changes as are spoken of. 
 Cf. s. 48, II. An uninspired author, writing in 
 ancient times, could scarcely have conceived 
 that the earth should have been created later 
 than the other heavenly bodies, since they were 
 supposed to exist principally for the sake of the 
 earth. Thus, on the supposition that this record 
 is a mere human production, and that Moses, 
 without any divine influence, inserted it in the 
 book of Genesis, we may draw an argument xar' 
 av^pcoTtov against the truth of the above expla- 
 nation. 
 
 We must therefore rest in the belief that it 
 was the real opinion of Moses that God created 
 and finished the whole material world, the whole 
 visible universe, together; and, indeed, in that 
 order and connexion which he describes in the 
 first chapter of Genesis. 
 
 The hypotheses of modern naturalists respect- 
 ing the material of our globe can neither be con- 
 firmed nor refuted from the writings of Moses. 
 Which of all those that have been suggested 
 is true 1 that of Whiston, who supposes the 
 earth to be formed from a comet ; that of Leib- 
 nitz, who makes it a sun burnt out; that of Buf- 
 fon, according to whom all the heavenly bodies 
 are fragments broken off from the body of the 
 sun by the concussion of a comet; or that of 
 Wideburg, who supposes the earth to have been 
 originally a spot on the sun,- must be determined 
 on other grounds than the testimony of Moses. 
 Vide Silberschlag's " Geogonie" for an account 
 of these and other systems. He justly rejects 
 the opinion that Moses speaks in this passage 
 only of a revolution or remodelling of the earth. 
 
 All these learned speculations and inquiries 
 respecting the material of the earth &c. lie be- 
 yond the object and sphere of Moses. And any 
 of these hypotheses of the naturalists may be 
 adopted or rejected, the Mosaic geogony not- 
 withstanding. Nor can the authority of Moses 
 be brought to decide the question, whether the 
 whole globe, or only the higher regions of Asia, 
 received at first their full and complete forma- 
 tion and present structure. Herder and Doeder- 
 lein suppose the latter ; but the author of this 
 record appears rather to favour the former. He 
 speaks in general terms of the earth that is, 
 so far as it was known to him. Still nothing 
 can be determined upon this subject from his 
 authority. 
 
 Note. The question has been asked, At what 
 
 time in the year was the world created? The 
 Jews commonly answer, according to the Chal- 
 daic paraphrasts and the cabalists, that the world 
 was created in autumn. They found their opi- 
 nion principally upon the supposed fact, that the 
 patriarchs in the most ancient times commenced 
 their year in autumn; but of this there is no de- 
 finite proof. Others say, in the spring; with 
 which opinion many of the fathers and most mo- 
 dern Christian writers agree. Scaliger, in the 
 first edition of his work, " De emendat. tempp.," 
 advocated the latter opinion ; but in the second 
 edition, the former. In favour of this opinion, 
 Gen. i. 11 is cited, " Let the earth bring forth 
 grass and herb ;" which suits better with spring 
 than harvest. Exod. xii. 2 is also cited, where 
 it is said that the month Nisan (April) shall be 
 the first in the year of the Jews, &c. Accord- 
 ing to Solinus and Macrobius, the Egyptians 
 gave out the summer as the first season of the 
 year. The whole inquiry is fruitless and idle ; 
 for the season can only be relatively determined 
 in respect to the situation of the country in 
 which our first parents lived. For the time of 
 the seasons is not everywhere the same ; when 
 it is summer in one place, it is winter in an- 
 other. 
 
 SECTION L. 
 
 EXPLANATION OF THE MOSAIC HISTORY OF 
 THE CREATION. 
 
 I. General Account of the Creation of the World. 
 
 i. e., the first of all the events in the 
 world, that with which the history of all things 
 commenced, was the creation of the universe 
 (heaven and earth, s. 45) by God. Philo says, 
 To- i* f g|7 iitoiifOsr, laov Irttt, ^9' rtpwror 
 triads tbv ovpavov, De Opif. Mundi, p. 16, Pf. 
 And so Cicero says, "A PRINCIPIO omniafacta 
 a diis et constituta sunt" De Officiis, i. 4, coll. 
 De Natura Deorum, i. 12. Before this, God 
 alone existed ; and he gave existence to every- 
 thing which is exterior to himself. In the same 
 way we must explain iv ap%y v\v o Xoyoj, 
 John, i. 1. "'E| ap*7?j," (ab initio. mundi,) 
 Hesiod, Theog. v. 45. 
 
 After prefixing this general statement, Moses 
 now (ver. 2) proceeds to describe the creation 
 of the earth; vide s. 49. "The earth was 
 waste (inn is applied by the Hebrews and Ara- 
 bians to deserts and wasted towns) and empty, 
 (ira, void, unoccupied, like a chamber without 
 furniture; so in Arabic.") Both terms occur 
 in Isaiah, xxxiv. 11. The earth is thus repre- 
 sented as a rude, formless mass, which, toge- 
 ther with the rest of the material world, is now 
 framed by the artificer in the space of six days, 
 and which gradually receives its full perfection. 
 The whole description is after the manner of 
 
WOIJKS OF GOD. 
 
 177 
 
 men, and is adapted to common apprehension. 
 The same may be said of the description of the 
 creation of man in the second chapter; he was 
 made gradually, and was formed like any other 
 work of art. 
 
 " And darkness was upon the deep waters." 
 Dinn is rendered by Luther, die Tiefe, the deep; 
 aj3r(5cTo$ by the LXX ; but is also deep waters, 
 prof undum, prof undurn pelagus , so frequently in 
 the scriptures, i/ie sea e. g., Gen. xlix. 25 ; Psa. 
 cvi. 9. The meaning here is, the earth, which 
 was then overflowed with water, was in dark- 
 ness. Moses and the ancient Hebrew prophets 
 always describe the original condition of the 
 earth in this way. It was all an open sea, dark 
 and dreadful. The water gradually subsided; 
 the higher regions first became visible, and then 
 the low lands ; and they were covered with light, 
 as is described below. A fuller delineation, and 
 a poetic comment on this passage, is contained 
 in Psa. civ. 5 9. Moses calls the mountains, 
 the eldest sons of the earth those which the earth 
 first produced, Psa. xc. 2, because the mountains 
 first rose from the water, and became visible. 
 Similar opinions respecting the original con- 
 dition and primitive form of the earth are found 
 among other nations e. g., the Egyptians 
 (Diod. Sicul. i. 7) and the Phenicians, (Euse- 
 bius, Praep. Evan. i. 10, taken from Sanchuni- 
 athon.) They supposed that in the beginning 
 all was confused, gloomy, and dark. So the 
 Orphean Hymns represent. And this supposition 
 is in itself very natural ; for darkness commonly 
 precedes light; disorder, order; and emptiness, 
 fulness. The overflowing of water is still the 
 occasion of the most wide-spread desolation, and 
 even of great alterations on the surface of the 
 earth. According to Homer, 'Qxtavos was the 
 eldest progenitor of all the gods ; and from him 
 everything proceeded, II. xiv. 201, 246; xv. 
 187, seq. Many modern naturalists suppose that 
 the bottom of the sea was pressed up by subter- 
 ranean fire, and that in this way the mountains 
 and firm land arose above the waters. On this 
 supposition the sea-products found upon moun- 
 tains are explained. Vide Silberschlag's " Ge- 
 ogonie." Moses does not contradict this opi- 
 nion ; but neither, on the other hand, have we 
 reason to believe that he intended to teach it. 
 He only relates the fact that the dry land ap- 
 peared, without determining how this was 
 brought about, whether from the subsidence of 
 the waters, from the action of internal fire, or 
 some other cause. 
 
 D?DH ^-Sp nornp o^nSt* nn. What is here 
 called o^nS nn, is elsewhere called DTI^S PCC ; J, 
 Gen. ii. 7; Psa. civ. 30; the spirit, the breath 
 of God, which vivifies everything i. e., the ef- 
 ficient, all-animating, all-creative power of God. 
 On the word nn, vide s. 9, and s. 19, IL ]rn 
 23 
 
 is variously explained. The LXX. and other 
 Greek interpreters render it 67te$e'pe*o, moved 
 over the waters. The Chaldaic, Samaritan, 
 and both the Arabic versions, render it blew over 
 the waters. Others render it, to make warm, 
 calefacere, (to vivify;) because it is applied to 
 the hatching of eggs by warmth, Deut. xxxii. 
 1 1. Michaelis translates it from the Syriac, to 
 descend, let one's self down, se demittere. ' In 
 whatever way it is translated, the main idea re- 
 mains the same the effect and motion produced 
 by the almighty power of God. 
 
 II. The Six-days' Work; ver. 3, seq. 
 
 1. Introductory remarks upon the question, 
 What is here meant by days? and respecting 
 some difficulties which occur in relation to the 
 whole description, and the manner of obviating 
 them. 
 
 It appears from the preceding sections, that 
 God may be supposed either to have created at 
 once the whole system of things, as it now ex- 
 ists, or to have first produced the material from 
 which all things were formed, with the power 
 to develop itself gradually, and that he may 
 have caused this further development to proceed 
 by means of these natural powers, himself ex- 
 erting a direct influence only where they were 
 insufficient. The latter is the scriptural idea. 
 The object of exhibiting the creation as a six- 
 days' work has been shewn to be, to render the 
 subject perspicuous and intelligible to men; to 
 depict before their eyes the manner in which 
 each thing in succession was accomplished, and 
 the whole gradually finished under divine influ- 
 ence and direction. 
 
 By days Moses appears to have meant com- 
 mon days of twenty-four hours. For (a) their 
 limits are always determined by morning and 
 evening, which being understood literally, the 
 day must be literal also. (6) In all other texts 
 where Moses alludes to the account of the crea- 
 tion, literal days are always clearly presup- 
 posed e. g., Exod. xx. 11, where the institu- 
 tion of the Sabbath in described ; and chap, 
 xxxi. 17. But interpreters find various diffi- 
 culties in this supposition. How, they ask, 
 could so much be done in one day, without 
 heaping together too many miracles? or, how 
 could Moses speak of days, in ver. 5, 8, 13, be- 
 fore the sun as yet existed, which, according to 
 ver. 16, seq., was not until the fourth day ? and 
 many more questions of the same kind. To 
 avoid these difficulties various other hypotheses 
 are invented. Some say the three first days 
 were periods of indefinite length, but the three 
 last, ordinary days of twenty-four hours; so 
 Michaelis. Others understand by D^DN through 
 the whole description, periods of indefinite 
 length ; or they prolong each day into a mon- 
 
178 
 
 strous duration. According to Des Cartes, each 
 day was a thousand years , six thousand years, 
 therefore, were occupied in forming the earth! 
 According to Whiston, each day is one year 
 only. But such conjectures, as everybody sees, 
 are arbitrary and groundless. 
 
 If we would form a clear and distinct notion 
 of this whole description of the creation, we 
 must conceive of six separate pictures, in which 
 this great work is represented in each succes- 
 sive stage of its progress towards completion. 
 And as the performance of the painter, though 
 it must have natural truth as its foundation, 
 must not be considered or judged of as a deli- 
 neation of mathematical or scientific accuracy, 
 so neither must this pictorial representation of 
 the creation be regarded as literally and exactly 
 true. 
 
 First picture ,- ver. 3 5. The earth, before 
 dark and invisible, is enlightened, that the spec- 
 tator may be able to see it, and that the builder 
 may be able to mould and fashion the materials 
 upon which he is to work. This light is of pe- 
 riodical succession, causing day and night, be- 
 cause the whole is divided into days' works. 
 Whence this light proceeds is a question which 
 cannot properly be proposed here ; it is sufficient 
 to say that there must have been light enough 
 to enable the spectator in some measure to dis- 
 cern the objects as they were formed. We 
 cannot conclude, that because the light of day 
 at present proceeds from the sun, there could 
 have been no light before the sun existed. In- 
 deed, there are other luminous bodies besides 
 our sun, which shine with unborrowed light. 
 The sun itself was not created until the fourth 
 day. At present it is sufficient that it is alter- 
 nately clear and obscure, and that there is light 
 both for the artificer and the spectator. Proba- 
 bly, however, it was only a glimmering and 
 obscure light, like the morning or evening twi- 
 light. 
 
 Second picture ; ver. 6 8. Though light has 
 dawned upon the earth, an ocean still encircles 
 the globe, and cloud and vapour float over the 
 waters. The upper water is now separated from 
 the under ; so that, as the Egyptians say, hea- 
 ven and earth may no more be commingled and 
 united in one mass, (Diod. Sic. 1, 7,) as they 
 were on the first day. This is the second day's 
 work. <* 
 
 Third picture ; ver. 9 13. After this great 
 division, the other great movements can now 
 proceed without hindrance. The builder first 
 applies his hand to the inferior portion. He 
 causes the dry land to rise from the lower waters, 
 and separates it from the ocean, and from the 
 smaller collections and currents of water, which 
 now flow into the lower regions of the earth. 
 This land is next furnished with plants of every 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 kind. The naturalist may indeed object, that it 
 
 is incredible that plants should spring from the 
 earth before the appearance of the sun ; but it 
 does not follow that, because such is the uni- 
 form course since the universe and the earth are 
 finished, therefore such must have been the case 
 in this incipient state. Besides, it seems that 
 the plants were only created on the third day, 
 and grew and increased immediately on the ap- 
 pearance of the sun on the following day. On 
 this third day the earth was sowed and planted 
 for the first time by Him who created the seeds 
 and plants. And as we frequently sow and 
 plant to-day because we expect that to-morrow 
 and on the succeeding days there will be wea- 
 ther favourable to the growth and germination 
 of the seeds ; so may God have now sowed and 
 planted the earth, in prospect of the sun which 
 on the morrow he should place in the heavens. 
 
 Fourth picture; ver. 14 19. The superior 
 portion is now to be fashioned the upper 
 waters, or the atmosphere. Here now the ob- 
 server discovers the sun, moon, and stars appa- 
 rently floating in a high and immeasurable dis- 
 tance above the clouds. These henceforth en- 
 lighten the earth and shed their influence upon 
 it. The little moon is represented as, next to 
 the sun, the greatest light, because it appears so 
 to us. A painter would justly be accused of a 
 fault, if he should otherwise represent it. He 
 must represent it as it appears to the eye. 
 
 Fifth picture ; ver. 20 23. The upper and 
 lower waters are peopled with inhabitants- 
 birds, fishes, and other creatures of the sea. 
 The supposition sometimes made, that Mosea 
 describes the birds as formed from the waters, 
 is without foundation. 
 
 Sixth picture ; ver. 24 31. The inhabitants 
 of the dry land are now produced, after every- 
 thing is properly prepared for them, and pravi- 
 sion made for their sustenance all the beasts 
 of the field, quadrupeds, and reptiles; and, 
 lastly, man himself, the lord of this lower cre- 
 ation. He is not introduced into his dwelling 
 before it is entirely ready. The house is first 
 built, and then the occupant enters. Vide the 
 Article on the creation of man. 
 
 At the end of the sixth day the builder once 
 more reviews his whole work " He considered 
 everything which he had made, and behold ! it 
 was very good." The same formula of appro- 
 bation occurs at the end of the several days' 
 works, with only two exceptions viz., (a) It 
 is entirely wanting at the end of the second day's 
 work, (ver. 8.) In some MSS. of the Septua- 
 gint, the formula is here introduced, but it is 
 wanting in others. Zacharia conjectures (Bibl. 
 th. ii. s. 34, f.) that the words, "And the even- 
 ing and the morning were the second day," 
 which now stand at the end of ver. 8, should be 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 179 
 
 first introduced at the end of ver. 10, before the 
 words, " and God saw that it was good ;" mak- 
 ing what is now the beginning of the third day's 
 work a part of the second. But this transposi- 
 tion is unnecessary. The use of this formula 
 of approbation appears not to be regulated by 
 the division of days, but by the completion of 
 the larger portions of the creation. All the 
 changes which the water was to undergo were 
 not finished at the end of the second day they 
 continue even into the third ; and this appears 
 to be the reason why the formula of approbation 
 is omitted at the end of the second day. (b) 
 This formula stands in the middle of the de- 
 scription of the work of the sixth day, imme- 
 diately after the mention of the creation of the 
 beasts in ver. 26. Michaelis and Eichhorn well 
 observe here, that it answers the purpose of a 
 p:iuse, before the transition is made from the in- 
 ferior creation, here completed, to the production 
 cf man, the noblest creature of the earth. 
 
 2. Explanation of some obscure terms which 
 occur in the description of the six days' work. 
 
 Ver. 3. For the meaning of the term to speak, 
 as used here and in the rest of the history of the 
 creation, vide s. 47, II. 1. 
 
 Ver. G. rfn is translated by Luther, F'este, 
 because the Vulgate \iasjirmamentum, which is 
 a translation of the a-ftptufiu of the LXX. ftrn, 
 the root of this word, signifies, to stamp (with 
 the feet), Ezek. vi. 11 ; xxv. 6 ; and hence, to 
 spread out, to expand, to hammer out, to tread 
 out, (calcando expandere.) Moses and the other 
 sacred writers always use this term to denote the 
 heavens das Gewulbe, fornix, camera the wel- 
 kin, the expanse over our heads; elsewhere, the tent 
 of the heavens. The origin of the term, and of 
 the idea from which it is derived, can be best 
 learned from Ezekiel's vision, i. 22, 23, 26 ; x. 
 1. jr|-n there denotes the floor of the throne of 
 God in heaven. God, the Ruler and Judge, 
 was imagined by the Jews as sitting upon a 
 throne in heaven. Other nations had the same 
 conception. According to Homer, the gods sat 
 with Jupiter, xpvaey tv SarttScp, (upon a golden 
 floor;) II. iv. 2. The upper sanctuary and the 
 throne of God, then, is above the expanse of the 
 heavens. This expanse is the floor upon which 
 he places his feet, and over which he rides in 
 his chariot of thunder. Vide the texts cited 
 from Ezekiel. Hence the whole earth, which 
 has this yfn for a covering, is frequently called 
 the footstool of God. By y,-n is meant (a) the 
 atmosphere, which bears the rainy and stormy 
 clouds : also (6) whatever is still above them 
 all that the eye can see over us in the heavens. 
 In the immeasurable distance of the blue sky, 
 high above the region of the clouds, float the 
 sun, moon, and stars, as it appears to the eye. 
 For this reason they are placed in the firma- 
 
 ment, ver. 15, 17. When it is said, ver. 8, 
 " God called the ip,-n, heaven," it is as much as 
 to say, what we call heaven is God's footstool; 
 what we behold high over our heads is under 
 his feet. So in Homer it is said, " Men call it 
 so; the gods call it differently." The Deity 
 sees everything in a different light from what 
 we do, and therefore names everything differ- 
 ently, to speak after the manner of men. 
 
 Ver. 11, 12. Ntr-i is the generic name for 
 everything which grows out of the earth the 
 green plant, vj? is the specific name for trees 
 and arboreous plants, ivy stands for the herb 
 and lesser plants, jru is used in Hebrew in re- 
 ference both to sowing and planting, like the 
 Latin serere, and denotes therefore here every 
 kind of propagation. 
 
 Ver. 14. The usefulness of the heavenly bo- 
 dies to the earth and to men is here stated. The 
 word niN, sign, signifies a mark for the division 
 of time. The sun and stars are intended to de- 
 termine the times, (onpio,) the days, and the 
 years. O>IJMD are not so much the four revolv- 
 ing seasons of the year, as months. For (a) they 
 are connected with years and days. (6) In Ps. 
 civ. 19, the O'njrio are said to be determined by 
 the moon, because they are defined by her mo- 
 tion : " He created the moon for the computa- 
 tion of time." 
 
 Ver. 20. y^S webende Thiere, (moving crea- 
 tures,) Luther. Y-\V signifies, to swarm. It 
 denotes, literally, the lively, rapid motion of 
 beasts who are collected in great multitudes. 
 Hence it is used in reference to fishes, birds, 
 and other animals e. g., Exod. i. 7. Here 
 it is applied to sea animals. Cf. Ps. civ. 25. 
 D'DS'n V."~ i? ? not supra cesium, but to heaven, to- 
 wards heaven, heavenwards'; as the flight of birds 
 appears to the eye. 
 
 Ver. 21. D'J-an, WaUfische (whales), Luther, 
 because the LXX. have xr^rj, and the Vulgate 
 ceti. But these words signify all great fishes, 
 pisces cefacei. The Hebrew word is used for all 
 the beasts of the sea of the greater kind, as 
 Psalm civ. 26 ; for the crocodile, Ezek. xxix. 3 ; 
 xxxii. 2 ; also for great serpents, trrn is the 
 name for all creatures which move upon the 
 belly; hence, the worm. It is applied, how- 
 ever, sometimes to creatures that swim, and 
 even to quadrupeds who do not go upright, like 
 man. 
 
 Ver. 22. rp3 denotes here, as frequently, the 
 propagation of the species, or the bestowment 
 of the power to propagate the race ; as ver. 28 ; 
 Gen. xxiv. 60 ; Ps. cxxviii. 3, 4. 
 
 Ver. 24. A division of land-animals; (a) 
 nfcra, the larger kind of tame, domestic ani- 
 mals, when opposed to rvn. (^) &*p->, the smaller 
 kind of tame animals. ' (c) r^pi^n, the wild 
 beast. 
 
180 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ARTICLE VI. 
 
 OP THE CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION 
 
 OF MAN. 
 
 SECTION LI. 
 
 OF THE NATURE OF MAN, ESPECIALLY OF THE 
 SOUL OF MAN, AND OF HIS DESTINATION. 
 
 WITH this subject it will be most convenient 
 to commence this Article. After this, we shall 
 consider the Mosaic account of the creation of 
 man ; then, his happy original condition, not only 
 as described by the Bible and by Christian 
 writers, but also by those who have not enjoyed 
 the light of revelation ; and lastly, the preserva- 
 tion and propagation of the human race. 
 
 I. The Nature of Man. 
 
 1 . Of how many parts does man consist ? The 
 holy scriptures, and even those of the Old Tes- 
 tament, constantly teach that man consists of 
 two parts, body and soul e. g., Eccl. xii. 7, 
 "The dust returns again to the earth, of which 
 it is a part; the spirit returns to God, who gave 
 it;" Matt. x. 28, "Fear not those who kill the 
 body, but cannot kill the soul;" &c. Nor can 
 we suppress the conviction that there is within 
 us a nature different from the body, and superior 
 to it an enlivening and quickening principle, 
 through which we possess the power of feeling, 
 thinking, willing, and acting. But notwith- 
 standing this conviction, there have always been 
 different opinions with regard to the constituent 
 parts of human nature. Some have maintained 
 that either the soul or the body is the only es- 
 sential part of man ; while others have main- 
 tained that he consists of three essential parts, 
 body, soul, and spirit. This opinion had its ori- 
 gin in the cabalistic and Platonic philosophy. 
 The cabalists divided the human soul into rw 
 (life, anima vegetiva), nn (the sensitive soul, 
 anima sensitiva}, and nrtrj, (the rational soul, 
 anima rationalis."} By this division, however, 
 they did not mean to teach that there are three 
 different substances, but three different powers of 
 one substance. Plato, too, as appears from the 
 history of philosophy, ascribed to man a two- 
 fold or threefold soul, but neither did he pretend 
 that man consists of three parts. Some modern 
 philosophers, who have lived since the time of 
 the schoolmen, have also adopted the opinion of 
 the cabalists, and divide the soul into three parts ; 
 while others defend the opinion that the soul is 
 twofold, and divide the whole man into three 
 parts. But they express themselves so obscurely 
 and ambiguously that it is often doubtful whe- 
 ther by these divisions they understand different 
 substances, or only various powers of one and 
 
 the same substance. The Christian theologians 
 and philosophers who believe that man consists 
 of three essential parts differing from each other, 
 sometimes appeal to scripture in behalf of their 
 opinion. They quote the texts, Luke, i. 46, 
 47 : " My soul magnifies the Lord ; my spirit 
 rejoices in God," &c. Is. xxvi. 9, and espe- 
 cially 1 Thess. v. 23, "That your spirit and 
 soul and body may be preserved blameless to the 
 coming of Christ ;" also Heb. iv. 12. The first 
 who asserted this opinion in modern times was 
 Theophrastus Paracelsus, who was followed by 
 Jacob Boehmen, Weigel, and other theosophists ; 
 also by Andr. Riidiger in his Physica Divina. 
 Luther likewise adopted this division, though 
 it is very clear that he did not consider spirit 
 and soul as different substances, but only as 
 different attributes and operations of the same 
 spiritual essence. Respecting the texts of scrip- 
 ture above cited, it may be remarked, (a) That 
 in most of those cited, rtvsvpa and 4/v^rj are sy- 
 nonymous; as in Isaiah and Luke; also in Heb. 
 iv. 12, where they may be rendered either life 
 or soul, as the passage refers to death, or the 
 separation of the soul or life from the body. 
 (b) The passage in the epistle to the Thessalo- 
 nians may be explained in two ways. As Paul 
 evidently here writes in strong excitement, he 
 may have heaped these words together, though 
 they do not differ in meaning, in order to give 
 his admonition more effect. So Augustine sup- 
 posed, (De Anima, iv. 21.) But the probability 
 is, that he meant to distinguish Ttvt vua and ^v%r t ; 
 not meaning, however, by any means, to imply 
 that man consists of three essential parts ; but 
 only to distinguish rtvsvua and ^v^n as two 
 different powers of one substance. This the 
 Hebrews and Grecian Jews frequently did. 
 By rtvfvua, and nn, they often meant, the supe- 
 rior faculties of the soul, the reason ; and by -^vxn 
 and ctej the sensual part, which we possess in 
 common with the brutes the desires, Sinnlich- 
 keit ; Ps. cxxxi. 2, seq. Josephus says, Arch. 
 i. 1., "ErtTuWiv o so? ai/^piortoy, %ovv drto t^ 
 
 Philo and the New-Testament writers frequent- 
 ly use 4/i>27J and -4/v^txoj in this sense. Vide 
 Jude, ver. 19. 
 
 [Note. The theory according to which man 
 is divided into two parts is called dichotomy ,- 
 that by which he is divided into three parts, tri- 
 chotomy. The latter of these, so rare at the pre- 
 sent day, was the prevailing theory with the 
 early fathers. Vide Tatian, Oral, ad Graecos, p. 
 151, seq. ; Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. v. 6, 7, 9 ; Ori- 
 gen, rtupi ap^wv, iii. 4 ; Nernesius, De Nat. Horn. 
 c. 1. It was indeed opposed by Tertullian, and 
 other writers of the Western church; but it was 
 still believed by many distinguished Christian 
 teachers. Trichotomy is chargeable not only 
 upon Paracelsus, Boehmen, Weigel, and other 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 181 
 
 theosophists, hut also upon Spener, and other 
 so-called Pietists of the seventeenth century. 
 It seems to have been generally believed by 
 those of a more deep and spiritual religion, and 
 is at present the doctrine of the more evangeli- 
 cal part of the Lutheran church. Hahn gives 
 the following scheme of the nature of man : 
 
 (6 t'ffw dipwrtoj) (o 
 
 1. 2. \ 3. 
 
 SPIRIT, (Geist, IL/efya) SOUL, (ij/wtfj) I BoDY,( 
 
 Peculiar to man, with Common both to man and 
 
 brute, with the 
 (a) Reason (a) Under- same properties 
 
 Will 
 (c) Conscience 
 
 standing as other matter, 
 
 (b) Desire and the exter- 
 
 (c) Feeling nal senses, 
 
 as principal attributes. 
 
 Those who make this division must hold, ac- 
 cordingly, that man has not only, in a higher 
 degree, that same understanding, feeling, and 
 desiring soul which is seen in brute creatures; 
 but that he possesses also a nature different in 
 kind from theirs, and by which he is raised 
 above them to the rank of a moral being. TR.] 
 
 2. The notion of soul is expressed in all the 
 ancient languages by terms which originally 
 signify wind, air, breath. And from this fact 
 we can learn what were the notions originally 
 entertained respecting the soul. However ob- 
 scure and indefinite they might have been in 
 some respects, the soul was always conceived 
 to be that invisible power or being from which 
 the body derives its life and activity; and this 
 may be sufficient for practical purposes. Now 
 a man lives and moves only so long as he 
 breathes. Breath is that mark of life which is 
 most obvious to the senses. Hence such terms 
 as literally signify breath, were naturally em- 
 ployed to denote the life and the soul of man. 
 Thus the Hebrew words nn and nctfj, and the 
 Greek words, 4*2*7 an ^ nvtvpa,, stand for the 
 soul. Cf. s. 9, and especially s. 19, II. The 
 word ITS;), from raj, signifies primarily, spiracu- 
 lum, anhelitus; next vita, as Ps. xlix. 9, 16; 
 then animus, as Ps. xvi. 10; also what takes 
 place in the soul, feelings, desires, &c. The 
 same is true of the Latin word spiritus, and of 
 the words animus and anima, both of which 
 originally signify aura, flatus, halitus, and seem 
 to be the same word as the Greek avsp.o$. 
 
 3. The question respecting the internal nature 
 and the quality of the human soul, is one of 
 those difficult and obscure questions which can 
 never be satisfactorily answered in this life. 
 It cannot certainly be decided by anything in 
 the Bible. The soul is there merely contrasted 
 with the body (-toa). The latter, we are in- 
 formed, will return to the earth from which God 
 created it, while the former will return to God, 
 
 who gave it, i. e., produced it in a different 
 way from the body, Eccles. xii. 7. This is 
 said in plain allusion to the account, Gen. i., 
 respecting which vide s. 52. So much is per- 
 fectly evident that the Bible always distin- 
 guishes between soul and body as different 
 substances, and ascribes to each peculiar pro- 
 perties and operations ; and this is in full accord- 
 ance with the manner in which this subject was 
 understood and represented in all the ancient 
 world. 
 
 We should mistake very much, however, if 
 we should suppose that the ancient Israelites, 
 merely because they distinguished widely be- 
 tween soul and body, possessed those strict, 
 metaphysical ideas of the spirituality or imma- 
 teriality of the soul, which are prevalent in the 
 modern schools of philosophy. Such ideas are 
 by far too refined and transcendent to belong to 
 that age ; as also are the pure metaphysical 
 ideas of the spirituality of God which now pre- 
 vail. The whole ancient world, Jews and 
 Greeks, (as likewise the savage nations of the 
 present day,) supposed everything which moved 
 to be animated by a spirit, and this spirit to be a 
 substance, different indeed from grosser matter, 
 but still somewhat corporeal a subtle, material 
 essence, like the wind, air, or breath. This is 
 proved by the ancient languages. Vide No. 2, 
 and the remarks on the spirituality of God, s. 19, 
 II. See the remarks on this subject in the 
 Progr. " Orig. opinionum de immortalitate 
 animi apud nationes barbaras," in Scripta Varii 
 argumenti, No. iii. 
 
 From what has been said, it is evident, 
 (a) That the Bible does in no way support, 
 and indeed that it directly contradicts, that 
 gross materialism which denies all substan- 
 tiality to the soul, considering it a mere acci- 
 dent of matter or of the body. Such an opinion 
 respecting the soul was advocated among the 
 Jews by the Sadducees, (Acts, xxiii. 8,) and 
 among the Greek philosophers originally by 
 Dicaearchus, who entirely denied the existence 
 of the soul as a substance distinct from the 
 body ; Cicero, Tusc. i. 10. This same doctrine 
 has been advocated, as is well known, in mo- 
 dern times, by Hobbes, Toland, De la Mettrie, 
 the author of the " Systeme de la Nature," and 
 others. Indeed, an attempt was made, unsuc- 
 cessfully it need not be said, to reconcile this 
 gross materialism with the holy scriptures, by 
 William Coward, an English physician, in his 
 " Thoughts on the Soul," London, 1704. Priest- 
 ley, too, made a vain attempt to prove from the 
 Bible his ideas respecting the soul, which lead 
 so decidedly to materialism. But from what 
 has been said, it is equally evident, 
 
 (i) That the Bible does not support the mo- 
 dern, fine-spun, metaphysical theories respect- 
 ing the perfect spirituality and immateriality of 
 Q 
 
182 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the soul. The notion of the ancient world re- 
 specting 1 spirit was by no means the same with 
 that of our modern metaphysicians. And if the 
 question of the perfect immateriality of the soul 
 had been left to them, and theologians had stop- 
 ped where the Bible does, and omitted these in- 
 quiries, the object of which lies far beyond their 
 sphere, they would have done wisely. This 
 doctrine respecting the immateriality of the soul, 
 in the strict philosophical sense of the term, is 
 of far less consequence to religion than is com- 
 monly supposed. The reason why so much 
 importance has been supposed to attach to this 
 doctrine is, that it was considered as essential 
 to the metaphysical proof of the immortality of 
 the soul. But since the immateriality of the 
 soul, in the strictest sense, can never be made 
 fully and obviously certain, whatever philoso- 
 phical arguments may be urged in its favour, 
 the proof of immortality should not be built upon 
 it. Nor were the fine-spun theories of immate- 
 rialism ever resorted to by theologians to prove 
 the immortality of the soul, or ascribed by them 
 to the Bible, until Hobbes, Toland, De la Met- 
 trie, and other materialists, had so perverted 
 the doctrine of materialism as to deduce from it 
 the destructibility of the soul, or its annihila- 
 tion at the death of the body. But, in truth, 
 the immortality of the soul does neither depend 
 for proof upon its immateriality, nor can be cer- 
 tainly deduced from it. It is possible for one 
 to doubt whether the strict immateriality of the 
 soul can be proved, and yet to be convinced of 
 its immortality. The strongest advocates of im- 
 materiality must allow that God might annihi- 
 late a spirit, however simple its nature may be. 
 Why, then, on the other hand, might he not 
 make a substance not entirely simple immortal 1 
 The immortality of the soul will be examined in 
 Book II. s. 149 ; its origin will be investigated 
 in this Article, s. 57. 
 
 n. The Destination of Man. 
 
 The question, What is the destination of man? 
 is equivalent to the inquiry, What am /, as a 
 rmn? What have I as a man to do and expect? 
 Or, more definitely: Whither lead those tenden- 
 cies by which, without my own choice, I feel my- 
 self impelled ? What have I to do, in conformity 
 with those more deep and essential powers and ca- 
 pacities of my nature which cannot be overlooked 
 or effaced? and, When I have acted in conformity 
 with them, what am I to expect ? 
 
 A feeling of morality the sentiment of an in- 
 delible distinction between right and wrong 
 lies deep in the soul of every man. There is a 
 principle implanted in our very nature, by which 
 we approve that disposition which corresponds 
 to right, and disapprove that which is opposed 
 to it. This regard for a moral law is deeply 
 inwrought into the heart. Nor is there any- 
 
 thing more fundamental in our constitution than 
 this; and we may presume that the good to 
 which this our moral nature points us is the 
 very highest good; and it consists in moral per- 
 fection, and that well-being which is connected 
 with, and dependent upon, holiness. Increasing 
 holiness, then, and the happiness connected with 
 it, are the destination of man. Without moral 
 excellence no one can be happy ; and to seek 
 for happiness without it is mean and base. This 
 is the doctrine of the scriptures both of the Old 
 and New Testament e. g., Lev. xi. 44; xix. 
 2; 1 Thess. iv. 3, 7; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Heb. xii. 
 10, 14, seq. In the creation of the world, God 
 must have designed to impart to every creature 
 that degree of perfection and of well-being of 
 which it should be susceptible. For the attain- 
 ment of this great end he employs the most suit- 
 able means. This results inevitably from his 
 wisdom,- vide s. 24, I. Now. since man is by 
 far the noblest of all the living creatures who 
 inhabit the earth, and possesses the most supe- 
 rior powers, especially of an intellectual kind, 
 he must have been created by God for a more 
 exalted end, and with a higher destination, than 
 that of other creatures. In consequence of the 
 greater perfections with which he is endowed, 
 he is capable of a higher degree of happiness, 
 for the attainment of which he is incited to strive 
 by the obligations arising from his moral nature. 
 
 1. The destination of man in this life embraces 
 the following particulars : 
 
 (a) Man possesses the right and the power 
 to make use of the other creatures of the earth 
 for his own advantage. He is dominus in res 
 creatas, Gen. i. 26, seq. ; Psa. viii. This right 
 he possesses by virtue of the rational and moral 
 nature which God has given him. 
 
 (&) As lord of the other creatures, man accom- 
 plishes the design of God, or his own destina- 
 tion, when, together with his concern for his 
 own welfare, he promotes in every possible way 
 the comfort and welfare of all his fellow-crea- 
 tures, and especially the happiness of his fel- 
 low-men, with whom, according to the design 
 of God, he stands in the closest and most inti- 
 mate relation. Cf. Acts, xvii. 26. To this he 
 is also obliged by the divine law, which, whe- 
 ther externally revealed, or written on his heart, 
 requires him to love his neighbour as himself. 
 
 (c) God must have designed, in endowing 
 man with such noble capacities and powers, 
 that he should cultivate and exercise them all, 
 and employ them for his own advantage and 
 that of his fellow-creatures. The more diligent- 
 ly and actively, then, we employ the powers 
 with which we are gifted by God for the good 
 of ourselves and others, the more we seek to 
 develop, cultivate, and by constant exercise to 
 strengthen our moral, and indeed our whole na- 
 ture, the more conformably shall we live to the 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 183 
 
 end for which we were made. Diligence, la- 
 bour, and activity, are indispensably requisite to 
 the fulfilment of our destination. Even the life 
 of paradise is not described by Moses as idle 
 and inactive. Man was there to be employed 
 in " tilling the ground," Gen. ii. 5, 15. The 
 improvement of all our powers and capacities is 
 the end of our rational nature; and all the care 
 and effort which we may now bestowupon the im- 
 provement of our powers will prepare us richly 
 for whatever we are to be or to do hereafter. 
 To cultivate and improve our whole nature is 
 the duty daily allotted us by God. 
 
 (c?) But man should be especially attentive to 
 the improvement of his higher nature his spi- 
 rit. Man alone, of all the creatures on the 
 earth, possesses the distinguishing excellence 
 of a rational soul, and of freedom of will. This 
 is all which gives his existence an absolute 
 worth ; this is that true inborn nobilify which 
 essentially raises him above the rank of all his 
 fellow-creatures upon the earth. By the pro- 
 per use of his reason, and of all the higher 
 powers of his spirit, man becomes capable of 
 a happiness of which no other creature on 
 the earth is capable. This higher happiness 
 is founded upon the knowledge of truth and 
 moral good, and especially upon religion, or 
 the knowledge and reverential love of God, of 
 which man alone is capable, and which is the 
 most powerful means of promoting holiness. 
 Vide Introduction, s. 2. seq. Now it is a law of 
 reason, and so the design and will of God, who 
 has given us our reason, that the moral powers 
 and faculties of our nature should be developed 
 and strengthened by exercise. Consequently, to 
 exercise these powers to do justly, and shew 
 mercy, in all the circumstances in which we are 
 placed is the way for us to discharge our pre- 
 sent duty, and to testify our love to God. And 
 every instance in which we neglect to improve 
 the opportunities afforded us of exercising and 
 improving our moral powers is a failure in duty, 
 which is always attended with hurtful conse- 
 quences. 
 
 The book of Ecclesiastes contains many ex- 
 cellent, rules for the accomplishment of our des- 
 tination upon the earth, most of them in the form 
 of proverbs ; as ii. 24 ; iii. 12, seq. ; v. 17 ; ix. 9. 
 They may be briefly expressed as follows : 
 Man is happy, and lives according to the end for 
 which he was made, "when he wisely enjoys 
 the present ; when in the right way he seeks for 
 peacefulness of soul, cheerfulness, and serenity 
 of mind ; when he fulfils his social duties ; when 
 he loves and serves God, and is active and dili- 
 gent in the employment of his powers ; remem- 
 bering that he does not exist merely for himself 
 and for the sake of selfish enjoyment, but for the 
 sake of benefiting others, as far as he is able." 
 2. The destination of man beyond the grave. 
 
 That man was not made for the present life alone 
 is a doctrine which, although by no means un- 
 known before the time of Christ, had not as yet 
 been clearly and distinctly revealed. But Christ 
 and his apostles inculcated this encouraging and 
 consoling truth with great earnestness, and made 
 it the basis of all their exhortations. Vide 2 
 Cor. iv. 18 ; Phil. iii. 20 ; Col. iii. 14. It may 
 be adopted as a first principle, that the right en- 
 joyment and the proper use of the present life is 
 the best preparation for happiness in the life to 
 come; and, on the other hand, constant and ear- 
 nest effort to prepare for happiness in the future 
 world is the best way to be happy here. Cf. 1 
 John, iii. 2, seq. In order that we may be pre- 
 pared for future happiness, and capable of en- 
 joying it, we must be holy. " Without holiness 
 no man can see the Lord," Heb. xii. 14. And 
 the greater the advances we make in holiness, 
 knowledge, and the practice of known truth in 
 the present life, the greater will be our happiness 
 in the life to come. There is, and must be, a 
 close and unalterable connexion between our 
 holiness here and our happiness hereafter. 
 
 Note. From these observations, which we 
 think just and scriptural, we conclude that man 
 is placed in the present life, principally, indeed, 
 to prepare for the next, but not solely for this 
 purpose. And he, it must be allowed, fails of 
 fulfilling the whole end of his being, who forgets 
 the present in the hope of the future, or who la- 
 bours in such a way to prepare for the life to 
 come as to render himself inactive and useless 
 in this. Future blessedness is only the conti- 
 nuation and perfection of that which begins here. 
 And we must now begin to be active, holy, and 
 happy, that we may continue to be so in a more 
 perfect manner hereafter. The present is the 
 time to sow ; the harvest will come in the future 
 world. He therefore who does not sow here 
 cannot expect to reap beyond the grave. It is 
 a part of the end of our being to be happy even 
 in the present life, however inferior may be the 
 happiness we can obtain here to that which we 
 hope for in heaven. Our life upon the earth is 
 an end as well as a means. And if we earnestly 
 seek to do the will of God, the present life, even 
 in itself considered, is not worthless, though its 
 value is infinitely raised by the certainty of a 
 future life. In regard to the proper use of the 
 time now allotted us, we have a pattern in the 
 example of those pious men who are recom- 
 mended in the Bible for our imitation ; and espe- 
 cially in the example of Jesus, which, even in 
 this respect, is the most perfect of all. These 
 hints on the destination of man are carried out 
 in Spalding's " Bestimmung des Menschen;" 
 Leipzig, 1794; and in the Essay of T611ner r 
 " 1st das gegenwartige Leben nur eine Prii- 
 fungszeitl" in his " Theologishen Untersu- 
 chungen," th. i. s. 402, f. Cicero, in his Book, 
 
184 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 " De finibus bonorum et malorum," states the 
 theories of the various schools among the Greeks 
 respecting the summum bonum, or the finis bono- 
 rum. Seneca calls the destination of a thing-, 
 or of a man, finis naturae suse, suum cujusque 
 (rei sive hominis) bonum. To attain or fulfil 
 one's destiny, he calls, adfinem naturae suse per- 
 venire, sive, attingerefinem naturoe suse, Ep. 76. 
 
 SECTION LII. 
 
 OF THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE 
 HUMAN RACE. 
 
 I. General Remarks. 
 
 MOST nations have some ancient traditions re- 
 specting the origin of the human race, which, 
 however, differ widely from each other. Many 
 of the heathen nations believed that their fore- 
 fathers, or the human race, sprung originally 
 either from the earth, rocks, trees, eggs, teeth, 
 or other inanimate things, or that they were 
 produced by wild beasts. Vide the passages 
 cited in Meiners' " Geschichte der Menschheit," 
 s. 245. There were comparatively few of the 
 ancient heathen nations who supposed that the 
 human race, or particular nations, were derived 
 from gods, heroes, or giants ; and even these 
 differed very much from one another in their ac- 
 counts; some supposing that the first men were 
 brought forth in the way of natural generation 
 by these superior beings ; and others, that they 
 were only formed by the gods from some inani- 
 mate material, earth, stones, &c., and then en- 
 dowed with life. 
 
 In the first and second chapters of Genesis, 
 Moses has preserved the ancient traditions of 
 the Hebrew nation with respect to the origin of 
 man. These traditions are substantially the 
 same with those of other oriental nations, and 
 they are uniformly followed by the other sacred 
 writers. As here recorded by Moses, they 
 breathe the very spirit of the ancient world, al- 
 though they exhibit more truth, completeness, 
 and connexion, than are found in the traditions 
 and fables of other nations respecting the origin 
 of our race. 
 
 According to the Mosaic account, the whole 
 human race is derived from one stock, as Paul 
 expresses it, f svoj afytai'oj rtav $vo$ av^pcoTtov, 
 Acts, xvii. 26. The first man, Adam, was 
 formed from the earth, Gen. ii. and iii. ; Eccles. 
 xii. 7 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47 ; 6 Ttpwtfoj a7pcorto$ ix yJj, 
 ^oi'xof. Eve was formed afterwards, and from 
 Adam, Genesis, ii. 18, seq. ; 1 Cor. xi. 8, ywrj 
 (% dvSpoj. Some modern investigators of nature 
 have supposed that the distinction found between 
 the races of men cannot be accounted for on the 
 supposition that they all have proceeded from 
 one stock. They have conjectured, accordingly, 
 that many different pairs of men were originally 
 
 made. That climate, manner of life, means of 
 subsistence, &c., could have produced all the 
 variety which is perceived among the different 
 races of men is what they will not allow. But 
 others affirm th?t all the arguments adduced in 
 support of this hypothesis are unsatisfactory ; 
 and contend, with strong reasons, for a contrary 
 opinion. Among these is Forster. Cf. his 
 " Bemerkungen auf seinen Reise urn die Welt," 
 s. 226254; Berlin, 1783. Also Kant, Ueber 
 die verschiedenen Racen der Menschen; K6- 
 nigsberg, 1775, 4to; Blumenbach, De generis 
 humani varietate nativa; Gottingae, 1776, 8vo. 
 Other nations beside the Hebrews have believed 
 that the human race descended from one original 
 pair. Nor is it necessary to suppose that they 
 derived their belief on this point from the ac- 
 count of Moses. The supposition that the whole 
 human race has descended from one pair might 
 naturally arise from various circumstances 
 from the gradual peopling of countries round 
 about from the old family tradition, that for- 
 merly the number of the human race was com- 
 paratively small and from the observation of 
 the large and rapid increase of single families. 
 Besides, these other nations might have derived 
 much of what they believed respecting the ori- 
 gin of man by direct oral tradition from the 
 earliest times. 
 
 [Note. The question so much discussed 
 among anthropologists respecting the different 
 races of men, and their descent from one ori- 
 ginal pair, is of very considerable interest both 
 to the theologian and the philanthropist. It has 
 an essential bearing upon the doctrines of in- 
 herited corruption, and of the atonement. But 
 its most important bearing is upon our duty to 
 a very numerous race, who have long been ex- 
 cluded from the rights and privileges of frater- 
 nity in the human family. Lactantius has well 
 said, (Div. Inst. v. 10,) Si ah uno homine, quern 
 Deus finxit, omnes orimur, certe CONSANGUINEI 
 SUMUS ; et ideo maximum scelus putandum est, 
 odisse hominem VEL NOCENTEM. And this prac- 
 tical influence of the Christian doctrine of the 
 consanguinity of all nations may be seen in the 
 extensive abolition of negro slavery by Chris- 
 tian nations. 
 
 It deserves to be noticed that this scriptural 
 doctrine, which is so connected with the highest 
 interests of humanity, has been successfully vin- 
 dicated on the ground of physiology against the 
 ingenious and plausible attacks of those who 
 make equal opposition to the Christian scriptures 
 and to African freedom. In addition to the 
 works recommended by our author, we may 
 mention that of H. F. Link, " Die Urwelt und 
 das Alterthum;" Berlin, 1821. There is one 
 physiological argument, which, it would seem, 
 must be conclusive against the supposition that 
 the negro belongs wholly to a different kind from 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 185 
 
 the white viz., the offspring of the mixture of 
 different genera cannot propagate their own spe- 
 cies. We know this is not the case with regard 
 to the children which are born from the min- 
 gling of the white and negro races. The essen- 
 tial characteristic marks of the human kind are 
 the rational and moral powers with which man 
 is endowed ; and those in whom we can find the 
 least traces of these are to be regarded by us 
 as brethren, bearing with us something of the 
 image of God, however low the degree in which 
 they may possess these powers, and however 
 widely they may differ from us in the incidental 
 circumstances of colour, feature, and tempera- 
 ment. TR,] 
 
 We must here notice the opinion that men 
 existed before Adam, who is spoken of in the 
 Mosaic account. The belief in Praeadamites 
 has been embraced for various reasons; partly 
 to escape some supposed natural difficulties of 
 the kind just mentioned, partly in support of 
 various theological and historical hypotheses, 
 and sometimes for both reasons united. Most 
 of those who have entertained this opinion, 
 however different their views respecting the 
 Praeadamites themselves, have appealed to 
 Moses and other sacred writers for support, or 
 at least have endeavoured to shew that they be- 
 lieved in nothing inconsistent with the scriptural 
 account. But they evidently do the greatest 
 violence to the passages which they cite. The 
 plain, scriptural representation is that which we 
 have given. This hypothesis was first raised to 
 notice by Isaac Peyrere, who in 1655 published 
 his book styled " Prasadamitae" He pretended 
 to find his Praeadamites in Rom. v. 12 14. The 
 heathen, according to him, are the Praeadamites, 
 being, as he supposed, created on the same day 
 with the beasts, and those whose creation is 
 mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis. Adam, 
 the father of the Jews, was not created until a 
 century later, and is the one who is mentioned 
 in the second chapter. Cf. the works cited by 
 Morus, p. 95, s. 1, note 1. Since the time of 
 Peyrere, this hypothesis has been exhibited more 
 connectedly; and has been asserted independ- 
 ently of the authority of Moses; or, in other 
 words, it has been asserted that the human race 
 is older than Moses represents it. Vide Irwing, 
 " Versuche iiber den Ursprung der Erkenntniss 
 der Wahrheit und der Wissenschaften ;" Ber- 
 lin, 1781, 8vo. Cf. Brun, * Vergleichung der 
 griechischen und romischen Nachrichten von 
 dem altesten Zustande der Menschen mit den 
 hebraischen," in Gabler's "Theologischen 
 Journal," b. v. st. 1, s. 50. u. f. 
 
 II. The Mosaic Account. 
 
 There are two accounts of the creation of man 
 recorded by Moses. The first is very brief, 
 given in general terms, in connexion with the 
 24 
 
 history of the creation of the world, on the sixth 
 day of which man was formed, Gen. i. 26 30. 
 The second account is more full, and stands by 
 itself, Gen. ii. 4, seq. In this second account, 
 the creation of the world and the state of the 
 earth before man was placed upon it, are again 
 cursorily mentioned, while in ver. 7 the creation 
 of man himself is more fully detailed. It is not 
 improbable that in the composition of these first 
 chapters of Genesis, Moses may have had be- 
 fore him some written records handed down 
 from the patriarchal age, and he may perhaps 
 have inserted them, word for word, in his own 
 history. Vide s. 49, I. According to this sup- 
 position, we have here inserted one of these ori- 
 ginal records, extending from Gen. ii. 4 to iii. 
 24, and forming a complete whole, which is se- 
 parated from what precedes by the appropriate 
 title, " This is the history of the heavens and 
 the earth," ver. 4. What favours the supposi- 
 tion that Moses drew from written records in 
 composing the first part of Genesis, and that he 
 even preserved them in the very language in 
 which they were written, is the fact, that in 
 each of these distinct fragments the Supreme 
 Being is uniformly designated by a different 
 title, in one, by the name OTiSs, in another, by 
 the name niir, and in a third, by the combined 
 name OTiSx rn'rv. This was first observed by 
 Astriic and Michaelis, and is often made use of 
 by Eichhorn in his " Urgeschichte." Cf. s. 49, 
 and the works of Herder, Eichhorn, Gabler, 
 Paulus, Ilgen, Vater, and others. But Eich- 
 horn and Ilgen have spoken with far too much 
 confidence respecting the sources from which 
 Moses drew. The subject is not so well under- 
 stood as to allow of so much confidence. Vide 
 Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen 
 Weisheit, th. ii. s. 456, 2te Ausg. These ac- 
 counts must now be separately considered. 
 Vide Morus, p. 96, s. 4. 
 
 1. Observations on the first account, Genesis, 
 i. 2630. 
 
 Here, and in other parts of the history of the 
 creation, God is said to speak. This is a repre- 
 sentation by which the exertion of the divine 
 will, or the determination of God, is intelligibly 
 expressed, and corresponds with the whole pic- 
 torial nature of the account. Cf. Genesis, vi. 
 5; xi. 6, 7. After the production of so many 
 creatures of the earth, God at length created 
 man, the noblest and most excellent of them 
 all the lord of the lower creation. 
 
 o-nj, in the first chapter, is not a proper, but a 
 collective noun man. We might suppose, from 
 this passage, if the account in the second chap- 
 ter were not more explicit, that the first human 
 pair were created at the same time. The words, 
 unio-ia Mc'tta, should not be distinguished as 
 they have sometimes been. The two words 
 thus collocated signify, an exact or a very similar 
 Q2 
 
186 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 image; as chap. v. 1, 3. The primary sig- 
 nification of oSx is, a shadow, as Psalm xxxix. 
 7 ; then, a shadowy image, a likeness. In what 
 this divine likeness consists, whether simply 
 in the dominion over the rest of the creation, 
 mentioned immediately after, or in the posses- 
 sion of higher faculties, will be investigated, s. 
 53. The dominion of man over animals here 
 spoken of denotes merely his right to use and 
 employ them for his own advantage. The 
 phrase, God blessed them, (ver. 28,) is to be un- 
 derstood as above, in ver. 22; he gave them 
 frui/fulness, the power to propagate their species. 
 The fruits of the tree and of the field, and not 
 the flesh of animals, constituted the original food 
 of man as well as of beast. Vide ver. 29, 30, 
 where it is said that God gave to them the pro- 
 duce of the earth for food. Cf. ii. 16. Many 
 reasons may be given for this. Had it not been 
 so, there would have been ground to apprehend 
 that man might have destroyed whole species 
 of animals, while they were yet few in number, 
 &c. Vide Michaelis, in loc. The fact that 
 man at first fed upon fruits and herbs is con- 
 firmed by the traditions of other ancient nations. 
 They uniformly represent the practice of taking 
 the life and shedding the blood of living crea- 
 tures as a cruel and frightful practice, which 
 could not have existed in paradise, or in the 
 golden age of the youthful world, when univer- 
 sal friendship and happy concord reigned among 
 the creatures of God. Hence, in the prophetic de- 
 scriptions of that happy age which should again 
 return to the world, it is expressly said that one 
 beast shall not destroy another ; " the lion shall 
 eat straw like the ox," Isa. xi. 7, coll. ver. 6 - 
 9. The same trait recurs in the description 
 which the Greeks give of the Saturnian age. 
 Vide Plutarch, rtspt <japxo<f>oyta$. Ovid, too, de- 
 scribes the vetus aurea setas as happy f&tibus 
 arboreis et herbis ,- necpolluit ora cruore, Met. xv. 
 96, seq. Vide Clerici Comment, in Genesin. 
 We find, therefore, no intimation that beasts 
 were slain until after man had forfeited paradise, 
 Genesis, iii. 21. Shortly after, they appear to 
 have been offered by men in sacrifice to God, 
 Gen. iv. 4. Noah was the first who received 
 a distinct command to use flesh as well as vege- 
 tables for his sustenance, Gen. ix. 3. And it is 
 in general true, that rude nations eat for a long 
 time only herbs and fruits, and come slowly 
 into the use of animals for food, even after they 
 have been in the habit of slaying them, and 
 using their skins for clothing. This can be 
 easily accounted for, when we consider that ani- 
 mal food, as then prepared, before fire and salt 
 came into common use, must have been ex- 
 tremely coarse and disgusting. We gather from 
 Homer, that the use of salt on flesh could not 
 have been very common in his day, since he 
 always gives it the epithet divine, and describes 
 
 it as a gift of the gods. The Caribeans at the 
 present day eat flesh without salt. 
 
 2. Observations on the second account, Genesis, 
 ii. 424. 
 
 (a) After the mention, in ver. 5, 6, of the 
 means of subsistence which God had provided 
 for man from the vegetable kingdom, the writer 
 passes now, in ver. 7, to the creation of man 
 himself. " God formed man from the dust of 
 the earth," nD^Nrrjp -\oy a very natural idea, 
 readily suggested by analogy, and in itself pro- 
 bable. The decay of man, and the mouldering 
 of his body to dust and earth, gave rise to the 
 phrase, to become dust and earth. And so dust 
 and earth were naturally regarded as the ele- 
 ments of the human body ; and to describe death 
 they said, -\y_ aitf icy, to return to the dust, from 
 which we were taken; Psalm civ. 29; Genesis., 
 iii. 19 ; Job, x. 9 ; Eccles. xii. 7. Cf. Job^, 
 xxxiii. 6. The body of the first man, which 
 God had formed from the earth, was entirely 
 finished before it was endowed with life. Here 
 again the description is rendered natural and 
 probable from the analogy of the human bod} 
 when first deprived of life. The form and 1 
 structure remain complete after life has depart* 
 ed ; and the body moulders slowly into dust and' 
 clay. Thus, on the other hand, the body firsu 
 was formed under the plastic hand of the Artist; 
 and the breath of life was not imbreathed until 
 it was finished. In these two respects there i& 
 a great resemblance between this account and 
 the Grecian fable of Prometheus, who first 
 formed a man from earth and water, and after- 
 wards endowed it with life through the coope- 
 ration of the Deity. Vide Ovid, Met. i. 82. 
 
 The ons is here not only the common appel- 
 lative for man, but also the proper distinguish- 
 ing name of the first man. The first man is 
 called, by way of eminence, the man. The 
 word is not derived from DIS, red, (supposed by 
 some to refer to the red colour of the counte- 
 nance, or to the red earth, from which man was 
 formed, as the Rabbins and Josephus (Antiq. i. 
 1) suggest.) It is rather derived from nnnN, the 
 earth, and so describes man as earthborn, yyyevrj. 
 Plato says, in his Politicus, 'Ex yJ$ yap av6,3tw<j- 
 xovto rtavr'ff. 
 
 " And he breathed into his nostrils the breath 
 of life," o^n npt?J vcso np'i. God vivified the pre- 
 viously lifeless body of man. Breath is the most 
 obvious and certain indication of life, and breath- 
 ing is performed principally through the nose ; 
 and hence this whole figurative representation. 
 When God gives life to his creatures he is said 
 to breath out his breath, or to breathe it into them. 
 When he causes them to die, he is said to take 
 away their breath ; as Ps. civ. 29, 30. 
 
 Nothing is expressly said in this passage re- 
 specting the rational soul, its indivisibility, and 
 immortality. That only which is obvious, and 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 187 
 
 perceptible by the external senses, is here de- 
 scribed ; as it is in general the object of Moses 
 in this passage to describe the origin of the 
 world only as far as it falls under the cogni- 
 zance of the senses. Cf. the remarks on nn, s. 
 51, I. rm e?flj, is, a living creature, or being. 
 
 (6) In ver. 9, and ver. 16, 17, the writer 
 speaks of the means of subsistence appointed 
 for man, from the vegetable kingdom, (Vide No. 
 I.,) and particularly the tree of life, and the tree 
 of knowledge of good and evil, or of the distinc- 
 tion of good and evil; which were found in the 
 midst of the garden, (fan TJIP?.) They are men- 
 tioned here to prepare the way for what follows 
 in the third chapter. Trees of life denote with 
 the Hebrews such trees as possess a healing, 
 life-giving power, arbores salutares, whether the 
 virtue belongs to the fruit, leaf, bark, or root ; 
 as Prov. iii. 18. We say, officinal herbs or trees. 
 The design of the tree of life was, to perpetuate 
 human life, Gen. iii. 22. While man continued 
 in paradise, his body was endued with immor- 
 tality, which, however, was not effected in an 
 immediate and miraculous way, but by a natural 
 means, divinely appointed viz., the fruit of a 
 tree, in partaking of which human life might be 
 prolonged. Hence the tree of life is described 
 as planted in heaven, the abode of immortality, 
 Rev. xxii. 2 ; ii. 7. The Greeks, too, speak of 
 food of which no mortal can taste, and which 
 the immortals alone enjoy. Homer, Odys. v. 
 197, 199; II. xix. 38, 39. 
 
 The description which Moses gives of the 
 tree of life would naturally lead to the conclusion 
 that the other tree which stood opposite was a 
 hurtful, poisonous tree, destructive of life ; and 
 this is confirmed from ver. 17, "The day thou 
 eatest of it thou shalt die." Cf. chap. iii. This 
 account too, as well as those which have pre- 
 ceded it, is very probable and natural. There 
 are injurious plants and poisonous trees by which 
 we are made sick and destroyed ; there are also 
 useful trees, which impart health and prolong 
 life. Such tr.ees there were in the age of para- 
 dise, conferring perpetual health and immor- 
 tality; and also a single poisonous tree, placed 
 in the garden for the trial of man. Cf. Gen. iii. 
 3. But why is it called the tree of the know- 
 ledge of good and evil? Because by means of 
 this tree man was to learn prudence, to be made 
 cautious and circumspect; and because it was 
 intended to put his wisdom to the test. Cf. 
 Morus, p. 97, s. 6. If he did not eat of the 
 tree it would be well for him, and he would act 
 wisely and circumspectly ; if he ate of the fruit 
 of the tree, it would be to his hurt; and by the 
 evil he would suffer he would become wise, and 
 learn in future to be more circumspect ; he would 
 then know from his experience the unhappy 
 consequences resulting from transgression of 
 
 the divine command. Cf. Gen. iii. 22. The 
 phrase, to know, or to distinguish good and evil, 
 (or, as Horace expresses it, curvo posse digno- 
 scere rectum, Ep. ii. 2, 44,) always signifies in 
 the ancient languages to be or become wise, to 
 acquire judgment. So frequently in Homer e. 
 g., Odys. xviii. 227, 228; xx. 309, 310. Cf. 
 Book ii. s. 75. 
 
 (c) In ver. 19, 20, we have the following 
 points viz., 
 
 (a) Adam lived at first among the beasts ; and 
 they were, so to speak, brought before him by 
 God. They were more nearly related to him 
 than any other part of the material creation by 
 which he was surrounded. He had more in 
 common with them than with inanimate things. 
 In paradise the beasts were not timid and wild, 
 but lived with man in familiarity and confidence. 
 Cf. Isaiah, xi. 6 9. Nor is this representation 
 of the original state of man confined to the Jews ; 
 it is found among other nations, and is more- 
 over confirmed to our present observation. We 
 find even now, that in regions entirely uninha- 
 bited by man, and where his persecutions have 
 never been felt by beasts and birds, they are 
 tame and unsuspicious, though elsewhere known 
 as wild and timid. Cook describes the tropical 
 birds which he saw in the uninhabited islands 
 of the South Sea the man of war, and other 
 birds which are commonly very shy as so 
 tame that they could be caught by the hand. 
 When the traveller passes through the wilds of 
 South America, which are seldom trodden by 
 human footsteps, he is not shunned by the most 
 timid birds, and can catch even partridges as he 
 passes along by a mere noose fastened upon the 
 end of a stick. Cf. the work, "Zur Kunde 
 fremder Lander und Volker," b. ii. s. 152, ex- 
 tracted from the " Lettres Edifiantes." 
 
 (|3) As man was conversant with the animals 
 about him, and was soon able to distinguish 
 them one from another, he gave them names, 
 which appear to have been the sounds by which 
 he called them around him, and sometimes in 
 imitation of the sounds which they themselves 
 made. In this way it is easy to account for the 
 transition of man from his original speechless- 
 ness to the first use of language. We notice 
 the same process in children. Plato observes, 
 very justly, in his Politicus, "that in the Satur- 
 nian age men were very familiar with animals, 
 and even conversed with them, (as appears in 
 Gen. iii., and as is seen in children ;) and that in 
 this intercourse they learned much wisdom ; and 
 by giving attention to their nature and habitudes 
 saw much which they could turn to their own 
 advantage." Hence the great influence which 
 the fables of ^E sop had in ancient times, and the 
 deep impression which they still make upon 
 children. 
 
188 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 (y) But although every animal had its mate, 
 man did not find among them all a companion 
 for himself. His innate propensity to the social 
 and conjugal state was thus more strongly ex- 
 cited ; ver. 18, 20, ad finem. " Man only," it is 
 said, " had not as yet -n.^3 nip." 1$ signifies, 
 properly, an assistant, companion ; as Ezekiel, 
 xii. 14. ii^3 is rendered by Luther, die um ihn 
 ware; in English version, meet for him , Sept. 
 xa-t' avtbv and oiuotoj avtq. 
 
 (d) Creation of the wife of Adam, ver. 21 24. 
 
 This passage has greatly perplexed com- 
 mentators, who have undertaken to reconcile it 
 with the notions of modern times, with which 
 it does not at all agree. Eichhorn (p. 182, 183 
 of the work ahove cited) explains it in this 
 way " Adam and his wife were created at the 
 same time, but at first lived apart. The conju- 
 gal impulse of Adam was excited ; he fell into 
 a sleep, and dreamed that he was divided into 
 halves. When he awoke, Eve stood before 
 him." The same explanation in substance is 
 given by Zacharia, in his Bib. Theol. th. ii. s. 
 120. But what unprejudiced reader can see any 
 foundation for all this in the Mosaic account"? 
 Moses evidently teaches that Eve was created 
 after Adam, and taken by God from Adam ; and 
 Paul says, "Adam was first formed, and then 
 Eve," 1 Tim. ii. 13. For this part of the Mo- 
 saic narrative, as well as for the former parts, 
 there is some analogy, which, however, must be 
 more evident to the orientalist than to us, since 
 the subserviency of the woman to the man is 
 more acknowledged in the East than in the 
 West. The orientalist believes the woman to 
 be indeed of his own nature, but still secondary 
 and subject to him ; though this place by no 
 means teaches her subjection as a slave, as 
 afterwards, when the age of paradise was over, 
 Gen. iii. 16 a supposition inconsistent with 
 the idea of the golden age. Now, because the 
 woman is of the same nature as man, she is de- 
 scribed as taken from him. Hence the deep 
 love he feels for her, and the intimate union be- 
 tween man and wife. Hence, too, (viz., from 
 the fact that she was taken from him,) the supe- 
 riority of the man over the woman. That this 
 explanation is entirely in the spirit of the Bible 
 is clear from the argument which Paul deduces 
 from this place " For the man is not of the wo- 
 man ; but the woman of the man. Neither was 
 the man created for the woman ; but the woman 
 for the man," 1 Cor. xi. 8, 9. This truth, then, 
 that husband and wife stand in the closest con- 
 nexion with each other, while still the wife is 
 necessarily dependent upon her husband, could 
 not be made more intelligible and impressive 
 than by the account here given, which repre- 
 sents the woman as created after man, taken 
 from him, and made out of his side. j/?x in this 
 
 place does not signify rib, but side, half, as com- 
 monly in Hebrew and Arabic e. g., Exod. 
 xxvi. 26, 27, 35, seq. Sept, rthsvpd " The place 
 was closed up with Jlesh" i. e., the body was 
 healed and made whole. As pain was not known 
 in paradise, it was necessary that Adam should 
 be put into a deep sleep (ver. 21) while all this 
 took place in such a way, however, as to al- 
 low him an obscure consciousness of what was 
 done, (ver. 23.) It is frequently the case, when 
 something befals us in sleep which makes a 
 deep impression on the senses, that, without 
 waking at the time, we have a sort of percep- 
 tion, which we obscurely recollect when after- 
 wards awake, ojjrn ntfr, this time. " Now I 
 see at last a being like myself, one of my own 
 species," referring to ver. 20, ad finem. Adam 
 now gives to his companion a name, as he had 
 formerly done to the beasts viz., nps (like the 
 vira of the ancient Latins,) because she was 
 formed from man, (e"N.) When afterwards 
 she had borne a child, he called her name mn, 
 because she then became the mother of the human 
 race, (vrhs ox ;) Gen. iii. 20. In ver. 24, it is 
 not Adam who speaks; for he knew nothing as 
 yet about father and mother. The historian 
 here deduces a practical inference from what 
 had been said. In Matt. xix. 5, where % ypa^ 
 is to be supplied before flrts, this passage is 
 cited : "The relation between husband and wife 
 is the most intimate which can exist, and, ac- 
 cording to the design of God, indissoluble. It 
 is more irrefragable than the relation between 
 parents and children; whence (so Christ con- 
 cludes) to separate from one's wife is a crime 
 of worse desert than to renounce father and mo- 
 ther." The particular truths and inferences to 
 be drawn from the whole Mosaic narrative are 
 well exhibited by Morus, p. 96 98, s. 4 8. 
 Cf. Matt. xix. ; 1 Cor. xi. When it is said they 
 shall be one flesh, it means, they shall be regarded 
 as one body, one person. 
 
 Note. The first abode of men is commonly 
 Cd]\ed paradise, jtapddeicsog, (cf. Morus, p. 96, s. 
 4, n. 1,) because the LXX. thus translate the 
 Hebrew p, which is used in ver. 8 of this narra- 
 tive, and in other parts of the Bible, and are fol- 
 lowed in this by the Latin versions. The word 
 is of Persian origin, (in the Hebrew form 
 onis,) and signifies, in Eccl. ii. 5, and in other 
 texts where it occurs, not any small garden, but 
 a large portion of land, a park, furnished with 
 trees, and wild beasts, and water, for the pur- 
 poses of hunting and fishing; as Xenophon de- 
 scribes it, QEcon. iv. 13. The name of paradise 
 was afterwards given to the abode of the bless- 
 ed ; but the original abode of man was called 
 by this name, by way of eminence, after the 
 example of the LXX., by Sirach, Josephus, 
 Philo, and other Grecian Jews, 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 189 
 
 The description of the garden is given, Gen. 
 ii. 8 15. Eden was not the name of paradise 
 itself, but paradise was a spot in the extensive 
 territory of Eden. Vide ver. 8, coll. ver. 10. 
 If the situation of the territory of Eden is to be 
 determined by the names of the four rivers men- 
 tioned in the Mosaic account, and if by these ri- 
 vers we are to understand those to which the same 
 names were anciently given, and some of which 
 retain them to the present day, we may fix upon 
 the region where Armenia, Ghilan, Dailem, and 
 Chorasan now lie. There are no means, how- 
 ever, by which we can determine the particular 
 spot in this region where the garden of delights 
 was situated. Eden then comprehended all the 
 countries which extend from Euphrates (mp) 
 and Tigris (^n) to Aras or Araxes, (ji'i^s, 
 which rises in Armenia and flows into the Cas- 
 pian Sea,) and Oxus (jfn^), on the east of the 
 Caspian. 
 
 The fables and traditions of the Asiatic na- 
 tions agree very generally in placing the first 
 habitation of men, and the cradle of the human 
 race, in the neighbourhood of Caucasus and the 
 Caspian sea, and the valleys which extend side- 
 ways from Caucasus, though they differ very 
 much in assigning more definitely the particular 
 spot where man first dwelt. Vide Zimmerman, 
 Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, band 
 iii. s. 250, and Meiners, Geschichte der Mensch- 
 heit, s. 7. Some learned men, however, re- 
 lying upon other Asiatic traditions, not in the 
 least supported by the Bible, suppose that the 
 earth was first peopled from Southern Asia ; and 
 so they fix upon other rivers more favourable to 
 their hypotheses than those before mentioned, 
 to water their territory of Eden, although they 
 nearly all allow the river Euphrates to be one 
 intended. Buttman sided with these in his 
 *'Aeltesten Erdkunde des Morgenliinders ;" 
 Berlin, 1803, 8vo. In this work he represents, as 
 is common at the present time, the whole nar- 
 rative of Moses as fabulous. He endeavours to 
 render it probable that the whole territory ex- 
 tending from the Persian Gulf eastwards to the 
 Peninsula of Malacca, was the region intended 
 by Eden ; that the Ganges was one of the four 
 rivers, and that these original habitations were 
 afterwards placed by the Hebrews more in their 
 own vicinity. Among the older works on this 
 subject, cf. Reland, De situ paradisi, in his 
 "Diss. Miscell." t. i. Bochart, Geog. Sacra, 
 and Michaelis, Spiceleg. t. ii. In the seven- 
 teenth century, Olaus Rudbeck, a Swede, wrote 
 a book called " Atlantica," in which he placed 
 paradise in Sweden. In the nineteenth century, 
 Dr. Hasse, in his " Entdeckung im Felde der 
 altesten Erd-und Menschengeschichte," endea- 
 voured to prove that Eden was the north of Eu- 
 rope, and that paradise was Prussia. 
 
 SECTION LIII. 
 
 OF THE IMAGE OF GOD IN WHICH MAN WAS 
 CREATED. 
 
 I. History of opinions respecting the Image of 
 God. 
 
 No one doubts that the image of God denotes 
 in general a likeness of God, (s. 52.) But the 
 opinions of theologians have always been differ- 
 ent respecting the particular points of resem- 
 blance which Moses intended to express by this 
 phrase. And this is not strange, since Moses 
 does not explain what he means by it, and it is 
 used in very different significations in the Bible ; 
 which is a fact that has not been sufficiently 
 noticed. The common opinion is, that this 
 phrase denotes certain excellences which man 
 originally possessed, but which he lost, in part 
 at least, by the fall. The principal texts which 
 are cited in behalf of this opinion are, Gen. i. 
 26, coll. ii. 15, seq. ; and from the New Testa- 
 ment, Col. iii. 10, coll. Ephes. iv. 24, where a 
 renewal after the image of God is mentioned ; 
 which is understood to mean a restoration of this 
 image, implyingthat man must have lost it; also 
 2 Cor. xi. 3. Against this common opinion it 
 may he objected, that the image of God is de- 
 scribed in many passages as existing after the 
 fall, and as still discoverable in men; as Gen. 
 ix. 6, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man 
 shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God 
 made he man;" also James, iii. 9, "With the 
 tongue we curse men, who are made after the si- 
 militude of God;" also 1 Cor. xi. 6, 7, dvjjp 
 slxMv eov V7tdp%u>v. Here also belongs the 
 passage often cited in behalf of the opposite opi- 
 nion, Gen. v. 1 3, where it is said, that God 
 created man in his own image; and that Adam 
 begot a son in his own likeness, and after his 
 image; from which it must appear, that Seth, 
 being made in the likeness of Adam, must have 
 had the same image of God, whatever it was, 
 which Adam possessed. This phrase, then, 
 evidently, is not always used in the same sense 
 in the Bible. And the fault of interpreters and 
 theologians has been, that they have overlooked 
 the different meanings in which this phrase is 
 used, and have selected one only, which they 
 have endeavoured to elicit from all the texts in 
 which the phrase occurs. 
 
 As to the question, in what consists that ex- 
 cellence of man, denoted by the phrase, the 
 image of God, we find, 
 
 1. Even the oldest Christian writers, the ec- 
 clesiastical fathers, were very much divided. 
 This is acknowledged by Gregory of Nyssa, in 
 an Essay devoted to this subject. Theodoret 
 confesses, that he is not able to determine ex- 
 actly in what this image consisted, Qucest. xx. 
 
190 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 in Genesin. Epiphanius thinks that the thing 
 cannot be determined, Hares. 30. Tertullian 
 placed it in the innate powers and faculties of the 
 human soul, especially in the freedom of choice 
 between good and evil, Adv. Marc. ii. 5, 6. 
 Philo placed it in the -ov$, the rational soul, and 
 associated with this phrase his Platonic notions 
 respecting the original ideas in the divine mind 
 (7ioyo$), of which the visible man is a copy, De 
 Opif. Mundi. The human race, according to 
 him, is indeed degenerate, but yet has traces of 
 its relationship with the Father of all ; for *aj 
 d>pw7to$ xata [lev "t r^v otdvotav (J 
 
 77 arCavya<3/j,a ysyoi>ioj. Origen, 
 iii. 6,) Gregory of Nyssa, and Leo the Great, 
 were of the same general opinion on this sub- 
 ject as Tertullian. According to these ecclesi- 
 astical fathers, this image of God consists prin- 
 cipally in the rectitude and freedom of the will, 
 and in the due subordination of the inferior 
 powers of the soul to the superior. The im- 
 mortality of the body is also included by Leo 
 and many others. Epiphanius blames Origen 
 for teaching, that Adam lost the image of God, 
 which, he says, the Bible does not affirm. He 
 knows and believes, "quod in cunctis hominibus 
 imago Dei permaneat," Ep. ad Joannem, in 
 Opp. Hieronymi, t. i. Most of the Grecian and 
 Latin fathers distinguish between imago and 
 sirnilitudo Dei. By the image of God, they 
 say, is meant the original constitution (rfnlage) 
 the innate powers and faculties (potentia na- 
 turalis, Scholast.) of the human soul. By the 
 similitude of God, is meant, that actual resem- 
 blance to him which is acquired by the exercise 
 of these powers. I shall not dwell upon the 
 subtleties of the schoolmen, which are still pre- 
 valent to some degree in the Romish church. 
 Vide Petavius. [For an account of these, vide 
 also Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 76.] 
 
 2. Nor are modern theologians at all more 
 unanimous. The most important opinions enter- 
 tained on this subject in modern times admit of 
 the following classification viz., 
 
 .(a) Some find this image in the rational soul; 
 like Philo, who, as before remarked, supposed 
 it to consist, not in bodily advantages, but in 
 the i>o,u$, the higher reason alone, De Opif. 
 Mundi, p. 15, 45; and like many of the fathers. 
 To be sure, this higher rational and moral nature 
 <rf man lies at the foundation of all his other ex- 
 cellences, and indeed is essential to their very 
 existence. But, according to the representation 
 of the Bible, this rational soul is not so much 
 itself this image of God, as the foundation or 
 source of those excellences in which it does 
 more properly consist. 
 
 (6) Others find it in the dominion of man over 
 all the creatures of the earth; because this do- 
 minion is mentioned in immediate connexion 
 
 with the image of God in Gen. i. 26. So think 
 Socinus and his followers, and also many Armi- 
 nians. According to both of these theories, the 
 image of God must be allowed still to exist in 
 man. This will be farther considered hereafter. 
 
 (c) Others find it in the moral perfections of 
 our nature which we have lost by the fall. These 
 writers refer to the texts in the epistles to the Co- 
 lossians and Ephesians, and in accordance with 
 these explain the passages in Genesis relating 
 to this subject. This is the most common the- 
 ory. In the language of the Apol. Conf. Augs., 
 the image of God consists in certior notitia Dei 
 el probitas. Theologians define it, justitia ori- 
 ginalis sive sanctitas, original uprightness or 
 holiness. 
 
 (rf) Those who find difficulties with all these 
 opinions, endeavour to relieve the subject by di- 
 viding the image of God into a physical and a 
 moral image ; or into an essential and an inci- 
 dental image. The latter, they suppose, is now 
 lost, or exists in a less degree ; the former is still 
 possessed by man. 
 
 II. Biblical uses of the phrase, " The Image of God." 
 
 1. We cannot expect to find any strict or de- 
 finite notion attached to this phrase in the an- 
 cient Mosaic account. The general idea of di- 
 vinity, greatness, precedence, is all that Moses 
 intends to express when he uses it; insignis 
 dignitas ac praestantia hominis. Morus, p. 103, 
 s. 18. Any one who possesses excellence and 
 dignity superior to other men, is said, in this 
 widest sense, to bear the image of God, as 1 Cor. 
 xi. 7 ; Ps. Ixxxii. 6. Moses, however, places 
 it principally and prominently in that part of 
 this superiority which is most obvious to the 
 senses viz., the superiority of man over irra- 
 tional creatures, and his dominion over the 
 earth. By this limitation, however, the other 
 excellences of our nature are not excluded ; but, 
 on the contrary, those powers and faculties 
 from which this more obvious superiority re- 
 sults must be included in the idea of Moses. 
 But while Moses, in the use of this phrase, had 
 in his eye that superior excellence of man by 
 which he is lord of the earth, he does not teach 
 anywhere that man lost this entirely by the fall ; 
 but, on the contrary, implies that he afterwards 
 possessed it. Vide No. I. Princes and judges 
 are called by Moses gods, and sons of God, on 
 account of the superiority and dominion which 
 they possess. Vide s. 17. For the same rea- 
 son man is king and god of this lower crea- 
 tion, which honours him as the image of God. 
 David probably used the phrase in this wider 
 sense in Ps. viii. 6 9, where he explains and 
 paraphrases Gen. i. 26, seq. Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 6, 
 7; James, iii. 9. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
 even Augustine, explained the words of Moses 
 in this way. 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 191 
 
 2. The later Jews appear to have used this 
 phrase in different senses, as we learn from the 
 Book of Wisdom and Sirach. They included in 
 its meaning, 
 
 (a) The immortality of the body, a<j>apcaa. 
 "O-ti o f6j txtiae fov at&pwrtoi/ trt' d<J>ap<5ia, xal 
 sixova tr^ tSuxj tSioT^T'ojsrtoi^tff i/ avfov. <J?ovaj 
 6f 8ia,3o7un> ^avatoj eiarfi$tv f 15 tov xdctytov rtpa- 
 oi;<?t 6f a/vT'or o f^j EXCI>POI; jusptSoj ovt'fj, Book 
 of Wisdom, ii. 23, 24. In this respect, there- 
 fore, according to this writer, we have lost the 
 image of God. Vide ver. 24, where he consi- 
 ders death as the consequence of sin, and attri- 
 butes it to the devil. This immortality was re- 
 garded by the whole ancient world as something 
 divine and godlike, and is made by Homer the 
 principal mark and characteristic of his deities. 
 Gods and a^dvaTot are always synonymous in 
 his writings. 
 
 (i) Dominion over the earth, Book of Wis- 
 dom, ix. 2, 3 ; Sirach, xvii. 3, 4. The domi- 
 nion of man over the inferior creation is regard- 
 ed, even by Philo, as a remnant of his original 
 perfection and power, De Opif. Mundi, p. 100, 
 ed. Pf. Sirach, in the passage cited, seems to 
 include in this image, together with dominion 
 over the earth, reason, speech, and the other 
 perfections mentioned in ver. 5, seq. In this re- 
 spect we still retain the image of God. 
 
 (c) The moral state, Book of Wisdom, ix. 3, 
 where mention is made of the o<jn"/7J xai Stxouo- 
 avvy xo.1 tv^vtrjs tyxw in which the first men 
 lived upon the earth and ruled over it. These 
 moral excellences we do not any longer possess ; 
 certainly not in the same degree as formerly. 
 
 3. The same significations of the phrase, 
 image of God, which were noticed No. 2, were 
 common among the Jews at the time of Christ, 
 and were accordingly adopted by the apostles. 
 They use this phrase, 
 
 (a) In reference to the general exaltation, 
 dignity, and dominion of man : e. g., 1 Cor. 
 xi. 7 ; James, iii. 9. (6) In reference to the 
 moral perfections of man, exactly as it is used 
 by the author of the Book of Wisdom e. g., 
 Col. iii. 10, coll. Ephes. iv. 23, 24. Both of 
 these epistles were written at the same time; 
 they are entirely similar in phraseology, and 
 perfectly parallel in these passages. Christians, 
 especially converts from heathenism, are here 
 exhorted to renounce altogether their former sin- 
 ful propensities, and the wicked life which they 
 had previously led, (mo^aio? av^pcoytoj;) and to 
 put on the new man i. e., to be wholly reno- 
 vated, to embrace new principles, and to lead a 
 new life correspondent to their principles. Now 
 this new man is said to be av axaivovpevos, renew- 
 ed i. e., new created, or remodelled by God, 
 Ephes. iv. 23 ; and hence the phrase, the re- 
 newal or restoration of the divine image. Et$ 
 should be construed with xtiaa>vto$ 
 
 avtov, to the knowledge of God i. e., this dis- 
 position is produced in you to enable you to at- 
 tain to the knowledge of God and of his will 
 a living and saving knowledge. K-fi'^ftv, to cre- 
 ate anew, transform i. e., entirely to change 
 and improve ; continuing the figure derived from 
 the new man. Kat' fixova fov i. e., accord- 
 ing to Ephes. iv. 24, xataebv, after the pattern 
 or likeness of God i. e., that you should be- 
 come again like unto God. Paul here makes 
 this likeness of God to consist in a moral re- 
 semblance that holiness and uprightness, to 
 the attainment of which Christ teaches us the 
 means, and gives us the power. This is clear 
 from what precedes, and also from Ephes. iv. 
 24, where Paul says that this reformed charac- 
 ter, bearing the divine likeness, consists iv 
 Sixaioavvy (piety), xcni oGiotfj-ti, >tr ( s dto^sietj 
 (i. e., dto^ivfl,) honest, sincere integrity. The 
 same words are employed in the passage cited 
 from the Book of Wisdom. John, in his epis- 
 tles, frequently urges the duty of striving to be- 
 come like to God, (filii Dei,) although he does 
 not use the phrase, image of God. Plato says, 
 that likeness (ojuouootj) to God is, " 8ixaiov xai 
 oaiov peta (J>pov7j<5$ ytvia^ai." Cicero makes 
 our likeness to God both a physical and moral 
 resemblance. God, he says, animated the 
 human body, " ut essent qui terram tuerentur, 
 quique cffilestium ordinem contemplantes imita- 
 rcntur cum vitae modo et constantia." 
 
 III. Concluding Remarks. 
 
 We draw the following general conclusion 
 from these historical and exegetical observations 
 viz., the phrase, the image of God, is very 
 comprehensive, and used in the Bible in more 
 than one sense ; and many unnecessary disputes- 
 would have been avoided, if it had not been 
 adopted in systematic theology as the title of a 
 particular article. One may say, without at all 
 denying a primitive state of innocence, that the 
 image of God in which man was created did not 
 consist in this state, and that it still continues 
 after the fall. If we believe the scriptures, we 
 shall believe in the primitive innocence of man ; 
 but there is no necessity for us to call it the 
 image of God. It would be far better to aban- 
 don the phrase, image of God, in speaking sci- 
 entifically on the original perfections of man, 
 and to adopt in its place the more comprehensive 
 title, the state of innocence. The latter phrase is 
 derived from 2 Cor. xi. 3, where Paul says, he 
 fears that, as Eve was beguiled by the serpent, 
 Christians may be beguiled (by false teachers) 
 from the a.rt^otyj'fos T 1 ^ sis XpuWov i e? sim- 
 plicitas, sincerity, purity ; here, pure love to 
 Christ, true and sincere dependence upon him, 
 like what innocent children feel towards their 
 parents and benefactors. 
 
 Again; we compare men with God in respect 
 
192 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 
 
 to all the excellences which we observe in them, 
 and which we conceive that he also possesses, 
 only in a higher and more perfect degree. We 
 may say of men, therefore, that, in respect to 
 all these excellences, they bear the image of God, 
 or are like him. Now we still possess, as we 
 are taught in the scriptures, many of these no- 
 bler powers with which our nature was endued, 
 though in a far less degree than God ; such are 
 reason, dominion over the earth, &c. Other of 
 these excellences, according to the constant 
 doctrine of the Bible, we have lost by the fall, 
 or possess at present in a far less degree than 
 our first parents before the fall. Among the 
 latter are (a) that degree of bodily strength and 
 health which laid the foundation for the immor- 
 tality of the body; and (b) more especially 
 moral perfections. Thus we see that the Bible 
 will support us in saying, both that we still 
 possess the image of God, and that we possess 
 it no longer, according as we use this phrase in 
 a wider or narrower sense. So far as the pos- 
 terity of Adam still possesses reason and power 
 over irrational creatures, they still possess the 
 image of God, Deo sunt similes. So far as they 
 have ceased to be righteous and holy as man 
 was in his state of innocence, and so far as their 
 bodies are now become mortal, they have lost 
 the image of God. But so far as they regain 
 this original moral rectitude, and a happy im- 
 mortality, they again become like God, and his 
 image is renewed in their souls. This whole 
 subject is discussed by Morus, p. 105, s. 23, in 
 a manner worthy of imitation, especially in the 
 practical turn which he has given it. 
 
 Note. Theologians have invented various 
 divisions and technical phrases, in order to de- 
 termine more accurately the nature and kind of 
 those excellences and perfections which were 
 bestowed by God upon man at the creation. 
 But these divisions have given rise to many er- 
 roneous views of this subject. The following 
 distinctions deserve to be particularly noticed : 
 
 1. These original endowments of man are 
 not to be understood as excellences which he 
 possessed in actual exercise (habitus, Scholast. 
 habitus infusi ,) but only as capacities and fa- 
 culties for those excellences which, by practice 
 and exercise, he may come to possess. The 
 human soul resembles in this respect an unwrit- 
 ten leaf, (the tabula rasa of Aristotle,) upon 
 which everything can be written for which it 
 has a natural fitness and susceptibility. Vide 
 Introduction, s. 4. 
 
 2. They are naturales ; united with human 
 nature, and wrought into it by God ; and op- 
 posed (a) to perfectiones essentiales, because man 
 can be conceived to exist without them, and 
 would remain man though destitute of them; 
 and (6"| to perfectiones superadditi per gratiam. 
 
 This last point was affirmed in opposition to 
 many theologians of the Romish church, who 
 placed these excellences in a high degree of wis- 
 dom, justice, and holiness, imparted by God to 
 men on creation in a supernatural manner, and 
 in addition to the original endowments of his 
 nature. They regarded the similitudo cum Deo 
 as opposed to the status pit rorum naturalium, in 
 which man was without the knowledge or love 
 of God ; and therefore as a donum supernaturale, 
 which could be lost without altering the essen- 
 tial nature of man. 
 
 3. Perfectiones propagibiles. It was the inten- 
 tion of God that these perfections should be 
 transmitted to the posterity of our first parents, 
 so long as the conditions prescribed by God 
 should be fulfilled. 
 
 SECTION LIV. 
 
 OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN ; HIS MENTAL 
 AND MORAL PERFECTIONS. 
 
 THE excellences which man possessed in his 
 original condition are generally divided into two 
 classes ; (a) Infernal, such as belong to the es- 
 sential constitution of human nature, as esta- 
 blished by -God himself, including all his ori- 
 ginal perfections both of soul and body ; s. 54, 
 55. (6) External, such advantages as man 
 possessed from the relation to the rest of the 
 creation in which he was placed by God; his 
 dominion over the other creatures of the earth, 
 his title to use them for his own advantage, 
 &c. imago Dei sensu latiori ; s. 56. We shall 
 first treat of the INTERNAL excellences of man; 
 in this section, of the original perfections of his 
 soul; in the following, of those of his body. The 
 excellences which originally belonged to the 
 soul of man will now be considered in reference 
 to its two principal powers understanding and 
 will. / 
 
 I. Original Excellences of the Human Under- 
 standing. 
 
 Reason and the intellectual powers are the 
 noblest gifts which we have received from God, 
 without which we could not be moral beings. 
 We cannot suppose, then, that these powers 
 should have remained idle and unemployed dur- 
 ing the happy state of innocence in which our 
 first parents lived. Paul, therefore, with entire 
 truth, makes falyvurtis one of the things in which 
 our likeness to God consisted; Col. iii. 10, cf. 
 s. 53; since holiness and blamelessness, the 
 other things mentioned as constituting it, could 
 not exist, without some knowledge of good and 
 evil. This knowledge, however, was not itself 
 directly imparted to man at his creation, but 
 only the power of obtaining knowledge. Vide 
 s. 53, ad finem. 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 193 
 
 In what the knowledge of our first parents 
 consisted neither Moses nor any other sacred 
 writer has particularly informed us. Their 
 state with respect to knowledge is doubtless 
 justly described as a state of infancy ; in the 
 sense, however, in which we speak of the in- 
 fancy of nations; for Moses does not represent 
 Adam as in all respects resembling a new-born 
 child. As to actual knowledge, he was, indeed, 
 at the moment when God created him, exactly 
 in the condition of a new-born child, and quite 
 as destitute of innate ideas. But in another re- 
 spect he was very unlike a new-born child ; in 
 this, namely, that he was able to exercise his 
 reason immediately, which a child is not. God 
 created man, according to the Mosaic account, 
 not only endued with reason, but able to exercise 
 it on his first entrance into the world. And if 
 he had immediately the full use of his intellec- 
 tual powers, he must very soon have acquired 
 from the objects by which he was surrounded a 
 great variety of ideas, and a large stock of know- 
 ledge ; and he would advance in knowledge the 
 more rapidly and easily, as his mind was not as 
 yet swayed by those inordinate bodily appe- 
 tites, nor darkened by those prejudices, nor 
 confirmed in those bad habits, by which all 
 others who have attained to maturity are so 
 effectually hindered in the acquisition of know- 
 ledge. 
 
 The means by which God called the intel- 
 lectual powers of man into exercise, and brought 
 them to a full development, were, according to 
 Moses, of two kinds. 
 
 (a) Indirect, the external objects by which 
 man was surrounded. Animate creatures, being 
 more nearly related to him than the inanimate 
 creation, were the first objects which attracted 
 his attention and excited his curiosity. That 
 this was so we may conclude, both from what 
 we observe every day among children, and from 
 the express declaration of Moses. The living 
 creatures with which man was conversant first 
 employed his thoughts ; and in giving them 
 names, he first exercised the faculty of speech. 
 Cf. s. 52, II. It was not until afterwards, and 
 only in an inferior degree, that the inanimate 
 creation also administered to his instruction by 
 the various objects which it presented to his at- 
 tention. 
 
 (6) Direct, the revelations made immediately 
 to man. The Mosaic history throughout repre- 
 sents God as familiarly and directly conversant 
 with our first parents ; and as speaking with 
 them ; Gen. ii. 16, 17; i. 29, 30. And the his- 
 tory of the fall (chap, iii.) presupposes in our 
 first parents an acquaintance with some direct 
 divine instruction, and with positive divine pre- 
 cepts; and this corresponds entirely with the 
 notions which even heathen nations have always 
 25 
 
 had of the original condition of man. In the 
 early and infant age of the world, the Deity, 
 they supposed, walked familiarly among men, 
 and revealed himself to them directly, by words, 
 dreams, visions, and in other ways. 
 
 The knowledge of our first parents, so far as 
 it was derived from natural sources, must have 
 been confined to the objects by which they were 
 immediately surrounded ; and even with regard 
 to these, they knew only as much as was neces- 
 sary for them in the circumstances in which they 
 were placed. In comparison with the know- 
 ledge which we possess at present, it must have 
 been very small, as their wants were compara- 
 tively very few. The Mosaic history does not 
 afford the remotest support to the fabulous sto- 
 ries which we find in the rabbins, ecclesiastical 
 fathers, and other writers, who have followed the 
 later Jewish teachers, respecting the extensive 
 physiological, scientific, and literary knowledge 
 of Adam. These Jewish fables are connected 
 with the notion that the language which Adam 
 spoke was Hebrew, which is supposed by the 
 Jews to be a holy language, inspired by God a 
 pretension which has been ably refuted by 
 Schultens. The Jews think they can discover 
 proof of the thorough knowledge of nature which 
 Adam possessed, in the Hebrew names which 
 they suppose him to have given to the various 
 animals, and from the etymologies of these 
 names. 
 
 We should not expect to find thorough know- 
 ledge or extensive learning in our first parents, 
 for the following reasons : viz., (a) With their 
 few wants they could derive no advantage from 
 such knowledge, and could make no use of it. 
 (&) As to religion, the knowledge which they 
 needed both of its theoretical and practical truths 
 could be comprised in a few simple and intelli- 
 gible points. Of any higher or more extended 
 knowledge of this subject they were at first 
 wholly incapable, (c) It will not be denied that 
 the language of our first parents must have been 
 simple and scanty. Vide s. 55. But it is well 
 known from experience, that without words, and 
 indeed without a great copiousness and richness 
 of language, neither distinct and definite ideas, 
 nor, in general, accurate knowledge, can exist, 
 (rf) When men first begin to collect in society, 
 even supposing them endued with the most no- 
 ble faculties and intellectual powers, they cannot 
 be instructed by philosophy, like learned and 
 cultivated people. They must first be instructed 
 by what is sensible ; and have everything ren- 
 dered as obvious to the senses as possible; ex- 
 actly as it is represented, Gen. ii. 19, 20. If the 
 representation there made were different, and 
 such as many modern scholars would have us 
 believe, it would be highly improbable, and the 
 whole narrative would become suspicious. This 
 R 
 
194 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 very simplicity gives it the stamp of internal 
 truth, (e) Our first parents are represented in 
 chap. iii. as in fact credulous and easily be- 
 guiled. And how can this be reconciled with 
 the supposition that they possessed that deep 
 and extensive knowledge and those great per- 
 fections sometimes ascribed to them? The 
 knowledge of Adam, then, cannot be compared 
 with that of any advanced and mature race of 
 men. The same standard of judging cannot be 
 employed in the two cases. It may be readily 
 conceded, however, that the powers and faculties 
 of our first parents, as long as the <jap| and 
 ytvsv/j-a, sense and reason, remained in proper ba- 
 lance, were greater than those of their posterity, 
 in whom the case is otherwise. Vide Dr. Junge, 
 " Volekommenheiten der ersten Menschen," 
 Stuck 1, of his philosophical and theological 
 Essays; Nurnberg, 1779, 8vo. 
 
 II. Original Excellences of the Human Will. 
 
 They consist chiefly in the order and regu- 
 larity of our bodily desires. Our first parents 
 in their state of innocence were blameless and 
 sinless. They had sincere love for God and re- 
 gard for his commandments, and did everything 
 which was agreeable to him with the greatest 
 readiness, out of pure love, as virtuous children 
 do the will of an earthly parent. In short, if 
 their piety was childlike in respect to the know- 
 ledge upon which it was founded, it was also so 
 in respect to its purity and simplicity. And this 
 disposition is that which will be revived in those 
 in whom the image of God is renewed. Hence 
 Christ recommends us so earnestly to become 
 like children. Our first parents obeyed from 
 grateful love ; and it is the object of Christianity, 
 in designing to renew the image of God, to bring 
 us to render obedience to God and Christ from 
 motives of grateful love. But this rectitude of 
 our first parents consisted only in the subjection 
 of their bodily appetites to the law of reason. 
 Both scripture and experience teach us that our 
 depravity and moral degeneracy arise principally 
 from the dominion of sense (sapt) over reason 
 (Ttvs^ua.) Such was not the case with man in 
 his state of innocence ; he then suffered his ap- 
 petites to be controlled by rational considera- 
 tions ; he fixed his choice only upon what was 
 good, and his desires being virtuous, his actions 
 were the same. Hence this original rectitude 
 of man is called sinlessness (dva/tapT^ca'a.) The 
 representation now given of the original recti- 
 tude of man depends principally upon the pas- 
 sages, Col. iii. and Ephes. iv. Vide s. 53. In 
 these passages, righteousness (uprightness) and 
 holiness (moral perfection) are ascribed by Paul 
 to the will of man as first created, and as re- 
 newed. This rectitude of the will is called by 
 theologians imaginem Dei stride sic dictum, also 
 
 justitiam originalem, the last of which is used 
 in the Apol. Augsb. Confession. Vide Morus, 
 p. 105, Not. ad. s. 23. Of the same import is 
 the phrase B v^v-e^ 4/r^j, which occurs, Book of 
 Wisdom, ix. 3 (s. 53) ; and also ouotys and 
 affko-tqs, 2 Cor. xi. 3. Ev^vj corresponds with 
 the Hebrew -?, honest, upright, virtuous ; and 
 is used with particular reference to the text, 
 Eccles. vii. 29, "God made man upright; but 
 he sought out many inventions (wrong ways)." 
 The meaning is : man had a natural capacity for 
 virtue, but he abandoned nature, and declined to 
 evil, notwithstanding his noble capacities. 
 
 The opinions which many form of the per- 
 fections of the will of our first parents, and of the 
 virtues of their character, are frequently very 
 extravagant. This is a fault which should be 
 guarded against. Man was created with the 
 amplest CAPACITY for moral excellency ; but it 
 cannot be said that he had attained to the actual 
 possession of this excellence in a very high 
 degree. High and confirmed virtue can only be 
 attained by a long course of moral action ; and 
 at that early period opportunities for this action 
 must have been very rare. God, however, did 
 not require more from man than he had given 
 to him. But the understanding of man in his 
 primitive state, though indeed sufficient for the 
 situation in which he was placed, was still very 
 small, and his actual knowledge very limited ; 
 but the more feeble and imperfect these are, the 
 more imperfect, necessarily, must be that virtue 
 which depends upon them. There is a great 
 difference between the innocence of childhood, 
 and the virtue which is grounded upon the more 
 perfect and mature knowledge and experience 
 of a riper and more advanced age. If our first 
 parents had possessed so preponderating a bias 
 to good as many have supposed, it is hard to 
 see how they could have been so easily seduced. 
 We behold them yielding to temptations which 
 would have in vain assailed many of those 
 among their descendants, in whom, according 
 to the language of scripture, the image of God 
 is renewed. 
 
 They, however, were not destitute of a know- 
 ledge of their duty sufficient for their situation; 
 for so much God had provided, Genesis, iii. 2, 
 3. Accordingly, their neglect of duty and their 
 transgression of the divine command could be 
 imputed to them. We should avoid, therefore, 
 the other mistake of representing them as en- 
 tirely ignorant. Vide Morus, s. 8, 22. If they 
 had been faithful in the use of the knowledge 
 which they possessed, they would have attained 
 to a greater measure of it, and to a more fixed 
 habit of goodness, as is the case among those 
 in whom the image of God is renewed. Cf. 
 Matt. xiii. 12, and the texts cited from the epis- 
 tles to the Ephesians and Colossians. 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 195 
 
 SECTION LV. 
 
 OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN J HIS BODILY 
 EXCELLENCES, AND SPEECH. 
 
 I. Original Excellences of the Human Body. 
 
 1. THE superiority of our first parents over 
 their posterity in this respect cannot be accu- 
 rately and particularly determined from the 
 Mosaic account. So much, however, is clear 
 from this account, that the body of man was then 
 perfectly healthy, strong 1 , and vigorous, and that 
 it would have enjoyed a never-failing youth if 
 man had continued in that happy condition in 
 which he was first placed. And this account 
 agrees perfectly with the representations which 
 we find among other nations of the animal cheer- 
 fulness, the bodily health and strength of man 
 in the golden age, and even down into the hero- 
 ical age. Homer frequently speaks of the strong 
 bodily powers of the men of an earlier period, 
 in comparison with the feebleness of those who 
 lived in his own age. The blooming health and 
 bodily vigour of our first parents contributed to 
 the health and strength of the soul ; its powers 
 were not disordered or weakened by sickness; 
 the passions and appetites, which so often de- 
 stroy both body and soul, were as yet moderate 
 and regular. On this subject, as well as with 
 regard to the original mental and moral excel- 
 lences of man, the fancy of the later Jews was 
 very active; and they invented innumerable 
 fables, with which their writings are filled, 
 respecting the beauty, the gigantic size and 
 strength, of the first man. 
 
 The immortality of the body is expressly men- 
 tioned in the Mosaic account, as one of the pe- 
 culiar distinguishing advantages which our first 
 parents enjoyed, Gen. ii. 17, but which we have 
 lost by the fall, Gen. iii. 3, 19. The same is 
 also everywhere taught by the later Jewish 
 writers, who always regarded the immortality 
 of the body as a part of the image of God. Vide 
 Book of Wisdom, ii. 23, seq., (s. 53, II. 2.) 
 So also the first Christian teachers e. g., Ro- 
 mans, v. 12 ; vi. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22 ; where 
 the same views are given as in the texts cited 
 from the Book of Wisdom. This doctrine of 
 the immortality of the body does not imply that 
 man in his nature was so unalterable that he 
 absolutely could not die. An impossibilitas mo- 
 riendi, or immortalitas absoluta, is not pretended ; 
 but only the absentia necessitatis naturalis mori- 
 endi, or immortalitas hypothetica, the condition 
 proposed being obedience to the command of 
 God, and the enjoyment of the tree of life being 
 permitted to them only so long as they should 
 fulfil this condition. Morus, p. 98, s. 9, note. 
 Nor is this immortality represented even by 
 Moses as a necessary consequence resulting 
 from the incorruptible nature of the human body, 
 
 but as a favour promised to man by God, and 
 depending upon the constantly-repeated use of 
 the tree of life, Gen. ii. 9, coll. iii. 22, 24. Cf. 
 s. 52, II. Something similar to this is found in 
 the Grecian mythology, which represents the 
 gods as partaking of nectar and ambrosia, in order 
 to preserve and invigorate their bodies; while 
 mortal men were not allowed to participate of 
 this heavenly food, even when they ate with the 
 gods. Horn. Od. v. 197, 199. 
 
 The question is frequently asked, whether man 
 would have always remained upon the earth if he 
 had not fallen? The Mosaic history furnishes 
 no reply to this question ; but the answer com- 
 monly given by theologians is, that man would 
 not always have remained here below, but that, 
 by some unknown transformation, without death, 
 or the separation of the soul from the body, he 
 would have been raised to a higher happiness 
 in heaven. To this opinion Morus assents. It 
 is grounded principally upon the New-Testa- 
 ment doctrine, that those men who should still 
 be alive at the day of judgment would not die, 
 but be changed i. e., their grosser bodies would 
 pass, without the painful sensation of death, into 
 those more refined and perfect bodies which all 
 will possess in the abodes of the blessed, 1 Cor. 
 xv. 51, seq. This representation is supposed 
 to furnish some evidence with regard to the ori- 
 ginal destination of the human body ; and this 
 is rendered more probable by what Paul says, 
 ver. 47, "ai/^pwTtoj ex yvjs %o'Cxo$ (SOT'I)." But 
 we cannot attain to certainty upon this sub- 
 ject, because the holy scriptures leave it un- 
 decided. 
 
 2. It was not intended, however, by the Crea- 
 tor, that our first parents, while living in their 
 state of innocence, should leave their bodily 
 powers unemployed and unexercised. Morus, 
 s. 4. The life which they were to lead was 
 not one of indolent ease and animal enjoyment, 
 although such is the notion almost universally 
 entertained respecting the life in the golden age. 
 Our first parents, on the contrary, were required 
 to labour, and in that way still further to de- 
 velop and perfect their bodily and intellectual 
 powers. Vide s. 51. II. The very idea, how- 
 ever, of this happy age, excludes the notion of 
 pain and hardship, the frequent attendants of 
 labour. Vide Genesis, ii. 5 ; iii. 17 19. Agri- 
 culture is mentioned, in the passages before 
 cited, as the first employment appointed for man. 
 The taming, or rather domestication and em- 
 ployment of animals is mentioned in Gen. i. 28. 
 By describing agriculture as the first employ- 
 ment of man, Moses obviates the false opinion 
 that our first parents were originally in a savage 
 state. A degree of cultivation which savages 
 do not possess is implied in agricultural employ- 
 ments ; and they lead faster than any other to 
 progressive improvement. 
 
196 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 II. Original Language of Man. 
 
 Speech is the great characteristic excellence 
 of man, without which he would hardly be able 
 to employ his rational powers, or to exist in so- 
 cial connexion with his fellow-men. Of this 
 distinguishing faculty of man Moses makes ex- 
 press mention, Gen. ii. 19 ; cf. s. 52, II. There 
 have always been very various opinions respect- 
 ing the origin of human language. For the 
 opinions of the ancient Greeks, vide Puffendorf, 
 Jus naturae et gentium, 1. iv. c. 1, s. 3, and Miil- 
 ler, Positiones, historico-philosoph. de origine 
 sermonis ; Argentorati, 1777. This subject has 
 been often discussed in modern times, and has 
 caused much controversy both among philoso- 
 phers and theologians ; and as it is usually made 
 a topic of discussion in modern systematic the- 
 ology, and can be more naturally introduced into 
 this department than any other, we shall treat 
 of it briefly in this place. Writers on this sub- 
 ject are divided into two principal classes viz., 
 
 1. Some have maintained that an articulate 
 language, consisting of arbitrary sounds, was 
 imparted to man at his creation, and that he was 
 able immediately to speak it ; and moreover, that 
 this original language was very copious and in 
 the highest degree perfect. Man, they assert, 
 not only did not, as a matter of fact, invent the 
 language which he spake, but never could have 
 done it; and so they suppose that speech was 
 originally as special and miraculous an endow- 
 ment as the gift of tongues to the apostles. The 
 principal advocate of this opinion in modern 
 times is Joh. Pet. Sussmilch, who has attempt- 
 ed, with no common sagacity, to prove that the 
 origin of language is not to be traced to man, 
 but directly to God. Vide his Essay on this 
 subject, published at Berlin, 1766, 8vo. But, 
 
 (a) The nature of language itself, and the 
 most ancient history of it, furnish conclusive 
 evidence that man not only can invent, but has 
 actually invented, articulated language, consist- 
 ing of arbitrary sounds. All languages in their 
 incipient state are indescribably simple, consist- 
 ing of very few and short words and phrases, 
 which are so insufficient for the communication 
 of thought, that looks and gestures are called in 
 to their aid. Such we observe to be the case 
 still with children, who have more thoughts 
 and feelings than words in which to express 
 them. The same is true of savages, and gene- 
 rally of all who have but few words. Now, if 
 God had communicated language in some such 
 miraculous manner as is supposed to our first 
 parents, it is hard to see why he should have 
 suffered this language to be afterwards lost, and 
 how it should have come to pass that all the 
 nations springing from Adam should have begun 
 back with the very elements of speech, and pro- 
 ceeding from these, have formed so many and 
 
 such different languages. According to this 
 supposition, then, a great miracle would have 
 been wrought in behalf of our first parents, from 
 which none of their posterity had reaped the 
 least advantage. This is not according to the 
 manner of God in his other works. 
 
 (&) The supposition that the original lan- 
 guage of man was copious and finished, over- 
 looks the fact that language cannot be such 
 where objects and ideas are still scanty and im- 
 perfect. Ideas arise from the perception of ob- 
 jects; and the number, clearness, and distinct- 
 ness of our ideas is in proportion to the number 
 of objects which we behold, either simply or in 
 connexion with others. But language contains 
 the signs and symbols by which we express 
 our ideas of things, and communicate them to 
 others. How, then, could there be a perfect 
 language in that simplicity of human life in 
 which there were but few objects to be seen or 
 compared 1 The advocates of this supposition 
 are driven to the absurdity of saying that man 
 could have spoken of things which he had never 
 seen or thought of. It was remarked by Samuel 
 Werenfels, very truly, that if one should look 
 through the most comprehensive and complete 
 dictionary, he would find but few words which 
 could have belonged to the language of Adam. 
 
 (c) Again ; of what use could a rich and cul- 
 tivated language have been to our first parents f 
 And if of none, how can the supposition that 
 such a language was miraculously given them 
 be reconciled with divine wisdom, which does 
 not work miracles except for some important 
 object? Now it is perfectly obvious that to 
 them, in their peaceful and simple life, when 
 they had but few wants, and those easily satis- 
 fied, such a language would have been of no 
 utility. They had as yet no ideas of innume- 
 rable things which became afterwards known 
 as improvement advanced ; and for such things, 
 of course, they had no words in their language. 
 The language of our first parents, in its incipient 
 state, could not naturally have been more copi- 
 ous or perfect than the language of nations ge- 
 nerally while they are still in their infancy and 
 possess but few ideas, and of course have, and 
 need to have, but few words to express them. 
 
 (d) We justly conclude, from what we see of 
 the wisdom of God in all his other works, that 
 he did not endow man, on his creation, with any 
 advantage which he himself could attain in the 
 diligent use of the powers and faculties of his 
 nature. So we conclude that man has no innate 
 ideas, because he can easily obtain the ideas he 
 possesses by the use of his intellectual powers. 
 And with still more reason may we conclude, 
 on the same ground, that man has no imagines 
 innatas, sive signa innata idearum de rebus. 
 The Bible makes no mention of any such ; on 
 the contrary, it teaches that one way in which 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 197 
 
 our first parents learned language was from 
 their intercourse with irrational creatures, in 
 giving names to which they first exercised the 
 faculty of speech. 
 
 2. The second class affirm that God did ntt 
 bestow language itself upon man at his creation, 
 but gave him powers and faculties which would 
 enable him to form a language for himself, and 
 gradually to refine and enrich it as his circum- 
 stances might require. Those who hold this 
 opinion may have as sincere admiration for the 
 wisdom of God and gratitude for his goodness 
 as the advocates of the other theory. Among 
 the ancients, Epicurus, (vide Lucretius,) and 
 among the fathers, Tertullian and Gregory of 
 Nyssa, assented to this opinion; and it was 
 considered even by Quenstadt as entirely unob- 
 jectionable. 
 
 These writers, however, differ among them- 
 selves respecting the manner in which man pro- 
 ceeded in the development and improvement of 
 his faculties of speech. The strangest conjecture 
 on this point is that of Maupertius, that language 
 was formed by a session of learned societies, 
 assembled for the purpose ! The theory which 
 derives the most support from history is, that 
 the roots, the primitive radical words of articu- 
 late and conventional language, were originally 
 made in imitation of the sounds which we hear 
 from the different objects in the natural world, 
 and that these original sounds, in imitation of 
 which language is first formed, become less and 
 less discernible in these languages in proportion 
 as they are improved and enlarged, and the ra- 
 dical words are subjected to various alterations 
 and inflexions. Vide Herder, Ueber den Ur- 
 sprung der Sprache, (a prize Essay;) Berlin, 
 1772 ; 2nd ed. 1778 ; 3rd, 1789. Cf. the works 
 of Tetens and Tiedemann on this subject; also 
 Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii. s. 134, f. 
 
 These views respecting the origin of language 
 are entirely consistent with the very natural re- 
 presentation which Moses gives, Gen. ii. 19, 
 20, of the naming of the animals. Vide s. 52, 
 II. These were the first objects to which man 
 directed his attention, and to these he gave 
 names, sometimes derived from his calls to them, 
 and sometimes from voices and sounds which 
 they themselves made. In this way, then, man 
 was first led to exercise his powers of speech ; 
 and it was perfectly natural for him to begin to 
 speak by giving names to animals, as they are 
 more interesting to him, and more nearly related 
 to him, than the inanimate creation. 
 
 Now, when our first parents were to be in- 
 structed in moral objects, which could not be 
 recognised by their senses, it must necessarily 
 be done by images drawn from nature, and es- 
 pecially from animals, and so their names and 
 the names of their actions were figuratively ap- 
 plied, in the poverty of the then existing lan- 
 
 guage, to designate moral objects. In conform- 
 ty with these views, we must interpret what 
 God says, Genesis, iii., iv., which would have 
 been unintelligible to our first parents if it had 
 been expressed in such language and phraseo- 
 logy as is now common among us; but which, 
 being expressed in a figurative manner, was 
 level to their comprehension. This is the way 
 in which missionaries are now compelled to pro- 
 ceed, when they have to do with men who have 
 no ideas on religious and spiritual subjects, and 
 of course no words answering to them in their 
 language. Instruction intended for children, 
 also, must be conveyed in the same figurative 
 language and style ; and they are always found 
 to be most interested in allegories and fables, 
 like those of JEsop. Those who object to this 
 mode of instruction only prove, then, their own 
 ignorance. Instruction imparted to uncultivated 
 men must of necessity be given in a figurative 
 manner, because they not only speak, but even 
 think, in figures. From abstract expressions 
 they derive but faint conceptions. The case is 
 entirely different among cultivated men. 
 
 SECTION LVI. 
 
 OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN ', HIS EXTERNAL 
 ADVANTAGES ; AND THE NOTION OF A GOLDEN 
 AGE. 
 
 I. Original External Advantages of Man. 
 
 THIS is the second class of the distinguishing 
 advantages of onr first parents, as divided in the 
 beginning of s. 54. They have their ground in 
 the external relation of man to the other crea- 
 tures of the earth ; but they presuppose in him 
 the possession of those internal excellences de- 
 scribed s. 54, 55. These advantages are com- 
 prehended under the general description, the 
 dominion of man over the earth, or over the crea- 
 tures of the earth, Morus, p. 104, s. 21 ; and 
 this is taken from Gen. i. 26, seq. coll. Gen. 
 ix. 2. This dominion implies nothing more 
 than that man possesses (0) the right and title 
 to make all the creatures of the earth contribute 
 to his own advantage, to the supply of his 
 wants, and to the convenience of his life ; and 
 (6) that he possesses both the power and skill 
 to compel them to that subservience to which 
 their nature is adapted. Cf. s. 52, II. It is 
 said by Plato, in a passage in Tirnaeus respect- 
 ing the creation of men, as translated by Cicero, 
 " Tales creantur, ut Deorum immortalium quasi 
 gentiles esse debeant, divini generis appellentur, 
 (cf. Acts, xvii. 28, from Aratus, tov yap xai 
 ysvos <tytv,) teneantque omnium animantium 
 principatum." God has placed man, as lord, 
 at the head of the animate creation ; made him 
 his image upon the earth a subordinate god 
 a representative of the Deity. And the irra- 
 Bfi 
 
198 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 tional creatures, whose knowledge cannot ex- 
 tend beyond what they can recognise by their 
 senses, can conceive of nothing superior to man. 
 Of God and of spiritual things they know no- 
 thing, and so can have no duties to perform to 
 him. Their business is, to submit to man, as 
 their lord and ruler; and God has given to man 
 the means to compel them to this obedience, for 
 which they were made. With many animals, 
 even since the fall, this subjection to man seems 
 to be natural and easy ; they are inclined to his 
 service of their own accord, or are readily pre- 
 vailed upon by favours or chastisements to en- 
 gage in it. 
 
 This dominion which was conferred upon 
 man over the animate and the inanimate crea- 
 tion he still retains, at least in a good measure. 
 It is represented as still the prerogative of man 
 in Psalm viii. 6 9, the whole of which passage 
 is a paraphrase of Genesis, i. 26, seq. (On the 
 question, whether this dominion is only a part, 
 or the whole of what is intended, when it is 
 said that man was made in the image of God, 
 cf. s. 53, I. II.) Theologians, however, fre- 
 quently assert, that since the fall man does not 
 possess this dominion over the inferior creation 
 in its full extent , and it does not follow from 
 the words of Moses, considered by themselves, 
 that he ever did. Moses, however, and other 
 sacred writers, clearly teach, that such wild, in- 
 tractable, and cruel beasts, as are now found 
 upon the earth, were unknown to man in his 
 original condition, where they were all tame 
 and subject to his will. This is clear, too, from 
 the figurative description which the prophets 
 give of the return of that happy age e. g., Isa. 
 xi. 6 ; Ixv. 25. The same opinions respecting 
 that happy age of innocence in the youth of 
 the world are found among the Greeks, Romans, 
 (cf. Virg. Eel. iv.,) and almost all nations. 
 
 From the relation which man holds to irra- 
 tional creatures, as their master and ruler, he 
 owes them several important duties; the consi- 
 deration of which belongs, however, rather to 
 the department of morals than of theology. 
 
 II. The Notion of a Golden Age. 
 
 1. The notion of a golden age of the world is 
 almost universal ; and, although somewhat mo- 
 dified by the peculiar opinions and customs of 
 each people, it is yet found diffused through all 
 ages and nations, as far as history extends, and 
 is everywhere substantially the same. All na- 
 tions believe that the original state of the earth 
 and of the human race was far more happy and 
 cheerful, and in every respect better, than the 
 present ; and that either at once or more gradu- 
 ally the world degenerated. The notions which 
 the Grecians, and the nations which adopted 
 their mythology, the Romans and others, enter- 
 tained respecting the different ages, the golden, 
 
 silver, &c., are generally known. Cf. Hesiod, 
 "Epy. xai fa. verses 109201. Ovid, Met. I. 
 89162. Virgil, Eel. iv., and the selections 
 from Plato and Diodorus in Euseb. Praep. Evan, 
 i. 7 ; xii. 13. [Cf. Lucretius, De rerum nat. ii. 
 332, seq. Tibullus, i. 3, 35, seq. Seneca, 
 Hipp. v. 524.] The same opinions substan- 
 tially are found among rude and savage na- 
 tions the inhabitants of Kamschatka, Tartary, 
 the Indians in North and South America, the 
 South-Sea Islands, &c. 
 
 2. What is the source of these ideas, which 
 are so universally diffused 1 
 
 (a) It was formerly supposed very generally 
 that all these mythological fables were only tra- 
 ditionary relics and fragments of a direct divine 
 revelation. The Mosaic history was regarded 
 as the only source from which these various 
 and wide-spread ideas were derived; and to 
 shew how they were handed down from one 
 age to another, and transmitted from the He- 
 brews to the Greeks, Romans, and others, has 
 been very often attempted. But the arguments 
 employed in support of this opinion have been 
 generally far-fetched, and unsupported by his- 
 tory; as, indeed, all arguments must be which 
 are adduced in support of the opinion, that the 
 scriptures are the only source from which the 
 ideas of the Greeks, Romans, and others, re- 
 specting the original state of man, are derived, 
 and that these ideas have been only corrupted 
 in being transmitted by the intermixture of fa- 
 ble. This opinion was advocated by Huetius, 
 in his " Demonstratio Evangelica, where he en- 
 deavoured to shew that the scripture history 
 was at the foundation of the whole Grecian 
 mythology. But his theory is inconsistent 
 with facts, as is very generally acknowledged 
 at the present day. Much, indeed, of the scrip- 
 tural account respecting the original condition 
 of man may have been preserved and diffused 
 among the nations of the earth. But it cannot 
 be historically proved that our sacred history is 
 the only ground of these ideas of a golden pe- 
 riod, in which all nations agree. These uni- 
 versal ideas on this subject may have arisen 
 partly from other sources. Men are everywhere 
 alike in all the essential parts of human nature. 
 And hence there prevails among them a certain 
 universal analogy in respect to language, man- 
 ners, modes of thought and opinion; and from 
 this analogy their agreement on many points 
 may be explained, without supposing them to 
 have learned or borrowed from one another. 
 Vide Introduction, s. 9, No. 6. 
 
 (6) One cause of this notion of a golden age 
 so widely diffused among heathen nations is the 
 disposition, which may be seen in all men, 1o 
 think THE PAST better and more happy than THE 
 PRESENT. This disposition has its origin in a 
 certain urgent /ee/mg of our natures, of which 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 109 
 
 we shall in a moment say more. We shall 
 here speak only of the disposition itself, as it is 
 seen among men. And in accordance with it, 
 the higher one ascends into antiquity the more 
 happy and charming does the world become to 
 his view ; the nearer he approaches the times in 
 which he lives, the more imperfect and dismal 
 does everything appear. It was the same with 
 men in respect to their views of the past a thou- 
 sand years ago. And had the world actually 
 degenerated, physically and morally, a thousand 
 years ago as much as the old men, laudatores 
 temporis acti, doubtless then thought and said, 
 and had each successive generation of men since 
 proved, according to the expression of Horace, 
 progenies vitiosior, then the world by this time 
 would have become a mere waste, and the whole 
 human race would have long since perished ! 
 This prevalent belief that the world from the 
 first had been constantly deteriorating was 
 now clothed in an historical form, and taught 
 as actual truth; and the fables thus invented 
 respecting the early state of man, though they 
 differ in some particulars, are yet everywhere 
 essentially the same. 
 
 The manner in which the ideas of a golden 
 age may have originated, and have been gradu- 
 ally developed into those mythological descrip- 
 tions which are found in all nations, may be 
 shewn by the following remarks, founded upon 
 experience : When we have arrived at mature 
 years, and especially when we are in the decline 
 of life, the period of our youth appears to us far 
 better than the present. We were thn more free 
 from anxiety than ever after; our susceptibi- 
 lity of pleasurable emotions had not then been 
 blunted ; our heart was open to the enjoyments 
 of life. And when we look around, and every- 
 thing seems to us to have degenerated since we 
 were young, it is not unnatural to conclude that 
 the same has been true in every age ; that at a 
 very early period, in the infancy of the world, it 
 was full of peace and happiness, and from that 
 time to the present has been gradually growing 
 worse and worse. And we are strengthened in 
 this conclusion by hearing our parents and 
 grandparents speak in the same way respect- 
 ing the times which they have lived through. 
 Thus at length we come to the conviction that 
 old times were better than the present, and that 
 the farther back we go, the more delightful, 
 happy, and perfect we shall find the state of the 
 world. We then proceed to fill up this general 
 outline which we have formed of a happy age. 
 And this we do by carefully removing from that 
 golden period all the ills and imperfections of"" 
 of our present state, the physical sufferings 
 which we now endure, and also the evils arising 
 from our social connexion, and from the progress 
 of refinement. Then we suppose there was no 
 need of clothing, there was no rough and uncom- 
 
 fortable weather, there w^re no harmful beasts, 
 and men were not as yet unjust and cruel. 
 Such is the picture of the primitive state of the 
 earth and of the human race, in which the an- 
 cient fables of almost all nations agree. It de- 
 serves, however, to be remarked, that Moses 
 dissents from nearly all the heathen mytholo- 
 gists who have described the original state of 
 man as one of indolence and perfect rest, and, 
 on the contrary, makes it a state of activity and 
 labour. 
 
 These mythological descriptions have, no 
 doubt, an historical basis, but whatever of truth 
 there is in them has been enhanced and beauti- 
 fied by the imagination in its attempt to bring 
 up the golden age to its own ideal of perfection. 
 For, in reality, that happy state of man of 
 which so many dream, and which is depicted in 
 heathen mythologies, is nothing more than the 
 state of barbarism with its best side turned to 
 the beholder, beautified by the imagination, and 
 placed in that same magic and enchanting light 
 with which we have seen the entire absence of 
 cultivation covered over by the genius of Rous- 
 seau. Vide his " Discours sur 1'origine et les 
 fondements de 1'inegalite parmi les hommes." 
 If the worst side of this state should be exhibit- 
 ed, instead of pleasing it would shock and dis- 
 gust all who have ever enjoyed the blessings 
 of civilization and refinement." 
 
 In this way we can account for the origin of 
 these universal ideas respecting the original 
 state of man, without supposing that they were 
 altogether derived from the Mosaic record. 
 
 (c) These remarks respecting the manner in 
 which the opinions and ideas of men respecting 
 a golden age first originated and are gradually 
 developed are so obvious, and have so much in- 
 ternal truth, that they occur of themselves to 
 every observer of the world and of mankind. 
 But for this very reason, that the universal ideas 
 respecting the primitive state of man can be so 
 easily accounted for, without supposing an his- 
 torical foundation for them, the Mosaic history 
 of this original state has, like the rest, been re- 
 garded by many as fabulous. But those who 
 have taken this view of the Mosaic history have 
 overlooked other very important aspects of the 
 subject, and have but a very partial acquaint- 
 ance with it. Should they look at this subject 
 on all sides they would see the necessity of ad- 
 mitting some real truth as the basis of these 
 wide-spread conceptions, and that the claims 
 of the Mosaic account to our credence are 
 greatly superior to those of heathen mythologies. 
 This will be evident from the following consi- 
 derations : 
 
 (a) The general disposition of all nations to 
 regard the original condition of mankind as 
 eminently happy, proves, beyond dispute, that 
 they have felt a certain pressing necessity to 
 
200 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 believe that God, who is supremely wise and 
 good, would have created the human race in a 
 better condition than that in which it is now 
 found. This feeling is universal among men. 
 Most of the ancient philosophers acknowledged 
 it, nor have modern philosophers been able en- 
 tirely to suppress it. Vide the writings of 
 Kant. But to mere philosophers there has 
 always been a riddle here, which they have 
 endeavoured, but have never been able, satis- 
 factorily to solve. This riddle, so inexplicable 
 to thenr, has been perfectly solved by the 
 Bible, in the account which it gives of the fall 
 of man from a state of innocence and happiness. 
 
 (]3) That something must have taken place 
 to corrupt the human race must seem at least 
 probable, from the mere necessity of believing 
 that it was once better than now. But if a 
 book, accredited as a divine revelation, gives 
 historical information respecting both the ori- 
 ginal happy condition and the commencement 
 of the degeneracy of our race, we are no longer 
 left in uncertainty with regard to the fact. 
 
 (y) The Mosaic history of the state of inno- 
 cence, although it agrees in some respects with 
 the fables of the heathen respecting the golden 
 age, in other respects differs widely from them. 
 The extravagant, and plainly false and fabulous 
 representations which are found in the writings 
 of Hesiod, Ovid, and Plato, who describe the 
 happy state as one of ease and indolence, do not 
 occur in the writings of Moses. This circum- 
 stance alone would lead us to conclude that his 
 record is of wholly different origin from theirs, 
 and that it is not a mere fiction, but founded on 
 historical facts. Moreover, it is more ancient 
 than any other account which we have of the 
 first age of the world. 
 
 SECTION LVII. 
 
 OF THE PROPAGATION OF THE HUMAN RACE. 
 
 THE Mosaic history informs us, with a sim- 
 plicity which is characteristic of the age in 
 which it was written, that God designed that 
 the human race should be propagated, and 
 should extend itself over the earth ; and that he 
 gave to man, as well as to other living crea- 
 tures, the power to propagate his own species. 
 Gen. i. 28, coll. v. 22. But as man consists of 
 two essential parts, body and soul, the origin of 
 both these in the posterity of Adam must be 
 considered. 
 
 I. Origin of the Human Body. 
 The Hebrews generally describe the human 
 body as derived directly from parents, as appears 
 from the phrases, to come from the loins of the 
 father, to be in his loins, &c. Gen. xlvi. 26 ; 
 Heb. vii. 5, 10, seq. Sometimes, however, they 
 speak of it, as taken out of the earth, from the 
 
 earth, or dust ; and so as returning to the earth, 
 to the dust, &c. Vide s. 52, II. 2. The pas- 
 sage, Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16, may perhaps be most 
 easily explained in this way. The human body 
 is there represented as being in a dark pit before 
 its birth, and as formed in the depths of the earth, 
 from lime and earth. The phrase V*TX n^nnn, is 
 in other places entirely synonymous with ^isr. 
 Both Greeks and Hebrews represented the state 
 of man before his birth as similar to that in 
 which he will be after his death, and comprised 
 both conditions under the words Sisi? and a8^j. 
 Moses describes man as coming from the earth, 
 and as returning to it. And so, according to the 
 notions of the Hebrews, man is in the earth, as 
 well before his birth as after his death; and 
 comes forth into the material world from that 
 same vast, subterranean, invisible kingdom, to 
 which he again returns. Job, i. 21 ; x. 9 ; 
 xxxiii. 6. Eccl. xii. 7. Book of Wisdom, xv. 8. 
 
 II. The Origin of the Human Soul. 
 
 Respecting the manner of the propagation of 
 the soul among the posterity of Adam, the sacred 
 writers say nothing. The text, Eccl. xii. 7, 
 gives us, indeed, clearly to understand that the 
 soul comes from God in a different manner from 
 the body (vide s. 51, 1.) ; but what this manner 
 is, it does not inform us. The texts, Is. xlii. 5, 
 and Job, xii. 10, which are frequently cited in 
 this connexion, merely teach, that God gave to 
 man breath and life, and so do not relate to this 
 subject. Nor can anything respecting the man- 
 ner of the propagation of the soul he determined 
 from the appellation, Father of spirits, which was 
 commonly given to God among the Jews, and 
 which occurs, Heb. xii. 9. Vide Wetstein, in 
 loc. This appellation implies nothing more than 
 that, as man is the father of an offspring of the 
 same nature with himself, so God, who is a 
 Spirit, produces spirits. It is doubtless founded 
 upon the description of God, Num. xvi. 22, as 
 the God of the spirits of all flesh." The whole 
 inquiry, therefore, with regard to the origin of 
 human souls, is exclusively philosophical ; and 
 scriptural authority can be adduced neither for 
 nor against any theory which we may choose to 
 adopt. But notwithstanding the philosophical 
 nature of this subject, it cannot be wholly passed 
 by in systematic theology, considering the in- 
 fluence which it has upon the statement of the 
 doctrine of original sin. It is on account of its 
 connexion with this single doctrine (for it is not 
 immediately connected with any other) that it 
 has been so much agitated by theologians, espe- 
 cially since the time of Augustine. They have 
 usually adopted that theory respecting the origin 
 of the soul which was most favourable to the 
 views which they entertained respecting the na- 
 tive character of man. And hence the followers 
 of Augustine and of Pelagius, the advocates and 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 201 
 
 opponents of the doctrine of native depravity, are 
 uniformly ranged on opposite sides of the ques- 
 tion concerning the origin of the soul. 
 
 There have been three principal hypotheses 
 on this subject, which will now be stated. 
 
 1. The hypothesis of the pre-existence of souls. 
 Those who support this hypothesis, called Pra> 
 existiani, affirm that God, at the beginning of 
 the world, created the souls of all men, which, 
 however, are not united with the body before 
 man is begotten or born into the world. This 
 was the opinion of Pythagoras, Plato, and his 
 followers, and of the cabalists among the Jews. 
 Among these, however, there is a difference of 
 opinion, some believing that the soul was ori- 
 ginally destined for the body, and unites with it 
 of its own accord; others, with Plato, that it 
 pertained originally to the divine nature, and is 
 incarcerated in the body as a punishment for the 
 sins which it committed in its heavenly state. 
 This hypothesis found advocates in the ancient 
 Christian church. Some Christians adopted the 
 entire system of the Platonists, and held that 
 the soul was a part of the divine nature, &c. 
 Priscillianus and his followers either held these 
 views, or were accused of holding them by Au- 
 gustine, De Haeres. c. 70. All who professed 
 to believe the pre-existence of the soul cannot 
 be proved to have believed that it was a part of 
 the divine nature. This is true of Origen, who 
 agreed with the Platonists in saying, that souls 
 sinned before they were united with a body, in 
 which they were imprisoned as a punishment 
 for their sins. Vide Huetius, in his "Origeni- 
 anae," 1. ii. c. 2, quaest. 6. The pre-existence 
 of the soul was early taught by Justin the Mar- 
 tyr, Dial, cum Tryphone Jud. This has been 
 the common opinion of Christian mystics of an- 
 cient and modern times. They usually adhere 
 to the Platonic theory, and regard the soul as a 
 part of the divine nature, from which it proceeds, 
 and to which it will again return. This doctrine 
 of the pre-existence of the soul is, however, al- 
 most entirely abandoned, because it is supposed 
 irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin. 
 And, if the mystics be excepted, it has been left 
 almost without an advocate ever since the time 
 of Augustine. 
 
 2. The hypothesis of the creation of the soul. 
 The advocates of this theory, called Creatiani, 
 believe that the soul is immediately created by 
 God whenever the body is begotten. A passage 
 in Aristotle, De Gener. ii. 3, was supposed to 
 contain this doctrine, at least, it was so under- 
 stood by the schoolmen; and in truth, Aristotle 
 appears not to be far removed from the opinion 
 ascribed to him. Cyril of Alexandria, and Theo- 
 doret among the fathers in the Grecian church, 
 were of this opinion; and Ambrose, Hilarius, 
 and Hieronymus, in the Latin church. The 
 schoolmen almost universally professed this doc- 
 
 26 
 
 trine, and generally the followers of Pelagius, 
 with whom the schoolmen for the most part 
 agreed in their views with regard to the native 
 character of man. For these views derived a 
 very plausible vindication from the hypothesis 
 that the soul was immediately created by God 
 when it was connected with the body. The 
 argument was this : If God created the souls 
 of men, he must have made them either pure 
 and holy, or impure and sinful. The latter sup- 
 position is inconsistent with the holiness of God, 
 and consequently, the doctrine of the native de- 
 pravity of the heart must be rejected. To affirm 
 that God made the heart depraved, would be to 
 avow the blasphemous doctrine, that God is the 
 author of sin. The theory of the Creatiani was 
 at first favoured by Augustine ; but he rejected 
 it as soon as he saw how it was employed by 
 the Pelagians. It has continued, however, to 
 the present time, to be the common doctrine of 
 the theologians of the Romish church, who in 
 this follow after the schoolmen, like them, 
 making little of native depravity, and much of 
 the freedom of man in spiritual things. Among 
 the protestant teachers, Melancthon was inclined 
 to the hypothesis of the Creatiani; although, 
 after the time of Luther, another hypothesis, 
 which will shortly be noticed, was received with 
 most approbation by protestants. Still many 
 distinguished Lutheran teachers of the seven- 
 teenth century followed Melancthon in his views 
 concerning this doctrine e. g., G. Calixtus. 
 In the reformed church, the hypothesis which 
 we are now considering has had far more advo- 
 cates than any other, though even they have not 
 agreed in the manner of exhibiting it. Luther 
 would have this subject left without being de- 
 termined, and many of his contemporaries were 
 of the same opinion. 
 
 3. The hypothesis of the propagation of the 
 soul. According to this theory, the souls of 
 children, as well as their bodies, are propagated 
 from their parents. These two suppositions 
 may be made: Either the souls of children 
 exist in their parents as real beings, (entia,) 
 like the seed in plants, and so have been propa- 
 gated from Adam through successive genera- 
 tions, which is the opinion of Leibnitz, in his 
 "Theodicee," p. i. s. 91, or they exist in their 
 parents merely potentially, and come from them 
 per propaginem, or traducem. Hence those 
 who hold this opinion are called Traduciani. 
 This opinion agrees with what Epicurus says of 
 human seed, that it is "au>rtato$ *s xai $v%<ri<; 
 drtourtatfiua." This hypothesis formerly pre- 
 vailed in the ancient western church. Accord- 
 ing to Hieronymus, both Tertullian and Apolli- 
 naris were advocates of this opinion, and even 
 "maxima pars Occidentaliurn." Vide Epist. 
 ad Marcellin. Tertullian entered very minutely 
 into the discussion of this subject in his work 
 
203 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 " De anima," c. 25, seq., where he often uses 
 the word tradux ; but he is very obscure in what 
 he has said. This is the hypothesis to which 
 the opponents of the Pelagians have been most 
 generally inclined, (vide No. 2,) though many 
 who were rigorously orthodox would have no- 
 thing definitely settled upon this subject. Even 
 Augustine, who in some passages favoured the 
 Creatiani, affirmed in his book "De origine 
 animae," nullum (sententiam) temere affirmare 
 oportebit. Since the reformation this theory has 
 been more approved than any other, not only by 
 philosophers and naturalists, but also by the 
 Lutheran church. Luther himself appeared 
 much inclined towards it, although he did not 
 declare himself distinctly in its favour. But in 
 the ' Formula Concordiae" it was distinctly 
 taught that the soul, as well as the body, was 
 propagated by parents in ordinary generation. 
 The reason why this theory is so much prefer- 
 red by theologians is, that it affords the easiest 
 solution of the doctrine of native depravity. If 
 in the souls of our first progenitors the souls of 
 all their posterity existed potentially, and the 
 souls of the former were polluted and sinful, 
 those of the latter must be so too. This hypo- 
 thesis is not, however, free from objections; and 
 it is very difficult to reconcile it with some phi- 
 losophical opinions which are universally re- 
 ceived. We cannot, for example, easily conceive 
 how generation and propagation can take place 
 without extension; but we cannot predicate ex- 
 tension of the soul without making it a material 
 substance. Tertullian and other of the fathers 
 affirm, indeed, that the soul of man, and that 
 spirit in general, is not perfectly pure and sim- 
 ple, but of a refined material nature, of which, 
 consequently, extension may be predicated. 
 Vide s. 19, ad finem, and s. 51, I. ad finem. 
 And with these opinions the theory of the pro- 
 pagation of the soul agrees perfectly well, cer- 
 tainly far better, than with the opinions which 
 we entertain respecting the nature of spirit ; al- 
 though even with these opinions we cannot be 
 sure that a spiritual generation and propagation 
 is impossible ; for we do not understand the 
 true nature of spirit, and cannot therefore deter- 
 mine with certainty what is or is not possible 
 respecting it. There are some psychological 
 phenomena which seem to favour the theory 
 now under consideration; and hence it has al- 
 ways been the favourite theory of psychologists 
 and physicians. The natural disposition of 
 children not unfrequently resembles that of their 
 parents ; and the mental excellences and imper- 
 fections of parents are inherited nearly as often 
 by their children as any bodily attributes. 
 Again; the powers of the soul, like those of the 
 body, are at first weak, and attain their full de- 
 velopment and perfection only by slow degrees. 
 Many more phenomena of the same sort might 
 
 be mentioned. But after all that may be said, 
 we must remain in uncertainty with regard to 
 the origin of the human soul. Important objec- 
 tions can be urged against these arguments, and 
 any others that might be offered. And if the 
 metaphysical theory of the entire simplicity of 
 the human soul be admitted, the whole subject 
 remains involved in total darkness. 
 
 ARTICLE VII. 
 
 OF THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING ANGELS. 
 
 SECTION LVIII. 
 
 OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERN- 
 ING ANGELS, AND SOME INTRODUCTORY HISTO- 
 RICAL REMARKS. 
 
 I. The Importance of this Doctrine. 
 
 1. ITS practical importance. By one class 
 of theologians the practical importance of this 
 doctrine has been very much exaggerated ; while 
 others, who are mostly modern writers, have 
 denied it all practical utility, and have gone so 
 far as to insist that it should be entirely omitted 
 in common religious instruction. To these views 
 we can by no means assent, if we make the 
 Bible the source of our knowledge and the 
 foundation of our belief in religious truth. Nor 
 should we allow ourselves to entertain exagge- 
 rated views of this subject, the tendency of 
 which must be injurious. In the manner in 
 which this doctrine is now generally held among 
 Christians, we see the effect of the levity and 
 irreverence with which the doctrines of the Bible 
 have often been treated in late years by theolo- 
 gical writers. The contempt with which the 
 belief in angels is often spoken of among com- 
 mon Christians is not to be wondered at, when 
 we consider how it has been treated by the 
 teachers of religion in our schools, universities, 
 and pulpits. Those who are preparing to be 
 teachers of religion should take warning from 
 the evils which they see produced by the light 
 and irreverent manner in which the doctrines of 
 the Bible have been lately exhibited. Vide Rein- 
 hard's excellent sermon, " Wie sich Christen 
 bey so mannichfachen Meinungen iiber die 
 Geisterwelt zu erhalten haben," published in 
 the collection for the year 1795. 
 
 Angels belong to that invisible world of which 
 we, who are composed of body and spirit, can 
 form only very obscure and imperfect notions. 
 Their existence, and their influence on the ma- 
 terial world and human affairs, are not within 
 the cognizance of our senses, and can be known 
 to us only by revelation. They are not men- 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 203 
 
 tioned by Moses in his cosmogony, (though he 
 appears from many passages to have believed 
 in them ;) because he confines himself in that 
 account strictly to the visible world. And so 
 he mentions only the breath of life in man, al- 
 though he believed beyond dispute that he pos- 
 sessed also a reasonable soul. 
 
 2. Its theoretical importance. To the theolo- 
 gian, the interpreter, and the student of the his- 
 tory of the human mind, this doctrine is of great 
 interest and importance. For (a) angels are 
 very frequently introduced in the sacred books 
 of the Jews and Christians. They are repre- 
 sented as standing in various relations to men, 
 and as actively employed in our affairs. To 
 deny, therefore, the existence and agency of 
 good and bad angels, is plainly contrary to the 
 holy scriptures. The opinion of the Sadducees, 
 that " there is neither angel nor spirit," (Acts, 
 xxiii. 8,) is always rejected as false and un- 
 scriptural by the writers of the New Testament. 
 Notwithstanding, then, the disagreeableness of 
 the doctrine concerning angels to the taste of 
 the age, it must be exhibited by the religious 
 teacher, whose invariable duty it is to conform 
 his instructions to the word of God. (5) Many 
 texts of the Bible which relate to this doctrine, 
 by being misunderstood, have led the great mul- 
 titude into opinions respecting the power and 
 agency of angels, which are inconsistent with 
 the character of God, and of an immoral ten- 
 dency, by enabling men to shift the guilt of their 
 actions from themselves to others. And these 
 mistaken and hurtful opinions have been fos- 
 tered by the incautious and indefinite manner 
 in which the teachers of religion have some- 
 times spoken. 
 
 3. Some important doctrines are exhibited in 
 the Bible as standing in close connexion with 
 the doctrines respecting angels; and for this 
 reason, if for no other, an accurate knowledge 
 of it, and of the manner in which it is taught 
 in the scriptures, is indispensable. The doc- 
 trine respecting sin, and the origin of it ; the 
 temptation of our first parents; the providence 
 of God ; the state of men hereafter, when they 
 will be brought into still closer connexion with 
 spirits ; these and other subjects are nearly re- 
 lated to the doctrine under consideration. 
 
 4. A critical investigation of this subject, in 
 which the declarations of the holy scriptures 
 should be made the chief object of attention, 
 would tend to free men from many superstitions 
 which are in the highest degree injurious. In 
 this view, this doctrine deserves the special at- 
 tention of the teacher of religion. For the 
 mistakes which have prevailed with regard to 
 the agency of angels, and especially of bad an- 
 gels, have been a most fruitful source of super- 
 stitions destructive of the happiness, virtue, and 
 piety of mankind. To correct these supersti- 
 
 tious mistakes, and at the same time to teach 
 with wisdom and judgment what we are taught 
 in the Bible with regard to the agency of angels, 
 is the duty of the Christian minister. 
 
 II. Introductory Historical Remarks. 
 
 The idea that there are certain spirits inter- 
 mediate between God and the human soul, and 
 employed as the instruments of Divine Provi- 
 dence, is very widely diffused among men, and 
 has often attracted the attention and elicited the 
 inquiries even of philosophers. The opinions 
 of the Hebrews upon this subject are the prin- 
 cipal object of our present attention ; still, as 
 the opinions both of Jews and Christians may 
 be illustrated by those of other nations, we shall 
 bestow some attention upon the latter. From 
 the writings of Moses we are justified in con- 
 cluding that the early ancestors of the Israel- 
 ites the patriarchs, received by revelation some 
 more full and particular knowledge respecting 
 angels, which they transmitted to their descend- 
 ants. But the conceptions which they formed 
 on this subject the images under which they 
 represented angels to their own minds, as well 
 as the expressions which they employed to de- 
 signate their ideas were influenced by the cir- 
 cumstance of time and place in which they found 
 themselves, and by their whole external condi- 
 tion. To such circumstances the providence of 
 God evermore conforms. God treats and go- 
 verns men more humano, and adapts the revela- 
 tions which he makes to their comprehension 
 and mode of thinking. Hence the variety in 
 the manner in which the divine revelations are 
 made. To illustrate the terms employed in the 
 Bible on this subject, and some of the figurative 
 representations which it uses, is the object of 
 the following remarks. 
 
 Jehovah was worshipped by the ancestors of 
 the Israelites as a household god. They naturally 
 conceived of him at that early age as resembling 
 themselves. Vide s. 18. Whenever he acted, 
 he conformed to the manner in which men act. 
 He was not visibly present, but he knew all 
 things, interested himself in the affairs of men, 
 and employed himself actively among them. 
 In pursuance of his purposes he also employed 
 his servants, who according to the analogy above 
 stated, were conceived of as household servants, 
 belonging to the father of a family, and engaged 
 in the execution of his commands. They fre- 
 quently acted in his name, as his ambassadors, 
 and had committed to them the oversight, care, 
 and guardianship of men. This notion of them 
 is discerned in all the ancient names by which 
 they were called viz., mni "n^Sc, (messenger, 
 ambassador,) 11 irntrp, ui'X'i ^fe;y, Ps. ciii. 20, 21 ; 
 Ps. civ. 4. They are commonly invisible, as 
 God is; although, like him, when occasion re- 
 quires, they can appear to men. Hence they 
 
204 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 were regarded as spirits, though not at that 
 early period, in the strict and purely metaphy- 
 sical sense of this term. Vide s. 19, II. 
 
 Such conceptions as these respecting spiritual 
 agents being very familiar and deeply interest- 
 ing to those at that age, would very naturally 
 occur to them in their dreams. Now dreams 
 were regarded by the whole ancient world as of 
 divine origin, and as the vehicles of the divine 
 communications to men. By seeing angels in 
 their dreams, the belief of men in their existence 
 was therefore still more strengthened. So in 
 Homer, (Iliad, xxiii. 103, seq.,) Achilles was 
 first convinced of the real existence of the souls 
 of the departed in the under world by the appa- 
 rition of the spirit of his friend Patroclus in a 
 dream. And it was perhaps in compliance with 
 the prevailing belief that dreams were sent by 
 God to instruct mankind, that he actually made 
 use of them as one vehicle of his revelations to 
 Abraham, Jacob, and the other patriarchs. Vide 
 Gen. xxviii. 12, &c. 
 
 When the notion of angels had once become 
 definite, and the belief of their existence con- 
 firmed, their agency in human affairs was very 
 naturally and easily determined. Everything 
 which took place in such a way that the relation 
 between cause and effect was not seen every- 
 thing which could not be assigned to a natural 
 cause, was ascribed to the immediate agency of 
 God, and of these his invisible servants. When 
 God afforded assistance, especially in an un- 
 usual, unexpected, and unhoped-for manner, he 
 was supposed to do it through the instrument- 
 ality of angels ; and in general, when anything 
 took place under the divine agency or permis- 
 sion, the mediate causes of which were conceal- 
 ed, angels were regarded as the agents. In 
 short, they were regarded as spirits engaged in 
 the service of God, and employed as the instru- 
 ments of his providence. And this is an opinion 
 which the sacred writers do not merely record 
 as having been held by others, and which they 
 leave to depend upon its own merits, but which 
 they themselves adopt as their own, and sanction 
 with their own authority. Vide Gen. xvi. 7 
 12 ; 2 Kings, xix. 35 (the destruction in the 
 Assyrian camp) ; Psalm xxxiv. 7 ; xci. 11, 12; 
 Luke, xvi. 22 ; i. 13, 28 ; Heb. i. 14. 
 
 But various objects in the material world, and 
 even inanimate things, were also sometimes 
 called the angels of God, because they were em- 
 ployed by him in the execution of his purposes. 
 This appellation will appear more natural, if 
 we consider that inanimate things, in which 
 there appeared to be motion and a kind of self- 
 actuating power, were regarded by the ancient 
 world as really possessing life and animation. 
 Thus perhaps we may account for it that the 
 appellation angel is so often figuratively applied 
 to things of the material world by the Hebrews, 
 
 especially in their poetic writings. Vide Ps. 
 lxxviii.49; civ. 4 (wind and lightning), coll. Ps. 
 cxlviii. 8, (cf. Morus, p. 89, Not. ad. s. 6;) 1 
 Chronicles, xxi. 14 16; Acts, xii. 23. 
 
 The dwelling-place or principal residence of 
 the angels was always represented as with God 
 in heaven, the abode of the blessed. Hence in 
 the scriptural division of the creatures of God 
 into those in heaven and those on earth, angels 
 are always enumerated with the stars, as belong- 
 ing to the former class. So Ps. cxlviii. 1 6, 
 coll. ver. 713. 
 
 2. When the Hebrews became acquainted 
 with more powerful rulers than the heads of 
 their families, and began to abandon their early 
 patriarchal mode of life, they looked upon God 
 in a different manner from what they had done 
 before, and thought of him under the image of 
 a mighty oriental monarch, and compared his 
 dwelling and his providence with the palace, 
 court, and government of a powerful earthly 
 ruler. The terms which they now used, and 
 the figures which they employed, were all bor- 
 rowed from this comparison. It is natural for 
 men to compare God with the most elevated 
 and powerful beings whom they see on the earth, 
 and to pay to him those external services of 
 reverence and homage which are paid to royal 
 personages. Hence the name ^D, and other 
 royal predicates, were now given to God. He 
 was represented as the universal Lord and Judge, 
 seated upon a throne, surrounded by hosts of 
 angels and servants, ready to execute his com- 
 mands, and standing before him in different 
 offices, divisions, and ranks, distinguished 
 among themselves, like other beings, in dignity 
 and employment. This conception of the an- 
 gels as standing in different ranks and offices 
 is at the foundation of many of the figurative 
 representations in the Bible; which representa- 
 tions, however, though figurative, are intended 
 to teach the truth that there are differences of 
 rank and dignity among the angels, and that 
 some have nearer access to God than others. 
 Vide 1 Kings, xxii. 19 ; Isa. vi. 2 ; Dan. vii. 10 ; 
 Luke, i. 19 ; Matt, xviii. 10. The same altera- 
 tion took place in the external rites of divine 
 service, which now became more complex and 
 magnificent; and doubtless much of the in- 
 creased splendour of the Jewish ritual may be 
 traced to the influence of this comparison of God 
 with an earthly king. In the matter of external 
 service, God conformed, as far as he could do so 
 without injury to the truth, to their conceptions 
 and feelings. An earthly prince bears some 
 resemblance to God, and the servants of Divine 
 Providence to the servants and agents of a prince. 
 A useful work on this subject is Paulsen's 
 "Regierung der Morgenlander;" Altona, 1755, 
 4to. 
 
 3. The servants of princes are accustomed to 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 205 
 
 give account to their superiors of the state of 
 the provinces over which they have charge, and 
 of the good or ill conduct of those placed under 
 their government, and are then employed by 
 their superiors, in return, to dispense rewards 
 and punishments. Now from the resemblance 
 above noticed between a king and his servants 
 and God and his angels, whatever was said in re- 
 spect to the former was very naturally transferred 
 to the latter. And so God is described as sending 
 forth his messengers, bearing good or evil, pro- 
 sperity or adversity, reward or punishment, to 
 men, according to their deserts. Vide Ps. 
 Ixxviii. 49. Hence we may explain the fact 
 that sickness and other calamities inflicted by 
 God are ascribed in the scriptures to the angels, 
 through whom, as his ministers, he inflicts 
 them. Vide Ps. Ixxviii. 49 ; xxxiv. 8 ; 2 Kings, 
 vi. 16, 17. The angel of God is represented as 
 the author of the pestilence in David's time; 2 
 Sam. xxiv. 16; coll. Exod. xii. 13, 23. 
 
 It should be remarked here that in what is 
 now extant of the writings of the Hebrews be- 
 fore the Babylonian captivity, the title evil an- 
 gels does not properly denote beings who are 
 morally bad in their own nature; but, on the 
 contrary, spirits whose nature is good, and who 
 on this very account are employed by God, and 
 who, in whatever they perform, act under his 
 will and direction. The reason of this title is 
 to be found, therefore, not in themselves, but in 
 the nature of the work in which they are em- 
 ployed ; and the very same angel is called evil 
 or good, according as he has it in commisoion 
 to dispense prosperity or adversity, rewards 
 or punishments. So in Homer, when the deity 
 inflicts misfortune, he is called xaxb$ Sou'jtuov, 
 Odys. x. 64, coll. II. xi. 61, xx. 87. Some 
 have, indeed, attempted to shew that the Satan 
 mentioned in Job, i. and ii., was an evil spirit 
 in his own nature ; but this is uncertain. He 
 is not represented as being himself wicked and 
 opposed to the designs of God, but rather as a 
 complainant or accuser. The whole representa- 
 tion contained in these chapters seems to be 
 taken from a human court and transferred to 
 heaven. Vide Michaelis, in loc. 
 
 It is not until the time of the exile, or shortly 
 after it, that we find distinct traces of the doc- 
 trine that there are angels who were once good, 
 but who revolted from God, and are now become 
 wicked themselves, and the authors of evil in 
 the world. The probability is, therefore, that this 
 doctrine was first developed among the Jews 
 during their residence at Chaldea and shortly 
 afterwards. The same thing is true of many 
 other doctrines of the Bible which were not re- 
 vealed at first, but were gradually made known 
 by means of the prophets at later periods. We 
 cannot, however, certainly prove that this doc- 
 trine was wholly unknown to the Jews pre- 
 
 viously to the captivity. It is enough for us to 
 know that after this time the Jewish prophets, 
 as acknowledged messengers and ambassadors 
 of God, themselves authorized it, and taught it 
 in their addresses and writings ; and that it is 
 accordingly now to be received by us as a doc- 
 trine of the ancient Jewish revelation. In bring- 
 ing the doctrine concerning angels to a fuller 
 development, the following circumstances were 
 made use of by Divine Providence. 
 
 The Persians, and perhaps also the Chal- 
 deans, (though this is more doubtful,) held the 
 doctrine of dualism, which afterwards prevailed 
 so widely in the East. This doctrine is, that 
 there are two coeternal and independent beings, 
 from the one of whom all good, and from the 
 other, all evil proceeds. Now the doctrine of 
 the Hebrews respecting good and bad angels, 
 though it appears at first sight to resemble this, 
 is essentially different, and cannot therefore have 
 been derived from it. But when the Hebrews 
 were brought under the dominion of the Persians 
 it became necessary, in order to prevent them 
 from falling into the wide-spread doctrine of 
 their masters, that they should be instructed 
 more minutely than they had previously been, 
 or needed to be, with regard to good and bad 
 angels. And so the later prophets brought to 
 light the agency of good and bad angels in 
 many events of the early Jewish history, with 
 which angels had never been known to have 
 had any connexion. The fall of man e. g., 
 had not been ascribed by Moses to the agency 
 of an evil spirit ; but this event was afterward* 
 ascribed to the influence of Satan, and of this 
 Christ himself approves in John, viii. Again; 
 the numbering of the people by David is de- 
 scribed in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, as a crime to which 
 he was given up by God, in anger against him ; 
 but this same thing is afterwards ascribed in 
 1 Chron. xxi. 1, to the direct influence of Sa- 
 tan. In the same way many events were after- 
 wards ascribed to good angels, whose agency 
 in them had not before been known. Thus the 
 giving of the law was not ascribed by Moses to 
 the ministry of angels; and this fact is first in- 
 timated in Psalm Ixviii. 17, and afterwards 
 more clearly taught in the New Testament. 
 
 Some periods of Jewish history were more 
 remarkable than others for the appearance and 
 agency of angels. The patriarchal age is de- 
 scribed in the books written before the captivity 
 as most distinguished for the visible appearance 
 of angels among men, both with and without 
 dreams and visions. During the age of Moses 
 and Joshua, although angels are mentioned, 
 they do not seem to have appeared. The com- 
 munications of God to men were at that time 
 made mostly through the oracles of the pro- 
 phets. Angels again appear during the period 
 of the Judges. But after the time of Samuel 
 S 
 
20G 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 they do not again appear in the history of the 
 Jews before the Babylonian exile; at which 
 time, and shortly afterwards, they are once 
 more introduced. Shortly before the birth of 
 John the Baptist, angels were again very fre- 
 quently seen, and many communications were 
 made through their instrumentality. But the 
 age of Christ and the apostles is distinguished 
 above all others for the frequent appearance and 
 interposition of angels, and especially for the 
 agency of evil spirits upon the minds and bodies 
 of men. In view of the whole we may say, 
 with regard to the appearance of angels, what 
 Paul said, Heb. i. 1, with regard to revelations 
 in general, that they were TtoA/iyifpwj xai 
 
 4. Other nations, ancient and modern, have 
 entertained opinions respecting some interme- 
 diate spirits, and their influence on the world and 
 on man, somewhat resembling those of the 
 Israelites, though not necessarily derived from 
 them. Such were the opinions of the Egyp- 
 tians, according to the testimony of Diodorus 
 Siculus, and also of the Greeks. The latter, 
 however, do not appear in the early stages of 
 their history to have had the idea of interme- 
 diate spirits or angels. The Scu'^ovs? of Homer 
 are only $101, under a different name, though, in- 
 deed, the offices assigned to them and to many 
 of the gods by the Greeks are not more elevated 
 than those assigned by the Hebrews and other 
 nations to their angels or intermediate spirits. 
 The Grecian philosophers, however, for the most 
 part, believed that besides God and the human 
 soul, and intermediate between them, there were 
 other spiritual existences. They proceeded on 
 the supposition, confirmed by so many experi- 
 ments and observations, that there is in nature 
 a general connexion or chain (spa), by which 
 all creatures are most intimately united together; 
 that each class of beings borders upon and runs 
 into others ; so that there is no break in the de- 
 scending scale from the highest to the lowest. 
 When, therefore, they considered the immense 
 interval between God and their own souls, they 
 naturally concluded that it must be occupied by 
 intermediate beings, subordinate to God, but 
 superior to man ; and that these beings must 
 themselves exist in various degrees of perfection. 
 Such appear to have been the opinions of Py- 
 thagoras. According to the " Carmina Aurea," 
 and Diogenes Laert. viii. segm. 23, he believed 
 that besides the Supreme Being there were four 
 orders of intelligences viz., gods, demons, he- 
 roes, and men. To the first three he ascribed 
 about the same offices as were ascribed by the 
 Hebrews to their angels ; so that his theory 
 really seems somewhat to resemble the Biblical 
 doctrine. Considerably different from these are 
 the views of Plato. Some have indeed thought 
 that they could see in the Phaedrus of Plato, in 
 
 his book " De legibus," and in some other writ- 
 ings of his, the traces of a distinction between 
 good and bad demons. But this distinction, as 
 Ficinus justly remarks, was first made by the 
 followers of Plato, and especially by the Jews 
 and Christians, who philosophized according to 
 the principles of the new Platonic school, and 
 was then ascribed by them to their great master. 
 The learned Jews of the first and second centu- 
 ries of the Christian era, being conversant with 
 the Grecian, and especially with the Platonic 
 philosophy, adopted the doctrines of these dif- 
 ferent schools, and connected them with the 
 doctrines of the Jewish religion; and many 
 Christian teachers proceeded in the same way, 
 and connected the principles of the Platonic 
 school, with regard to the doctrine of angels 
 among others, with what they were taught from 
 the Bible, and indeed endeavoured to interpret 
 the Bible in accordance with these Platonic 
 principles. Aristotle likewise admitted certain 
 intelligences as intermediate beings between 
 God and men, and his theory on this subject was 
 adopted by the schoolmen. The stoics, too, 
 allowed of some intermediate spirits. Epicurus, 
 on the contrary, denied the existence of angels 
 altogether; and in this he was consistent with 
 himself, since he denied the providence of God, 
 whose instruments these intermediate beings 
 were supposed to be by other philosophers. 
 Among the Jews, the Sadducees denied the ex- 
 istence of angels. Vide Acts, xxiii. 8. They 
 seem to have regarded the passages of the Old 
 Testament in which angels are spoken of as 
 figurative, and the whole account of them as 
 mythological. [The existence of angels has 
 been wholly denied in modern times by Hobbes, 
 Spinoza, and Edelmann.] 
 
 Note. We have no great abundance of useful 
 works on the general history of the doctrine of 
 angels. Most of them take too confined and 
 narrow a view of the subject. They merely re- 
 cord the opinions of Jews and Christians, with- 
 out shewing in what manner these opinions were 
 developed and modified. Among these works 
 are the following : Dr. Joach. Oporin, Erlaiiterte 
 Lehre von den Engeln; Hamburg, 1735, 8vo. 
 Jac. Ode, De Angelis, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 
 1739, 4to, (a book in which everything relative 
 to this subject is brought together, but without 
 judgment or discrimination.) Jo. Fr. Cotta, 
 Diss. ii. historiam succinctam doctrinae de an- 
 gelis exhibentes; Tubingae, 1765 67, 4to. 
 Also, Petavius, Theol. Dogm. torn, iii., and 
 Cud worth, Syst. Intellectuale, c. 5, with the 
 notes of Mosheim. There are some treatises of 
 very unequal value in Eichhorn's "Bibliothek 
 der bib. Lit." and in Henke's "Magazin fur 
 Exeg. Kirchengesch, u. s. w." The treatise of 
 Ewald, entitled "Die Bibellehre von guten and 
 boseri Engeln," published in his " Christlichen 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 207 
 
 Monatschrift," for the year 1800, s. 326, f. and 
 395, f., deserves to be recommended to the pe- 
 rusal of the Christian teacher. 
 
 SECTION LIX. 
 
 OF THE APPELLATIONS OF ANGELS J THEIR NA- 
 TURE J PROOFS OF THEIR EXISTENCE ', THEIR 
 CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE; AND THE 
 CLASSES INTO WHICH THEY ARE DIVIDED. 
 
 I. Appellations of Angels. 
 
 THE most common appellation given them is, 
 ^p, D^s'Vp. The correspondent term in Hel- 
 lenistic Greek is oyytkoj, messenger, servant, 
 envoy, ambassador. This name is sometimes 
 given to men who are engaged in any offices in 
 the employ of others. Est nomen MUNERIS, non 
 naturae, as is justly remarked by Morus, p. 86. 
 Vide Num. xx. 14, 16; Josh. vi. 17; James, 
 ii. 25. Hence oyyt^oc txxtyGias, in the Apo- 
 calypse, and w<j)^ dyylTuxj, (the disciples of 
 Christ, the apostles,) in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The 
 analogy upon which these names are founded 
 has already been exhibited, s. 58, II. 1. 
 
 Another name given to angels, besides these 
 and others which are derived from their office 
 and employment, is, o^riSN rn, children of God; 
 Job, xxxviii. 7, " Where wast thou when I laid 
 the foundations of the earth when the morning 
 stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted 
 for joy]" Here, indeed, it may be objected, 
 that sons of God may be a poetic expression sy- 
 nonymous with morning stars, with which it is 
 parallel in the construction. But no such objec- 
 tion lies against the passage, Job, i. 6, where a 
 solemn assembly of the sons of God is described. 
 And since even earthly kings were sometimes 
 called sons of God, there can be no doubt that the 
 Hebrew idiom would permit the application of 
 this name to angels, the inhabitants of heaven. 
 Hence they were called by the Jewsfamilia Dei 
 ccelestis. Cf. Ephes. iii. 15, and Heo. xii. 22, 
 23, where the souls of the pious dead are in- 
 cluded in this heavenly family. 
 
 Still another title, which, in the opinion of 
 many, is given to angels, is D^riSx. That this 
 title may be given them is certain; since it is 
 given even to rulers, judges, and all those who 
 act as the vicegerents of God upon the earth. 
 But the argument to prove that this title is ac- 
 tually given to angels is mostly founded on the 
 fact that the LXX. render the word D>r6s, by 
 ayyttot, in some texts of the Old Testament, 
 where, however, the context does not make this 
 rendering absolutely necessary. The texts cited 
 are Ps. viii. 6, and xcvii. 7, in both of which the 
 original a\-iSx is rendered by the LXX. dyy^xot 
 a rendering which is approved and retained by 
 Paul, Heb. i. 6, and ii. 7. I am at present in- 
 clined to believe that even the original writer 
 
 intended to denote angels by this title in both 
 places, and especially in Psalm viii. 
 
 II. The Nature of Angels. 
 
 The only conception which we form of angels 
 is, that they are spirits of a higher nature and 
 nobler endowments than men possess. They are 
 described by Morus (p. 94, s. 14) as spiritus deo 
 inferiores, hominibus superiores. In making our 
 estimate of them, we must compare them with 
 the human soul as the measure. The human 
 soul possesses understanding and free will, or, a 
 rational and moral nature. Hence we conclude, 
 via eminentise, that other spirits angels and God 
 himself must possess the same ; angels, in a 
 far higher degree than men, and God, in the 
 highest possible perfection. With respect to 
 the nature of angels, we are informed in the 
 Bible (a) that they far excel us in powers and 
 perfections, Matt. xxii. 30, seq.; 2 Pet. ii. 11. 
 (6) They are expressly called spirits (jtvtvpa'ta, ;) 
 Heb. i. 14, TtvEv^ata tevtovpyixd. And the at- 
 tributes which belong to spirits understanding 
 and will, are frequently ascribed to them e. g., 
 Luke, xv. 10; James, ii. 19. 
 
 Note. The question, whether angels have a 
 body, (more refined, indeed, than the human 
 body,) is left undecided in the Bible. And the 
 texts by which it has been supposed to be an- 
 swered (Ps. civ. 4, and others) have no relation 
 to this question. Still it is not improbable, from 
 the prevailing opinions of the ancient world, that 
 the sacred writers believed that angels some- 
 times assumed a body in which they became 
 visible to men. Vide Morus, p. 88, n. 2, supra. 
 The arguments a priori which are frequently 
 adduced in behalf of this opinion are unsatisfac- 
 tory. Thus it is said, that as spirits angels 
 could not act upon the material world without 
 assuming a body. But if God, as a Spirit, may 
 act on matter without a body, why may not other 
 spirits do the same? We cannot in any case 
 determine, a priori, what can or cannot be done 
 by spiritual beings. This question is therefore 
 generally dismissed by modern theologians with 
 the remark, that the body of angels, if they have 
 one, must be very unlike the human body. 
 
 The Christian fathers of the Platonic school 
 ascribed to all spirits, the supreme God alone ex- 
 cepted, a subtile body, so subtile as to be invi- 
 sible to us, and imperceptible by any of our 
 senses. So Justin the Martyr, Irenseus, Athen- 
 agoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and 
 Augustine. They appear to have entertained 
 about the same notion of the bodies of angels 
 as the Greeks had of the bodies of their gods. 
 Vide Homer, II. v. 339342. Justin the Mar- 
 tyr, (Dial, cum Tryph. Jud. c. 57,) and some 
 others, believed that angels partook of heavenly 
 nourishment, as the gods of the Greeks partook 
 of nectar and ambrosia; that, like them, they 
 
208 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 could at choice become visible or invisible to 
 men, &c. The latter opinion is quite ancient, 
 as appears from the account of Balaam in Num. 
 xxii. 22 34, and from the representation of 
 Horner, in the Odyss. xvi. 160, seq., where 
 Minerva is visible to Ulysses, and not to Tele- 
 machus 
 
 Otl yap JTCJ jravTEOffi Seoi Qaivovrai 
 
 The ass, however, in the one case, and the 
 dogs in the other, perceived the apparition, and 
 were frightened. So again in the Iliad, i. 198, 
 Achilles beheld Minerva, who stood before him, 
 fZiV 8' aMiwv ovTft,^ opd/r'o. 
 
 At the second Nicene Council, in the year 
 787, it was established as a doctrine of the ca- 
 tholic church, that angels have a thin body of 
 fire or air. Afterwards, however, Peter of Lorn- 
 bardy, (Sent. 1. ii. dist. 8,) and many other 
 schoolmen, maintained the opposite opinion, 
 and held that angels had no body of their own, 
 (corpus proprium,") but could assume one in 
 order to become visible. So Gassendus repre- 
 sents that they assume corpora extraor dinar ia, 
 when they design to act upon the material 
 world. This opinion of the schoolmen respect- 
 ing angels was founded upon the philosophy of 
 their great master, Aristotle, who makes his in- 
 telligences entirely incorporeal. Vide s. 58, ad 
 finem. 
 
 III. Proofs of the Existence of Angels. 
 
 \. Some theologians and philosophers have 
 undertaken to prove the existence of angels by 
 aguments a priori. Their most plausible argu- 
 ment is that derived from the unbroken grada- 
 tion and chain in which all beings are seen to 
 exist an argument which was employed by 
 many even of the ancient heathen philosophers. 
 Vide s. 58, II. 4. But although the possibility 
 of the existence of angels cannot be disproved 
 by any valid arguments a priori, so neither can 
 the reality of their existence be proved satisfac- 
 torily by arguments of this nature. All that 
 such arguments can do is, to render probable 
 that which must depend for proof on different 
 evidence; but to deny the existence of angels 
 on the ground of arguments a, priori, is ex- 
 tremely absurd. Cf. Morus, p. 86, s. 3. These 
 proofs are stated, after the method of Wolf, by 
 Reinbeck, in his " Betrachtungen iiber die Augs. 
 Conf." th. i. s. 298; and also by Ewald, in a 
 treatise on this subject. 
 
 2. The sacred writers affirmed the existence 
 of angels so clearly that it is hardly credible 
 that any one should seriously doubt their opi- 
 nions on this subject. He might as well doub 
 whether Homer, who speaks of the gods on 
 every page, really believed in them. Jesus and 
 the apostles rejected the doctrine of the Saddu- 
 cees, that there are no angels, as a gross error, 
 
 Acts, xxiii. 8. The Pharisees believed in the 
 existence of angels, and contributed by their 
 nfluence to render this doctrine almost univer- 
 sally prevalent among the Jews. In this parti- 
 cular, Jesus and the apostles agreed fully with 
 the Pharisees, as appears from innumerable 
 texts in the New Testament. In Matt. xxii. 30, 
 Christ expressly and designedly professes his 
 jelief in the existence of angels, in the presence 
 of the Sadducees; also in Matt. viii. 28 34. 
 Paul, too, as is very clear from his writings, 
 aelieved in the real existence of angels, and re- 
 tained and sanctioned, as a Christian and an 
 apostle, many opinions on this subject which 
 had learned in the schools of the Pharisees. 
 Thus, for example, both he and Stephen (Acts, 
 vii. 53) held, in common with the Pharisees, 
 that the Mosaic law was given through the 
 ministry of angels, Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2. 
 And he labours through the whole of the first 
 two chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews to 
 prove that Jesus Christ was superior to the an- 
 gels, and a messenger of God of a more exalted 
 character than they. His meaning cannot be, 
 as some have strangely supposed, that Christ 
 was superior to beings whom he supposed to 
 exist merely in the fancy of the Jews. He has 
 so interwoven the theory of the Pharisees with 
 his own instructions on this subject, as plainly 
 to shew that while he did not countenance 
 those fabulous representations, with which he 
 must certainly have been acquainted, in their 
 schools, he yet regarded their doctrine as essen- 
 tially true. 
 
 IV. The Creation of Angels,- their Perfections, 
 and Number. 
 
 1. The Bible teaches us nothing definitely 
 respecting the origin of angels. But when it 
 represents all things as coming from God, it 
 must clearly be understood to imply that angels 
 also derive their existence from him. Paul says 
 expressly, Col. i. 16, "God made all things, 
 visible and invisible.' 1 '' Their creation is not, 
 indeed, mentioned by Moses in his account of 
 the creation. And as he undertakes to describe 
 the creation of only the visible world, their crea- 
 tion did not come within the compass of his 
 plan. Vide s. 49. 
 
 The question has been asked, On which day 
 of the creation were the angels made ? and at 
 least an historical view of the opinions enter- 
 tained on this subject must here be exhibited, 
 (a) Some have held, that the angels were cre- 
 ated before the visible world, and that this is 
 the reason why Moses does not mention them. 
 Of this opinion were Origen, Chrysostom, Hie- 
 ronymus, John of Damascus, and others, among 
 the ancients; and among the moderns, Heil- 
 mann, Michaelis, and others. () Others held 
 that ano-els were created after man, because the 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 209 
 
 Creator proceeded in his work from the lower 
 to the higher ; and so, as his last upon the earth, 
 created man. So Gennadius, in the fifth cen- 
 tury. But this opinion was opposed by Augus- 
 tine. It has been advocated in modern times 
 by Schubert of Helmstadt. (c) Others still 
 maintain that angels were created on the first 
 of the six days, when, as they suppose, the hu- 
 man soul and other simple and incorporeal 
 beings were made, and were stationed as spec- 
 tators, or employed as assistants, of the remain- 
 ing work. So Theodoret of Mopsvestia, Augus- 
 tine, Peter of Lombardy, and others; and in 
 modern times, Calovius, who appealed to Job, 
 xxxviii. 7, (vide No. I.,) Seiler, and others. 
 Some hold that they were created on the fourth 
 day, because the sun, moon, and stars were then 
 created, in connexion with which angelic spirits 
 are always enumerated. 
 
 2. The perfections with which angels were 
 
 endued can be ascertained only from the analogy 
 
 of those of the human soul. Vide No II. and 
 
 Morus, p. 88, s. 9. Their intellectual poviers 
 
 must be greater than our own ; they must pos 
 
 sess more strength of thought and clearness of 
 
 conception. Their wora/ powers, the perfections 
 
 of their will, must also be greater than ours 
 
 For them, therefore, to persevere in holiness 
 
 must accordingly be easier than for men ; and 
 
 hence the guilt incurred by them in their fall is 
 
 represented as far greater than that incurred by 
 
 men in their apostasy. We are unable, however 
 
 to determine the exact measure of angeli 
 
 powers and excellences. From the fact tha 
 
 men have a state of probation (status gratis 
 
 allowed them, in which their virtue may be ex 
 
 ercised and confirmed, and from which they 
 
 pass to a state of perfection, enjoyment, and re 
 
 ward, (status glorias,) we conclude, that th 
 
 case is the same with regard to angels. Th 
 
 New Testament says nothing expressly respect 
 
 ing the perfections of angels, except that the 
 
 possess greater strength and power than men 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 11, ia%v'C xai SuWjUst jtisi/'^ovfj. Henc 
 
 the phrase ayysXoe, 8vva.p,e^, 2 Thess. i. 
 
 Hence also the word oyyctos is used adjectively 
 
 like EOS, to denote the excellence of a thing 
 
 2 Sam. xiv. 17, 20, the wisdom of angels; P 
 
 Ixxviii. 25, the food of angels , Acts, vi. 1 
 
 the face of angels. 
 
 3. The number of the angels is by some r 
 presented as very great ; and they justify th 
 representation by arguments a priori. God ha 
 made, they say, a great number of creatures o 
 all the different kinds, even in the materia 
 world ; and it is therefore just to suppose th 
 in the more exalted sphere of spirit the creatur 
 of his power are still more numerous. An 
 indeed, the Bible always describes God as su 
 rounded by a great multitude of heavenly se 
 vants. Vide Dan. vii. 10 ; Ps. Ixviii. 17 ; Jud 
 27 
 
 r. 14; Matt. xxvi. 53. Cf. s. 58, and Morus, 
 89, note. 
 
 V. Division of Angels. 
 Angels are divided into good and evil in refer- 
 nce to their moral condition. There is no dis- 
 nct mention of apostate angels in the Bible be- 
 re the Babylonian captivity ; though from this 
 lence it does not follow that the idea of them 
 as wholly unknown to the ancient Hebrews, 
 ide s. 58, II. 3. This idea, however, even if 
 had before existed, was more distinctly re- 
 ealed and developed at the time of the exile, 
 nd afterwards. It was sanctioned by Christ 
 nd the apostles, and constituted a part of their 
 aith, as really as it did of the faith of the Jews 
 ho were contemporary with them. The name, 
 ml or bad angels, was taken from Ps. Ixxviii. 
 9, the only passage in which it occurs in the 
 Jible ; though even in this passage it does not 
 enote disobedient angels, evil in a moral re- 
 pect; for in this sense the phrase evil angels is 
 ever used in the Bible ; nor, on the contrary, 
 s the phrase good angels ever used to denote 
 hose who are morally good, though indeed they 
 re sometimes called holy in this sense. But 
 Ithough this term is not derived from the 
 acred writers, but from the schoolmen, it should 
 unquestionably be retained, since the meaning 
 t conveys is wholly accordant with the doctrine 
 of the Bible. The term angel is applied in the 
 Bible to evil spirits only in reference to their 
 brmer state, when they were still the servants 
 of God. Vide 2 Pet. ii. 4. Since they have 
 apostatized, they can no more, strictly speaking, 
 )e denominated his angels i. e., servants, mes- 
 sengers. On the contrary, they are called in 
 the Bible, oi-yy^ot tov Siafiotov, or tov Sarcwa, 
 Matt. xxv. 41, Rev. xii. 9. The phrase, bad or 
 unclean spirits (not angels,} occurs frequently in 
 the New Testament, especially in the writings 
 of Luke. Paul, too, uses the phrase rtvcvftoftxa 
 Ttowfpt'oj, Eph. vi. 12. Whenever the term 
 yyetot occurs in the New Testament without 
 qualification, good spirits or holy angels are al- 
 ways intended ; as Matt. iv. 11, where it is op- 
 posed to SuxjSoTioj. We proceed now to consider 
 these two classes more particularly. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY ANGELS. 
 
 SECTION LX. 
 
 OF THE PRESENT STATE AND EMPLOYMENT OF 
 HOLY ANGELS. 
 
 I. Their Present State. 
 
 1. ANGELS are properly regarded, according 
 to the general remarks, s. 59, IV. 2, as beings 
 possessing great intellectual excellence intelli- 
 s 2 
 
210 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 gence, knowledge, and experience. Hence, 
 whatever is great and excellent is in the Bible 
 compared with them ; great wisdom is called 
 the wisdom of angels; excellent food, the food 
 of angels; beautiful appearance, the appearance 
 of angels. Their advice is accordingly said to 
 be asked for by God ; they are summoned into 
 council before him, and compose, as it were, 
 his senate or divan. Cf. Job, i. and ii. This 
 does not imply that God needed their council ; 
 but rather, that he wished to instruct and em- 
 ploy them. 
 
 We should beware, however, of exaggerated 
 conceptions of their knowledge, and should 
 never ascribe to them anything like divine in- 
 telligence and wisdom. We should not sup- 
 pose, for example, that they are acquainted with 
 the thoughts of men, or that they have a know- 
 ledge which borders on omniscience. The 
 Bible, while it describes their great superiority 
 over us, still represents their knowledge as very 
 limited and defective in comparison with the 
 knowledge of God, and as capable of great in- 
 crease. In Job, iv. 18, God is said to charge 
 his angels with folly. In Mark, xiii. 32, the 
 angels of God are said not to know the hour of 
 the destruction of Jerusalem. 1 Pet. i. 12, stj 
 a erti^vfiovdiiV ayysyot rtapaxv^ai. 
 
 2. They are also described as possessing 
 great moral perfection, which is called their holi- 
 ness. Thus they are sometimes called aytot, in 
 opposition to axa^ap-r'of also ixtexitol, Deo pro- 
 bati, elect, 1 Tim. v. 21. Hence they take their 
 greatest pleasure in witnessing and promoting 
 integrity and virtue. In Luke, xv. 10, they are 
 said to rejoice over the repentance of sinners. 
 It is in general true, that the more advanced in 
 holiness one is himself, the more pleasure he 
 takes in that of others, the more interested is he 
 in the diffusion of morality and piety, and the 
 more distressed at the prevalence of vice. And 
 if this is the case with man, how much more 
 with spirits of a higher order! We see here, 
 why the plan of redemption engages the interest 
 of the whole spiritual world, and fills angels 
 with delight and wonder when they contemplate 
 it, as is represented in the New Testament; 
 1 Pet. i. xii. ; Eph. iii. 10. The angels are de- 
 scribed as very actively engaged before and at 
 the birth of Christ, Luke, i. They sung praises 
 to God on this occasion, and announced his ad- 
 vent to men, Luke, ii. With equal activity and 
 interest they attended him during his life, mi- 
 nistered to his wants, witnessed his passion and 
 resurrection, and were interested in whatever 
 concerned him. The union of so many natural 
 and moral excellences in the angels is the rea- 
 son why great wisdom is also ascribed to them. 
 
 3. From what has now been said, we may 
 determine what, in a general view, is their con- 
 dition. It is always described as one of the 
 
 greatest happiness; for of this, their holiness, 
 which is the essential condition of happiness in 
 moral beings, renders them eminently suscepti- 
 ble. Vide s. 51, II. They are said in the 
 Bible to stand in the most intimate connexion 
 with God, and to behold his countenance conti- 
 nually. Matt, xviii. 10. When the sacred 
 writers would describe the blessedness of which 
 we shall hereafter be partakers, they do it by 
 saying, that we shall then be like the angels of 
 God ; torayyttot, Luke, xx. 36. It is sometimes 
 said, that the angels are now so confirmed in 
 goodness that they cannot sin. We cannot sup- 
 pose, however, that there is any absolute impos- 
 sibility of their sinning; for this would be in- 
 consistent with their freedom. It is true, in- 
 deed, that they never will intentionally and 
 deliberately commit sin, or wish to do so. Still 
 to sin must be possible to them, and to all finite 
 beings, in short, to all but God himself. 
 
 Note. The schoolmen, like the Rabbins be- 
 fore them, proposed many questions on this 
 subject which were wholly unanswerable; and 
 many, too, which were extremely frivolous, 
 which may also be justly said of the answers 
 which they gave. Vide Morus, p. 88, n. 5. 
 Among these questions were the following: 
 Whether an angel could be in more than one 
 place at the same time 1 ? Whether more than 
 one angel could be in the same place at the same 
 time 1 ? Whether they spake the Hebrew lan- 
 guage, or what language was meant by the 
 , spoken of 1 Cor. xiii. 1 1 
 
 II. The Employments of Holy Angels. 
 
 They are represented in the Bible as the ser- 
 vants of Divine Providence, and as chiefly em- 
 ployed in promoting the good of men. The 
 text, Heb. i. 14, teaches explicitly that they are 
 all spirits, engaged in the service of God, and 
 employed by him for the good of those whom 
 he will save. In Matt. xxvi. 53, we read that 
 God could have sent more than twelve legions 
 of angels to the service of Christ. Cf. Matt. 
 xviii. 10; and also Psa. xxxiv. 7, and xci. 11, 
 where it is said that they encamp about the 
 righteous, and bear them up in their hands, both 
 of which are proverbial phrases. These are the 
 general representations contained in the Bible 
 respecting the employments of angels; and be- 
 yond these the teacher of religion should not at- 
 tempt to go in the instructions which he gives. 
 There are two cautions which it may be well for 
 him to suggest in connexion with this subject. 
 
 (a) We are unable, in any particular cases 
 of providential protection or deliverance which 
 may occur at the present time, to determine 
 whether the ministration of angels has been em- 
 ployed, or how far their intervention has extend- 
 ed. It is sufficient for us to know that we are 
 watched over and provided for by the providence 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 211 
 
 of God, and that his angels are employed in 
 our behalf; and it is of no importance to us to 
 be informed of the particular cases in which 
 their agency is exerted. If we may believe that 
 God is not confined to the established course of 
 nature, that he may sometimes turn aside and 
 afford us special and extraordinary assistance, 
 protection, deliverance, and instruction, through 
 the instrumentality of his angels, as we are 
 clearly taught to believe in the Bible, this surely 
 must be sufficient to comfort and encourage us 
 during the dangers and difficulties of life, even 
 if may not know when and how these services 
 are performed. 
 
 (b) We are not to conclude that because ex- 
 traordinary appearances and interpositions of 
 angels are recorded in the holy scriptures as 
 having taken place in former times, similar oc- 
 currences are to be expected at the present day. 
 The events described in such passages as Matt. 
 i. 24 ; ii. 13 ; Luke, i. 11, 26 ; ii. 9 ; xxii. 43 ; 
 Acts, xxvii. 23; should be exhibited by the re- 
 ligious teacher, as real occurrences, indeed, but 
 as peculiar to that day. This is far better than 
 to attempt to explain away the obvious meaning 
 of these passages, as has often been done, to the 
 great injury of the interests of truth. 
 
 Moreover, the Bible does not teach that an- 
 gels are present with men at all times and under 
 all circumstances, and that they are conversant 
 uninterruptedly with our affairs. On the con- 
 trary, they are generally represented as present 
 and active only in extraordinary cases, in unex- 
 pected events, the occurrence of which cannot 
 easily be explained without supposing their 
 agency. Vide Isaiah, xxxvii. 36; Acts, xii. 7. 
 Cf. s. 59, and Morus, p. 89. Hence we find them 
 employed at the giving of the law, the last judg- 
 ment, and other great events of this nature, as 
 even the Jews supposed. Vide Matt. xiii. 39, 
 41 ; xvi. 27; xxv. 31 ; 2 Thess. i. 7. They are 
 frequently exhibited, especially in the prophetic 
 writings, in a symbolical and parabolical man- 
 ner ; and much which is there said concerning 
 them must be understood as merely figurative 
 representations e. g., Isa. vi. 1, seq. ; Dan, x. 
 13; Zac. iii. 1; Luke, xvi. 22. But at the 
 ground of all these figurative and parabolical 
 representations lies the truth, that angels are 
 actively employed for the good of men. The 
 source of the imagery contained in these pas- 
 sages has already been pointed out in s. 58. 
 We cannot, however, leave this subject without 
 considering more fully the opinions which have 
 been entertained respecting two particular of- 
 fices or works ascribed to angels. 
 
 1. One of these offices is that of guardian 
 angels. The general notion of them is, that they 
 are appointed to superintend particular countries 
 and provinces of the earth, and also to watch 
 over individual men, and administer their con- 
 
 cerns. We find no clear evidence that this doc- 
 trine was held by the Jews before the Babylo- 
 nian exile ; and many suppose that they adopted 
 it for the first time in Chaldea. The origin of 
 this opinion at that time is accounted for on the 
 supposition that angels were compared with the 
 viceroys who ruled over the provinces of the 
 vast oriental kingdoms. We find, indeed, the 
 doctrine that angels were guardian spirits, in a 
 general sense, developed in the earlier books of 
 the Old Testament; but not so clearly the opi- 
 nion that each particular man and country had 
 an angel as an appropriate and permanent guar- 
 dian. The guardian spirit (rSa "H^SD) men- 
 tioned Job, xxxiii. 23, as promoting the virtue 
 of man, and interceding for him when he lies 
 desperately sick, does not seem to be one among 
 many of the same kind, but altogether extraor- 
 dinary. He is supposed by some to be a man, 
 Vide Dathe and Schultens, in loc. Those, 
 however, who are spoken of in Dan. x. 13, 20, 
 are unquestionably guardian angels over parti- 
 cular countries and people. Daniel, in a vision, 
 beholds Michael, the guardian angel of the Jews, 
 contending with the guardian angel of the Per- 
 sian empire. In whatever way this passage 
 may be interpreted, it discloses the idea that 
 angels were intrusted with the charge of parti- 
 cular countries and people. This idea was so 
 familiar to the Seventy, and so important in their 
 view, that they introduced it surreptitiously even 
 into their version of the Pentateuch, and thus 
 contributed to its wider diffusion e. g., they 
 rendered the passage, Deut. xxxii. 8, 9, xata, 
 dpt^ttov dyyiXcoi' ?ou. And DTlSx-^ja, Ttot sov 
 Gen. vi. 2, is rendered by Philo and Josephus 
 ayysTtoi. fov. Cf. Gen. xi. 1, 2, 5, 9, They 
 supposed that evil spirits reigned over heathen 
 countries =-an opinion respecting which we shall 
 say more hereafter. The Rabbins held, that 
 there are seventy people and as many languages, 
 over which seventy angels preside. Vide the 
 paraphrase of Jonathan on Gen. xi. and Deut. 
 xxxii. This idea was the source of many other 
 representations. Every star, element, plant, 
 and especially every man, was now supposed to 
 have an appropriate angel for a guardian. 
 
 We find some traces of the latter opinion 
 viz., that every man had his own guardian an- 
 gel, even in the New Testament. In Acts, xii. 
 15, when they could not believe that it was 
 Peter himself who appeared, they said, 6 ayyfXoj 
 avtov tattr. But Luke merely narrates the 
 words of another, without assenting to the opi- 
 nion expressed. Vide Wetstein, in loc. Some 
 suppose that in Matt, xviii. 10, Christ himself 
 utters and sanctions the opinion in question: 
 "Their (jtuxpwv) angels behold the face of my 
 Father." But neither does this passage author- 
 ize the opinion that each particular man has his 
 appropriate guardian angel. Their angels may 
 
212 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 mean, those who guard and preserve them when- 
 ever and wherever occasion might require; ac- 
 cording to Heb. i. 14 ; John, i. 51. It does not 
 necessarily imply that there is a particular angel 
 appointed to guard each individual man and to be 
 his constant attendant. The word ptxpot, which 
 primarily signifies children^ means also those who 
 have the disposition of children^ and are therefore 
 liable to be despised and abused. Videver. 14 
 and Matt. xi. 11. The meaning of the whole 
 passage may be thus expressed : As we are 
 very careful not to offend the favourites of those 
 who stand high in favour with earthly kings, 
 we should be still more careful not to offend the 
 favourites of Divine Providence the humble 
 pious who are intrusted to the special care of 
 those who stand high in the favour of God, (who 
 behold his face.) 
 
 The Jews believed, moreover, that angels ad- 
 ministered the affairs of men before God, brought 
 their supplications and complaints to him, &c. 
 Many of these opinions afterwards prevailed in 
 the Christian church, and are found in the writ- 
 ings of the earlier Christian teachers. Much is 
 said respecting the care of angels over particular 
 kingdoms of the earth by Clement of Alexandria, 
 (Strom, b. 7,) Origen, (Contra Gels. b. 4 and 
 8 ; also b. 5, 10, 26, 30, 31 ; Homilia 11 in Nu- 
 meros; and in Gen. homil. 9,) and Eusebius, 
 (Demonstr. Evang. iv. 7, seq.) The latter 
 speaks of the care of angels over seas, fruits, &c. 
 The angel of fire is spoken of, in conformity 
 with the opinions of the Jews, in Rev. xiv. 18; 
 the angel of water, Rev. xvi. 5; John, v. 4. 
 Similar passages respecting the guardian angels 
 of particular countries and people occur in the 
 writings of the Platonists, Jamblicus, Julian, 
 and others. Vide the work of Ode, before cited, 
 s. 779, ff. Much is said respecting the guardian 
 angels of particular men, by Hennas, Pastor, b. 
 ii., and Origen, who says, among other things, 
 (Adv. Celsum, i. 8,) that the angels bring the 
 prayers of men to God, according to the opinion 
 of the Jews. So say Eusebius, Basilius, Hiero- 
 nymus, Augustine, Chrysostom, and most of 
 the schoolmen; and among protestant theolo- 
 gians, Baier, Er. Schmidt, Gerhard, and others. 
 This idea of guardian spirits was likewise 
 widely diffused among the ancient Greeks and 
 Romans. It is found in the writings of Hesiod, 
 though not in Homer. It was received, and 
 philosophically discussed by Socrates, and by 
 Plato in various of his works. Plotinus, Por- 
 phyry, Jamblicus, and Proclus, taught it in the 
 manner peculiar to the new Platonists. It was 
 likewise taught in a similar manner at Alexan- 
 dria and the other schools of Christian philoso- 
 phy, where the maxims of the new Platonists 
 were adopted. Thus this opinion was rapidly 
 and widely diffused. 
 
 2. The assistance of angels at the giving of 
 
 the law. They are said to have been present 
 on this solemn occasion, and to have been em- 
 ployed as the instruments through whom the 
 law was given. Moses says nothing which 
 either proves or disproves this opinion. But 
 we find, in Ps. Ixviii. 17, that Jehovah was on 
 Sinai with thousands of angels. We find also 
 in the Septuagint version of Deut. xxxiii. 2, 
 that God appeared at the giving of the law avv 
 pvpidat, ix 6f|twv avr'ov ayyfTiot /JUT?' a/vtov. 
 This opinion was universally received both 
 among Jews and Christians at the time of the 
 apostles, and sometimes occurs in the New 
 Testament. Heb. ii. 2, 8i ayyshuv Tiato^Etj 
 (i. e., i/6/ioj.) Acts, vii. 53 ; Gal. iii. 19, 
 tj &' ayysXwv. Now, because God em- 
 ployed angels as his servants at the giving of 
 the law, and published it through them, and, as 
 the Jews supposed, governed the world, and 
 especially the Jewish church, by them, Paul 
 says, Heb. ii. 5, that the former world was sub- 
 ject to angels, but the times of the New Testa- 
 ment to Christ alone. The same opinion re- 
 specting the giving of the law by angels is 
 found in Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. The Israel- 
 ites, he says, received the law &' dyysTuov rtapa 
 f ov. It is also found in the writings of the 
 later Rabbins. Vide Wetstein on Gal. iii. 19. 
 Cf. s. 58. 
 
 Note. The manner in which this whole sub- 
 ject should be treated in practical discourse is 
 well exhibited by Moms, p. 87, s. 3. The 
 great principle which should be first of all in- 
 culcated is, that Divine Providence aids those de- 
 pendent on its care in various ways, and fre- 
 quently in a way wholly unknown and inexpli- 
 cable to us. This should be shewn by examples. 
 Among other means, angels are employed, as 
 we are taught in the Bible, for the good and 
 safety of man. And since this is so, it is alike 
 our duty and privilege to live quietly and peace- 
 fully, with trust in that Providence which em- 
 ploys so many means, both of an ordinary and 
 extraordinary nature, for the good of those who 
 comply with the conditions prescribed in the 
 gospel. We need not be distressed even in 
 view of death ; but may go with a cheerful heart 
 from this world into the next, knowing that we 
 are attended by the angels of God, and shall be 
 borne by them into the bosom of Abraham. 
 Vide Luke, xvi. 22. 
 
 SECTION LXI. 
 
 OF THE CLASSES OF GOOD ANGELS ; THEIR NAMES ; 
 AND THE WORSHIP RENDERED THEM. 
 
 I. Classes of Good Angels. 
 
 ANGELS are described as existing in a society 
 composed of members of unequal dignity, 
 power, and excellence; as having chiefs and 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 213 
 
 rulers, and, in short, as exhibiting all those dif- 
 ferences of rank and order which appear in 
 human society, and among the courtiers and 
 ministers of earthly kings. It is hardly conceiv- 
 able that a great society should exist without 
 higher orders, and those of a lower and sub- 
 ordinate grade. Hence the Biblical represen- 
 tations that angels are divided into various 
 classes (ordines), over which chiefs are placed, 
 and to which appropriate employments are as- 
 signed. 
 
 The conception is not clearly expressed in 
 the books written before the Babylonian capti- 
 vity, (vide s. 58;) but it is developed in the 
 books written during the exile and afterwards, 
 especially in the writings of Daniel and Zecha- 
 riah. In Zech. i. 11, an angel of the higher 
 order, one who stands before God, appears in 
 contrast with angels of an inferior class, whom 
 he employs as his messengers and agents. Cf. 
 iii. 7. In Dan. x. 13, the appeltetions p'tyson -\&, 
 and in xii. 1, Svinn nfe>, are given to Michael. 
 The Grecian Jews rendered this appellation by 
 the term dp^ayysxoj, which occurs in the New 
 Testament, Jude, ver. 9, and 1 Thess. iv. 16, 
 where we are taught that Christ will appear to 
 judge the world sv fyuvy dp^ayystov. This term 
 denotes, as the very analogy of language teaches, 
 a chief of the angels, one superior to the other 
 angels ; like dp^tspfv?, dp^c-oiT'paT'^yos, dpicft>- 
 vaytoyo?. The opinion, therefore, that there are 
 various orders of angels was not peculiar to the 
 Jews; but was held by Christians at the time 
 of the apostles, and sanctioned by the apostles 
 themselves. 
 
 These distinct divisions in which angels are 
 arranged according to their rank in the writings 
 of the Jews of later times, were, however, either 
 almost or wholly unknown to the Jews contem- 
 porary with the apostles ; in proof of which it 
 may be mentioned, among other things, that 
 Philo, who has much to say respecting angels, 
 takes no notice of any such divisions. The ap- 
 pellations, dp^at, ffjovtfi/'ac., 8vvdiAi$, ^povot, xv- 
 ptoT^fcs, are indeed applied in Ephes. i. 21, Col. 
 i. 16, and other parallel texts, as they often are 
 in the writings of the Jews to the angels ; but 
 not to them exclusively, and with the intention 
 of denoting their particular classes ; but to them 
 in common with all beings possessed of might 
 and power, those visible as well as invisible, on 
 earth as well as in heaven. The same is true 
 of 1 Peter, iii. 22. A general division of angels 
 into chiefs and subjects is indicated in Rev. xii. 
 7, 6 Mt^cwfk xai ot dyyfkoc cuv-r'ov, those that be- 
 longed to his train, and were subject to him. But 
 these general classes were greatly subdivided by 
 the later Jews. The fathers, too, under the in- 
 fluence of their Platonic ideas, went far beyond 
 the instructions of the Bible in classifying the 
 angels. An example of this may be seen in the 
 
 work, De Hierarchia Coelesti, which appeared 
 about the fifth century, and was falsely ascribed 
 to Dionysius Areopagita a work full of the 
 most extravagant fictions and conceits. This 
 work was in high repute with Peter of Lom- 
 bardy, Thomas Aquinas, and other schoolmen, 
 who adopted its division of the angels into nine 
 classes. 
 
 The Cherubim (ooro) and Seraphim (a-'Eni?) 
 mentioned in the Old Testament have been con- 
 sidered by some as forming classes of angels. 
 Vide Morus, p. 87, s. 4. But (a) Cherubim are 
 not, properly speaking, angels, but originally 
 hieroglyphical figures in the form of beasts ; like 
 the sphynx of the Egyptians, the bird-griffin, 
 &c. They are represented as bearing God when 
 he rides over the heavens, in order to shoot his 
 lightnings, and hence are always mentioned 
 when tempests are described, Psalm xcix. 1 ; 
 Genesis, iii. 24. They thus came to be used as 
 symbols of the divine majesty and power, and 
 as such were placed over the ark of the cove- 
 nant, as pillars of the throne, and engraven on 
 the walls of the temple. They were variously 
 composed of forms of men and beasts, (two, 
 rto^uop^a.) Vide Ezek. i. 5, seq. ; Michaelis, 
 De Cherubis, equis tonantibus Hebraeorum, 
 Commentar. Soc. Scient. Gottingae, t. i. p. 157, 
 seq. The four beasts (tflrrerapa fwa) in the Apo- 
 calypse (which in their form resemble the Che- 
 rubim) are represented indeed as endowed with 
 speech and reason, and as serving before the 
 throne of God ; and yet as distinct from the an- 
 gels. Vide Rev. iv. 6, seq.; v. 8 14; vi. 1, 
 seq. ; vii., xiv., xix. (J) The Seraphim appear 
 only in the prophetic vision, (Isaiah, vi. 2, 6,) 
 and there, judging from the analogy of other 
 passages, would seem indeed to be angels who 
 surround the throne of God ; not, however, a 
 particular class or order of angels; but in gene- 
 ral, the nobles and princes of heaven ; the name 
 being derived from the Arabic * -'; to be 
 noble, excellent. Cf. Job. i. and ii. 
 
 II. Names of Good Angels. 
 
 Wherever there are many of the same kind it 
 becomes necessary to make use of appropriate 
 names to ^distinguish one individual from an- 
 other; and so it was with regard to the angels. 
 Particular names are given to some of them in 
 the Bible, by which we are able to distinguish 
 between them, and by which also, as some Jews 
 and Christians have supposed, they are actually 
 denominated in heaven. We find no names 
 given to particular angels in the books of the 
 Old Testament written before the Babylonian 
 exile ; they occur for the first time in the books 
 written during the captivity and afterwards ; in 
 Daniel, and the Jewish and Christian apocryphal 
 writings. These names are, Michael, Gabriel, 
 
214 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Raphael, Uriel, Jeremiel, Sealthiel, &c. The first 
 two only, Michael and Gabriel, are found in our 
 canonical books. Vide Dan. viii. xii. ; Luke, 
 i. 19, 26 ; Jude, ver. 9 ; Rev. xii. 7. 
 
 HI. Worship of Good Angels 
 It is well known to be a doctrine which still 
 belongs to the creed of the Roman, and, to some 
 extent, of the Grecian church, that angels, and 
 indeed the souls of the pious dead, should be 
 worshipped and invoked. The teachers of these 
 churches, however, always protest decidedly 
 against paying divine worship to angels, and 
 contend that a merely civil homage should be 
 rendered them, and that they should be suppli- 
 cated to intercede for us with God. This, in 
 itself considered, is not sinful, as has been some- 
 times unjustly asserted. It is not improper for 
 me to request even a pious man now living to 
 intercede with God for me, any more than it is 
 improper for one to request a favourite at court 
 to intercede for him with the king. The prac- 
 tice of invoking the aid and intercession of an- 
 gels proceeds on the supposition that they are 
 intimately acquainted with the affairs of men, 
 and hear the prayers offered up to them. But 
 this supposition is unfounded ; for angels are 
 neither omniscient nor omnipresent. Vide s. 
 60, II. .To invoke their aid, therefore, before 
 we know that they will hear our prayer, is as 
 absurd as it would be for a subject at a great 
 distance from court, and in the retirement of his 
 own house, to supplicate the aid and assistance 
 of the prince or minister, believing that his re- 
 quest would be regarded. Hence it must appear 
 that supplication to angels and saints is not so 
 sinful as it is irrational. To these considera- 
 tions we may add the following: 
 
 1. The Bible furnishes us with no example 
 of the invocation of an absent angel. On the 
 contrary, even a present angel is represented in 
 Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 9, as seriously displeased 
 with John, who fell down before him, because 
 he was his brother, and, like him, employed in 
 the service of God, (<yvv6ov7ioj.) Again; Paul 
 teaches (Heb. ii. 5) that the Christian dispen- 
 sation is not placed under the control of angels. 
 We are instructed by the example of Jesus and 
 the apostles to address our prayers directly to 
 God and to Christ, and that we do not need the 
 intercession and mediation of other beings. Re- 
 specting the passage, Job, xxxiii. 23, seq., vide 
 s. 60, II. 
 
 2. The propriety of this practice must like- 
 wise be rendered very suspicious by the fact, 
 which experience has abundantly established, 
 that wherever the invocation of saints and angels 
 is allowed, the great mass of mankind, notwith- 
 standing all the protestations of their teachers, 
 do actually render them, not merely civil ho- 
 mage, but divine worship, and regard them very 
 
 much as the heathen do their gods. This has 
 been seen ever since the worship of saints and 
 images was introduced in the fifth and sixth 
 centuries. 
 
 The following remarks will shew how the 
 worship of angels came to be authorized and 
 established in the church. It was an ancient 
 Jewish opinion that angels were intermediate 
 persons between God and men, that they con- 
 ducted our affairs with God, and carried our de- 
 sires and prayers before him. This opinion is 
 found in the apocryphal writings, Tob. xii. 
 12 15; also in the book of Enoch, and is al- 
 luded to, Rev. viii. 3, 4. We do not find, how- 
 ever, that the Jews at the time of Christ and the 
 apostles ever worshipped the angels or invoked 
 their aid. Some indeed thought (and so Peirce 
 and Michaelis) that they found an allusion to 
 the worship of angels in Col. ii. 18, 19, where 
 Paul warns his readers against the tartscvofypo- 
 fivvq, and the ^fijGxs ta dyyffoov of some seditious 
 persons of Jewish feelings. But faatewo^poavvij 
 and ^p)7<mict ayyt^cov here signify humility and 
 worship, like that of angels, to which these per- 
 sons pretended ; like ao^ia oyys^wv. Vide s. 
 59, iv. 2, ad finem. It is synonymous with 
 >EV&p>7<rsMt'a, ver. 23. What the Jews believed 
 with regard to their angels, the Grecians, and 
 especially the Platonists, believed with regard 
 to their demons viz., that they conducted the 
 affairs of men with God, and laid our prayers 
 and offerings before him. Hence this idea be- 
 carne'more and more prevalent among the Gre- 
 cian Jews and Christian teachers. It occurs in 
 the writings of the fathers of the second and 
 third centuries e. g., in Origen, (Contra Cel- 
 surn, viii. 36,) who says, in cap. 57 of the same 
 work, that angels deserve honour and thanks 
 from men. The Valentinians and other Gnos- 
 tics are said by the ancients to have gone fur- 
 ther, and to have rendered a kind of divine 
 worship to the angels. But this was always 
 very much disapproved by the catholic fathers, 
 until the fifth and sixth centuries ; as we see 
 from the writings of Clement of Alexandria, 
 Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Augustine, and 
 Theodoret, and by the acts of the Council at 
 Laodicea, about the year 360, Can. 35. But 
 when at length the worship of images and saints 
 came in vogue in the fifth and sixth centuries, 
 we find that not only the great mass of the peo- 
 ple rendered religious homage to saints and an- 
 gels as to deities, but that even many Christian 
 teachers expressed themselves in such an incau- 
 tious manner as to justify this practice. Not a 
 single respectable theologian, however, has ever 
 directly defended it, nor is it now defended in 
 the Romish church. The Trent Catechism con- 
 tains the doctrine, Jlngelos pro iis provinciis pre- 
 ces fundere quibus praesunt ; and the Romish 
 church teaches, that it is proper to pray to angels 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 215 
 
 for holiness, and to seek their intercession in 
 articulo mortis. Vide Jo. Himmelius, De Na- 
 tura Verse ac Religiosae Invocationis, Contra 
 Barthold.; Nihusium, 1624. Protestant theo- 
 logians e. g., Brochmand and Baumgarten 
 have allowed that angels may give good coun- 
 sel, awaken pious thoughts, and produce plea- 
 surable emotions. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE FALLEN ANGELS, OR EVIL SPIRITS. 
 
 SECTION LXII. 
 
 OF THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL SPIRITS; AND THEIR 
 APOSTASY. 
 
 IN addition to the works of Ode, Cotta, and 
 others, mentioned s. 58, note, the student should 
 consult the following, in reference to the history 
 of this doctrine. J. G. Mayer, Historia Diaholi, 
 &c., Ed. 2; Tubings?, 1780, 8vo a work in 
 which the existence, condition, power, agency, 
 &c., of evil spirits are considered, and in which 
 the common doctrine is defended ; and, on the 
 other side, the work " Versuch einer biblischen 
 Damonologie, oder Untersuchung der Lehre 
 vom Teufel urid seiner Macht," with a preface 
 and appendix by Semler; Halle, 1776, 8vo; in 
 which the agency of the devil is denied. Cf. 
 the work of Ewald, above cited. Other works 
 relating to some particular points in this doc- 
 trine will be noticed, s. 65. [A complete view 
 of the literature of this doctrine is contained in 
 Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 67.] 
 
 I. The Existence of Evil Spirits. 
 
 It is undoubtedly true, as has been often con- 
 tended, that the more savage and ignorant men 
 are, the more slavish is their fear of such invi- 
 sible beings, whether gods, angels, or of some 
 other name, as are supposed to be evil and ma- 
 lignant ; and also that the belief in the existence 
 and influence of such beings commonly de- 
 creases as science and civilization advance. 
 Some of the ancient nations believed in only 
 one evil spirit, while others conceived of many 
 such, under the government of one head. These 
 were regarded as the authors of every description 
 of evil, natural and moral, and to them were 
 attributed all the diseases and calamities with 
 which men are visited. The doctrine of the 
 Jews respecting evil spirits, which has a general 
 resemblance to that of other nations, though in 
 many points it is entirely different, was not fully 
 developed, as has been already remarked (s. 58, 
 II. 3), until the time of the captivity. 
 
 The existence of any such evil spirits as are 
 
 exhibited in the Jewish and Christian scriptures 
 has been either doubted or wholly denied by 
 some philosophers in every age. The principal 
 objections urged by them against the existence 
 of evil spirits are the following: 
 
 1. The idea of a spirit, by nature wise and in- 
 telligent, and yet opposed to God, seems, they 
 think, to involve a contradiction. But if this 
 objection were valid with regard to angels, it 
 must also hold true with regard to men ; and it 
 would be impossible to find a man highly intel- 
 ligent and sagacious, and yet wicked. [This 
 is the principal objection upon which Schleier- 
 macher rests his rejection of the common doc- 
 trine respecting evil angels. If Satan were ac- 
 quainted with God, and knew his power, he 
 could not hope to succeed in opposing him ; 
 with all the high intelligence ascribed to him 
 he must see the folly and ruin of wickedness, and 
 repent, otherwise his understanding and his will 
 would remain in fixed opposition; whereas the 
 functions belonging to any real existence must 
 be harmonious. Hence the conclusion is, that 
 the idea of Satan, as a being possessed of high 
 intelligence and yet opposed to God, contains 
 logical contradictions, and cannot therefore be 
 received. But if the existence of a depraved 
 will be not inconsistent with the highest degree 
 of intelligence with which we are acquainted in 
 human beings, how can we tell that it may not 
 be consistent with a far higher, and indeed the 
 very highest, degree of finite intelligence? Be- 
 sides, in a moral apostasy, though the defection 
 of the will must precede the error of the under- 
 standing, yet the error of the understanding is 
 sure to follow; and the higher intelligence 
 which angels by nature possess may have be- 
 come perverted by their fall, as is the case with 
 men. TR.] 
 
 2. There is no trace of a belief in the exist- 
 ence of evil spirits, even among the Jews, until 
 the time of the Babylonian captivity. [But if, 
 as has been shewn in a previous section, there 
 was no necessity for the revelation of this doc- 
 trine before that time, and then it became neces- 
 sary, the fact of its being previously unknown 
 cannot, surely, be an argument against its truth 
 when revealed. It is enough that it was at any 
 time taught by inspired prophets. TR.] 
 
 [3. Connected with the foregoing objection, 
 and perhaps implied in it, is another, which 
 needs to be more fully stated. It is said, that 
 the Biblical doctrine of a Satan is derived from 
 the system of dualism so prevalent in the East, 
 and is liable to the objections to which that sys- 
 tem is exposed. This objection is urged by 
 Henke, Eckermann, and others of the same 
 school. But in answer to this it may be said, 
 that even supposing the Biblical doctrine re- 
 specting Satan to agree with oriental dualism, 
 it does not follow that the former is untrue. 
 
216 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 I 
 
 If it is taught by inspired writers, it certainly 
 does not become less true by having been taught 
 by Zoroaster, and believed by the Persians, any 
 more than the doctrines of God and divine pro- 
 vidence are to be discarded because universally 
 believed. But there are, it must be remembered, 
 very obvious differences between the demonolo- 
 gy of the sacred writers and of the Eastern phi- 
 losophers. According to the latter, the two 
 principles of good and evil are co-eternal and in 
 every respect equal ; and it is from this repre- 
 sentation that all the evils connected with ori- 
 ental dualism result; and it is in this very point 
 that it differs from the Biblical doctrine. Ac- 
 cording to this, Satan himself, and all his le- 
 gions, are creatures of God, dependent upon 
 him, and trembling before him. Thus, although 
 possessed of vast power, they are still under the 
 entire control of the Ruler of the universe ; and 
 so our trust in him remains unshaken. TR.] 
 
 4. Belief in evil spirits is confined, it is said, 
 to rude and uncultivated men, and disappears 
 as science and civilization advance, and ought 
 therefore, in these enlightened times, to be 
 wholly discarded. But it should be remembered 
 that learned men in enlightened periods some- 
 times fall into errors, as well as ignorant men 
 in barbarous ages, and that an opinion is not 
 true merely because believed by the one, nor 
 false because believed by the other. 
 
 Those who deny the existence of evil spirits 
 are called Ademonists. Many of these, who are 
 hardly prepared flatly to oppose the authority 
 of the inspired writers and to set aside their in- 
 structions, undertake the useless labour of ex- 
 plaining away the doctrine of the devil from the 
 Bible, and in doing this resort to the most forced 
 and unauthorized modes of interpretation. Vide 
 Morus, p. 93, s. 13. 
 
 [The modes of interpretation here alluded to 
 were practised long since by the Rationalists 
 of the seventeenth century the Cartesians, Spi- 
 noza, and his friends. A good specimen of the 
 manner in which these fathers of modern Ra- 
 tionalism disposed of the instructions of the Bi- 
 ble upon the subject of evil spirits is given by 
 Stosch, in his " Concordia rationis et fidei," p. 
 8, s. 17 : " Quee de angelis et daemonibus tarn 
 in s. scriptura quam historia humana traduntur, 
 sunt partim somnia, partim visiones et appari- 
 tiones, partim phantasmata, partim morbi, par- 
 tim figmenta et illusiones." But the most plau- 
 sible of all the systems of Ademonism is that 
 by which Satan is made to denote, not a real 
 existence, but some mode of moral evil. This 
 system is well expressed by Ammon when he 
 says, * Acquiescamus non tarn in existentia et 
 factis, quam notione Satanae," Sum. Theol. 
 Christ, p. 105. The particular form of moral 
 evil denoted by the word Satan is very various 
 according to different authors, each of whom 
 
 modifies it to suit his own philosophical system. 
 Thus, according to one, it is that disposition 
 which pursues evil for its own sake, and not for 
 any advantages with which it may be connect- 
 ed perttnacia in damnum proprium vel alienum 
 agendi, absque ilkcebris carnis, vel mundi, sive 
 glorise vanas. In the school of Kant, Satan is 
 the IDEA of what is absolutely displeasing in the 
 sight of God, and so is the direct opposite of the 
 Son of God, who, according to Kant, is the IDEA 
 of what is absolutely well-pleasing with God. 
 Thus in each different system does Satan, at the 
 option of the framer, assume a different form, 
 and act a different part. TR.] 
 
 Our modern theologians have often chosen a 
 middle course, and endeavoured to unite the 
 opinions of those who totally deny the existence 
 o.f demons, and of those who contend strongly 
 for their existence and agency ; but, as is usual 
 with those who endeavour to please opposite 
 parties, they have given satisfaction to neither. 
 In order to prevent the appearance of rejecting 
 the authority of the holy scriptures, they admit 
 the existence of evil spirits, while, in order to 
 avoid the difficulties to which the common doc- 
 trine is liable, and to conform to the prevailing 
 notions of the day, they deny that the devil can 
 exert any power on men, at least at the present 
 time, (a very necessary limitation for them to 
 make ;) that to us, therefore, it is all the same 
 as if he did not exist ; and that when Christ and 
 the apostles spoke of the agency of the devil, 
 they merely accommodated themselves to the 
 popular superstitions of the Jews, while they 
 themselves neither believed in demoniacal in- 
 fluence, nor even, as some will go so far as to 
 say, in the existence of a devil. (Of this num- 
 ber, the most distinguished perhaps is Wegschei- 
 der, who thus gives his views in his " Institu- 
 tiones," s. 106: "Verisimile est magistrum 
 ilium divinum rectius quidem de demonologia 
 Judaeorum cogitantem, at formulis quibusdam 
 usum symbolicis, regnum divinum regno dia- 
 bolico oppositum adumbrantibus, quae apud Ju- 
 daeos tune temporis pervulgatae erant, a disci- 
 pulis suis non satis intellectual fuisse, et ipsam 
 providentiam divinam posteritati doctrinam 
 istam emendendam tradi voluisse." Cf. De 
 Wette, Bib. Dogm. s. 241. TR.] 
 
 But these views are liable to very weighty 
 objections; for, 
 
 (a) Since it was a great object with Jesus 
 to free mankind from hurtful prejudices, and 
 especially, during his earthly ministry, to era- 
 dicate the errors which prevailed among the 
 Jews, we may be very certain that he would not 
 have spared their belief in the existence and 
 agency of the devil, if he had regarded it as false. 
 It is said, indeed, that it was necessary for him 
 to indulge those prejudices of the Jews which 
 he could not at once eradicate, and that when 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 217 
 
 he spoke of the influences of Satan it was merely 
 in condescension to those deep-rooted Jewish 
 prejudices. But an examination of his words, 
 in the connexion in which they stand, will con- 
 vince us that this was not the case. Christ 
 does not merely forbear to contradict this prevail- 
 ing doctrine, or merely allude to it incidentally, 
 but he frequently brings it directly forward, and 
 expressly teaches the existence of the devil and 
 his agency upon men. Thus, for example, in 
 John, viii. 38, 44, he speaks of the devil, with- 
 out having the least inducement on the part of 
 his hearers for so doing, and this in the very 
 same discourse in which he demands from them 
 implicit faith in everything which he says, on 
 his simple word, and in which he declares his 
 utter abhorrence of all falsehood and deception. 
 Vide ver. 38 47. And he frequently mentions 
 this doctrine in his discourses, when he could 
 have had no motive for doing so from a desire 
 of pleasing his hearers, and siding with their 
 prejudices. Vide Matt. xii. 2231, 4345; 
 xiii. 39. Had not Christ himself believed this 
 doctrine he would have introduced it as seldom 
 as possible into his discourses, and would have 
 thrown out hints here and there, by which the 
 more discerning would have discovered that he 
 himself entertained different opinions on the 
 subject. It could not certainly have been 
 through fear of any consequences injurious to 
 himself attending the denial of this doctrine, 
 that he was induced to indulge and authorize it ; 
 since the Sadducees had before renounced it 
 without experiencing persecution; and since 
 Christ was never known in other cases to give 
 way to any false or dangerous opinions, how 
 much soever the Pharisees and the Jewish peo- 
 ple might have been attached to them. Thus, 
 for example, he fearlessly opposed their doctrine 
 respecting traditions, though this was far more 
 important in their view than the doctrine re- 
 specting angels. 
 
 (6) Christ himself informs us, that during 
 his life on earth he privately taught his disci- 
 ples many things which were not to be pub- 
 lished by them till after his ascension, (Matt. 
 x. 26, 27 ;) and that much which he could not 
 teach them, because they were unable to bear 
 it, would be communicated to them by the Pa- 
 racletus, John, xvi. 12, 13. But we do not 
 find that among these more familiar instruc- 
 tions the disciples were taught that there is no 
 devil, or that he is not the author of evil, or that 
 he is destitute of all power. On the contrary, 
 Christ expressly and particularly sanctions a 
 belief in evil spirits, in presence of his disci- 
 ples, (Matthew, xiii. 39, seq. ; Luke, xxii. 31;) 
 and even mentions the fact that the prince of 
 this world is judged, (not that there is no Satan,) 
 as one of those things of which the Holy Ghost 
 would convince the world through their instru- 
 28 
 
 mentality. After the ascension of Jesus, the 
 apostles made use of the same expressions and 
 representations with regard to evil spirits which 
 he himself had employed ; as, 1 John, iii. 8 ; 
 1 Pet. v. 8 ; and often in the Acts. With what 
 freedom and fearlessness does Paul often attack 
 the prevailing prejudices and superstitions of 
 the Jews and Greeks ! But so far is he from 
 either opposingthis doctrine, or merely passing 
 it by unnoticed, that he expresses his own be- 
 lief in all the essentials of the Jewish demon- 
 ology; Ephes. ii. 1, 2, seq.; vi. 11, seq. et 
 passim. The apostles, indeed, held this doc- 
 trine in a manner somewhat different from that 
 in which it was held by the Jews, and discard- 
 ed many of their gross and fabulous representa- 
 tions ; but yet, as it must appear from what has 
 been said, they themselves really believed it. 
 Our modern philosophers are at liberty to follow 
 their own convictions upon this subject, and to 
 reason upon their own principles ; but they are 
 not at liberty to ascribe their hypothesis to 
 Christ and the apostles, nor to impose upon the 
 common people this boasted wisdom, which 
 they will never relish, and by which they will 
 be rather confounded than enlightened. 
 
 Our belief of this doctrine must rest ulti- 
 mately on our conviction of the divine mission 
 of Christ in its most full and proper sense. If 
 we receive him as a divinely-commissioned 
 teacher, we must abide by his decision on this 
 subject as well as on all others, whatever diffi- 
 culty we may find in the way. Otherwise, we are 
 driven to the alternative of saying either that 
 Christ did himself believe and teach the exist- 
 ence of evil spirits, though they do not exist, 
 in which case he is not an infallible teacher, 
 or, that Christ did not himself believe, but yet 
 taught the existence of evil spirits, in which 
 case his moral character is impeached. The 
 same is true in regard to the apostles. 
 
 [Note 1. In confirmation of the remark of 
 the author, that our belief of this doctrine must 
 depend ultimately on the testimony of Christ, it 
 may be said that the attempts which have been 
 made to prove the existence of evil spirits by 
 arguments a priori, have proved as unsuccess- 
 ful as the attempts to disprove it by arguments 
 of the same nature. The most noted attempt of 
 this kind is, perhaps, that made by Heinroth, in 
 the last chapter of his late work, "Ueber die 
 Wahrheit." He there endeavours to demon- 
 strate the existence of evil spirits from the apos- 
 tasy of man, which he thinks can be accounted 
 for only on the supposition that he was tempted 
 by a being who had previously fallen. Man 
 was made pure and holy, and could therefore 
 find no inducement to disobedience from any- 
 thing in his own nature. The inducement to 
 sin must therefore have come to him from with- 
 out; and as he acts only in view of seeming 
 T 
 
218 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 good, he must have been made to believe that 
 transgression would conduce to his advantage; 
 in short, he must have been deceived. But he 
 could not have been deceived by God, nor any- 
 thing in the world in which he was placed, 
 which is a work and revelation of God ; and if 
 deceived at all, therefore, it must have been by 
 an older apostate, a spirit of evil, a father of lies ; 
 and only on the admission of such a spirit can 
 the incontrovertible fact of the fall of our race 
 be in any way accounted for. But, in the first 
 place, this temptation does by no means account 
 for that moral act in which the essence of the apos- 
 tasy consisted. A change in man's moral charac- 
 ter must have already taken place, before trans- 
 gression could have been made alluring. With- 
 out this previous defection of his will from God, 
 and the consequent disorder of his powers and 
 darkness of his mind, he could have seen no at- 
 traction in what was forbidden, and could have 
 looked upon the inducements to it, as Christ 
 did, only with abhorrence, and certainly never 
 would have preferred them to the infinitely 
 stronger inducements which the government of 
 God holds out to the obedient; and even if, 
 without this change, he had yielded to the in- 
 fluence of some delusion from without to which 
 he had been subjected, he would have been 
 chargeable with mistake only, and not have been 
 guilty of sin. And, in the second place, the 
 agency of a tempter, though employed as a mat- 
 ter of fact in the apostasy of man, is not abso- 
 lutely necessary to account for it. If the fall 
 of Adam cannot be accounted for except by the 
 influence of temptation, neither can that of 
 Satan ; and the tempter himself must have been 
 before tempted and deceived. But if Satan a 
 spiritual existence, and stationed near the 
 throne of God could have apostatized without 
 having been drawn away by an older apostate, 
 certainly this may be supposed of Adam, in 
 whom, both from his nature and his circum- 
 stances, apostasy must have been more proba- 
 ble. The argument of Heinroth is liable, 
 therefore, to the twofold objection, that the 
 agency of a tempter does not fully account for 
 the apostasy of Adam, and that it is not neces- 
 sary to account for it, since the tempter him- 
 self fell without any such agency, though pos- 
 sessed of a nature and placed in circumstances 
 far more favourable to obedience. TR.] 
 
 Note 2.-*- Since demons and their influence 
 are mentioned so frequently in the New Testa- 
 ment, the doctrine which relates to them ought 
 not to be omitted in popular instruction. If it is 
 passed by, the common people will fall into 
 very erroneous and superstitious notions with 
 regard to evil spirits. The truth ought there- 
 fore to be exhibited with wise caution, in such 
 a way as to obviate both unbelief and supersti- 
 tion, to rectify false views, and yet so as to 
 
 leave the authority of the Bible uninfringed, 
 and the whole sense of scripture unperverted. 
 The following is the simple scriptural view of 
 this subject which the religious teacher should 
 exhibit: (a) Christ, by his death and the 
 gracious dispensation which he administers, has 
 taken away from the devil the power of injur- 
 ing his true followers; those, therefore, who 
 are sincerely pious towards God, and believers 
 in Christ, and followers of his instructions, have 
 nothing to fear. (6) The existence of demons 
 and their influence may, however, furnish us 
 with motives to piety and virtue, and serve to 
 deter us from vice and corruption. If we are 
 pious, we are citizens of the kingdom of God ; 
 if wicked, citizens of the kingdom of Satan re- 
 presentations by which the states of moral good- 
 ness and badness are figuratively described. 
 Vide Morus, p. 90, s. 8, seq. [Cf. Bretschneider, 
 Handbuch, b. i. s. 723.] 
 
 II. Apostasy of Evil Spirits. 
 
 All the angels, according to the Jews and the 
 writers of the New Testament, were placed ori- 
 ginally in a state of innocence and holiness ; 
 some of them afterwards sinned, apostatized from 
 God, and were consequently punished. Respect- 
 ing the time at which this apostasy took place, 
 or in what the sin of the fallen angels consisted, 
 we are not clearly'informed in the scriptures ; 
 hence very different opinions have been enter- 
 tained on these subjects. 
 
 1. Some suppose that the first sin of the 
 apostate angels was the temptation which they 
 offered to the progenitors of the human race. 
 This opinion has been advocated in modern 
 times by Cocceius, Vitringa, Heilmann, Schmid 
 of Wittenberg, and others. The devil is not in- 
 deed expressly mentioned in the narrative in 
 Gen. iii. ; but after the Israelites were made bet- 
 ter acquainted with the nature and influence of 
 evil spirits (s. 58), they always supposed that 
 they were intended in this passage, and that 
 death and sin had come into the world by Satan. 
 So the Book of Wisdom, ii. 24, and the New 
 Testament everywhere. They accordingly re- 
 garded the devil as the tempter; but it does not 
 appear that they regarded the temptation as his 
 first offence, that by which he first rebelled 
 against God. On the contrary, they seem to 
 presuppose that he was previously wicked. The 
 passage, John, viii. 44, cannot therefore be em- 
 ployed, as Heilmann has employed it, in support 
 of this opinion. The sense of this passage may 
 be thus given: "You resemble the devil in 
 your dispositions and conduct, (tx lov rtarp6$ 
 T'OII 5taj3oXou irrti ;) he was a murderer from the 
 beginning, (av$pa>7tox't6vo$ art' dp^s, alluding to 
 the murder of Abel by Cain, Gen. iii.; 1 John, 
 iii. 12, and other events,) and remained not in 
 the truth, (the knowledge and worship of God, 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 219 
 
 or moral rectitude, or both united ;) the love of 
 truth and integrity is not in him ; it is his plea- 
 sure to speak and propagate falsehood and error, 
 (r64*v6oj, Rev. xxi. 27; xxii, 15;) for he is 
 the author (rtar^p) and patron of falsehood and 
 error, (unbelief, superstition, and immorality, of 
 which he is always represented as the founder.)" 
 This passage certainly does not teach that this 
 was the first instance in which Satan revolted 
 from God. 
 
 2. Others place the chief offence of the evil 
 spirits in pride, which was shewn, according to 
 some, in one way, according to others, in an- 
 other. So Athanasius, Hieronymus, Augustine, 
 and others, particularly the Latin fathers, who 
 were followed by many of the schoolmen, and 
 in modern times by Luther, Buddeus, Mosheim, 
 Cotta, and others. They refer to the passage 1 
 Tim. iii. 6, (which, however, admits of another 
 interpretation,) and also to the proud expressions 
 which are ascribed to the seducer of men in the 
 holy scriptures, Gen. iii. 5 ; Matt. iv. 9. This 
 view is partially correct; but the first sin of the 
 fallen angels may be ascertained still more de- 
 finitely. 
 
 3. We are led to believe by the writings of 
 the apostles that in many particulars they agreed 
 with the Jewish teachers of their own day re- 
 specting the first transgression of fallen spirits. 
 We may accordingly consider the Jewish opi- 
 nions, in these particulars, as sanctioned by the 
 assent of the apostles. Now the Jews held, 
 especially after the Babylonian captivity, that 
 God entrusted to angels, as overseers or govern- 
 ors, particular provinces of the earth, and also 
 the heavenly bodies (cf. s. 60, II.), while their 
 more proper home and abode was heaven. The 
 Jews further held that some of these angels 
 were discontented with their lot, and entered 
 into a rebellious concert among themselves. 
 They proudly aspired to higher posts than those 
 assigned them, revolted from God, and deserted 
 heaven ; and then, for their punishment, were 
 thrust by God into Tartarus, like the giants or 
 Titans, who, according to the Grecian mytho- 
 logy, were cast as rebels out of heaven, Tarta- 
 rus is now their proper abode, as heaven was 
 formerly ; and from thence they exert, under the 
 the Divine permission, an influence upon the 
 world. They seduced our first parents, and 
 brought sin and death into the world ; they reign 
 over heathen nations, whom they led into idol- 
 atry ; they also rule wicked men i. e., exert 
 a controlling influence over them ; but, together 
 with those over whom they have ruled, they 
 will be punished in Tartarus after the day of 
 judgment. With this account the Jews min- 
 gled many fabulous and unscriptural representa- 
 tions, which were adopted even by many of the 
 Christian fathers ; but the general account above 
 given is very clearly authorized even in the 
 
 New Testament, especially in the passages 2 
 Pet. ii. 4, and Jude, ver. 6, 7. The first passage 
 teaches, that we cannot expect that God will 
 leave transgression unpunished; "for he spared 
 not the angels that sinned, but cast them down 
 to hell (rap-r'apwtfaj), where he keeps them in 
 reserve for future punishment, (stj xpc<w.) M 
 Still clearer is the parallel text, Jude, ver. 6, 
 where we are taught that God keeps enchained 
 o o$oj/) in Tartarus, reserved for the judg- 
 ment of the great day, the angels 
 
 "f^v lavtuv a-w^v, o-M.a> 
 olxtrfiiov. 'Ap#r/ does not here signify, 
 their original state, but the dominion entrusted 
 to them as governors. T^ps Iv is tueri, conscrvare, 
 to retain, and the latter clause is not a descrip- 
 tion of their punishment, but of their crime, 
 Thus Jude and Peter, though they by no means 
 take part in all the Jewish notions with regard 
 to the apostasy of the fallen angels, clearly 
 authorize the general doctrine of the Jewish 
 teachers, as given above. 
 
 Note.~ The question has been asked, how it 
 can appear probable, or even possible, that such 
 perfect beings as angels are represented to be, 
 with all their intelligence and knowledge, could 
 have fallen in this manner, and so foolishly have 
 rebelled against God, with whom tney must have 
 been acquainted ? It might be asked, with equal 
 plausibility, how it is possible that men can act 
 so frequently as they do against the clearest 
 knowledge and strongest convictions of duty 1 
 We often find men, endued with the greatest ta- 
 lents, and possessing the clearest discernment, 
 who are yet grossly vicious, and act in a man 
 ner unaccountably foolish and unadvised, Emi- 
 nent intellectual endowments are not unfre- 
 quently attended by eminent virtues, and then 
 are eminently useful; but they are also fre- 
 quently accompanied by vices, and then are to the 
 last degree hurtful. But were it not that expe- 
 rience justifies this remark, it would be easy to 
 demonstrate, a priori, that high intelligence and 
 moral depravity could not possibly go together, 
 Demonstrations a priori on such subjects are 
 therefore wholly inadmissible. 
 
 SECTION LXIII. 
 
 OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF EVII^ SPI- 
 RITS; THEIR PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION; 
 THEIR NUMBER, CLASSES, AND NAMES, 
 
 I. Their Nature and Attributes, 
 THE essential constitution of human nature is 
 not altered by the depravity of the heart. Man 
 continues to possess the inborn excellences and 
 perfections of his nature, however depraved he 
 may be as to his moral condition. The case is 
 the same with evil spirits, as they are represent* 
 ed in the Bible. In common, then, with good 
 angels, they are still spiritual beings, and even 
 
220 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 in their present state possess the excellences 
 and perfections which are peculiar to spiritual 
 existences great intellectual powers, internal 
 energy and activity. Vide s. 59, II. And if 
 good angels are invested with a body, or can 
 assume one as occasion requires, the same must 
 be supposed with respect to evil spirits. Vide 
 ubi supra. But their moral state, their will and 
 affections, are described as very depraved and 
 evil. They therefore employ their intellectual 
 powers in behalf of evil and not of good ; they 
 act in opposition to the divine purposes, and are 
 the enemies of truth and righteousness, John, 
 viii. 44. The <jo<j><,'a aiv^sv xot-tepxo/Atvq is con- 
 trasted with 0o<j>t'a Sa^ovudS^j, James, iii. 15 ; 
 and men are warned of the ^f^oSetat tov StajSo- 
 ?iov, Eph. vi. 11 ; ii. 2. 1 Pet. v. 8. Matt. 
 xiii. 39. 
 
 II. Their Present and Future State. 
 
 Their condition is described as extremely un- 
 happy. Vide Matt. xxv. 41. Even the natu- 
 ral consequences of sin the power and domi- 
 nion of the passions, the remembrance of their 
 former happy condition, the frustration of their 
 wishes and plans, remorse of conscience, &c., 
 would be enough to render them miserable. 
 But these are "not all which they endure ; since 
 positive punishments, as we are taught in the 
 scriptures, are inflicted on them, and will be 
 more especially after the day of judgment. We 
 are not. able to determine accurately, from the 
 language of the Bible, which is for the most part 
 figurative, in what these punishments consist. 
 The principal texts relating to this point, besides 
 that already cited in Matt. xxv. 41, 46, are 2 
 Pet. ii. 4, and Jude, ver. 6. Taprapow, or, as 
 the Greeks otherwise write it, xarafapfopovy, 
 signifies, in Tartarum dejicere, (e cos/0.) Tar- 
 tarus, in the Grecian mythology, is the place 
 of punishment and condemnation. Hesiod, in 
 his Theogony, and Plato, in his Gorgias, repre- 
 sent it as the prison of the Titans. But at a 
 later period it came to signify the general place 
 of suffering. It is that part of afys where the 
 wicked were confined, and is represented as 
 dark, and deep under the earth. The place of 
 punishment was more commonly described by 
 the Jews as DJn s^, ysivva,, and eternal fire. But 
 as their notion of yttwo, corresponded perfectly 
 with the Grecian idea of Tartarus, they adopted 
 the latter term into their own dialect, as in many 
 other cases. In this place condemned men and 
 spirits are confined ; and hence the latter are 
 said to suffer such judgments and dreadful tor- 
 ment as will constitute the punishment of wick- 
 ed men after this life. Such is the representa- 
 tion, Matt. xxv. 41, 46, " Depart into everlasting 
 fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." The 
 phrase, <jpat o<j>ou rfaps'&oxE (he bound them 
 in dismal Tartarus with chains), describes their 
 
 misery as unavoidable and remediless. Great 
 wretchedness is often described by the Hebrews 
 under the image of captiVes bound in a dark pri- 
 son. The evil spirits are not as yet, however, 
 chained for ever in Tartarus i. e., they are not 
 now confined to this single place of misery. 
 They sometimes, under divine permission, roam. 
 beyond their prison, and exert their influence 
 upon men. Vide Revelation, and Luke, viii. 
 31, &c. But a more strict confinement and a 
 higher degree of punishment are impending 
 over them, as over wicked men, and will fall 
 upon them at the last day : sis xpt- 
 cf. ver. 9, and Jude, ver. 6, t$ x 
 lyjitlpaj. Cf. Matt. xxv. 41. The question of 
 the demon, Matt. viii. 29, 9^$ ciSs rtpo xat,- 
 pou fiasav tcrat y^as, alludes to this impending 
 punishment. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Hence the evil 
 spirits are described as fearing God, and trem- 
 bling before him as their Judge; James, ii. 19, 
 
 Note. Will evil spirits repent, obtain for give- 
 ness, and be restored to happiness? These are 
 questions which have often been asked in mo- 
 dern times, and to which various answers have 
 been given. Origen was the first among Chris- 
 tian teachers who distinctly avowed the opinion 
 that evil spirits would repent, and be restored 
 to happiness. Vide Augustine, Con. Jul. v. 47, 
 and vi. 10. This opinion has been adopted in 
 modern times by theologians of the most differ- 
 ent parties ; by Eberhard, in his " Apologie des 
 Sokrates," th. i., by Lavater, in his " Aussicht 
 in die Ewigkeit," th. iii., [Bretschneider, in his 
 Handbuch, b. i. s. 691,] and others. 
 
 If we had nothing but reason to guide us in 
 our inquiries on this subject, we should proba- 
 bly argue thus : (a) If wicked men truly re- 
 pent, reform, and comply with the other condi- 
 tions prescribed, God will forgive them, and 
 remove the punishment of their sins. But con- 
 sidering that these spirits are in the highest de- 
 gree depraved, that their vicious propensities, so 
 long cherished, must have taken deep root, and 
 that the habit of sin must have become confirmed, 
 we must conclude, from all human analogy, that 
 their repentance and reformation must be ex- 
 tremely difficult, though we might not be able 
 to pronounce it absolutely impossible. (6) But 
 should they from the heart repent of their sins, 
 and were it possible for them to fulfil the other 
 conditions prescribed, it is probable that God, 
 who is perfect goodness, and who is ready to 
 forgive men on certain conditions, and who de- 
 sires the salvation and happiness of all his crea- 
 tures, would also forgive them, and restore them 
 to his favour; or at least, he might perhaps re- 
 move the positive punishments inflicted on them, 
 should they comply with the conditions pre- 
 scribed ; if indeed we can suppose their situa- 
 tion such that conditions could be offered them 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 221 
 
 a point which we are unable to determine. But 
 (c) since every good action has its natural and 
 permanent good consequences, and every evil 
 action its natural and permanent evil conse- 
 quences, it is certain that the happiness of such 
 repentant angels must always be less in amount 
 than the happiness of those who never sinned, 
 and have persevered in obedience. The former 
 must always take a lower stand, in point of 
 happiness and character, than the latter ; and in 
 this sense we may affirm, even on principles of 
 reason, that their punishment will be eternal. 
 
 But if we inquire what Christ and the apos- 
 tles teach on this subject, we can find nothing to 
 justify the hope that the fallen angels will be re- 
 stored. Their punishments are described as 
 i ai8iot, Jude, ver. 6 ; as rtvp ai&viov, x6huaL$ 
 f, Matt. xxv. 41, 46. These expressions 
 do not, indeed, necessarily denote positive pu- 
 nishments, although it cannot be shewn that 
 natural punishments are here exclusively in- 
 tended. There is some plausibility in the argu- 
 ment that the words cuwvtoj and diStoj, like the 
 Hebrew oSty, do not denote eternity, in the strict 
 philosophical sense, but only a long and inde- 
 terminate duration. Vide s. 20, III. But while 
 this remark is doubtless true in itself, yet in the 
 passage cited, Matt. xxv. 46, xohams alwio$ 
 and co?7 atwvioj are contrasted, and if in the lat- 
 ter case atwvtoj is allowed to denote absolute 
 eternity, what right have we to use it in the 
 former case, in a less strict sense 1 From these 
 words, therefore, no argument can be drawn in 
 behalf of the cessation of the punishments of 
 fallen spirits ; nor can it be shewn that these 
 punishments are merely natural. The argu- 
 ment for restoration is therefore left by the 
 scriptures very doubtful. The consideration of 
 the question will be resumed, s. 157, 158. 
 [however hesitating and undecided the theolo- 
 gians of the Lutheran church may be with re- 
 gard to the endless punishment of the fallen 
 angels, the doctrinal standards of their church 
 express no doubts; and the Augsburg Confes- 
 sion (Art. xvii.) expressly condemns those, 
 "qui sentiunt, hominibus damnatis ac DIABOLIS 
 finem poenarum futurum esse." Neander sug- 
 gests, that the doctrine of the final and perfect 
 restoration of all things (ajtoxaTfarnfaca^ftavtuv}, 
 which is ascribed to Origen as its author, was 
 the result of the principles of the Alexandrine 
 Gnosis, and was abandoned by him at a later 
 period of his life. Allg. Kirchengesch, b. i. 
 abth. 3, s. 1098. TR.] ' 
 
 III. Number and Classes of Evil Spirits. 
 
 The New Testament gives us no definite in- 
 formation with respect to the number of evil 
 spirits ; but they were supposed by the Jews to 
 be very many (Luke, viii. 30), and indeed are 
 often mentioned in the New Testament in the 
 
 plural. We are likewise informed that evil 
 spirits compose a kingdom, and exist in a social 
 relation; and hence the phrase 37 jSaoas/a tov 
 Xatava, Matt. xii. 26. This representation 
 must be understood in the same way as that in 
 reference to good angels. Vide s. 61, II. They 
 have a leader, prince, or commander, (o oip%u>v 
 *HV 8ai/jLovMv, Matt. xii. 24,) represented often 
 as a fallen archangel, and called Beelzebub (vide 
 No. iv.), also, by way of eminence, 6taj3o^oj, 
 Sar'avaf, x. tf. X. In Rev. xii. 7, 9, in opposi- 
 tion to the good angels who fought on the side 
 of -Michael, the angels of Satan are called ot 
 dyye^ot, avitov. The names devil and Satan 
 are not used in the Bible in the plural, and are 
 applied only to the ap^wv fuv Scu^ovuov. It is 
 not therefore according to scriptural usage to 
 speak of devils in the plural. 
 
 IV. Names of Evil Spirits. 
 
 Respecting the title evil angel, vide s. 59, V. 
 [Cf. Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 627; 
 Hahn, Glaubenslehre, s. 294, Anm.] 
 
 1. General appellations of evil spirits as a body. 
 (a) Tlvtvpafa axc&api'a i. e., morally impure 
 and evil; Luke, xi. 24, et passim. Synony- 
 mous with this is (6) rtvevpata rtovqpd, Luke, 
 vii. 21 ; Ephes. vi. 12, ta rtvevpatixa, tq$ rtovri- 
 ptaj. (c) Acuftovfs or Sa^ovia. The etymology 
 of this word is quite uncertain. In Homer and 
 all the most ancient Grecian writers it means 
 neither more nor less than gods, (^EOI.) And 
 although, in process of time, it acquired various 
 additional meanings, it always retained this. It 
 is accordingly used by the LXX. to denote the 
 heathen gods (oiS^N,) and also in 1 Cor. x. 20, 
 21, and Rev. ix. 20, where Scu/iona and Eidu&a 
 are connected. It was very commonly used in 
 this sense by the Attic writers; and so, when 
 Paul was at Athens, (Acts, xvii. 18,) some be- 
 lieved that he wished to introduce %eva Sou/towa, 
 foreign deities. But the name Scu^towj was 
 afterwards given by the Greeks to those invi- 
 sible beings whom they supposed, in connexion 
 with their deities, to exert an agency in the 
 world. Hence 8a,i,povss, is the name given by 
 Pythagoras, Plato, and others, to the human 
 soul, even when connected with the body, but 
 especially when separated from it. The inter- 
 mediate spirits between God and our race 
 deified men, and heroes, were also called de- 
 mons. And lastly, the internal spring, impulse, 
 the foreboding or presentiment of the mind, which 
 appeared so inexplicable to Socrates, and which 
 he therefore personified and deified, was called 
 by him his Saipoviov. Whenever this invisible 
 agent was the cause of good to men, it was 
 called aya^oSatjucov or fuSai/^wv ; and when the 
 cause of evil, xaxoSaipuv. At the time of 
 Christ and the apostles, Suipuv was a common 
 appellation given by the Grecian Jews to evil 
 T 2 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 spirits,- those morally so, and indeed by the 
 Apocryphal writers also. Vide Tob. iii. 8, 
 rtovypov Saipoviov. In the evangelists, the 
 phrases rtvsv/Aata axd^apta and rtoi^pa are in- 
 terchanged, times without number, with 6cu- 
 fiovsf and itvevpa Saipovwv axa^dptov. In Matt, 
 xii. 24, 8ai/j,ovss are distinctly mentioned as be- 
 longing to the kingdom of the devil. The 
 woman who is described in Luke, xiii. 11, as 
 rtvEiJjtta l%ovao, a<j^fvftaj, is said (ver. 16) to be 
 one qv ISrjuev 6 Satfai/aj. Vide s. 64, I. 2. The 
 opinion of Farmer, therefore, in his " Essay on 
 Demoniacs," that other spirits gods, departed 
 souls, &c., and not devils were intended in the 
 New Testament by this appellation is unfound- 
 ed. In James, ii. 19, Sou/towa has clearly the 
 signification above given. But how came 8 a i- 
 pov e $ to have this peculiar signification among 
 the Grecian Jews? The LXX. usually rendered 
 the Hebrew words which signify idols by the 
 word 8ai/jiovf$, and the Greeks called their gods 
 by this name. Now the Jews connected with 
 this name their idea that evil spirits ruled in the 
 heathen world, and caused themselves to be 
 worshipped as gods, under the names of Jupiter, 
 Mercury, &c., and had seduced the heathen into 
 this idolatry. Hence 8aip)v$ and evil spirits 
 came to be regarded by them as synonymous 
 terms. 
 
 2. But one of the evil spirits is represented 
 as their prince, leader, commander. Vide No. 
 iii., and Morus, p. 91, s. 10. He is called by 
 various names, (a) Satan, ftofe?, Satfavaj, lite- 
 rally, enemy, fiend, accuser, Ps. cix. 6 ; Job, ii. 
 (s. 58) ; Matt. xvi. 23 ; and hence, by way of 
 eminence, princeps daemonum, because he is re- 
 presented as the greatest enemy of man, and of 
 the kingdom of truth and holiness. Synony- 
 mous with this title are the names 6 e^poj and 
 o avtiSixos* (6) 'O rtoj/^poj, malignus, noxious, 
 the foe of man'. This name is frequently given 
 him by John; as 1 John, ii. 13, 14. (c) Ax- 
 POXOJ is the most common Grecian name of the 
 devil ; and from this word our devil and the 
 German Tenfel are derived. It signifies fiend, 
 destroyer of peace, calumniator. The LXX. ren- 
 dered the Hebrew jafer by Staj3o?w>j, Job, i. 6 ; Ps. 
 cix. 6. This name was sometimes applied to 
 men, 1 Tim. iii. 11 ; Tit. ii. 3. (d) BsTuafc or 
 Be^t'op, 2 Cor. vi. 15, from SjnVa, compounded 
 of >Sa, not, and Sp>, high i. e., low, abject. It 
 has different senses. In the Old Testament it 
 sometimes signified the under world, the king- 
 dom of the dead, Psalm xviii. 5; and sometimes 
 unworthy men, abject principles, Deut. xiii. 13. 
 After the Babylonian exile it was frequently 
 used as the name of the devil, and occurs once 
 in this sense in the New Testament, 2 Cor. vi. 
 15, "What concord hath Christ with Belial!" 
 i. e., How can the worship of Christ con- 
 sist with the worship of the devil (idolatry) ? 
 
 (e) B^fj3oi;j3, or "Bfi^ffiovh, who is expressly 
 called dpwi/ tuv ScUjUoWwj/, Matt. xii. 24. This 
 was an appellation very common among the 
 Jews at the time of Christ. In 2 Kings, i. 2, 
 Beelzebub appears as a god of the Philistines. 
 The name when written with final j3, is derived 
 from aia? Sya. It most probably means, God of 
 the fiies, Fly-Baal, Deus averruncus muscarum, 
 whose office it was to protect his worshippers 
 from the flies, which were among the greatest 
 plagues of Egypt and Philistia. [It corres- 
 ponds with the Greek Zsv$ drt6[Avio$.~] Accord- 
 ing to the later Jews, it means dominus crimi- 
 nationis, accuser, complainant, and is synony- 
 mous with 5xj3o?L,o$ and Satavaj, from the Sy- 
 riac aa-i, which signifies criminari. The other 
 form, Bff^fjSovX, is derived from SiaT Spa, and is 
 either an intentional alteration of the word into 
 an epithet of disgrace, and so signifies deus ster- 
 coris (Mistgott), from Sar, stercus ,- or signifies, 
 deus, or pr&fectus sepulcri, (as *?ur signifies in 
 Chaldaic and Syriac,) dominus inferni, or infe- 
 rorum, o xpdtog e%uv tov ^avdtov, Heb. ii. 14. 
 It was at first, then, the name of the angel of 
 death, and afterwards of the devil, when he was 
 supposed to be the same person. (/) 'O 8pdxuv 
 o /ulycis, and o ofyis 6 dp^atoj, Rev. xii. 9, 13. 
 This appellation might have been given to him 
 from his general character for cunning and de- 
 ceit, (o TtXcxfuv "tv\v Oixov/Av7]v.} But the Word 
 dp^atoj evidently alludes to Gen. iii., since the 
 agency of the devil in the occurrence there de- 
 scribed was doubtless believed by the Jews at 
 the time of Christ. 
 
 3. The Jews gave particular names to evil as 
 well as to good spirits. Among these is 'A0/j,o- 
 &MOJ, Jlsmodi, mentioned in the book of Tobias, 
 iii. 8, also Samuel, Azazel, &c. But none of 
 these proper names of evil spirits occur in the 
 New Testament, unless the name of the angel 
 of destruction, 'AjSaSStov i. q., 'ArtoM/woi/, o 
 dyyt^oj T?ij$ afivatiov, Rev. ix. 11, be considered 
 as such. 
 
 SECTION LXIV. 
 
 OF THE EMPLOYMENTS AND THE EFFECTS OF 
 EVIL SPIRITS. 
 
 I. Objections to the common theory. 
 
 THE power of Satan and his influence upon 
 men were formerly stated in a very exaggerated 
 manner, and represented as excessively great 
 and fearful ; and this view was the more plausi- 
 ble, as it seemed to be supported by many pas- 
 sages in the New Testament. But this mistake 
 would have been avoided if the true spirit of the 
 Bible had been more justly apprehended, and 
 the true meaning of its language better under- 
 stood. Vide No. ii. According to the common 
 theory, evil spirits were supposed to be actively 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 223 
 
 employed at their own pleasure all over the 
 earth, to have immediate influence on the souls 
 of men ; to inspire wicked thoughts, doubts, and 
 anxieties ; to intrude themselves into all societies 
 and mysteries; and to rule in the air, and over 
 the whole material world. Such are the opinions 
 which formerly prevailed to a great extent, and 
 which are often found in the older ecclesiastical 
 writers. They were long preserved, and trans- 
 mitted from one age to another with more or less 
 of exaggeration. And many theologians of the 
 protestant church, even in the sixteenth century, 
 held opinions on this subject which were more 
 conformed to the prevailing superstitious ideas 
 of that age than to reason or scripture. Luther 
 and Melancthon were inclined to the belief that 
 good and evil spirits were at all times present in 
 the world, and stood in a very intimate relation 
 to men. In the symbols of the Lutheran church, 
 however, the connexion of superior spirits with 
 the world is not very minutely determined, and 
 the doctrine of demons is exhibited in the gene- 
 ral Biblical phraseology. Thus, in the Augs- 
 burg Confession many texts of scripture are 
 cited, but no definite meaning is affixed to them. 
 Many of the ideas formerly prevalent on this 
 subject are either wholly without foundation, or 
 are carried beyond the bounds of truth. For, 
 
 1. It is contradictory to the ideas of the power, 
 wisdom, holiness, and goodness of God which 
 we derive from the Bible and from reason, to 
 ascribe to the devil such vast and almost infinite 
 power. Nor can we see any rational way of 
 accounting for it that God should permit so great 
 and injurious an influence to be exerted in the 
 world. 
 
 2. The opinion maintained by some that evil 
 spirits can produce wicked thoughts in the minds 
 of men by an immediate influence is incapable 
 of proof. The evil influences exerted on the 
 human mind have by some been supposed to be 
 as immediate and efficient as the divine influ- 
 ences ; and as God infuses good thoughts, as he 
 inspired prophets and apostles, so does Satan, it 
 is supposed, directly infuse evil thoughts into 
 the minds of the wicked, and into the minds of 
 the good also, when he is permitted so to do by 
 God. That these inspirations of the devil can 
 be distinguished by any certain signs from 
 thoughts and desires which arise in the mind 
 from other sources is not pretended ; this opi- 
 nion, therefore, cannot be established by expe- 
 rience, and certainly it cannot be derived from 
 scripture ; at least, the opinion that evil spirits 
 do always or commonly exert an immediate in- 
 fluence of this kind cannot be proved from the 
 Bible. 
 
 3. This theory, when carried to the length to 
 which it has sometimes been carried, is incon- 
 sistent with human/reeefom. If the agency of 
 Satan was of the nature often believed, man 
 
 would not be the agent of the wicked actions he 
 seems to perform, but merely the instrument of 
 the irresistible influence of Satan ; and thus an 
 excuse for sin would be furnished. 
 
 4. In many texts in the New Testament in 
 which the common origin of particular sins is 
 described, Satan is not mentioned, but their ex- 
 istence is accounted for in another way, agree- 
 able alike to reason and experience. Cf. espe- 
 cially James, i. 13 15, " Let no man say, when 
 he is tempted, I am tempted of God. Every man 
 is tempted when he is drawn away of his own 
 lust, and enticed, when he gives indulgence to 
 rising desires, which is internal sin. When lust 
 hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, (it breaks 
 forth in sinful words and works, which is exter- 
 nal szn,-) and sin, when it is brought into the 
 world, bringeth forth death, (its uniform conse- 
 quence is misery.y Cf. Matthew, xv. 19 ; Gal. 
 v. 16 21 ; Rom. vii. 5, 8, seq. 
 
 From these texts, however, we cannot con- 
 clude, as some have done, that the Bible excludes 
 the agency of Satan in the sins of men. This 
 would be an extreme equally contrary to the 
 scriptures with the other, for the Bible expressly 
 teaches (a) that Satan is hostile to man, and is 
 active in promoting wickedness, Eph. ii. 2, vi. 
 11, seq., &c. Morus, p. 92, 93, n. i. (6) That 
 he contributes something to the sins which pre- 
 vail among men e. g., 1 Cor. vii. 5, where 
 Satan is distinguished from axpaaia, incontinence, 
 to which he is said to tempt men; from which 
 it is clear, as Morus justly observes, that Satan 
 is not used in the scriptures to denote merely an 
 abstract idea, and moral evil. Vide ubi supra, 
 n. 2. (c) That he opposes goodness; Luke, 
 viii. 12; John, viii. 44; and is therefore the 
 enemy of Christianity and morality. Vide ubi 
 supra, n. 3. This is what the Bible teaches ; 
 still it does not deny that the ignorance of man* 
 his sinful passions, and other causes, have a 
 tendency to lead him to sin; nor does it under- 
 take to determine the manner in which Satan 
 does what is ascribed to him ; nor does it justify 
 us in deciding in particular cases whether Satan 
 has had any agency in the crimes committed, or 
 what and how much it may have been. So 
 thought Origen (rttpt dp^wv, iii.) and many of 
 the ecclesiastical fathers, who endeavoured to 
 rectify the unscriptural notions respecting the 
 power of the devil which were entertained by 
 many of their contemporaries. 
 
 The extravagant opinions which formerly pre- 
 vailed on this subject were the means of much 
 injury, as appears from experience, (a) They 
 led the common people to what was, in effect, a 
 belief in two gods a good and an evil deity ; 
 and also to entertain false conceptions of the at- 
 tributes of the true God, which could not have 
 been without a practical influence on the life. 
 (j3) They often furnished a real hindrance to 
 
224 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 moral improvement; for instead of seeking for 
 the origin of sin in themselves, and endeavour- 
 ing to stop its sources, instead of becoming 
 acquainted with, and avoiding the external oc- 
 casions of sin, they laid the whole blame of it 
 upon Satan, and when they had made him guilty, 
 held themselves sufficiently justified and excul- 
 pated, (y) They gave rise to many other false 
 opinions and superstitious practices, similar to 
 some already existing among the Jews. Ori- 
 gen, Eusebius, and Augustine, represent demons 
 as fluttering about in the air, from the misun- 
 derstanding of Eph. ii. 2. Vide No. ii. Euse- 
 bius speaks of them as present at pagan sacri- 
 fices, regaling themselves with the sweet savour, 
 according to an opinion which prevailed both 
 among the Jews and Greeks respecting their 
 gods. Sometimes they are represented as 
 speaking in the heathen oracles, and plotting 
 evil against men at prayer ; to secure themselves 
 against which, the ancient saints, as appears 
 from the fabulous histories of their lives, were 
 accustomed to make use of the sign of the cross. 
 They were supposed to keep themselves in de- 
 serts, swamps, and subterranean caves, Is. 
 xxxiv. 13, 14; Matt. iv. 1; Luke, xi. 24; 1 
 Sam. xviii. ; and also to dwell in men before 
 their baptism, even in the children of Christian 
 parents, and not merely in the heathen, as was 
 at first supposed ; and this gave origin to the rite 
 of exorcism. Vide Doderlein, Disp. de redemp- 
 tione a potestate diaboli; Altorf, 1774, 4to; also 
 in his " Opuscula Theologica ;" Jenae, 1789, 8vo. 
 Tollner, Theol. Untersuchungen, th. i. st. 2, 
 " Die Lehre von den Versuchungen des Teufels 
 1st nicht praktisch." Runge, Man muss auch 
 dem Teufel nicht zu viel aufbiirden; Bremen, 
 1776, 8vo. 
 
 In opposing these false and superstitious no- 
 tions, many, however, fell into an opposite 
 fault, and wholly denied the power and influ- 
 ence of evil spirits, and explained the passages 
 of the Bible relating to this subject in an arbi- 
 trary manner, in order to make them agree with 
 their own previously established theories. It 
 was with the texts relating to this doctrine that 
 the Rationalists began, about the middle of the 
 .eighteenth century, to indulge themselves in 
 that arbitrary mode of interpretation which they 
 have since applied to such other doctrines of the 
 Bible as they have wished to reject. 
 
 II. Remarks on some texts relating to this subject. 
 
 The general notion which formerly prevailed 
 among the Jews respecting evil spirits, and 
 which has been adopted and authorized by the 
 writers of the New Testament, is, that they are 
 the authors and promoters of evil among men, 
 John, vhi. 44. The following general doctrines 
 are at the basis of the Biblical representations 
 of this subject. 
 
 1. God is indeed the governor of all mankind ; 
 but he is especially the kind father, benefactor, 
 and protector of those who truly reverence his 
 authority, obey his precepts, and in their conduct 
 endeavour to imitate him. Of these his kingdom 
 is composed ; they are citizens of it, children nf 
 God,- by which appellation is meant, that they 
 are those who honour, love, and obey him, as 
 dutiful children do their father; and whom, 
 therefore, he loves in return, as a good father 
 does his dutiful children. Now as the Israelites 
 were in ancient times selected by God as the 
 means of diffusing the true knowledge of him- 
 self and pure morals, and for the accomplish- 
 ment of other great designs, they are called, in 
 an eminent sense, his people, his children, and 
 he, their king and father. These titles are pro- 
 perly transferred by the writers of the New 
 Testament to Christians, who take the place of 
 the Israelites, and succeed them in all their 
 rights. Christians now constitute the kingdom 
 of God ; they are his house, his family ; he is 
 their father and counsellor ; and he employs in 
 their behalf the good angels, who are the invi- 
 sible instruments of his providence. After the 
 same manner, the great mass of mankind the 
 xofljitoj, (as the heathen world is called, from the 
 multitude of which it is composed,) and the 
 UXOT'OJ, (as it is also called, from the ignorance 
 and moral corruption that prevails over it) has 
 also its invisible head. It is governed by the 
 spirits who are at enmity with God, and by their 
 prince the devil. To whomsoever men yield 
 obedience, his children they are, and to his 
 kingdom they belong, John, viii. 44. And thus 
 all those who follow their sinful passions and 
 desires, who are the servants of sin, and resist 
 the will of God, are said to obey the devil, or to 
 stand under his dominion, because they act ac- 
 cording to his will, and imitate him. And so 
 the heathen, who have no true knowledge of 
 God, and whose moral character is debased, are 
 said to belong to his kingdom. The supremacy 
 here spoken of is, then, df a moral nature, found- 
 ed upon resemblance in conduct, moral charac- 
 ter, and opinion. 
 
 2. There is another doctrine intimately con- 
 nected with this. As Satan opposes the designs 
 of God, and does only evil, he is represented as 
 the seducer of our first parents, and so the author 
 of sin among men, and of all its evil conse- 
 quences. Vide Book of Wisdom, ii. 2-4. He is 
 generally described as the great enemy of man, 
 6 t%$p6s, dv^pcortoxT'ovoj. Vide Morus, p. 92, 
 sec. 11. According to this view, the events 
 narrated in Gen. iii. were referred to Satan by 
 the Jews, in which they were followed by the 
 New-Testament writers, John, viii. 44 ; 1 John, 
 iii. 8; Rev. xii. 9. Since the time of the first 
 apostasy, men are born with a strong and pre- 
 dominant bias and propensity to sin, Rom. vii. 
 
WORKS OF GOD, 
 
 225 
 
 23, coll. v. 12, 19. This now, and everything 
 regarded as a consequence of the apostasy to 
 which Satan tempted our first parents, is con- 
 sidered as belonging to his kingdom, and is 
 ascribed to his influence, even in those cases in 
 which he himself may not have been imme- 
 diately engaged. Thus all errors, especially 
 those in religion, all wickedness, deceitfulness, 
 and whatever else is offensive to God, are 
 ascribed to him, even when he himself has not 
 been personally or immediately active in pro- 
 moting them; and this, because he is the first 
 cause of all this evil which has followed ; just 
 as, on the contrary, all the good which is op- 
 posed to this evil is ascribed to God, even in 
 those cases where he has not immediately pro- 
 duced it, only because it is according to his 
 will, and results from the wise institutes which 
 he has founded. And so everything connected 
 with moral evil, as cause or as consequence, 
 and all wicked men, (6 xo/ipos, o axotos,) belong 
 to the kingdom of Satan, (vide Morus, p. 91, 
 Num. 1 ;) while, on the contrary, all the pious, 
 and all moral goodness, with its causes and con- 
 sequences, belong to the kingdom of light the 
 kingdom of God, or of Jesus Christ. Vide the 
 texts referred to, ubi supra. From what has 
 now been said, light is cast upon the following 
 Biblical representations and expressions : " 
 
 (a) The prevalence of immorality and the 
 diffusion of false religious observances are 
 striking proofs of the great corruption of human 
 nature; they are accordingly ascribed in a pe- 
 culiar sense to the influence of evil spirits, who 
 are hence called the gods or rulers of this world. 
 Eph. ii. 2, ap^wv t^ tfpvaUtf tov cU'poj, prince 
 of the power of darkness, (dwjp, tenebrx, Homer, 
 Od. ix. 144; Virgil, acre sepsit) i. e., of the 
 heathen world, darkened by ignorance and error. 
 Cf. Eph. vi. 12, ol xo<3[jLOxpdtopa$ tov 6xotw$ 
 tov cuw7'oj tovtov. To the former passage the 
 apostle subjoins the declaration that evil spirits 
 were tvtpyovvtts iv vlol$ tys ajtefeeias, and in 
 ver. 3 mentions at irtfrufwu tr$ oapxoj, the de- 
 sires which spring from our bodily nature, and 
 which lead to immorality. Satan is called in 
 the same sense 6 &b$ tov cuu>vo$ tovtov, who 
 blinds the understanding of the unbelieving, 2 
 Cor. iv. 4; also opgwv tov xoapov, John, xii. 
 31 ; xvi. 11 ; and paganism, irreligion, and im- 
 morality, are called Qovalo, tov Safava, Acts, 
 xxvi. 18; while the Christian church, the object 
 of which is to make men pious, and to prepare 
 them to become citizens of the society of the 
 blessed above, is called jSoaiteta tov Tlov *ov, 
 Col. i. 13. 
 
 (6) Christ carne into the world in order to re- 
 move the misery and disorder arising from the 
 seduction of our first parents by the devil, and 
 to shew us the way to true holiness and happi- 
 ness. 1 John, iii. 8, l^owspw^ iVa hvoy to. 
 29 
 
 ipya tov 6ta)36xoD, and according to Col. ii. 15, 
 Christ prevailed and triumphed over Satan. 
 The works of the devil are sin, and everything 
 by which sin and unbelief are occasioned. 
 Where sin, and misery as its consequence, pre- 
 vail, there Satan rules. John says, in the pas- 
 sage above cited, 6 rtotwv trjv a/j.a^tiav, ix tov 
 StojSokov iativ. Thus he rules over unbelieving 
 Jews and Christians, as well as over the hea- 
 then, John, viii. 44. 
 
 (c) All the hindrances to the spread of Chris- 
 tianity, and to the prevalence of that piety and 
 holiness which Christianity is intended to pro- 
 mote all the temptations and persecutions 
 which Christians are called to endure; in 
 short, the whole system of efforts opposed to 
 Christianity, are regarded as the works of Satan, 
 and the enemies of Christianity as his instru- 
 ments. Morus, p. 91, s. 9, note. Hence, when 
 Judas formed the infernal purpose (as we should 
 say) of betraying Christ, it is said, the devil en- 
 tered into him i. e., took possession of him, 
 John, xiii. 2, 27, coll. Acts, v. 3. By the 
 wiles of the devil, Eph. vi. 11, seq., the persecu- 
 tions which Christians were called to endure, 
 and the efforts made to turn them aside from the 
 truth, are principally intended. Cf. 1. Pet. v. 
 8, 9, where jto^r^ata are expressly mentioned. 
 The enemies of Christians are the instruments 
 by which he brings suffering upon them, in 
 order to injure them and lead them to apostasy 
 and unbelief. He has a hand also in the 
 schisms, controversies, and heresies which arise 
 among Christians themselves, 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; xi. 
 14, 15, Siaxovot, 'Zatavd. Unbelief in particular 
 individuals is also ascribed to him, Luke, xxii. 
 31, as are all gross vices and crimes. 
 
 (rf) Death, and every other evil which may 
 be regarded as the punishment of sin, is also 
 ascribed to the devil, and is said to have come 
 into the world through him ; Book of Wisdom, 
 ii. 4; John, viii. 44; Heb.ii. 14. In the last pas- 
 sage he is described as the one who has power over 
 death, to xpdto$e%uv tov ^avdtov, which is taken 
 from the image of the angel of death, Asmodi, 
 or Samael. And as sickness may also be re- 
 garded as the punishment of sin, they too are 
 often represented as the works of the devil. 
 We are prevented, however, from considering 
 Satan as the sole and independent cause of the 
 death of men, by those texts in which the power 
 over life and death, and the whole disposal of 
 the destinies of man, is ascribed to God alone. 
 The representation, therefore, that Satan is the 
 author of death and misery, is to be understood 
 figuratively ; for he is such to individuals only 
 as he was the first cause of that apostasy of man 
 which brought death and misery upon our race. 
 Still we are taught in the Bible, that for the 
 same wise reasons which lead him to permit 
 other evils, for the attainment of certain good 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ends, not otherwise attainable, God allows more 
 power to evil spirits, in particular cases and at 
 certain times, than they commonly possess. 
 
 (e) But evil spirits, according to the doctrine 
 of the Bible, cannot, with all their efforts, do 
 us harm, unless we resemble them in our dis- 
 position, and are ourselves devoted to sin; 1 
 John, v. 18; iii. 8; John, viii. 44. Christ has 
 robbed evil spirits of their power, has conquered 
 them i. e., has rendered them harmless to those 
 who believe in him ; and this he has done, partly 
 by delivering us from the punishment of sin, 
 and partly by freeing us from its power and 
 dominion, the one, by his sufferings and death, 
 the other, by his instructions and example. All 
 those, therefore, who, in compliance with his 
 precepts, and in conformity with his example, 
 keep themselves from sin, or are pardoned for 
 sins already committed, are secured against the 
 temptations and wiles of evil spirits, 1 John, v. 
 18. Prayer, faith in Christ, the wholesome use 
 of his precepts, watchfulness, in short, the means 
 prescribed in the Bible for security against vice 
 and sin, these, and only these, are the means 
 appointed for security against evil spirits ; Eph. 
 vi. 11 18; 1 Peter, v. 8, seq. ; James, i. 14; 
 iv. 7. Morns, p. 93, n. 6. The excuse, there- 
 fore, that one has been tempted of the devil, and 
 is on that account exculpated, is always un- 
 founded, even in those cases, if such occur, in 
 which it is capable of proof that the inducement 
 to sin was really offered by the devil ; for he 
 could not, according to the doctrine of the Bible, 
 have found this opportunity unless the nature 
 of our hearts had been depraved, 1 Cor. vii. 5. 
 In those cases only in which men indulge the 
 sinful desires of their own hearts (James, i. 14) 
 are they liable to temptations either from the 
 devil or any other quarter; they themselves, 
 in such cases, are always in fault. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 POWER OF SATAN OVER THE HUMAN BODY 
 AND THE MATERIAL WORLD. 
 
 SECTION LXV. 
 
 OF THE BODILY POSSESSIONS RECORDED IN THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 I. Meaning of the term "Possession' 1 
 
 ORIGINALLY it was doubtless supposed to de- 
 note a real indwelling in the human body. An 
 agent, in order to exert an influence on the hu- 
 man body, must, it was thought, be near to it, 
 and substantially dwell in it, as the soul dwells 
 in the body. Such was at first the general, in- 
 determinate notion. But it was afterwards re- 
 
 fined upon, and the belief in a literal, substantial 
 indwelling of the devil was abandoned, and the 
 term possession was understood to indicate 
 merely the powerful influence which Satan 
 sometimes exerted in controlling and abusing 
 the bodies of men said to be possessed. In the 
 New Testament we do indeed sometimes meet 
 with a phrase like the following, Saram* 
 fiavj^^fv fij "tiva ('lovdav), John, xiii. 27; 
 but by this phrase nothing more than an obsessio 
 spiritualis^ an influence upon the mind, is intend- 
 ed; and the common expressions are, l%tiv Scu- 
 UOMOV, &a,ifiovie<s$cu, x.-r-.x. The term posses- 
 sion is not used in the New Testament, although 
 Josephus speaks of Ttov^pa tivtvpa-ta, xai 8cu,p6- 
 via tyxo&f6/ji,fva, (insidentia), Ant. vi. 11 ; and 
 of rtvfvpa-ca, h8v6psva, (induentes se, sive, in- 
 gredientes,) Bell. Jud. vii. 6. The words to 
 possess, and possession, are exact translations of 
 the Latin words possidere, obsidere, possessio, ob- 
 sessio, which were first used in relation to this 
 subject by the Latin fathers and schoolmen. 
 Obsidere is synonymous with occupare, implere, 
 and is so employed by Cicero, where he says, 
 corporibus omnis obsidetur locus. It was then 
 spoken figuratively of the orator, who possesses 
 himself of his hearers, and gains them over to 
 his own views, obsidet at tenet auditorem, Ci- 
 cero, De Orat. 62. Possidere is also sometimes 
 used for tenere, inpotesfafe sua habere. So Pliny, 
 Hist. Nat. xxx. 1, says, with regard to magic, 
 possideri ed hominum sensus vinculis, the senses 
 of men were controlled by magic as by chains, 
 were held absolutely under its power; and in 
 the same place, Gallias possedit magia, because 
 it was very prevalent and deeply rooted in Gaul. 
 Hence when one was afflicted with an obstinate 
 and fixed disease, he was said possessum esse ; 
 so Aurelian, a physician in Africa, near the 
 close of the second century, says of one who 
 was afflicted with epilepsy, passione possessum 
 esse. This phraseology was now applied par- 
 ticularly to those diseases which were ascribed 
 to the immediate agency of demons. The Bi- 
 blical terms which have the nearest resemblance 
 to this phraseology are those which are found 
 in Luke, xiii. 16, where Satan is said to have 
 bound (I'&fffE) a sick woman; and in Acts, x. 
 38, where some are described as xata8vr>a<jtfv6- 
 ptvoi vito tov 8ta/3d?u>v. 
 
 II. History of this Doctrine. 
 
 1. Among the Greeks. The belief of this doc- 
 trine is found among many heathen nations both 
 of ancient and modern times. The general ori- 
 gin of this idea is to be sought in the fact that 
 uncultivated men are in the habit of ascribing 
 everything, the immediate cause of which they 
 do not perceive, (especially if the thing is in 
 any degree extraordinary,) to the direct influ- 
 ence of the Deity, or of some other spiritual 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 227 
 
 agent more powerful than man. Whatever of 
 this kind is good or desirable they regard as an 
 effect proceeding immediately from good spirits ; 
 and the opposite, from evil spirits. Cf. s. 58, 
 II. Thus it came to pass that evil spirits were 
 considered often as the authors of all kinds of 
 sickness, and especially of those diseases which 
 were attended with unusual and inexplicable 
 phenomena. Forthecureof such diseases, which 
 were supposed to be miraculously inflicted by a 
 malignant deity, or by demons, and therefore 
 to be beyond the reach of human art, resort was 
 had to miraculous remedies. The diseases which 
 have commonly been regarded by different na- 
 tions as of this miraculous nature are, melan- 
 choly, madness , also such nervous diseases as are 
 attended with the more frightful appearances 
 cramp, epilepsy, lunacy, &c. These general 
 opinions prevailed among the Greeks, as ap- 
 pears from the writings of some of their oldest 
 physicians e. g., Hippocrates, who lived 400 
 years before Christ, and wrote jttpl tr^ dprj, 
 fociov, also Galen, and Aretaeus of Cappadocia, 
 who is quoted by Wetstein, Nov. Test. torn. i. 
 p. 282, seq. Hence it was common among the 
 Greeks to use the phrases baipovav, xaxobaifio- 
 vq.v, and 8cup6viov fw, as synonymous with 
 jucu,Wc(u. This is seen in the writings of Xe- 
 nophon, Aristophanes, and others; and also in 
 the New Testament, as John, vii. 20; x. 20, 
 21. In the earliest ages, the Greeks ascribed 
 such diseases as those above mentioned to some 
 malignant deity. Thus it is said even in Homer, 
 Odyssey, v. 396 
 
 e\pat 
 
 But when, at a later period, the doctrine of in- 
 termediate spirits was received among the 
 Greeks, and these spirits were called batpovts, 
 (demigods, heroes, and the souls of the depart- 
 ed ;) they were now censidered as the authors 
 of these evils ; and this not by the people only, 
 but by many of the philosophers, who adopted 
 these ideas into their systems, and formed theo- 
 ries respecting them, as was the case with the 
 New Pythagoreans and the New Platonists, es- 
 pecially in Egypt, both before and after the birth 
 of Christ. But Hippocrates, Galen, and som< 
 other Greek physicians, who supposed they 
 could explain these diseases in part from natu- 
 ral causes, rejected this prevailing opinion as 
 superstitious ; and in this many of the philoso- 
 phers agreed with them. Origen remarks, in 
 his Commentary on Matt, xvii., that the physi- 
 cians in his day did not believe in possessions. 
 They, however, retained the expressions which 
 were in common use among the people on this 
 subject; such as Saijuoj/i^fc&at, baifiuv ftosp^ftat, 
 t, txjSctt.toT'at, ^ftat voaoi. 
 
 2. Among the Jews. 
 
 (a) There is no mention made of possessions 
 
 in any part of the Old Testament, either in the 
 older books, or in those composed after the Ba- 
 bylonian exile. It is indeed often said that par- 
 ticular diseases, or deaths, were inflicted by 
 God, or by his angels, even by evil angels 
 (messengers of evil) sent by him. Vide s. 58. 
 But this does not at all correspond with the idea 
 of demoniacal possessions entertained at a later 
 period by the Jews. There is one passage, 
 however, 1 Sam. xvi. 14 23, where an evil 
 spirit is said to come upon Saul, which has 
 sometimes been appealed to on this subject. 
 But the evil spirit here mentioned was not one 
 whose moral character was evil ; and in this re- 
 spect, therefore, the case of Saul is distinguish- 
 ed from the cases of bodily possession in the 
 New Testament. The evil spirit here mention- 
 ed is an evil spirit from Jehovah, in opposition 
 to the good spirit which came from Jehovah 
 upon David, ver. 13, and previously upon Saul 
 himself, 1 Sam. x. 10. This good spirit in- 
 spired him with a high and kingly disposition, 
 and with resolution for great and good deeds; 
 but the other spirit was to him the messenger 
 of evil, and harassed him with anxiety and me- 
 lancholy, which ended in total madness. Nor 
 is there any mention of bodily possessions in 
 the Grecian apocryphal books which were writ- 
 ten before the coming of Christ; in short, no 
 trace of this opinion can be found among the 
 Jews before the Christian era. 
 
 (6) But the age of Christ and his apostles is 
 altogether remarkable in this respect. There 
 were then in Judaea and Galilee many sick per- 
 sons, whose diseases were considered by the 
 great body of the Jews (the Sadducees, perhaps, 
 only excepted) as the effects of the agency of 
 evil spirits. It is worthy of notice that this is 
 not found to be the case at all in the age pre- 
 ceding that of Christ, nor, at least in the same 
 degree, in those which followed it. We see 
 from the New Testament that Jesus, and after 
 him the apostles, healed many of these diseases ; 
 nor do we anywhere find that Jesus assigned 
 other causes for these diseases than those to 
 which they were supposed to be owing by the 
 contemporary Jews ; nor that on this subject 
 more than on others the apostles and evangelists 
 undertook to go farther than their Master. We 
 see also, from the New Testament, that the 
 Pharisees interested themselves in this subject, 
 and at least attempted the cure of some of these 
 diseases. Cf. Matt. xii. 27. The truth of 
 these facts viz., that there were at that time 
 sick persons of this description in Palestine and 
 its vicinity that they were there almost univer- 
 sally regarded as possessed of evil spirits, and 
 that many, especially from among the Pharisees, 
 appeared as exorcists, is confirmed by the testi- 
 mony of Josephus, Ant. viii. 2. A few only of 
 the Jews, who pretended to be more liberal and 
 
228 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 enlightened than the rest, either wholly rejected 
 the belief of possessions, and indeed of the ex- 
 istence of evil spirits, (as was done by the Sad- 
 ducees in Palestine,) or adopted the opinion of 
 the later Greeks, according to which demons 
 were regarded, not as evil angels, but as a sort 
 of intermediate spirits the souls of the de- 
 ceased, &c., as was done by some of the more 
 learned Jews, who wished to conform to the 
 philosophy of the age. Of this class was Jose- 
 phus, who says, Bel. Jud. vii. 6, ta 
 Stufiovia jtoi/jypwi/ iatt, dv^-ptortw 
 
 (c) The Jews of later times, after the second 
 century, believed very generally, not only that 
 there had been possessions formerly, but that 
 instances of the same kind sometimes occurred 
 even in their own day. The latter opinion was, 
 however, denied by Maimonides and some other 
 Rabbins ; while others, with the Sadducees, re- 
 jected the whole doctrine of evil spirits, and 
 declared themselves decidedly for adsemonism. 
 Vide Wetstein, ubi supra. 
 
 3. Jlmong Christians since the second century. 
 
 (a) The early Christian teachers since the 
 second century are united in the opinion that 
 the so called demoniacs of the New Testament 
 were truly possessed by the devil, because 
 Christ expressly declared them to be so. This 
 was the opinion of Origen himself. They 
 moreover believed that there might be, and ac- 
 tually were, demoniacs in their own day ; al- 
 though we have not sufficient evidence to con- 
 vince us that those whom they regarded as pos- 
 sessed were so in truth. But as this was 
 believed by the Christians of that day, exorcists 
 soon appeared among them, who adjured the 
 demons in the name of Jesus to depart, and who 
 were afterwards in many places established as 
 regular officers of the church, and placed in the 
 same rank with the clergy. Among these Chris- 
 tian teachers of the second and third centuries 
 there were many New Platonists, who contri- 
 buted much to the diffusion of the belief that 
 possessions continued beyond the first ages of 
 the church, and who, in full accordance with 
 the philosophic theory which they had adopt- 
 ed, understood by the demons supposed to 
 occupy the body, not evil spirits, but fyvxai 
 ario^avovtuv the opinion of Josephus, as 
 stated above, No. i. Such is the doctrine 
 expressed by Justin the Martyr, Apoll. ii. 
 This latter opinion, however, was not univer- 
 sal, and gradually disappeared, as the influ- 
 ence of the New Platonic philosophy ceased ; 
 though a belief in the continuance of real pos- 
 sessions still prevailed both in the Eastern and 
 Western church, and in the latter was retained 
 even by the schoolmen. At no time, however, 
 was the belief that evil spirits have power to 
 possess the bodies of men, even since the age 
 
 of Christ, more prevalent in the Western church 
 than from the end of the fifteenth to the middle 
 of the seventeenth century. Hence we find tliftt 
 this belief was received even by Luther and 
 Melancthon, and other theologians of both the 
 protestant churches, and was transmitted by 
 their disciples to those who came after them. 
 
 (6) But about the middle of the seventeenth 
 century some doubts arose with regard to demo- 
 niacal possessions, and in general with respect 
 to the whole notion that the power of evil spi- 
 rits, especially over the material world, still 
 continued. These doubts were engendered at 
 first by the prevalence of the principles of the 
 Cartesian philosophy. The first public attack 
 was made upon this doctrine in England, about 
 the year 1G76, and was shortly followed up in 
 France. But a new epoch in the history of this 
 doctrine was made by Balthasar Becker, a Car- 
 tesian philosopher, and a preacher at Amster- 
 dam, who in 1690 published at Leuwarden a 
 quarto volume, entitled, The Enchanted World, 
 afterwards translated into German by Sch wager, 
 and published at Leipsic, 1781-82, with a pre- 
 face and notes by Semler. This work attracted 
 great notice, and the author of it was severely 
 persecuted. He did not deny the existence of 
 evil spirits, but only their influence upon men, 
 and, of course, all demoniacal possessions, even 
 those mentioned in the New Testament. His 
 opinions met with great approbation at the be- 
 ginning of the eighteenth century in England 
 and the Netherlands, and were adopted and ad- 
 vocated by Wetstein, Le Clerc, and many other 
 Arminian theologians; but in Germany and 
 Holland these opinions were uniformly reject- 
 ed by the protestant theologians during the 
 first half of the eighteenth century; nor did 
 even Thomasius agree with Becker on this sub- 
 ject. Semler was the first among the pro- 
 testant theologians of Germany who adopted, 
 with some modifications, the opinions of Becker, 
 and supposed that the demoniacs of the New 
 Testament were people afflicted with common 
 and natural diseases. He first published an es- 
 say, De daemoniacis quorum in Nov. Test, fit 
 mentio; Halle, 1760; and afterwards his larger 
 work, Untersuchung der damonischen Leute; 
 Halle, 1762 ; which were followed by still other 
 writings on the same subject. This opinion at 
 first excited great attention, and had to encoun- 
 ter strong opposition, but it gradually gained 
 ground, until it has now become almost the 
 prevailing opinion among the learned theologians 
 of the protestant church. Some, however, even 
 of modern times, have declared their opinion that 
 the question is not altogether settled, and that 
 there remains something to be said upon the 
 other side. In the English church the opinion 
 of Semler has found many advocates, among 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 229 
 
 whom Hugo Farmer, the author of an Essay on 
 Demoniacs, is distinguished. In the Romish 
 church, the old doctrine that the so called de- 
 moniacs of the New Testament were really pos- 
 sessed of devils, and that these possessions were 
 not confined to that particular age, remained the 
 common and professed belief during the greatest 
 part of the eighteenth century. But during the 
 last few years, many of the theologians, even 
 of this church, have come over to the opinions 
 prevailing among protestants. The interest on 
 this subject was revived in the protestant and 
 catholic churches in Germany by the practices 
 of the celebrated conjurers, Schropferand Gess- 
 ner, who appeared in the latter half of the 
 eighteenth century. As the difference of opi- 
 nion was very great, (some protestant theolo- 
 gians e. g., Crusius and Lavater, maintaining 
 not only that there might possibly be posses- 
 sions and conjurations at the present day, but 
 that such were sometimes actually known,) 
 many works were written on both sides of the 
 question. The result of this discussion in the 
 minds of the more unprejudiced and moderate 
 was, that although God, for particular reasons, 
 and for the sake of certain ends, might formerly 
 have permitted demoniacal possessions, there is 
 no proof that there are any such at the present 
 day; and there are no infallible signs by which 
 these alleged possessions can be certainly distin- 
 guished at the present day from diseases merely 
 natural. 
 
 III. Remarks on the Possessions recorded in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 1. The common opinion at the present time 
 is, that all these disorders are to be explained by 
 merely natural causes ; and that when Jesus and 
 the apostles attributed them to the influence of 
 evil spirits, they spoke in accommodation to the 
 prevailing error of their contemporaries. The 
 ancients, it is said, from their want of patholo- 
 gical science, referred many diseases which were 
 purely natural to demoniacal influence ; and this 
 was the case with regard to the diseases men- 
 tioned in the New Testament. Christ and his 
 apostles did not appear in the character of theo- 
 retic physicians, and were not required by their 
 calling to give instruction concerning the true 
 causes of human diseases. Such is the reason- 
 ing often employed at the present day ; and in 
 this way do some attempt to escape from diffi- 
 culties, and to free Christ from the charge of 
 entertaining the superstitious opinions of his 
 countrymen ; but, as we shall see hereafter, they 
 thus involve themselves in greater difficulties 
 than they attempt to escape. The question re- 
 specting the reality of the possessions recorded 
 in the New Testament is at least open to dis- 
 cussion, and cannot be decided in that authori- 
 
 tative and peremptory tone which has of late 
 sometimes been assumed. That demoniaca* 
 possessions are impossible cannot be proved ; not 
 can it be shewn from the fact of there being none 
 at the present time that there never were any. A 
 disease e. g., epilepsy which may be owing 
 at one time to a natural cause, may at another 
 be produced by the agency of an evil spirit; nor 
 can the opposite of this be proved. It is also 
 possible that Divine Providence may have suf- 
 fered in a former period, for the attainment of 
 particular ends, what it no longer permits now 
 that those ends are obtained. Vide No. 3. 
 
 2. There are, indeed, difficulties attending the 
 doctrine of demoniacal possessions, and many 
 things about it are dark and inexplicable ; but, 
 great as these difficulties may be, those which 
 follow from rejecting this doctrine are still 
 greater. They who deny the reality of demoni- 
 acal possessions will find it difficult either to 
 maintain the authority of Christ as a teacher, 
 especially as a divine teacher, and the highest 
 ambassador from God to man, (which he always 
 affirmed himself to be,) or even to vindicate his 
 moral character. This subject is commonly 
 treated at the present day in altogether too par- 
 tial a manner; and I regard it as the duty of the 
 Christian theologian, arising especially from the 
 wants of the age in which we live, boldly to re- 
 sist all such partial views in matters of religion, 
 not concerned as to the judgment which may be 
 formed of him by the multitude, if he can but 
 succeed in gaining the minds of the more candid 
 and enlightened, which he may depend will, 
 sooner or later, be found on the side of truth. 
 In reference to this subject, two things are per- 
 fectly undeniable viz., (a) that Jesus himself 
 spoke of these diseases as effects produced by 
 evil spirits, and never gave the remotest occasion 
 to suppose that he believed they were anything 
 else, not even in his more confidential discourses 
 with his disciples, nor in those cases in which 
 he would have found it necessary to contradict 
 the prevailing opinion, if it had been different 
 from his own, Matthew, viii. 28 32 ; xvii. 19 
 21 ; Luke, x. 1721 ; Matt. xii. 28, 29. ' 
 
 This being the case with Christ, it will not 
 be thought strange, (6) that his apostles and 
 other disciples should always have been of the 
 same mind ; and that the evangelists did regard 
 these sick persons as true demoniacs is obvious 
 at first sight. Cf. Matt. viii. 28, seq. If Christ 
 and the apostles had regarded this opinion as 
 erroneous they would not have hesitated to de- 
 clare it so, even if their doing this had been at- 
 tended with danger from the Jews; for where 
 truth was concerned, they were not accustomed 
 to be governed by regard to consequences. They 
 could not, however, have had any reason to ap- 
 prehend serious disadvantages from denying the 
 U 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 reality of demoniacal possessions ; for this was 
 done by the entire sect of the Sadducees, among 
 whom most of the rulers and great men in Pa- 
 lestine were found, and who, although they 
 went so far as to deny even the existence of good 
 and evil spirits, were left to the undisturbed en- 
 joyment of their belief. That accommodating 
 policy which some have ascribed to Christ and 
 the apostles can hardly be reconciled with the 
 principles of that pure morality which they 
 themselves taught, and according to which, in 
 other cases similar to those now under consider- 
 ation, they themselves unhesitatingly and inva- 
 riably acted. 
 
 The whole dispute may be summed up in the 
 following points viz., (a) Those who consider 
 Christ as merely a human teacher, and yet one 
 who acted on the highest moral principles, must 
 allow that he at least sincerely believed what he 
 so often asserted ; and in no other way can his 
 moral character be vindicated. Such persons 
 might still doubt, notwithstanding the declara- 
 tion of Christ, whether this doctrine is true, 
 since they might suppose that he, like other 
 human teachers, might err from the imperfection 
 of his knowledge, and thus be the means of 
 leading others astray, or of confirming them in 
 their errors, (ft) But those who regard Christ 
 as an infallible divine teacher, in the full and 
 proper sense of the word, and as he is declared 
 to be in the New Testament, must assent to his 
 decision on this, as on every other subject, and 
 they must have the courage to profess this, 
 however many difficulties they may find in the 
 way, and although philosophers and illuminati 
 should array themselves in opposition, and 
 scoffers should treat them with ridicule and 
 contempt, (c) In order to avoid the pressure 
 under which they feel themselves placed by the 
 above-mentioned alternative, many will say, 
 that while they would not deny that Jesus was 
 an upright man, and a teacher worthy of esteem, 
 they cannot yet receive him as a divine teacher, 
 in such a sense as to require them to believe a 
 doctrine like this on his mere authority. But if 
 they will be consistent, they will bring them- 
 selves in this way into great straits. For Jesus 
 declared himself, on every occasion, and in the 
 most decisive manner, to be an infallible divine 
 teacher, whose words were true, and must be 
 believed on his mere authority. Now if Christ 
 was not such a teacher as he declared himself 
 to be, the following dilemma arises; either 
 Christ did not think himself such, although he 
 expressly affirmed it, and then he forfeited his 
 character for integrity; or he only imagined 
 himself to be such, and then, though a good 
 man, he must have been a weak and deluded 
 enthusiast, and thus he forfeited the character 
 which the New Testament gave him, and which 
 
 he claimed for himself, of a sure and venerable 
 teacher, upon whose guidance and instruction 
 men might safely rely. Everything, therefore, 
 depends upon the belief of the divine mission and 
 authority of Christ ; and from this point, there- 
 fore, which many would be glad to evade, the 
 discussion must proceed. 
 
 3. The following are the views and principles 
 respecting demoniacal possessions, and the de- 
 sign with which they were permitted, which are 
 found, without intermixture of philosophy, an- 
 cient or modern, in the New Testament, and 
 which therefore should be laid before his hearers 
 by the religious teacher, as far as they are capa- 
 ble of being understood, (a) Satan and other 
 evil spirits feel a hatred to men, which is mani- 
 fested in various ways. Vide loc. cit. s. 64, II. 
 (6) It was important that this hostility should 
 be rendered very clear and obvious to men, and 
 especially at the time of Christ, when a new era 
 commenced, which needed to be strongly dis- 
 tinguished, at its very introduction, from every 
 other. For this reason, power was granted to 
 evil spirits to possess the bodies of men, or to 
 affect them with dreadful diseases a power 
 which they had not possessed before, and of 
 which they have since been deprived. Vide 
 Matt. xii. 28; Luke, xiii. 16, coll. v. 11, and x. 
 1720; John, xvi. 11 ; Acts, x. 38, seq. (c) 
 But, on the other hand, power was granted to 
 Jesus and his apostles to shew, in a manner 
 equally clear and striking, by the cure of the 
 diseases which demons inflicted, that the object 
 of the coming of Christ was to destroy the power 
 of evil spirits, to render their hostility to our race 
 harmless, and to free all those who wished to 
 be freed from the evils ascribed to demoniacal 
 agency. Cf. loc. supra cit. and John, xvi. 11 ; 
 1 John, iii. 8, and those cited s. 64. The per- 
 mission of these possessions, therefore, secured 
 an important moral end, which could not be as 
 well secured in any other way, at that particu- 
 lar age of the world, (rf) In no other way could 
 the great object lor which Christ came into the 
 world, and to which he so often alludes, be 
 so strongly represented, or so deeply impressed, 
 as by these facts falling under the cognizance 
 of the senses. The mere teaching of this reli- 
 gion, unaccompanied by any such facts, would 
 have produced on hearers like his a feeble im- 
 pression, compared with that made by those 
 wonderful works which proved both the teacher 
 and his doctrine to be divine. Facts produce 
 always a greater effect upon men than abstract 
 instruction; and hence God so frequently em- 
 ploys them, as we see both from the Bible and 
 from experience, in the instruction which he 
 gives to men, at least makes use of them to ren- 
 der the instruction he has otherwise imparted 
 more impressive and certain. 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 
 SECTION LXVI. 
 
 OF MAGIC AXD SPECTRES. 
 
 I. Of Magic. 
 
 1. WE shall here present some historical ob- 
 servations on the subject of magic, and then 
 some conclusions drawn from them ; for nothing 
 more is necessary for the refutation of magic 
 than that it be exposed to the light of history. 
 The existence of spiritual agents, either friendly 
 or hostile to our race, is here presupposed ; and 
 magic is founded on the belief of their influ- 
 ence, and secret and invisible power. Wherever 
 this secret, invisible power of superior spirits 
 is granted to men, there is a foundation for 
 magic, whatever may be the nature of the spirits 
 by whom it is granted, whether they are gods, 
 or angels, or demons, or of some other denomi- 
 nation. The many erroneous conceptions of 
 ignorant and uncultivated men with respect to 
 the influence of these spirits, and the custom 
 of ascribing to their agency everything which 
 cannot be easily explained on natural princi- 
 ples, these, with other things, furnish a suf- 
 ficient ground for the propensity to magic which 
 is seen among so many persons, and in so many 
 nations. This superstition has indeed appeared 
 in different forms among different people; but 
 as they all proceed from the same general ideas, 
 they bear a strong resemblance to each other in 
 all their diversities, and agree in the means 
 which they prescribe to propitiate or appease 
 these superior spirits, or to avert the threatened 
 evil. Magic, in its largest sense, is the art of 
 performing something which surpasses the na- 
 tural powers of men, by the aid of superior spi- 
 rits. And the less general cultivation one has, 
 the less knowledge he possesses of the powers 
 of nature and their effects, the more inclined 
 will he be to magic, and to all kinds of super- 
 stition which relate to the natural world. The 
 question has sometimes been asked, In what na- 
 tion was magic first practised ? and, Who was 
 its first inventor or teacher? And in answer to 
 these questions, the Chaldeans and Persians 
 have been mentioned. Sine dubio, says Pliny 
 (xxx. 1), orta in Perside a Zoroastre, ut inter 
 auctores constat. But this inquiry is useless, 
 since magic is practised by all savage nations, 
 and they would be led to it naturally by the su- 
 perstitious ideas above mentioned, and need not 
 be supposed therefore to have derived it from 
 other sources. Vide Tiedemann, De Magia; 
 Marburg, 1787. 
 
 When rude and uncultivated man wishes in 
 any way to better his condition, or to accomplish 
 what appears to him difficult or impossible, he 
 resorts to magic, or the aid of spirits. (0) Those 
 who wished to be rich, or prosperous, to live 
 comfortably, to regain their own health, or to 
 
 procure health for others, were accustomed to 
 resort to supernatural assistance, to magic medi- 
 cines, cures effected by incantation, alchymy, 
 philtres, &c. The more mysterious, dark, and 
 enigmatical the means prescribed by this art, the 
 more welcome were they, and the more effica- 
 cious were they believed to be. Even the ef- 
 fects produced by the natural virtues of herbs, 
 medicines, &c., were ascribed by some to the 
 influence of spirits; hence Pliny says (xxx. 1), 
 Nfitam primum (magiam) e medicina nemo du- 
 bitat, ac specie salutart irrepsisse velut altiorem 
 sanctioremque medicinam. (6) Those who 
 wished secretly to injure others, or to be re- 
 venged upon them, were wont to employ vari- 
 ous herbs, roots, or formulas of speech, for the 
 purpose of bewitching or enchanting the objects 
 of their dislike; and, on the other hand, resorted 
 to amulets, charms, &c., when they wished to 
 repel the injury to themselves from like prac- 
 tices in others. Real injury has been done in 
 magical practices by the use of actual poisons, 
 though the operation even of these is ascribed 
 by many to spirits. Hence, veneficium (<j>ofyia- 
 jesta) signifies both the mingling of poison and 
 sorcery. So Pliny (xxx. 2), Habet (magia) 
 quasdam vcritatis umbras ; sed in his veneficise 
 artes pullent, non magicse. (d) Those who 
 wished to acquire the knowledge of things un- 
 known to them, (e. g., who their enemies were, 
 who stood in the way of their success, who had 
 stolen their property, &c.,) or who wished to 
 learn their future destiny, supposed that by con- 
 sulting spirits they could best obtain the desired 
 information. Pliny, in the passage above cited, 
 says, "Nullo (homine) non avido futura de se 
 sciendi, atque de ccelo verissime peti credente." 
 Hence divination, dreams, and apparitions, have 
 always been among the instruments of which 
 the magician has availed himself. 
 
 Among men entertaining the superstitious- 
 opinions here described, the supposed confidant 
 of superior spirits would naturally command re- 
 spect and influence. These magicians (for so- 
 those were called who were supposed to possess 
 familiar spirits) were sometimes impostors, 
 sometimes themselves deluded, sometimes both 
 at once. The various practices to which they 
 resorted in ancient and modern times may be 
 easily explained from what has already been 
 said. The most common are the following 
 viz., fascination by evil glances, by words, pray- 
 ers, incantations, (carmina, formulas which 
 were sung,) Eccl. x. 11 ; Ps. Iviii. 5, 6; Horn. 
 Odys. de Circe; Virgil, Eel. viii. 69, seq. ; 
 Mi\. iv. 487, seq. Necromancy, the art of ob- 
 taining the secrets of the future by conjuring 
 up the dead ; Homer, Odys. xi., a very com- 
 mon practice in the East, and among the He- 
 brews, who were addicted to idolatry. A male 
 practitioner of this art among the Hebrews was 
 
232 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 called 31N, and a female, (for it was practised by 
 females,) aiN-nSjja, a woman who has a spirit of 
 necromancy; in the plural, ni'aw, sorceresses. Lev. 
 xx. 27; Is. xxix. 4. Of this class was the 
 witch of Endor, whom Saul consulted, 1 Sa- 
 muel, xxviii. Cf. Is. viii. 19. Enchantment by 
 magic herbs, ointments, medicines, and different 
 means of exciting the feelings and passions. 
 
 But the belief in the connexion between 
 wicked men and evil spirits or malignant dei- 
 ties, and the injury to others which wizards of 
 this description could do with the assistance 
 afforded them, has been more frightful in its 
 consequences than any other. The magical 
 practices of such men were called by the Ara- 
 bians the black art, in distinction from what was 
 done by those who had connexion with good 
 spirits, which was called by them white magic, 
 (magia alba.) This form of magic existed also 
 among the Hebrews, who were addicted to 
 idolatry ; for the Canaanites, and other heathen 
 nations with whom they were connected, be- 
 lieved in black deities, atri dii i. e., harmful 
 gods, the authors of mischief, not morally wicked, 
 like the devils of the Jews after the captivity. 
 
 ' ' 
 
 So we find rj^a, (from the Arab. "^\ obscu- 
 
 ravit, eclipsi affecit Deus solem, and synonymous 
 
 . 
 
 with U_AMO, caliginavit oculos,) magic, black 
 
 art; and 1C J 3D, a magician, practitioner of the. 
 black art. Nah. iii. 4; Deut. xviii. 10. Great 
 mischief has been done by the professors of the 
 black art, who, under pretence of magical prac- 
 tices, have not unfrequently committed murder, 
 or administered poison. Hence in many of the 
 ancient languages, the practice of magic and the 
 mingling of poison were denoted by the same 
 word ; in Greek, by $op/xaxEta, in Latin, by ve- 
 neficium, venefaa,- hence, too, the operations of 
 poison and of magic are confounded by savage 
 people e. g., by the African negroes. Vide 
 Oldendorp's History of the Mission to the Ca- 
 ribbean Islands, where the terrible consequences 
 of the belief in magic among barbarous men are 
 described. The practice of black magic was 
 therefore forbidden by many of the ancient legis- 
 lators, and especially by Moses, Ex. xxii., Lev. 
 xx., Deut. xviii. The latter forbade the practice 
 of it by the Jews, partly from its intimate con- 
 nexion with idolatry, and partly from the injury 
 done by magicians, as real murderers and poi- 
 soners. Magic, however, remained in vogue 
 among the Jews. Before the exile, they sup- 
 posed the supernatural power of magicians was 
 derived from the heathen idols; but after the 
 exile, when they wholly renounced idolatry, 
 they supposed that black magic was performed 
 by the aid of evil angels. No traces of this opi- 
 nion, however, are to be met with shortly after 
 the exile; but the Jews at the time of Christ 
 
 believed both in the connexion of men with good 
 spirits and in their fellowship and alliance with 
 devils; and of this the Pharisees accused even 
 Jesus, Matt. xii. 24. 
 
 2. The source of modern scientific magic 
 which has prevailed so extensively even among 
 the civilized nations of Asia and Europe, must 
 be sought in the principles of the New Platonic 
 philosophy, which first flourished in Eygpt. 
 The enthusiastic adherents of this philosophy 
 during the second and third centuries brought 
 the ancient religion of the Greeks and the super- 
 stitious opinions which prevailed among them 
 into a scientific -form, and gave them a learned 
 aspect. Vide Meiner, Betrachtungen iiber die 
 neuplatonische Philosophic ; Leipzig, 1782, Svo. 
 Eberhard, Ueber den Ursprung der wissen- 
 schaftlichen Magie, in Num. 7 of his " Neuen 
 vermischten Schriften;" Halle, 1788. They 
 gave out their own notions as purely Platonic, 
 and in order to secure them a more favourable 
 reception, invested them with the Platonic ideas 
 respecting demons, purification of souls, union 
 with the Deity, &c. They divided magic into 
 two parts : (a) fovpyta, Seovpyixq tijcv^ ma- 
 gia alba i. e., the art of gaining over good dei- 
 ties or good demons, and of procuring their as- 
 sistance and cooperation by means of appointed 
 ceremonies, fasts, sacrifices, &c. This art was 
 also called ^oyioyta, (^eaycopta 1 ?) the art of en- 
 listing the gods on one's side; ^torttia, x. t. x. 
 (6) Toj^tfta (from yo^j, incantator,praestigiator,) 
 praestigix, magia atra, witchcraft, the art of se- 
 curing the assistance of evil spirits. This divi- 
 sion was made by Jamblicus, Proclus, Porphyry, 
 and other New Platonists. 
 
 When now the principles of the New Platonic 
 philosophy became prevalent among Christian 
 people, theurgy and witchcraft were adopted 
 among other doctrines, though in a form some- 
 what modified, and intermingled with Jewish 
 and Christian ideas. Vide Lactantius, Institt. 
 Div. ii. 14, 16. The spread of these opinions 
 was also promoted by the enthusiastical writ- 
 ings which were published in the fifth century 
 under the assumed name of Dionysius Areopa- 
 gita. It was the almost universal opinion of the 
 ecclesiastical fathers that oracles, auguries, and 
 the whole system of heathen divination, were 
 to be ascribed to the devil, and were a product 
 of this their so called yoprsta. Vide Lactan- 
 tius, 1. 1. Van Dale, De Oraculis vett. ethni- 
 corum; Amsterdamiae, 1700. Among the Jews, 
 some adopted the opinions above described, 
 others adhered to their cabalistic dreams, and 
 pretended to work wonders with words and 
 phrases taken from the Bible, with the name 
 of God or angels, &c. ; all which ran into the 
 theurgy just noticed. Among the Saracens, 
 also, theurgy was very much practised ; and es- 
 pecially in the twelfth century, they employed 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 233 
 
 themselves very zealously in searching for the 
 philosopher 1 s stone by the practices of white ma- 
 gic; and transmitted their results to the Chris- 
 tians both of Asia and Europe. It may be said 
 in general of Jewish and Christian teachers, 
 that while they condemned heathen theurgy, 
 they did not do this on account of its being a 
 superstitious practice, but because of the homage 
 rendered by it to strange gods ; for the gods and 
 demons of the heathen were regarded by Jews 
 and Christians as devils or fallen angels. But 
 while they condemned theurgy as involving 
 this homage, they retained the art itself, unal- 
 tered except in its name. During the middle 
 ages, magic was indeed in many places ex- 
 changed for astrology, in consequence of the in- 
 troduction of the physics of Aristotle; still 
 magic was not wholly exterminated, nor were 
 the different kinds of it (^orpyi'a and yojym'a) 
 ever in more repute in the west than during the 
 sixteenth and a part of the seventeenth centuries, 
 shortly before and after the Reformation. The 
 heads of theologians, civilians, and common 
 people, were filled with the notion that there 
 were in reality alliances between wicked men 
 and wicked spirits, and not unfrequently, even 
 in the protestant church, have persons been con- 
 demned as wizards and witches. By degrees, 
 however, the notions of some of the learned, 
 especially of the Cartesian school, became more 
 clear on this subject ; and in England and the 
 Netherlands some ventured openly to avow 
 their own opinions, and publicly to express 
 their belief in the unreasonableness of the popu- 
 lar superstitions. Among these writers, Becker 
 was foremost. He was followed in England 
 by Webster and others, and in protestant Ger- 
 many by Christ. Thomasius, in his work 
 " Theses de crimine magiae ;" Halee, 1701 ; and 
 in other works, in which he further developed 
 the principles expressed in his Theses. His 
 opinions excited at first great opposition, which, 
 however, did not last long, so ashamed did the 
 princes, theologians, and common people of the 
 protestant church become of this superstition ; 
 the trials of the witches were abandoned, and 
 provision was made for the better instruction of 
 the people and the enlightening of the public 
 mind. But, after all, there is still in protestant 
 countries a deep-rooted belief in magic, which 
 is likely yet to continue. How many people 
 of all classes, even in the midst of enlightened 
 Germany, were deceived and led away by the 
 conjurer Schropfer, and afterwards by Cagli- 
 ostro ! And by how many secret societies has 
 the belief in magic been industriously propa- 
 gated among the high and the low ! Besides 
 the works of Becker, Thomasius, Semler, 
 Tiedemann, Meiner, and Eberhard, which have 
 been already cited, cf. Hauber, Bibliotheca Ma- 
 gica, 3 torn.; Lemgov. 1735 41,8vo, where the 
 30 
 
 hurtfulness of these magical practices is shewn 
 from authority and history. Hennings, Das 
 Grab des Aberglaubens, 4 Samml.; Frankfurt, 
 1777, 8vo. Vide Noesselt's " Biicherkennt- 
 niss." 
 
 Note 1. The act of producing unusual and 
 striking effects by means of the known powers 
 of nature, is called magia naturalis, because 
 these effects, however marvellous and magical 
 they may appear to the ignorant, are yet really 
 produced by natural means. Such, for example, 
 were many of the effects produced by the magi- 
 cians of Egypt; Ex. vii. Vide Wiegleb, Na- 
 tiirliche Magie; Berlin, 1779, 8vo; continued 
 afterwards by Rosenthal. 
 
 Note 2. The philosophy of many secret or- 
 ders, both in ancient and modern times, relies 
 upon magic for the attainment of its object. It 
 is built on the cabalistic theory, that man in his 
 original perfection was a very different being 
 from man in his present state ; that he possess- 
 ed even more natural powers than he now does ; 
 in short, that he was in the image of Mam Kad- 
 mow, the original god-man, the first and purest 
 effluence of all the divine powers and attributes ; 
 that he was immortal, the friend of superior spi- 
 rits, lord of the invisible world, and master of 
 secret sciences and arts. To restore human na- 
 ture to this its original perfection was the object 
 of philosophy; and the mysterious means by 
 which this end could be accomplished, (the phi- 
 losopher's stone,) were supposed to have been 
 communicated to Adam by superior spirits, and 
 transmitted by tradition, hieroglyphics, and va- 
 rious secret writings, through Seth, Enoch, 
 Noah, Moses, Solomon, Hermes Trismegistus, 
 Zoroaster, Orpheus, and others of the initiated. 
 This order was accessible to men of all reli- 
 gions, and among its members we find the Ara- 
 bians Adfar and Avienna, Artesius, Rayrnund, 
 Lullus, Nic. Flamel, and Basil. Valentine. 
 This mystery was brought from the East into 
 Europe by Christ. Rosenkreutz, who lived in the 
 fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It was call- 
 ed the philosopher's stone, though it comprehend- 
 ed more than mere alchymy, or the art of enno- 
 bling metals, and the secret of preserving life 
 a thousand years. This mystery had for its 
 higher object the entire elevation of man, bodily 
 and spiritually; and this object it sought to ef- 
 fect by means of magic, or a mysterious con- 
 nexion with good spirits. In comparison with 
 this object, the mere making of gold was regard- 
 ed as a very petty achievement by these adepts, 
 and was so insignificant in their view, as many 
 of them assure us, that rather than employ them- 
 selves about it they would always remain poor. 
 
 II. Of Spectres. 
 
 A belief in spectres was formerly, and is still, 
 almost universal, and this, because it results 
 u2 
 
234 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 immediately from certain feelings and ideas 
 which are widely diffused among men. Spec- 
 tres are called by the Greeks, stSwka, apparitions, 
 visions, forms which can be seen, shadow-shapes ; 
 also ^atf^afa (from <j>cu'r) and fyavtaGpata 
 (from (fav-r'a^w,) phantoms, phantasms. Vide 
 Mark, vi. 49. They are called by the Latins 
 spectra, (from the obsolete specio, cerno ,) also 
 inonstra. 
 
 What are spectres ? According to the concep- 
 tions of the Greeks, Latins, Hebrews, Oriental- 
 ists, and indeed of most nations, they are the 
 souls of the departed, returned again to the earth, 
 and rendered visible to men. The nations now 
 mentioned, and others less cultivated than these, 
 supposed, indeed, that departed souls (the ghosts 
 or manes of the dead) immediately after death 
 wandered down to Hades (Siw), (vide Homer, 
 and Isaiah, xiv. ;) and that they had definite 
 places appointed them there, secluded from the 
 upper world, to which they were not allowed to 
 return in ordinary cases. Vide 2 Sam. xii. 23 ; 
 Job, vii. 9, 10 ; Luke, xvi. 22, 23 ; Isa. xxxviii. 
 10, seq. But as the living sometimes saw the 
 deceased in their dreams, and as an excited 
 imagination often depicted before their waking 
 eyes the image of some departed friend, so that 
 they seemed to themselves to see and to hear 
 him, they naturally fell into the belief that the 
 shades sometimes ascend from Hades, and be- 
 come visible to men, or in some other way 
 (perhaps by knocking) give signals of their 
 presence. In conformity with these concep- 
 tions, the rich man in Hades is said in the pa- 
 rable to pray that one of the dead might be sent to 
 his father's house, Luke, xvi. 27, 30. These 
 ghosts in Hades were represented as beings 
 possessing fine, aerial bodies, in which, though 
 they were far less gross and palpable than the 
 flesh and bones of our earthly bodies, they yet 
 sometimes rendered themselves visible to men. 
 Vide s. 59, II., s. 150. Traces of this opinion 
 are found among the Jews, and also among the 
 Latins and Greeks; thus Homer speaks of j3po- 
 Twi' i3u>>.a xa/Aovtav, and says of them, 
 
 Ou yap cirl oapxas ri KO.I ourta 1vt$ l\owiiv. 
 
 Cf. Luke, xxiv. 39, jtvsvfta adpxa xai oatsa or* 
 t^ft. Vide texts from various writers cited by 
 Wetstein in his Com. on Luke, xxiv. 37. From 
 these prevailing conceptions, the passages, 
 Luke, xxiv. 37, and Mark, vi. 49, 50, may be 
 explained, and upon the existence of such su- 
 perstitions the delusions of the ancient necro- 
 mancers were founded e. g., of the witch of 
 Endor, 1 Samuel, xxviii. 7, seq. It was with 
 these notions in his mind that Thomas took the 
 appearance of Jesus to be the apparition of a 
 departed spirit in a shadowy body, (ftScoXov,) 
 and was unwilling to believe that he had ap- 
 peared to the other disciples in the true body 
 
 which he had upon the earth, John, xx, 25>. 
 John relates (chap, xxi.) that Jesus ate with his 
 disciples after his resurrection, in order, it weald 
 seem, to discountenance the idea that he appear- 
 ed only with the airy body of a spectre. The 
 common opinion or this subject was adopted by 
 Plato in his Phaedon, and was afterwards fur- 
 ther developed and remodelled to suit themselves 
 by the new Platonists. Vide Scripta Varii ar- 
 gumenti, Num. iii., Progr. super origine opini- 
 onis de immorta)itate animorum; Hallee, 1790. 
 It was also adopted by many of the early Chris- 
 tian teachers; it is found in the writings of the 
 Greek and Latin fathers ; and was turned to 
 good account by the Romanists in their doctrine 
 of purgatory. 
 
 It would naturally occur to the minds of Jews 
 and Christians that the devil, and the demons 
 in subjection to him, might have some hand in 
 these apparitions. Some accordingly maintained 
 that it was the devil who, for various sinister 
 purposes, occasioned the return and appearance 
 of departed spirits; while others asserted that 
 spectres were only illusions practised on us by 
 Satan, that the ghosts of the departed never ap 
 peared, and that there were no other than devil-' 
 ish spectres. Of this opinion were many of the 
 philosophers and theologians of the protestant 
 church, in opposition to those of the Romish. 
 Nor have there been wanting those who have 
 attempted to explain ghostly appearances from 
 physical causes. Cardanus and Jul. Caes. Ba- 
 nini contended that spectres were exhalations 
 from the wasting corpse, which, becoming con- 
 densed during the more damp and silent air of 
 the night, assumed at length the external form of 
 the deceased. Of the philosophers who divided 
 man into three parts body, soul, and spirit, (s. 
 51, I.,) some have supposed that it is the spirit 
 only which after death appears as a spectre. 
 This was the opinion of Paracelsus, in the six- 
 teenth century, and in this he was followed by 
 many theosophists and astrologers. He called 
 this spectral spirit astral, because he supposed 
 that it was composed of the two upper elements, 
 air and fare, and was therefore longer in dissolv- 
 ing after death than the material body, and 
 could float about in the atmosphere. He was 
 followed in this by Jacob Boehmen, and also 
 by Rob. Fludd, and others of the ancient Rose- 
 crucians. 
 
 But these philosophers would have been bet- 
 ter employed in inquiring, in the first place, 
 whether the stories of ghostly appearances 
 which they undertook to explain were real and 
 well-established facts. This inquiry, however, 
 they rarely made, and usually took for granted 
 the truth of what they had heard on this subject. 
 But if we examine impartially the various 
 ghost-stories which are told, we shall be brought 
 to the conclusion that spectres are not, for the 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 235 
 
 most part, real beings, but creatures of the ima- 
 gination, which often exercises so irresistible a 
 control over men, that they think they perceive 
 with their external senses what has no exist- 
 ence, or at least exists in an entirely different 
 way from that in which it appears to them. 
 And in these cases fear and terror usually pre- 
 vent all further investigation. Besides, there 
 are some persons who are mischievous and 
 thoughtless enough to work upon the fear and 
 credulity of others, and who, merely for their 
 own interest or amusement, will terrify them 
 with frightful appearances. Again; the super- 
 stitious notions which are contracted by many 
 in early life become so deeply and firmly rooted 
 in their minds, that often they cannot be eradi- 
 cated during their whole lives; and this fur- 
 nishes a psychological explanation of the fact, 
 that even those philosophers who believe in no- 
 thing of the kind are often not less agitated than 
 others with the superstitious fear of ghosts. 
 Still, however, no considerate and sober philo- 
 sopher would allow himself to decide positively 
 that spectres are in all cases unreal ; for no one 
 can presume to maintain that the appearance of 
 disembodied spirits among the living is wholly 
 impossible, and can never take place. In addi- 
 tion to the works cited s. 65, 66, cf. Hennings, 
 Von Ahndungen und Visionen; Leipzig, 1782, 
 8vo ; also his work, " Von Geistern und Geister- 
 sehern;" Leipzig, 1780, 8vo. Jung, Geister- 
 kunde; Nurnberg, 1808, 8vo, an attempt to 
 furnish a scriptural answer to the question, 
 How far we are to believe in presentiments, 
 visions, dreams, apparitions, &c. ; containing, 
 however, nothing very satisfactory, though 
 written with the best intentions. 
 
 ARTICLE VIII. 
 
 OF THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING DIVINE 
 PROVIDENCE. 
 
 SECTION LXVIL 
 
 WHAT IS MEANT BY THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD? 
 AND HISTORICAL REMARKS RESPECTING THIS 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 I. Definition of Providence. 
 
 PROVIDENCE, defined as to its inherent nature, 
 is the power which God exerts without interrup- 
 tion in and upon all the works nf his hands. The 
 relation in which all things stand to God, and 
 the influences which he exerts upon them, are 
 always represented in the Bible as depending 
 upon the creation. As the creator of all things, 
 God possesses the power and the right to use 
 the:)) according to his own pleasure; and to 
 
 cause them, and all which is done by them, to 
 promote his own designs. Hence the provi- 
 dence of God is justly denominated by the 
 schoolmen the second creation. Vide s. 46. 
 But, defined as to its external effect, and as far 
 as it is visible to the eyes of men, providence 
 may be said to be the government and preserva- 
 tion of all things ; or the constant care and over- 
 sight of God for all his works ; and this defini- 
 tion, which is the one that Morus gives, is the 
 most easy and intelligible. Cf. Morus, p. 76, 
 s. 1, 2. 
 
 Note 1. The word providence (Germ, vorse- 
 hung) is derived from the Latin providentia, and 
 this from the Greek rrpovota, which, however, 
 is not found in any of the canonical books, 
 though it occurs in the Book of Wisdom, xiv. 
 3 ; xvii. 2. The words xpovotiv and providere 
 properly signify to foresee, futura prospiccrc ; 
 and Ttporoia and providentia, accordingly signify 
 foresight. But providere not only signifies to 
 foresee, but also to exercise forecast, praccavere, 
 and thus, in a general sense, to ivatch over, to 
 care for, curare, procurare. In this sense it is 
 employed by Cicero, (Nat. Deor. ii. 65,) Non 
 universo generi hominum solum, sed etiam sin- 
 gulis a deis CONSULI et PROVIDERI solet. Corres- 
 ponding with providere are the following He- 
 brew verbs viz., jn% nx % n, and the other verba 
 videndi et adspiciendi, as B'3n, Psalm xxxiii. 13, 
 (cf. e>opav, Homer, Od. xiii. 214 ; opav, II. xxiv. 
 291; and the phrase, Deus contemplans maria 
 et terras, Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 20;) n:>T -9", 
 Psa. viii. 5, (cf. arto/jLvaop.ai, II. xxiv. 428 ;) 
 2ETi, D'JD, Nfrj, Num. vi. 20; ici; and also the 
 following Greek verbs viz., $povftv, ^f'xxnv, 
 (1 Pet. v. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 9,) trtiaxtjttt&ai, fibt- 
 vai, tjtiyivuaxfiv. Corresponding with provi- 
 dentia are the following Hebrew substantives 
 viz., Ti-n, Crete, nxj?, rnurrrc, man?, nyv vr>j?, v'i ; 
 and the following Greek substantives viz., 
 xpi/jLata, i>8ot, SiaT-oyier/iot, x. f. 7,. 
 
 .Note 2. The doctrine of divine providence 
 is of the very first importance, and contributes 
 greatly to the peace and happiness of human life. 
 Were it not that God maintained a constant and 
 watchful care over his works, all piety would 
 immediately cease. A god who did not concern 
 himself in the affairs of the world, and especially 
 in the actions of men, would be to UR as good 
 as none at all. In that case, should men live in 
 a virtuous and pious manner, they would have no 
 approbation to expect from him ; should they be 
 guilty of crimes, they would have no punishment 
 to fear; were they persecuted, they could think 
 of God only as the idle witness of their wrongs ; 
 were they in circumstances of suffering and sor- 
 row, they could find no consolation, if God were 
 unmindful of them. But. if, on the other hand, 
 I am entitled to believe, that even in times of 
 the greatest adversity God careth for me as a 
 
23G 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 father, and will overrule all events for my great- 
 est good, I may then be composed and unshaken, 
 and may rise above depression and despair. 
 
 II. History of Opinions respecting this Doctrine. 
 
 1. Rude and uncultivated nations have at first 
 no idea of the world as a whole ; they do not 
 once think of its origin, of its internal con- 
 nexion, or of the government which is exercised 
 over it. Vide sec. 45, Nos. 1, 2. And when 
 by degrees they have attained to the thought 
 that everything which exists must have a cause, 
 they unconsciously adopt the notion, that chance 
 or necessity is the cause of all things ; and with 
 this vague and indefinite notion remain for a 
 long time satisfied. Vide Meiners, Historia 
 doctrinae de Deo vero, p. 1. Respecting the re- 
 lation which exists between God and the world ; 
 respecting his power, and the influence which 
 he exerts upon the works of his hands, the con- 
 ceptions of people in the first stages of improve- 
 ment were of course very confined and imper- 
 fect. Vide s. 46, II. They represented the 
 Deity to their minds as resembling themselves 
 as closely as possible; they compared him to 
 earthly princes and rulers, possessing, like them, 
 though in a higher degree, power and influence ; 
 they considered him therefore as a being whose 
 protection was to be sought, and whose anger 
 was to be dreaded ; but at the same time they 
 ascribed to him many human weaknesses and 
 imperfections. Of many of his attributes they 
 appear to have had very elevated and worthy 
 conceptions; and especially of his power, as is 
 evident from the representation of Homer, Zfi>j 
 Svvarcu artai'T'a' and yet even of this attribute 
 their views were in some respects defective. 
 For as an earthly monarch, though possessed 
 of the greatest power, and of the best will, is 
 sometimes prevented from acting in the manner 
 which he approves and desires, by the occur- 
 rence of some unforeseen events, or by the con- 
 trol of necessity; even so, they supposed, was 
 God himself, though possessed of a vastly supe- 
 rior power, and acting in a sphere of vastly 
 greater extent, yet equally liable to be hindered 
 by contingent events, and equally subject to 
 that irresistible necessity (fatum, ^otpa), by 
 which gods and men were alike controlled. 
 And not only in the respect above mentioned 
 was God supposed to resemble human rulers, 
 but also in matt.ers of mere propriety , and as it 
 was reputed inconsistent with the dignity of a 
 ruler to concern himself in all the petty affairs 
 of his subjects, so it was supposed, a minute 
 inspection and particular care over all his works 
 would be inconsistent with the majesty of God. 
 Such were the popular notions respecting the 
 deities which prevailed among the ancient 
 Greeks, and which are expressed in Homer, 
 Hesiod, Pindnr. and nthpr earlv Grecian poets. 
 
 On the one hand, their conceptions of the pro- 
 vidence of God, and his government over the 
 world, were very just and elevated ; they consi- 
 dered all events as depending upon his will ; 
 
 dXX" J/roc fuv ravra $Ea>t> iv yovvaai Keirai f 
 
 II. xx. 435, and represented him as the witness 
 and judge of the conduct of men ; 
 
 trrjtrioy, 5ore Kal 
 
 rvvrat, ons 
 
 i(popa, 
 
 Od. xiii. 213. But, on the other hand, these 
 conceptions were mingled with others, which 
 appear to us extremely unworthy, and inconsist- 
 ent with the divine character. 
 
 Among the ancient nations, the Chaldeans 
 were distinguished by their belief in the doctrine 
 of fate, which they associated with their astro- 
 logy ; hence the name/atom Chaldaicum, or as- 
 trologicum; though this doctrine was by no 
 means confined to them. Among the Greeks, 
 the philosophers made the popular notions re- 
 specting the Deity the basis of their philoso- 
 phical reasonings. From the belief which was 
 almost universally entertained of two original 
 and eternal principles God and matter, neither 
 of which was the author of the other (vide s. 
 46, II.), their views respecting the agency of 
 God in the material world, and of his power 
 over it, and consequently respecting his provi- 
 dence, must have been extremely defective and 
 erroneous. The first among the Grecian philo- 
 sophers who advocated the doctrine of fate, from 
 whose control not even the Deity was excepted, 
 was Heraclitus. It was afterwards defended by 
 Parmenides, Democritus, and others ; and even 
 by Aristotle, if the testimony of Cicero (De 
 Fato, c. 17) is to be received, which is somewhat 
 doubtful. But as this doctrine involvedinadequate 
 conceptions of divine providence, and infringed 
 upon the freedom of God and of other rational 
 beings, it was remodelled by Plato, and so ex- 
 plained by him as to be more easily reconciled 
 with other established truths; though he does 
 not always adhere to his own principles. The 
 stoics are known as strict fatalists, though the 
 precise sense in which they held this doctrine 
 is a subject of dispute among the learned. Lip- 
 sius maintained that the fate of the stoics was 
 nothing more than the so called rational fate 
 i. e., the order established by God, in the exer- 
 cise of his freedom and wisdom, according to 
 which certain events must necessarily take 
 place. In the stoical fate, however, there 
 was always involved a physical necessity, al- 
 though they represented it as a predetermina- 
 tion which did not exclude the freedom of the 
 will, and which, while it secured the certainty of 
 particular events, did not make them necessary. 
 This is indeed contradictory; but it did not ap- 
 pear so to them. Vide Tiedemann, System del 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 237 
 
 stoischen Philosophic, th. ii. s. 129142 ; Leip- 
 zig, 1776, 8vo. According to the doctrine of 
 Epicurus, the Deity was wholly removed from 
 the world. In his system, as it is represented 
 by Diogenes, Laertius, and Seneca, the notion 
 of providence is absolutely denied. He supposed 
 that the peace of the blessed gods would be in- 
 terrupted by the labours and cares incident to 
 the government of the world. 
 
 2. This doctrine of an inevitable necessity 
 being found inconsistent with the scriptural re- 
 presentations of the providence of God, and be- 
 ing also liable to the greatest objections on philo- 
 sophical grounds, has been justly abandoned and 
 rejected by Christian philosophers and theolo- 
 gians. But in determining the manner in which 
 God governs the world, they have shewn a great 
 discrepancy in their opinions, and on account of 
 the bearing of this question on that concerning 
 the origin and causes of sin, have made it the 
 subject of great controversy. They may be 
 ranked, according to the systems which they 
 have adopted, in three classes, each of which 
 has its representatives even among the ancient 
 schoolmen. 
 
 (a) The Occasionalists, who adopted the sys- 
 tem of occasional causes (systema causarum oc- 
 casionalium), occasionalism. They maintained 
 that God is the immediate cause of the actions 
 of his creatures, and that they only furnish him 
 an occasion for what he does, and accordingly 
 are only passive instruments by which he abso- 
 lutely and irresistibly accomplishes his own 
 designs. According to this system, what are 
 elsewhere called second causes are only occasiones 
 agendi. They are also called Praedeterminantes, 
 because they supposed a prxdeierminatio, or 
 prsemotio physica. Of this class were many of 
 the schoolmen, particularly the Thomists and 
 Dominicans, among whom Gabriel Biel distin- 
 guished himself as an advocate of this theory, 
 in the fifteenth century. The same notion re- 
 specting the manner of God's agency in the 
 world was adopted in the seventeenth century, 
 by many of the disciples of Des Cartes ; and 
 indeed his principles necessarily involved it. 
 Among theologians, the disciples of Cocceius, 
 and some Arminians, were the advocates of this 
 system. Its most zealous and acute defenders, 
 however, were Malebranche and Bayle, though 
 the latter dissented in many particulars from the 
 former. The names of Twiss, Maccov, and 
 Turretin, deserve to be mentioned in this class. 
 In the Romish church, the Dominicans still con- 
 tinue the advocates of this theory. With regard 
 to this theory it must be said, that it is hard to 
 see its consistency with the freedom of the 
 human will; nor, indeed, is its inconsistency 
 denied by Bayle. Man is thus subjected to ne- 
 cessity ; his good and bad actions are not im- 
 putable to him, but to God, who acts through 
 
 him, as a mere instrument. But the law of ne- 
 cessity, when applied to moral beings, or within 
 the world of spirits, is extended beyond its 
 proper sphere, which is the material world. 
 This theory, therefore, which involves a neces- 
 sity of acting, is utterly inapplicable to moral 
 beings, whose highest law of acting is freedom. 
 [Respecting the system of occasional causes, 
 the student may consult Hahn, Lehrbuch des 
 christlichen Glaubens, s. 73, s. 316, 320f Bret- 
 schneider, Handbuch der Dogmatik, b. i. s. 93, s. 
 610. Tennemann, Grundriss der Gesch. der 
 Philos. s. 373, 378. TR.] 
 
 (6) Perceiving that this theory was untenable, 
 and injurious in its influence on morality, some 
 adopted one exactly opposite, and maintained 
 that the creatures of God acted immediately in 
 and through themselves, in the exercise of the 
 powers with which they had been once endowed 
 by the Creator, and independently of his assist- 
 ance. They compared the movements and al- 
 terations which appear in the creation to those 
 of a machine, (e. g., of a clock,) which, being 
 once made and wound up, goes for a time of 
 itself, without the further assistance of the artist, 
 and when he is no longer present. This theory 
 is called the system of mechanism, and was 
 proposed by Durandus, in the fourteenth cen- 
 tury, and by other schoolmen. Its first advocate 
 was Scotus, and it has been adopted by many 
 of the modern mechanical philosophers, and 
 even by Richard Baxter. Some have made 
 use of Bonnet's System of development, in or- 
 der to confirm and complete this theory. But 
 this theory, as well as the one to which it is 
 opposed, is liable to great objections. It ex- 
 hibits God in a light which is inconsistent 
 with his perfections. It represents him as an 
 artist who leaves his work, when he has com- 
 pleted it, or idly beholds its operations. Nor 
 does this theory, less than the former, impinge 
 upon the doctrine of freedom and accountability. 
 If it is consistently carried through, it removes 
 many of the most important motives which 
 ethics or religion can furnish ; for practical uses, 
 therefore, it is wholly unfit. Vide Jerusalem, 
 Betrachtungen, th. i. s. 114. Also the writings 
 of Kant, which contain many profound discus- 
 sions on this subject. [Cf. De la Mettrie, 
 L'Homme machine, 1748, 4to. Coleridge, Aids 
 to Reflection, p. 243, Amer. Edition. TR.] 
 
 (c) In consequence of the difficulties and ob- 
 vious errors attending the theories above men- 
 tioned, many of the schoolmen were led to adopt 
 a scheme which is intermediate between these 
 opposite extremes. They maintained that God 
 has indeed endowed his creatures with active 
 powers; but that still his own concurrent aid 
 (concursus) is essential to their exercise ; since 
 without it neither the thing itself which is sup- 
 posed to act, nor its power of action, could for a 
 
238 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 moment subsist ; so that, in all the actions of his 
 creatures, there is a joint, concurrent agency of 
 God. By this theory, most of the difficulties 
 attending this subject are obviated; it is also 
 found to be the most accordant with the repre- 
 sentations of the Bible, and to commend itself 
 more than any other to sound reason. It has 
 therefore been justly adopted, though with vari- 
 ous modifications, by most of the modern philo- 
 sophers and theologians. In the sequel of this 
 Article it will be more fully developed. [Of. 
 Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 92, s. 605.] 
 
 But after all that has been thought and writ- 
 ten upon this subject, it still remains encom- 
 passed with difficulties; and this, for the reason 
 that it is impossible for men to form any distinct 
 conceptions respecting the proper, internal man- 
 ner of the divine agency. In order to represent 
 it to our minds, we must liken it to the manner 
 in which men act; and thus our whole know- 
 ledge of the subject is, from the necessity of the 
 case, symbolical, and greatly deficient. From 
 this historical sketch, however, and especially 
 from No. 1, one thing is clear viz., that the 
 simple theory respecting the providence of God, 
 which is now almost universally received as 
 true, owes its origin neither to heathen mytho- 
 logy or philosophy, but to the Bible, where it 
 was exhibited before it ever entered the mind 
 of any philosopher. Vide Staiidlin, Materialien 
 zu einer Geschichte der Lehre von Gottes 
 Fiirsehung, in his " Magazin fur Religions- 
 geschichte," b. iii. st. 1, s. 234, ff; Hanover, 
 1804, 8vo. 
 
 SECTION LXVII. 
 
 OF THE PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE PROVI- 
 DENCE ; AND OF THE DIVISIONS UNDER WHICH 
 IT HAS BEEN TREATED. 
 
 I. Proof of this Doctrine. 
 
 1. PROOF from reason. This proof depends 
 upon the truth of the position that the world is 
 not self-existent, but was created by God ; and 
 this proposition is proved by the same argu- 
 ments by which the divine existence is proved. 
 Vide s. 15, 46. Presuming that this position 
 may now be considered as fully established, we 
 derive proof of the providence of God from two 
 sources viz., from his own nature, and from 
 that of his works. 
 
 (a) From the nature and attributes of God. 
 That God is not only able, but willing to take 
 care of all his creatures, is demonstrable from 
 the idea of the most perfect being; cf. s. 15. 
 That he is able to do this, appears from his om- 
 niscience, by which he knows the circumstances 
 and wants of all his creatures; from his wis- 
 dom, by which he understands in what manner 
 and by what means the world may be sustained 
 
 and governed ; and from his omnipotence, by 
 which he can accomplish everything which he 
 desires. That he is willing to do this, follows 
 alike from his wisdom and his goodness. Vide s. 
 24, 28. If it is the design of God to advance 
 his creatures to that degree of perfection and 
 well-being of which they are susceptible, it 
 must also be his will to watch over them, and 
 to exercise towards them his providential care, 
 to sustain them, and to promote their welfare 
 by means which his wisdom approves as best. 
 And his willing to do this is his actually doing 
 it; for to suppose God to will anything, the 
 attainment of which depends upon his abso- 
 lute power, which yet he does not execute, 
 would be to ascribe to him weakness and im- 
 perfection. This metaphysical proof, however, 
 when stated in its full extent, is not sufficiently 
 intelligible to be used in popular instruction. 
 
 (6) From the nature of created things. For 
 it is obvious that the creatures of God are no 
 more able to perpetuate their being than they 
 were to contribute at first to their own existence. 
 To sustain and perpetuate existence requires no 
 less power than to create. Besides, the wise, 
 orderly, and harmonious movement of all created 
 things, in conformity with the plan on which 
 they were adjusted, and for the promotion of the 
 ends for which they were made, which is every- 
 where visible in the universe, sufficiently evinces 
 the care and government of an all-wise and al- 
 mighty being. Cf. s. 69. To this it is object- 
 ed that God might have so made the world that 
 it would preserve itself, and stand in no need 
 of the providence of its author; but from this 
 objection the system of mechanism (noticed s. 
 67, II. 6) immediately results; and this system, 
 as was remarked, excludes moral freedom, and 
 subjects everything to the law of necessity. 
 Cf. s. 26. 
 
 [Note. Besides these proofs of the provi- 
 dence of God, the theologians of the school of 
 Kant have proposed another, similar to that of 
 the divine existence, Art. ii. s. 15, II. It is 
 briefly this : we cannot recognise the law of 
 duty written upon our hearts as a divine com- 
 mand, unless we believe that there is a moral 
 government which will, in the end, make the 
 happiness which, as sensitive beings, we natu- 
 rally desire, proportionate to the morality of our 
 actions; we cannot derive the strength which 
 is necessary to a course of undeviating virtue 
 amidst the temptations to which we are ex- 
 posed, from anything but a faith in a holy go- 
 vernor of the world, and disposer of the destinies 
 of men. And hence viz., from the necessity 
 of believing in providence in order to virtuous 
 moral action they argue the truth of this doc- 
 trine, and call it a postulate of our practical rea- 
 son. There is still another proof which deserves 
 a distinct mention viz., that which may be de- 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 239 
 
 rived from the great historic events which have 
 taken place in the world, the giving and trans- 
 mission of a divine revelation the founding of 
 religious institutes, as the Mosaic and the Chris- 
 tian the raising up of prophets, apostles, and 
 defenders of the faith the ordering of particu- 
 lar events, such as the Reformation the more 
 remarkable deliverances noticed in the lives of 
 those devoted to the good of the world, &c. 
 all of which indicate the wise and benevolent 
 care of God over the human family, and toge- 
 ther constitute what may be called the historic 
 proof of the providence of God. This proof is 
 exhibited in an interesting manner in the scrip- 
 ture biography of Hess, in Niemeyer's Charac- 
 teristics of the Bible, and works of a similar 
 kind. TR.] 
 
 2. From the holy scriptures. Cf. Morus, p. 
 76, seq. s. 3. Many of the texts which might 
 be cited will be omitted here, and introduced in 
 their more appropriate places in the sections 
 which follow. Of the texts which treat of the 
 general subject of providence more at large, and 
 which exhibit many of the truths connected with 
 this doctrine, the following are the most import- 
 ant: Ps. viii. xix. xc. (s. 20, III.) xci. civ. 
 (vide Article on the Creation,) and cxxxix. 
 (s. 22, I. ;) in the New Testament, Matt. vi. 
 2532; x. 2931 ; Acts, xvii. 2428. 
 
 In the texts above cited we are taught the 
 following truths: (a) The preservation of the 
 existence of all things depends on God alone. 
 (6) God is the ruler and proprietor of the uni- 
 verse, his title in it being founded in his having 
 created it. (c) The state and circumstances of 
 all created things are determined by God ; he 
 needs nothing; but his creatures receive from 
 him the supply of all their wants, (d} No- 
 thing is so insignificant as to be unworthy of 
 his notice; his providence extends even to the 
 smallest objects, (e) Through his watchful 
 care all his creatures, in their several kinds, en- 
 joy as much good as from their nature they are 
 susceptible of. (/) But his providence is most 
 conspicuous in reference 'to the human race, 
 both as a whole and as composed of individual 
 men. He preserves their lives, provides them 
 with food, clothing, and everything which they 
 need. Their actions and their destinies are un- 
 der his guidance and at his disposal ; and their 
 race is preserved from generation to generation 
 through his care. The whole is comprised in 
 the words of Paul, Acts, xvii. 28, iv avr^ (!>/ 
 xai xivovf.if^ta xai lofjulv. 
 
 These scriptural representations have many 
 practical uses. They furnish us with the means 
 of forming just notions of God, and with mo- 
 tives to induce us to reverence and serve him 
 Acts, xvii. 27. These considerations are cal 
 culated to inspire our minds with confidence in 
 God, and to teach us to regard him as a kinc 
 
 and benevolent father. Cf. the texts cited from 
 Vlatthew, and Is. xl., ad finem. Indeed, the 
 whole object and tendency of this doctrine, as 
 exhibited in the sacred writings, is to excite 
 nd cherish pious dispositions in our minds, 
 t leads us to think, with regard to every passing 
 event, that God knows it ,- to feel that it is ex- 
 ctly as he willed it, and in it to see his agency, 
 if we were duly influenced by what we are 
 taught in the Bible of the providence of God r 
 we should do all our works under a sense of his 
 3resence, ivuitiov tov ov, and our constant 
 maxim would be ov&ev avtv eoi>. Vide Matt, 
 x. 29, &c. Morus, p. 76, s. 3, p. 78, Note. 
 Such exalted and worthy conceptions of the 
 srovidence of God as these, which occur every- 
 where in the Bible, and which must accord with 
 the judgment and the feelings of every one who 
 s not wholly perverted, may be sought in vain 
 in the writings of the ancient philosophers, who 
 were unacquainted with the Bible. And it is 
 to the Bible alone that modern philosophers are 
 indebted for the more correct principles which 
 they inculcate upon this subject. 
 
 Note. The work of providence and preserva- 
 tion is usually ascribed in the Bible to. the 
 Father , as is also the work of creation ; and it is 
 principally as the creator and preserver of the 
 world that he is called Father. Vide s. 36. 
 There are, however, some texts in the New 
 Testament, in which both the creation and pre- 
 servation of the world are ascribed to the Son 
 e. g., Heb. i. 3, $ptov rtdv-ta ^r^a-tt $vvd{j.eu>$ 
 aoJT'ov, and Col. i. 17, la rtdvta sv av-r^ ovvsotvixs, 
 both of which have already been examined in 
 the article respecting the creation, s. 47, II. 2. 
 
 II. Scholastic Divisions. 
 
 1. The providence of God is divided, in rela- 
 tion to its objects, into general (generalis), so far 
 as it extends to all existing things; special 
 (specialis), so far as it relates to moral beings 
 to men and human affairs ; and particular (spe- 
 cialissima), so far as it extends to the moral 
 beings, who fulfil the ends of their existence 
 the pious and virtuous. Vide Morus, p. 78 r 
 s. 4. Strictly speaking, however, God cannot 
 be said to care more or less for one class of his 
 creatures than for another. His providence, in 
 itself considered, is the same for all; but all 
 have not an equal capacity to receive the proofs 
 and benevolent expressions of his care : an irra- 
 tional creature is not susceptible of the same 
 kind and degree of perfection and welfare as a 
 rational being; nor a vicious, as a virtuous 
 man. Hence it seems to us as if God had more 
 care for the animate than for the inanimate crea- 
 tion; for men, than for beasts; for the pious, 
 than for the wicked ; though the real ground of 
 the difference in their condition lies in their own 
 greater or less capacity for the divine favour. 
 
240 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Now the universe, so far as we know, consists 
 of the three classes inanimate things, crea- 
 tures endowed with life and activity but pos- 
 sessing no rational and moral powers, and mo- 
 ral beings. The latter are by far the most ex- 
 alted and noble, the nearest related, so to speak, 
 to their author, and those in whom his designs 
 mostly terminate. They are not placed, like 
 the lower orders of being, under the law of ne- 
 cessity, and treated like machines; which would 
 be inconsistent with the free nature which has 
 been given them. The highest aim which God 
 can be supposed to have had in view in the 
 creation and government of the world, is a 
 moral end; and to subserve this end, to which 
 all others are subordinate, he governs not only 
 the moral kingdom, but the whole material and 
 animal creation. 
 
 2. The particular manner in which God pre- 
 serves and governs the world can no more be 
 understood by us than the manner in which he 
 first created it. Vide s. 46. But in order to 
 obtain some definite conceptions of this subject, 
 we compare the operations of God to those of 
 men; though in doing this there is danger of 
 ascribing to God the imperfections which belong 
 only to man. Now when men exercise care 
 over anything, there are two things which may 
 be considered the care itself, as exercised by 
 them, and the effect or result of it. 
 
 (a) The care itself, (actio internal) Since a 
 man, when he exercises care over others, must 
 have the knowledge of what they need, and un- 
 derstand the means by which their wants can 
 be supplied ; must then come to a determination 
 to make use of the means approved as proper; 
 and lastly, must carry his determination into 
 effect ; so it was supposed to be with God, in 
 the care which he exercises over the world ; and 
 this gave rise to the scholastic division of the 
 providence of God into three acts viz., Ttpo- 
 yvcocrtj (praescientia), the knowledge of God of 
 the wants of his creatures, and of the best 
 means of supplying them ; rtpc&tfij (decretum), 
 his determination to make use of these means ; 
 and 8t,dxr]<3is (executio, administrate), his actual 
 fulfilment of his determination. But here it 
 must be remembered that this can be said only 
 anthropopathically of God, since in his mind 
 there is no succession of acts. 
 
 (6) The effect of this care, (actio externa.') 
 In order to render the manner of this external 
 agency of God in his providence in some degree 
 intelligible, the schoolmen have assumed three 
 external acts of providence viz., preservation 
 (conservatio), cooperation (concursus), and go- 
 vernment (gubernatio) ; and under these three 
 heads the doctrine of divine providence is usual- 
 ly treated, (a) Preservation (conservatio) is 
 that mighty and efficient agency of God by 
 which created things continue to exist, by which 
 
 the identity of their being is preserved ; efficien- 
 tia Dei, qua ipsae substantiae pergunt esse. It ex- 
 tends to things already existing, and in this is 
 distinguished from the act of creation; though, 
 in reality, the preservation of the world is 
 only a continuation of the act of creation, and is 
 therefore sometimes properly called, creatio con- 
 tinuata. (]3) Cooperation (concursus) is that 
 act of God by which he preserves the powers 
 originally imparted to created things, qua vires 
 substantiarum durant. The term concursus, as 
 as used by the schoolmen, is synonymous with 
 auxilium; but it is a very inconvenient term, 
 and leads naturally to the inquiry, whether God 
 assists men and cooperates with them in their 
 wicked actions 1 This division has been wholly 
 omitted by some modern theologians (e. g., by 
 Doederlein), on the ground that the preservation 
 of the existence of a thing without the preserva- 
 tion of its powers cannot be conceived, and that 
 this division is therefore necessarily involved 
 in the preceding; which is indeed true, as to 
 fact, though the preservation of the simple sub- 
 stance of a thing, and the preservation of its 
 powers of acting, may be made the subjects of 
 distinct consideration by the mind, (y) Go- 
 vernment (gubernatio, providentia stricte sic 
 dicta) is that act of God by which he so orders 
 all the changes which take place in the world, 
 and so guides all the actions of his creatures, 
 as to promote the highest possible good of the 
 whole, and of every part. According to the 
 usual method of theological writers we shall 
 proceed to treat of this doctrine under the three 
 foregoing heads ; in such a way, however, that 
 what is said respecting the first two divisions 
 (preservation and cooperation) will be con- 
 nected together. Respecting the division of 
 providence into ordinata and miraculosa, vide s. 
 72, II. 
 
 Note. Notice of some of the principal works 
 on the providence of God. The ancient heathen 
 philosophers said much on this subject which 
 was just and practically useful, though mingled 
 with much that was erroneous. Gf. Xenophon's 
 Memorabilia, the writings of Plato, and other 
 disciples of Socrates. Cf. also the writings of 
 Marcus Aurelius, and of other stoics. The 
 work of Cicero, De Natur. Deor. ; and of Se- 
 neca, De Providentia, deserve particular men- 
 tion. Some of the early ecclesiastical fathers 
 devoted whole works to this subject. Chry- 
 sostom wrote a book on providence. Gregory 
 of Nazianzen treated of it in his discourses, 
 particularly the sixteenth. Theodoret wrote 
 " Sermones de Providentia." Salvianus Mas- 
 siliensis, a Latin father of the fifth century, 
 wrote a work entitled " De gubernatione Dei." 
 In modern times, the theory of this subject has 
 been ably discussed in the writings of Kant, 
 and other works on the philosophy of religion. 
 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 241 
 
 Works of a more practical and popular cast are 
 the following: Jacobi, Betrachtungen iiber die 
 weisen Absichten Gottes; Hanover, 1765 66, 
 8vo; Jerusalem, Betrachtungen iiber die wicht- 
 igsten Wahrheiten der Religion ; Sander, Ueber 
 die Vorsehung; Leipzig, 1780 81, 8vo; also 
 the work " Fur Anbeter Gottes, 1780, by the 
 same author; Zollikofer, Betrachtungen iiber 
 das Uebel in der Welt; Leipzig, 1777, 8vo; 
 and many of the Sermons of this author; Jacob, 
 Von der Religion; Koppen, Die Bibel, ein 
 Werk der gottlichen, Weisheit, in which excel- 
 lent work there are many fine and useful remarks 
 on this subject. 
 
 SECTION LXIX. 
 
 OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTENCE AND 
 OF THE POWERS OF CREATED BEINGS AND 
 THINGS. 
 
 I. Preservation of Creatures in General. 
 THE great end which God has in view in his 
 providence over the world is the welfare of his 
 creatures. On him does their existence and 
 well-being every moment depend. The powers 
 which they possess from the beginnining of 
 their existence, and the laws by which these 
 powers are exercised, have their only ground in 
 the divine will. This will of God is the effi- 
 cient cause of the existence of his creatures, 
 and of all the powers which they possess ; and 
 not only so, but of the continuance of these 
 creatures, with their powers and laws. These 
 laws, in conformity with which the powers of 
 created things develop themselves, are com- 
 monly called the laws of nature. These pro- 
 positions need to be farther illustrated and esta- 
 blished. 
 
 1. The proof that God preserves the existence 
 and the powers of all created things is drawn 
 from the following sources : 
 
 (a) From the contingency of the world. The 
 world does not necessarily exist; it has not the 
 ground of its existence in itself; but it is contin- 
 gent, and depends upon the will of God. Vide 
 s. 15, 46. It must therefore continue to exist 
 through the same power which first gave it 
 being. The purpose of God to create the world 
 could not have been confined to the first instant 
 of its creation, but must have comprised its 
 whole future being and permanent existence. 
 Now this purpose of God is unalterable, and 
 cannot be hindered or turned aside by the inter- 
 vention of any object; but must endure while 
 the creation continues. The continuance, there- 
 fore, of the creation, through every moment of 
 its existence, is so intimately connected with the 
 purpose of God respecting its first existence, that 
 it can hardly be separated from it, even in 
 thought. Cf. the theory of the divine decrees, 
 s. 32. 
 
 31 
 
 6) From experience and history. That God 
 preserves the works which he has created may 
 3e rendered very obvious from a survey of the 
 world and a review of its past history. Cf. es- 
 pecially the work of Sander above mentioned, 
 and the works on teleology noticed s. 15, I. 2, 
 ad finem. If we look no further than the phy- 
 sical world, and confine our attention to its wise 
 adaptation to the ends which it is made to an- 
 swer, we shall be driven to the conviction 
 that it is not the work of chance or blind acci- 
 dent, but that, on the contrary, it is constituted 
 by an intelligence which, though invisible, 
 guides and governs all things with infinite 
 wisdom. The following are examples of innu- 
 merable teleological observations which might 
 be made. No single species of animals has pe- 
 rished, notwithstanding all that has been done 
 to destroy them, and all the dangers to which 
 they have been exposed from floods, earthquakes, 
 &c. ; nor has any species undergone essential 
 alterations. The nature and qualities of the 
 horse, the lion, the crocodile, &c., are still the 
 same as they were described to be by Moses, 
 Homer, Aristotle, and other ancient writers. 
 Between the individuals also of the different 
 species, the same relations and proportions 
 which have always been observed still exist. 
 Wild and dangerous animals multiply less ra- 
 pidly than tame and domestic ones. The short- 
 lived animals, and particularly insects, propa- 
 gate their kind in great numbers; those that 
 live longer produce fewer young. Were the 
 ephemeral insects no more prolific than the lion 
 and the elephant, their race would be soon ex- 
 tinct; and were the progeny of the lion and ele- 
 phant as numerous as that of the insect tribes, 
 the earth would soon be insufficient to support, 
 or even contain them, and other species of ani- 
 mals would be driven out and destroyed before 
 them. In the material world there is a constant 
 ebb and flow; on the one hand, decay, death, 
 and destruction; on the other, life, and ever- 
 renewed activity and motion ; in short, through- 
 out the world there are conflicting powers, by 
 which the things that belong to it are at one 
 time wasted and destroyed, at another revived 
 and animated; but yet, after all, everything 
 exists in the most just proportion and perfect 
 order ; and every apparent dissonance is resolved 
 at last into an uninterrupted harmony. Every 
 sensitive being stands in such a relation to the 
 rest of the world that it finds what is necessary 
 for its support and welfare. And any one who 
 will consider all this with attention, will be led 
 to the conclusion that it results from the consti- 
 tution of a Being who is supremely intelligent, 
 and who guides all things in such a way as to 
 promote his own purposes. What is so suitably 
 arranged, so wisely and accurately adapted to 
 its ends, and so perfectly adjusted to all its rela- 
 X 
 
242 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 tions, cannot possibly be the work of blind 
 chance. Against such a supposition the reason 
 of man instantly revolts. 
 
 [Note. The validity of this proof from expe- 
 rience is denied by Staiidlin, (Lehrb. s. 273,) 
 and also by Bretschneider, for the following rea- 
 sons : (1 ) Our experience is too young and too 
 limited to enable us to derive an argument from 
 it with certainty. (2) From experience it can 
 not be shewn that everything has been the same 
 from the beginning of the creation as it now is. 
 (3) The argument from experience is rendered 
 uncertain by the fact that several species of ani- 
 mals e. g., the mammoth are wholly extinct, 
 and other facts of a similar nature. They 
 therefore rest the proof of the preservation of 
 the world by the agency of God, solely upon 
 the metaphysical and scriptural arguments. 
 TB.] 
 
 (c) From the express declarations of the holy 
 scriptures, which coincide with what we are 
 taught by experience and history, and which 
 indeed, by their example, lead us to make the 
 observations and to draw the conclusions just 
 stated. Among the most explicit of these decla- 
 rations are those contained in Psalm civ. 8 16, 
 27, 28, and particularly ver. 29. "Thou takest 
 away their breath, they die, and return to their 
 dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are 
 created : and thou renewestthe face of the earth." 
 Here also the words of Christ, which are so 
 useful as examples of proper instruction, should 
 be particularly mentioned, Matt. vi. 26, seq. ; 
 x. 29. According to these representations, not 
 a hair falls from the head of man, not a bird falls 
 to the ground, not a flower withers in the field, 
 without the notice and will of God. Hence 
 we, who were made for such higher purposes, 
 should confidently trust in God, and renounce all 
 painful solicitude and despondency, all doubt 
 and despair. For if God takes care of the less, 
 how much more will he of the greater! of us, 
 therefore, whose destination is so much more 
 exalted than that of his other creatures. Our life, 
 our activity, our whole existence, proceeds from 
 him ; and as a father, he constantly cares for us, 
 Acts, xvii. 28. 
 
 2. In considering the powers which God im- 
 parts to his creatures, and the continuance of 
 which he secures, two things need especially to 
 be noticed viz., their degree and their use. 
 
 (a) The degree (modus) of these powers. 
 And this again is either essential i. e., necessa- 
 rily requisite to the very existence of the thing, 
 so that, in defect of it, it would cease to be what 
 it is, or contingent, accidental, inasmuch as the 
 proportion of powers in different individuals be- 
 longing to the same kind, may be, and actually 
 is, different. These contingent powers and ca- 
 pacities are either innate or acquired, and in- 
 creased and strengthened by discipline and ex- 
 
 ercise. For example : it is essential to the ex- 
 istence of a man that he possess reason, memory, 
 and imagination; these are vires essentiales r but 
 one man surpasses another in these powers, and 
 this is what is contingent. One man has a na- 
 tural and innate taient for potry, music, paint- 
 ing, or some other art or employment; another 
 acquires skill in these things by effort and dili- 
 gence. Now in this difference of degree in these 
 powers, and in the wise proportion and allotment 
 of them to animate and inanimate, rational and 
 irrational creatures, the wise providence of God 
 is clearly exhibited. 
 
 (6) The use of these powers is granted to the 
 creatures of God for their own advantage and 
 the good of the whole. This is very obvious in 
 the case of the natural instincts imparted to ani- 
 mals. Vide Reimarus, Von den Trieben, beson- 
 ders den Kunsttrieben derThiere an excellent 
 work. In this respect man is far inferior to the 
 lower orders of creatures. But in place of in- 
 stinct he has reason and free will, by which he 
 is determined to action. Vide s. 26. 1. And in 
 this his great advantage over other creatures con- 
 sists ; by this, his moral nature, he resembles 
 God, and is more nearly related to him than other 
 creatures who inhabit the earth. And God has 
 enabled man so to use his powers that the free- 
 dom of the human will shall not be at all in- 
 fringed. 
 
 From what has now been said it appears (a) 
 that God is the first cause of all the powers 
 which his creatures possess. (6) That Goo! 
 may be said in a certain sense to cooperate 
 (concurrere) with the free actions of men, since 
 he grants them the powers necessary to action, 
 even to free action, and continually preserves 
 the powers which he has given ; and moreover 
 is able to overrule their evil actions so as to 
 make them promote the greatest good. But (c) 
 since this language is liable to misapprehension, 
 and might be understood in such a sense as 
 would be inconsistent with the freedom of the 
 will, and would represent God as the author and 
 promoter of sin, it is better to make an accurate 
 distinction between the powers themselves 
 granted to moral beings, and the exercise of 
 these powers in free actions. The powers of 
 action come from God ; but he has left the use 
 and exercise of these powers to moral beings. 
 This is involved in the very idea of moral being, 
 which would cease to be moral if it were sub- 
 jected to the control of necessity, and not suf- 
 fered to choose and to do what it saw to be best, 
 according to the laws of freedom. Vide s. 26, 1. 
 God is not, therefore, the efficient cause of the 
 free actions of moral beings. This distinction 
 s thus expressed by the schoolmen: Deum con- 
 currere AD MATERIALS actionis liberx i. e., God 
 jives to men the powers of action, and preserves 
 hese powers every moment, but not AD FORMALE 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 243 
 
 aetionis libcrse i, e., he is not the efficient cause 
 of the free actions themselves. Thus, for ex- 
 ample, when a man opens his mouth to lie, or 
 to forswear, God grants him the power at that 
 very moment to open his mouth and to speak 
 (concurrit ad materiak actionisj) but the use of 
 this power (formale actionis) is left to the man 
 himself, and he might open his mouth to speak 
 the truth, and to glorify God. The action, 
 therefore, whatever it is, is his own, and for it 
 he himself is accountable; which could not be 
 the case if the action proceeded from another. 
 
 Note. In contemplating the preservation of 
 the existence and of the powers of all created 
 beings, we find great occasion to recognise and 
 admire the divine wisdom and goodness, and also 
 a powerful motive to seek for true holiness. 
 This is the application which the sacred writers 
 made of this doctrine; and hence the ample in- 
 struction on this subject which they give us is 
 so eminently calculated to produce a good prac- 
 tical effect. Cf. s. 24 and s. 28, II. Also Ci- 
 cero, De Natur. Deor. ii. 39, seq., and 47. 
 
 II. Preservation of Men. 
 
 1. Men are the only creatures of God upon the 
 earth who possess a moral nature, or who have 
 reason and freedom of will; and as possessing 
 these, they are capable of a far higher degree of 
 perfection and happiness than the lower orders 
 of creation. Hence the care of God for them is 
 more apparent, and seems to be more active and 
 efficient, than for his other creatures. Matthew, 
 vi. 26, ov% vp,i$ P.O.'MMV Siafytpftf avtuv ; Acts, 
 xvii. 26, 28, ysvo$ &sov eapiv. Of this watchful 
 care of God for the preservation of men we have 
 abundant proof in the history of our race. Vide 
 Siissmilch, Goettliche Ordnung in den Veran- 
 derungen des mensclichen Geschlechts ; Berlin, 
 1788, 8vo. But more particularly 
 
 2. The life and all the powers of each indivi- 
 dual of the human race depend upon God. Mo- 
 rus, p. 77, n. 3. 
 
 (a) Our life depends upon God. 
 
 (a) As to its origin ; for although our parents, 
 as the instruments of God, are the means by 
 which we come into the world ; yet God is truly 
 our creator, and the author of our existence. 
 We are taught everywhere in the holy scriptures 
 that God formed us, &c.; Job, x. 8, 11, 12; 
 Acts, xvii. 25, 27; Ps. cxxxix. 13 16; and 
 also that he secures the continuance of the life 
 which he imparts, orders all its changes, deter- 
 mines the time, place, circumstances, and, in 
 short, everything respecting it, Psalm xc., xci., 
 cxxxix. ; Acts, xvii. 24 ; Matthew, vi., x. The 
 Hebrews represented this truth in a very plain 
 and striking manner, by supposing God to keep 
 a book of fate and book of life, in which every 
 man is enrolled, and has, as it were, his own 
 portion assigned him, Ps. cxxxix. 16. Hence 
 
 to be blotted out from the book of life is the same 
 as to die, Exod. xxxii. 32 ; Ps. Ixix. 28. The 
 meaning of the representation is this : God de- 
 termines the beginning and the end of our lives ; 
 he is perfectly acquainted with our whole des- 
 tiny ; everything in our whole existence depends 
 upon him, and is under his control and govern- 
 ment. 
 
 (|3) As to its termination. However contin- 
 gent the time of our death may appear, it is still 
 at the disposal of God ; Job, xiv. 5, "Thou hast 
 appointed his bounds which he cannot pass." 
 Ps. xc. 3, "Thou turnest man to destruction, 
 and sayest, Return, ye children of men ;" Psalm 
 xxxi. 15; xxxix. 4, 5. These texts, however, 
 and others of a similar nature, have been often 
 erroneously supposed to imply an unconditional 
 decree of God respecting the life and death of 
 every man. Against this erroneous opinion of 
 an unconditional decree of God, determining ir- 
 revocably the bounds of the life of man, the 
 Christian teacher should carefully guard his 
 hearers, since it is not unfrequently entertained 
 even by those who are cultivated and enlight- 
 ened, as well as by those who are ignorant. It 
 may encourage the most rash and foolhardy un- 
 dertakings; and where it is thoroughly believed 
 and consistently carried out into action, it must 
 lead to the neglect of the proper means of reco- 
 very from sickness, and of the necessary pre- 
 cautions against approaching danger. For if the 
 fixed period of my life is now arrived, may one 
 say who is of this opinion, these remedies can 
 be of no service to me ; if it is not yet come, they 
 are wholly unnecessary. This error has been 
 for a long time widely diffused over the East; 
 and Mahommed himself was a strict fatalist and 
 predestinarian. He believed that every event 
 in the life and the very hour of the death of every 
 man was settled by an unalterable predetermi- 
 nation. This doctrine has received the name 
 of fatum Turcicum among modern European 
 Christians, because among all the Mahomme- 
 dans by whom it is professed, the Turks are 
 those with whom the Europeans are most ac- 
 quainted, and in whom they have seen the evil 
 influence of this doctrine most clearly displayed. 
 It would be more properly denominated fatum 
 Muhammedicum. The opinion that the bound 
 of human life is unalterably determined was also 
 adopted by those ancient philosophers who be- 
 lieved in the doctrine of fate. Vide s. 67. 
 Hence the stoical dilemma of which mention is 
 made by Cicero, in his treatise, "De Fato;" Si 
 fatum tibi est, ex hoc morbo convalescere, sive 
 medicum adhibueris, sive non, convalesces; [and 
 the saying, Nisifatale segro mori, facile evadett 
 cuifatale mori, velpediculi morsu conficeretur.^ 
 On this principle suicide might be justified, or 
 at least palliated, as has been actually done. 
 God does indeed, in every case, foresee and 
 
244 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 know how long- a man will live, and the result 
 will perfectly agree with this foreknowledge, 
 since the omniscient God cannot be mistaken in 
 what he knows. But to stop here would be to 
 take only a partial view of some of the divine 
 attributes, which would lead into error. God 
 has indeed formed a purpose respecting the 
 length of the life of every man ; but for the very 
 reason that he is omniscient, he has formed this 
 purpose only on consideration of natural and 
 moral causes ; his providence therefore does not 
 make it in itself unconditionally necessary that 
 any man should die at such a particular time. 
 The purpose of God is a conditional one, founded 
 upon a knowledge of all the circumstances into 
 which the individual who is the object of it 
 would come, and also upon the knowledge of all 
 his free actions. Vide s. 32, 1. ad finem. God 
 foresees how the body of every man will be con- 
 stituted ; in what situation it will be placed ; of 
 what character his moral actions will be, and 
 what consequences will flow from them, &c. 
 And from his foreknowledge of all these circum- 
 stances respecting him, God forms his purpose, 
 fixing the termination of his life. The bodily 
 constitution which a man brings with him into 
 the world, and which is afterwards affected by 
 so many circumstances, perfectly known to God, 
 and under his control, is one of the conditions 
 upon which the purpose of God respecting the 
 end of human life is founded ; and this period, 
 so far as it depends upon our bodily constitution, 
 cannot be passed over. When the clock runs 
 down, it stops; when the flower blossoms, it 
 fades ; and man cannot give himself a new body, 
 nor can God, except by miracle. This period 
 of life, depending upon the natural constitution 
 of the body, and upon other natural circum- 
 stances, is called the natural bound of human 
 life ; and this cannot be prolonged by man him- 
 self. Now if a man dies earlier than he would 
 naturally have done, whether from his own fault 
 or that of others, or from some outward accident, 
 (the cause, however, of whatever kind, being 
 known to God, and under his providence and 
 control,) his death is said to be unnatural, 
 extraordinary, or sometimes consequens, in op- 
 position to the other, which is called antece- 
 dens. The eases here supposed are described 
 in the Bible by the phrases, to fulfil one's days, 
 (vp^ ns fc^D,) or not to fulfil them, Isa. Ixv. 20. 
 And in this way are we to understand those pas- 
 sages in which God is said to lengthen out, or to 
 abridge, the life of man. The meaning of these 
 terms is, that God so directs the course of nature 
 that a particular man lives longer than he would 
 naturally have lived, or than he was expected to 
 live. Hence it appears that man can do nothing 
 himself to prolong his life beyond the natural 
 limits of human existence; but that he may do 
 much to shorten it. To return now to the sto- 
 
 ical dilemma. When a man is sick, he must 
 call for a physician, and make use of prescribed 
 remedies, because he cannot be certain that tho 
 end of his life has now come. The purpose of 
 God respecting his life or his death is in this 
 case, as we must conceive it, merely conditional. 
 If he uses the proper means, he will recover; if 
 not, he will die; and God, as he is omniscient, 
 knows which of these courses he will pursue, 
 and therefore whether he will die or live. A 
 vehement controversy arose on this subject, in 
 the seventeenth century, between the reformed 
 philosophers and some theologians of the Ne- 
 therlands, on occasion of the work of Beverovi- 
 cius, Quxstiones Epistolicae de vitx termino fatuli ,- 
 Dortrecht, 1634, 8vo; and enlarged, Leiden, 
 1636, 4to. 
 
 (6) Our powers depend upon God. These 
 powers are very various ; but they may be class- 
 ed under two general divisions, the powers of 
 soul and of body spiritual and corporeal powers. 
 Now as man did not give himself these powers, 
 so neither can he retain possession of them by 
 his own strength or skill. Hence they are 
 justly described in the Bible as the gift of God. 
 Worldly respectability, mental endowments, 
 sound judgment, memory, learning all are 
 given by God ; and that one man surpasses an- 
 other in these respects is owing to his will and 
 his wise government, Exod. iv. 11; James, i. 
 17; 1 Cor. iv. 7. Those happy combinations 
 of circumstances by which we are sometimes 
 enabled to accomplish with ease the enterprises 
 with regard to which we and others -were ready 
 to despair, are to be ascribed to God, although 
 we are often disposed to consider them as the 
 effect of chance. We owe the success of all 
 our undertakings, not to our own wisdom and 
 skill, but solely to the wise and benevolent pro- 
 vidence of God. To lead men to feel this, is a 
 great object with the sacred writers, who every- 
 where recommend to them the exercise of these 
 pious and humble dispositions by which they 
 may be strengthened in their faith in God, and 
 preserved against pride and selfish blindness. 
 Hence they always ascribe the powers of man, 
 and his success in exercising them, directly to 
 God, as the first cause ; in such a way, however, 
 that second causes, which also depend upon him, 
 are not excluded. Morus, p. 77, n. 1, 2. In 
 this connexion, reference should be made to Ps. 
 cxxvii., where we are taught that our most 
 strenuous efforts will be in vain, unless God 
 grants us success. 
 
 Note. Such meditations respecting the pre- 
 servation of our existence, powers, and the 
 healthful and successful employment of them, 
 are very instructive and practical. They are 
 calculated to fill our minds with peace and joy, 
 and to excite hearty gratitude to God. Christ 
 makes use of these considerations to shew us 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 245 
 
 that we should not be distrustful of God, and 
 should not trouble ourselves with anxious cares. 
 Since God takes so much care of the various 
 orders of being, of beasts, and even of inanimate 
 things, how much more will he care for us, to 
 whom he has given a destination by far more 
 noble than theirs ! Matt. vi. 25, seq. He espe- 
 cially warns us against anxious cares as to our 
 bodily support, since they withdraw us from 
 more important concerns, and render us disqua- 
 lified for religion, and divine instruction. Luke, 
 viii. 14, al /if'pijuvcu tov jSt'ou avprtviyovat, Hov 
 Jioyoj/, the cares of life prevent the efficacy of 
 divine truth upon our hearts. 
 
 SECTION LXX. 
 
 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 
 
 I. Statement of this Doctrine. 
 
 FROM what has already been said, it appears 
 that God is perfectly acquainted with all the 
 efficient causes which exist, both those which 
 are free in their agency and those that are other- 
 wise; that he knows every act of these causes, 
 and all the effects which they produce, and that 
 he guides and controls them all at his pleasure, 
 and makes them subservient to his own designs. 
 And it is in this his guiding and controlling all 
 the changes and all the actions of his creatures, 
 so as to promote the highest good of the whole, 
 and of each part, that the government of God 
 consists. The good of the whole involves that 
 of all the parts of which it is made up, and one 
 cannot be secured exclusively of the other. The 
 sum of the good of all the individuals under the 
 government of God constitutes the good of the 
 whole. Hence the propriety of making the 
 good of each part an object of the government 
 of God. 
 
 In order to form a correct judgment respect- 
 ing the good secured in the world under the go- 
 vernment of God a subject on which mistakes 
 are very common, the following principles should 
 be kept in mind. 
 
 1. The degree of perfection and happiness 
 attainable by different beings varies according 
 to their different relations. All beings are not 
 susceptible of an equal degree of good. The 
 beast, for example, seeks for nothing further 
 than the satisfaction of his hunger and thirst, 
 and the gratification of his other natural appe- 
 tites. But moral beings require more than this 
 for their happiness ; they have a higher destina- 
 tion, and are capable of a higher good. And 
 even among men themselves, the external good 
 of which they are capable is different according 
 to the original constitution, the abilities, and 
 even the age, of different individuals. The good 
 which would be adapted to a child is not such 
 as would satisfy the desires of a man. 
 
 2. Such is the constitution which God has 
 given to the world, that the happiness of one is 
 often subordinate and must be sacrificed to the 
 happiness of another. This is clearly taught 
 by experience; though doubtless philosophers 
 would prove, if the testimony of experience 
 were not so explicit, that this could not be so. 
 We find, however, that many animals serve for 
 the nourishment of others, by whom they are 
 constantly devoured. And how many of them 
 are there which daily suffer from the free ac- 
 tions of men ! For us, with all our short-sight- 
 edness, to call in question the wisdom and jus- 
 tice of what God thus ordains, or permits, and 
 to suppose that it could or should have been 
 otherwise, is unwarrantable presumption. It is 
 enough for us to know that such is the divine 
 plan, which we are unable fully to comprehend, 
 but which, for the very reason that God chose 
 it, is the wisest, best, and most adapted to its 
 ends. So we are taught by the holy scriptures, 
 and further than this, with all our speculative 
 philosophy, we cannot go. Vide s. 48, ad 
 finem, and s. 71, II. 
 
 3. Happiness is frequently connected with 
 certain conditions, on the fulfilment of which 
 our enjoyment of it depends. For example : the 
 enjoyment of good health depends in a great 
 measure upon temperance. If any one fails to 
 comply with these established conditions, the 
 loss of the good which he had hoped for is to 
 be ascribed to himself, and not to God. 
 
 These considerations are overlooked by the 
 great body of mankind ; and hence it is, that 
 when affairs do not take the turn which they 
 wish, they complain and murmur respecting the 
 divine government. The mistakes most fre- 
 quent on the subject of divine providence are 
 the following viz., (a) Men are apt to consider 
 their whole happiness as placed in the enjoy- 
 ment of a certain kind of advantages, perhaps 
 that very kind of which they are deprived ; per- 
 haps, too, advantages which possess no intrin- 
 sic value, which are transient and uncertain, 
 and which, if obtained, could not make the pos- 
 sessor truly happy. The poor often desire, 
 most of all things, that they may be rich ; and 
 the sick, that they may enjoy good health. But 
 how undesirable is it often, both for their tem- 
 poral and eternal welfare, that their wishes 
 should be gratified ! (6) Men are prone to for- 
 get that the good of the whole is to be consulted 
 for, and that individuals must often sacrifice to 
 the general welfare some private advantages, 
 for which, however, they are to receive an equi- 
 valent in other ways, as they may confidently 
 expect, from the goodness of God, and as expe- 
 rience even in the present world has often 
 proved, (c) Men are prone to regard dispro- 
 portionately the present pain and unhappiness 
 which they experience, and to forget that under 
 
246 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 their sufferings and deprivations there may be 
 concealed the germ of a greater temporal and 
 eternal good. (</) Men are disposed to charge 
 God unjustly with denying them, or depriving 
 them of certain advantages, the loss of which 
 is wholly their own fault. How many of the 
 sick and the destitute complain of God as the 
 author of their sufferings, while their own con- 
 sciences must assure them that they alone are 
 to blame ! 
 
 II. Proof of this Doctrine. 
 
 1. From the natural constitution of the world, 
 (argumentum physicum,) it is impossible for 
 the human mind to conceive how the admirable 
 order and harmony which appear in the uni- 
 verse, where all things are so intimately con- 
 nected, run into, and depend upon one another, 
 like the links of a chain, should exist without 
 the superintendence and control of an infinitely 
 wise and almighty Being. Consider here the 
 influence of the atmosphere upon the growth of 
 plants, upon the life, health, and support of ani- 
 mate beings. Reflect, too, that one country has 
 a surplus of certain useful productions, of which 
 another country is wholly destitute. The former 
 cannot use its surplus productions, the latter is 
 compelled to seek elsewhere what its own soil 
 does not produce, and to obtain it where it can 
 be found in the greatest abundance. This gives 
 rise to trade, activity, enterprise ; and these bring 
 in wealth, &c. 
 
 2. From experience, (argumentum histori- 
 cum.) This may be either personal or general, 
 and so is called by Morus duplicem providentise 
 scholam, p. 83, s. 8. This proof, when rightly 
 exhibited, is very obvious and intelligible, even 
 to the unlearned. In the events which take 
 place around us, let the attention be directed to 
 the causes by which they are effected to the 
 time, place, and other circumstances in which 
 these causes acted. By their slow and often 
 unnoticed combination, effects are produced at 
 which every one is astonished. The smallest 
 occurrences often lead to the greatest revolu- 
 tions; wicked actions are made the means of 
 good, and result in the advantage of those whom 
 they were designed to injure, so that many can 
 say, with Joseph, (Gen. 1. 20,) "Ye thought 
 evil against me, but God meant it for good." 
 Men who are to be the means of eminent good 
 to the world, or to perform some distinguished 
 service, must be called forth upon the stage of 
 action at exactly the most proper time, in ex- 
 actly the most suitable place, and at precisely 
 the most favourable juncture of other circum- 
 stances. When history is studied with these 
 considerations kept in mind, (and in the study 
 of history they should never be omitted, as they 
 are now, alas! too frequently, by those who 
 
 teach this branch to the young,) what to the 
 ignorant and thoughtless might appear to be 
 chance or accident, exhibits clear marks of a 
 guiding Providence. And this is the high posi- 
 tion, from which those who have the scriptures 
 in their hand can survey all the events recorded 
 in the history of the world. We may refer to 
 the history of Joseph, to the ancient history of 
 the Jews, that of the diffusion of Christianity, 
 of the Reformation, and the more important 
 events of our own times, as remarkable exam- 
 ples. Vide Schroeckh, Disp. historia provi- 
 dentiam divinam, quando et quam clare loqua- 
 tur; Vitebergas, 1776. J. G. Miiller, Briefe 
 iiber das Studium der Wissenschaften, beson- 
 ders der Geschichte; Ziirch, 1798,8vo a work 
 full of valuable remarks drawn from experience, 
 which deserve to be considered, especially 
 by the teachers of religion, and to be carefully 
 applied by them to practice. But we ought by 
 no means to confine our attention to the great 
 events which are recorded in the history of the 
 world. To one who is an attentive observer of 
 all the changes through which he himself passes, 
 his own life will furnish abundant materials for 
 the most interesting and useful observations 
 respecting the providence of God. And such 
 observations are uncommonly useful in popular 
 instruction. They tend to awaken and cherish 
 religious dispositions. If men suppose that God 
 exercises no care over them, they have no ground 
 or motive to love and worship him. But since 
 holiness is the true end for which we, as moral 
 beings, were made, and since our capacity for 
 happiness is in exact proportion to our holiness, 
 we ought to pay particular attention to those 
 dealings of Divine Providence with us by which 
 this great end is promoted. To every man 
 whose moral character is in any considerable 
 degree improved and advanced, whatever he has 
 experienced himself, or noticed in others, tending 
 to the promotion of holiness, possesses an inex- 
 pressible interest; and any who are destitute of 
 feeling on this point, and can ridicule the spiri- 
 tual experiences of pious Christians, and what 
 they communicate of their experiences to others, 
 either by writing or by oral relation, give mourn- 
 ful proof that they themselves are as yet unre- 
 formed, and are turning aside from the true end 
 of their being. One who is taught in his youth 
 to refer everything in his own life to God, and 
 to search for the traces of divine providence in 
 what befals himself, will learn to look at the 
 lives of others and at the history of nations in 
 the same manner and with the same interest, 
 and will of course be dissatisfied when he sees 
 that, in opposition to the example of the sacred 
 writers, God is wholly left out of the account 
 by so many historians. But, on the contrary, 
 he who himself lives in the world without God, 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 247 
 
 may be content with a history in which the 
 hand of God is unnoticed, and indeed will be 
 displeased with any other. 
 
 3. From the Bible. Morns, p. 7981, s. 6. 
 That God is the creator, proprietor, and governor 
 of the world, that all things, even the small- 
 est, depend upon him, and that with infinite 
 wisdom he overrules all for the highest good, 
 are principles everywhere assumed in the Bible. 
 The texts which relate to providence, in the more 
 general view of it, were cited s. 68, I. 2. The 
 texts which relate more particularly to the divine 
 government may be divided into the following 
 classes : (a) Those in which the guidance and 
 direction of all events, both small and great, are 
 expressly ascribed to God, Matt. vi. 31 ; Acts, 
 xvii. 25, 26; 1 Chronicles, xxix. (al. xxx.) 12. 
 (6) Those in which particular changes and oc- 
 currences, past, present, and to come, are referred 
 to God as the author; Isa. xliii. 12; Acts, iv. 
 28 ; Psa. xc. ; Prov. xvi. 1, 33, "The lot is cast 
 into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is 
 of the Lord." (c) Those which contain divine 
 promises and threatenings, and which would be 
 without meaning on any supposition but that 
 God is the governor of the world and the dis- 
 poser of the destinies of men; Exodus, xx. 12; 
 Psa. xc., xci., &c. (d) Those in which God 
 is entreated to avert calamities, to put an end 
 to distress, to bestow blessings, &c. ; or those 
 in which the granting of such requests is pro- 
 mised, Psalm xxii. 5 ; cxxviii. ; Matt. xxvi. 39 ; 
 1 Thess. iii. 10, 11. In order that this may be 
 correctly understood, it should be compared 
 with what was before said respecting the will 
 and the purposes of God, s. 20, 32. 
 
 Note. It has been already frequently re- 
 marked, that according to a mode of thinking 
 and speaking common among the ancients, many 
 things were represented as resulting immediately 
 from the agency of God, though they were in 
 reality effected through the instrumentality of 
 second causes, which perhaps were merely not 
 mentioned, perhaps were overlooked, or possibly, 
 at that early period of the world, not even known. 
 Vide s. 58, II. The mode of representation here 
 referred to, and expressions and narrations 
 founded upon it, occur frequently in the Bible, 
 in Homer, and the ancient writers. Thus, for 
 example, when we should say, it thunders, it 
 rains, there is an earthquake, the ancients said, 
 God thunders, &c., Psa. xxix. ; civ. 32. Gen. 
 xi. 7, 8 ; xix. 24, " God rained upon Sodom and 
 Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out 
 of heaven." Many events, therefore, which 
 would seem, from the manner in which they are 
 spoken of, to be the results of the immediate 
 agency of God, and to be accomplished in an 
 extraordinary way, were really effected by na- 
 tural causes. However, since these natural 
 causes depend upon the government of God, this 
 
 mode of speaking is in itself correct. And it is 
 because we, in the present age, have so little of 
 the religious feeling of the ancient world that 
 we misunderstand their more pious and religious 
 mode of expressing themselves, and even feel it 
 to be offensive. The teacher of religion should, 
 however, closely follow the example of the sa- 
 cred writers in this respect, and ever imitate and 
 preserve this more religious phraseology which 
 they employ, and, like them, refer everything to 
 God. And if, in order to prevent superstition, 
 he should think it necessary to say that such an 
 event took place naturally, he must be careful 
 that he be not understood to mean that it took 
 place without God, and that he does not thus be- 
 come the means of causing his hearers to forget 
 God, and to live at a distance from him. He 
 ought, on the contrary, in such cases, to shew 
 that although a particular event may have been 
 natural, it was not the less owing to the agency 
 of God ; that nature is only an instrument in the 
 hands of God ; and that nothing therefore takes 
 place which is not according to his will and 
 purpose. 
 
 SECTION LXXI. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD IN RELATION TO THE 
 FREEDOM OF MAN, AND TO THE EVIL EXISTING 
 IN THE WORLD. 
 
 I. In Relation to the Freedom of Man. 
 
 ON the one hand, the freedom of the human 
 will is unimpaired by the government of God ; 
 and, on the other, the government of God is un- 
 obstructed and undisturbed by the free actions 
 of men. The freedom of man must at all events 
 be maintained, for morality and accountability 
 depend upon it. If he is not free to choose and 
 to act, he cannot be accountable for his actions ; 
 for they are not within his own power. We 
 have already established the position (s. 22, 1.), 
 that God foresees those actions which result from 
 the freedom of man, and the consequences of 
 them, as well as those which are necessary, or 
 less contingent; but that the former do not cease 
 to be free because they are foreknown. This 
 principle must be assumed as true in reasoning 
 on this subject. We are not to expect, there- 
 fore, that the government of God over moral 
 beings will be shewn by his compelling them to 
 perform good or bad actions. That men are free 
 in what they do is everywhere assumed in the 
 Bible, and must be presupposed in every system 
 of morals. Vide Luke, viii. 5 15 ; xiii. 6 9 ; 
 James, i. 1315. 
 
 Still, however, the free actions of moral beings 
 are under the most minute inspection and the 
 most perfect control of God. For these actions 
 are dependent (a) upon the powers which man 
 possesses, and for these powers he is indebted 
 
248 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 to God alone. Vide s. 69. (6) Upon the laws 
 of his physical and moral nature i. e., the laws 
 (in one case, of motion, and in the other, of 
 thought) according to which he exercises his 
 peculiar powers ; and these laws are given and 
 established by God. Vide ubi supra, (c) Upon 
 external circumstances upon things without the 
 man himself; and these things, as all others, are 
 under the control of God. Man, then, as a mo- 
 ral being, is free to will, to resolve, and to act 
 according to his resolutions. God furnishes him 
 with occasions of acting in the external objects 
 around him ; he also gives him his powers of 
 action, and preserves to him their exercise; but 
 then permits him, though under his own guid- 
 ance and supervision, to exert his powers ac- 
 cording to his own will, and to perform his 
 actions freely. Vide s. 69, I. ad finem. How 
 this can be, we shall find it difficult to under- 
 stand, however sagacious and fine-spun our 
 philosophical theories may be ; but that thus it 
 is, that notwithstanding the providence of God 
 we remain free in our actions, must be firmly 
 maintained if we would not degrade ourselves 
 below the standard of moral beings, if we would 
 not falsify the dictates of that moral feeling so 
 deeply implanted by the Creator himself in our 
 hearts, and if we would not consequently over- 
 turn the first and most important doctrines of 
 morality. Every man's own consciousness, the 
 clear dictates of his moral nature, convince him 
 that he is free, beyond the necessity, or even the 
 possibility, of a further demonstration. Cf. the 
 writings of the modern philosophers of the dif- 
 ferent schools Eberhard, Ueber die Freyheit; 
 and Jacob's clear and perspicuous treatise on the 
 same subject, according to the principles of the 
 Critical philosophy, contained in Kiesewetter's 
 work, " Ueber den ersten Grundsatz der Moral- 
 philosophie ;" Leipzig und Halle, 1788, 8vo. 
 On account of the deficiencies and difficulties 
 attending metaphysical demonstrations of free- 
 dom, and the perplexed and endless speculations 
 by which both sides of this question have been 
 argued, Kant rejected them all as insufficient, 
 and as leading into error; and would have us 
 depend more upon experience, and believe and 
 hold fast the doctrine of human freedom, because 
 it is so indispensable in morals that without it 
 morality cannot be conceived to exist. [This 
 view of Kant, implying that freedom, while it 
 is a postulate of our practical reason, (i. e., ne- 
 cessary to be assumed in order to moral action,) 
 is yet inconsistent with our theoretical reason, 
 (i. e., incapable of demonstration, and contrary 
 to the conclusions to which the reflecting mind 
 arrives,) is now very generally rejected. We 
 cannot admit a twofold and contradictory reason, 
 nor can we adopt a principle for practice to 
 which our speculative reason is statedly op- 
 It is justly remarked by Bockshammer, 
 
 in his brief but comprehensive treatise on the 
 Will, that even practical freedom cannot be ade- 
 quately maintained, if, while we must deem our- 
 selves free, we are yet left to suspect, by the 
 decisions of our speculative reason, that in real- 
 ity we act from some concealed necessity, under 
 the laws of which our inmost being is placed. 
 Vide Bockshammer, Ueber die Freyheit des 
 mensch. Willens, s. 5, f . ; Stuttgart, 1821. 
 TR.] The more full investigation of the whole 
 subject belongs rather to the department of mo- 
 ral science than here. 
 
 The exhibition of this subject in popular in- 
 struction should be kept as free as possible from 
 all philosophical subtleties ; and it would be 
 well if the teachers of religion, from regard to 
 their own peace and comfort, as well as that of 
 their hearers, would abide by the following 
 simple principles, which accord alike with scrip- 
 ture and experience, (a) God, with a view to 
 the real welfare of man, gives him the means 
 and opportunities necessary to withhold him from 
 the choice of evil, and to lead him to what is 
 right. (6) For many of our free actions, he 
 furnishes us with inducement and encourage- 
 ment in the external circumstances in which he 
 has placed us; and he so orders these circum- 
 stances as to promote what we ourselves under- 
 take, and to give it a happy issue. He makes 
 use of these circumstances also as a warning to 
 us and others to abstain from such actions as 
 we find attended with unhappy consequences. 
 These encouragements and warnings may serve 
 as examples to shew the consistency between 
 the divine government and human freedom ; for 
 we are still at liberty, and have it still within 
 our power, to do that to which we are encour- 
 aged, and to abstain from that from which we 
 are warned ; and in both cases we remain the 
 authors of our own free actions, (c) God re- 
 wards men for their good actions, and punishes 
 them for those that are bad ; which he could not 
 do, were men not free in performing them. 
 Vide s. 31. (d) God frequently prevents 
 wicked actions, which men had intended and 
 resolved to perform. The brethren of Joseph, 
 for example, were not able to execute their de- 
 signs against his life, Gen. xxxix. God, how- 
 ever, does not always do this ; but, on the con- 
 trary, sometimes permits the wicked actions of 
 men, since otherwise he would destroy their 
 freedom. But then these wicked actions are 
 overruled by him to be the means of good, Gen. 
 1. 20 ; Acts, ii. 36. If in any case, however, 
 they are wholly irreconcilable with the wise and 
 benevolent plan of his government, or, which is 
 the same thing, cannot be made to contribute to 
 the general good which he seeks to promote, he 
 then directly prevents them. What actions and 
 events belong to this class it is impossible for 
 us to say, and can be known only to the omni- 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 249 
 
 ecient God. (e) The result and issue of all ac- 
 tions, good and bad, depend solely upon God. 
 Vide s. 70. Many a scheme, which appeared 
 in itself to be a masterpiece of human wisdom 
 and prudence, has failed of success, while the 
 most foolish and inconsiderate undertakings 
 have been prospered. Vide Eccles. ix. 11; 
 Prov. xvi. 1, seq. ; James, iv. 13 15. This 
 would be seen by us much more frequently if 
 we were not accustomed to look rather at the 
 result than at the intention and plan. If the re- 
 sult is favourable, we judge favourably of the 
 design itself; and the reverse. Hence it is that 
 we find praise and blame so unjustly awarded 
 in history. When we think to benefit ourselves 
 or others by a particular course of action, we 
 often injure both ourselves and others ; and the 
 reverse. Hence it is said, that while the free- 
 dom of men and other moral beings is not de- 
 stroyed by the divine government, it is yet con- 
 fined and limited. Cf. Morus, p. 81, s. 3, 6, 
 Notes. [Also Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. i. 
 s. 644, s. 98, 6.] 
 
 II. In Relation to Evil. 
 
 1. The many evils which exist in the world, 
 and the calamities which befal the human race, 
 have from the earliest times been regarded as a 
 standing objection against the providence of 
 God. How they can consist with his wisdom 
 and goodness, and consequently with his provi- 
 dence, is a question which men at all times have 
 found it difficult to answer. These evils are 
 either physical or moral ; and the permission of 
 either of them has appeared to be subversive of 
 divine providence. The existence of evil was 
 brought forward as an argument against provi- 
 dence by Epicurus. Vide Lucretius, De Rerum 
 Natura, 1. v. ; Cicero, De Nat. Deorum ; Lac- 
 tantius, De ira Dei, c. 13. The^toics, on the 
 other hand, undertook to answer this objection. 
 Vide Seneca, De Beneficiis, iv. 4, seq. This 
 objection appeared so strong to Bayle, that, in 
 the article on Manicheism, in his Dictionary, he 
 pronounces it unanswerable. But Leibnitz, in 
 his "Theodicee," endeavoured to resolve the 
 doubts of Bayle, and to establish a correct phi- 
 losophical theory respecting the existence of 
 evil.* An argument has sometimes been drawn 
 against providence from the complaints of the 
 sacred writers respecting the evil existing in the 
 world, and the unhappy fate of man, especially 
 those which occur in the book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 [* Voltaire also opposed the doctrine of provi- 
 dence in a poem on the destruction of Lisbon ; and 
 when this doctrine was ably defended by Rousseau, 
 in his Letter on Optimism, he replied by a philoso- 
 phical romance entitled " Candide," in which he 
 presents an appalling picture of the disorders of the 
 world, from which he takes occasion to deride the 
 notion of an overruling providence. TB.] 
 32 
 
 But the object of the author of this book is not 
 so much to arraign the providence of God, as to 
 shew, from the instability of fortune, and the 
 uncertainty of human schemes, that we should 
 learn true wisdom, and that since providence 
 affords us a sufficiency of good things, we should 
 study the art, so rarely understood, of making a 
 wise use of them, by which alone we can be 
 contented and happy, Eccles. iii. vii. ix. 
 
 In reply to these objections, it may be said, 
 that if the providence of God can be proved 
 from other arguments, the existence of evil can 
 afford no reason to doubt or deny it. On the 
 contrary, we must conclude, that since God per- 
 mits and suffers evil in the world, it must be 
 according to his wisdom, and be perfectly con- 
 sistent with his providence, although we may 
 not be able to understand how it can be so, and 
 why he did not constitute a different order. 
 Vide Seneca, De providentia, sive quare bonis 
 viris mala accidant, cum sit providentia. The 
 will and the power of God may be regarded 
 either as exerted unconditionally, unconfined by 
 any established order, or as exerted in conform- 
 ity with a certain established order of things. 
 In the exercise of his absolute, unconditional 
 power, God could remove evil out of the way ; 
 but he will not always do this, because it is 
 against the order which from his wisdom he 
 found it necessary to establish. He indeed 
 foresaw the existence of evil, and permits it, 
 (cf. Ps. Ixxxi. 12, 13; Acts, xiv. 16; Rom. i. 
 24 ;) but so far as it is evil, he can never have 
 pleasure in it, or himself promote or favour it; 
 James, i. 13 17. He has admitted it into his 
 general plan, because he can make it, in its con- 
 nexion with other things, the means of a good, 
 which, without it, either could not be effected 
 at all, or at least not so well, as by its being 
 permitted. What Christ said, Matt. xiii. 29, is 
 very true, that if the tares were pulled up the 
 wheat would be pulled up with them ; and that 
 to prevent this, the tares and the wheat must be 
 suffered to grow together. We are acquainted 
 with only a small part of what is embraced in 
 the universe of God ; and even this small part is 
 understood by us very imperfectly ; and as to 
 the true internal relation of things the ends 
 for which they exist, and the consequences by 
 which they are followed, our knowledge is ex- 
 tremely defective; we are therefore unable to 
 form a right judgment respecting the relation of 
 evil to good, and of the amount of evil to the 
 amount of good. 
 
 Seneca says, Contro. iv. 27, "Necessitas 
 magnum humanae felicitatis patrocinium" Ne- 
 cessity is a great consolation in the sufferings of 
 men. If by necessity he meant that blind, in- 
 evitable fate to which the gods themselves are 
 subject, then is it a poor consolation indeed ; 
 for what comfort would it be to a malefactor, 
 
250 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 when carried towards the place of execution, 
 to be continually informed that he must die, 
 and there is no escaping it. But if necessity 
 may be understood to mean the order of things 
 which God saw it necessary to constitute, then 
 the maxim above stated is perfectly true ; it is 
 accordant with the Christian spirit, and full of 
 consolation, although this necessity may involve 
 many things which are unintelligible and dis- 
 agreeable to us. For if God, who is infinitely 
 wise and benevolent, has constituted this order, 
 it must be good, and adapted to the end which 
 he has in view, however otherwise it may ap- 
 pear to us. 
 
 Again; men who are dissatisfied with their 
 lot often complain that certain blessings are 
 denied them, without inquiring whether they 
 themselves are susceptible of these blessings, 
 and without remembering the many blessings 
 which they already enjoy. Besides, the opinions 
 of men respecting happiness are so various, 
 and sometimes so foolish, that it would seem 
 impossible that their wishes should all be grati- 
 fied. Things sometimes desired as the greatest 
 blessings would be, if possessed, the greatest 
 injury to both soul and body; and the good- 
 ness of Providence is shewn in withholding 
 them. Cf. Zollikoffer, Betrachtungen iiber das 
 Uebel in der Welt. Jacobi, Ueber die Weisen 
 Absichten Gottes. De Maree, Gottesverthei- 
 digung iiber die Zulassung des Bosen. 
 
 2. Another argument against providence is, 
 that the ungodly often prosper in the world, 
 while the righteous suffer affliction. This is 
 thought to be indirectly inconsistent with the 
 wisdom and goodness of God, and therefore to 
 disprove a superintending providence. The 
 minds of reflecting persons have from the earli- 
 est times been disturbed by this doubt; and the 
 advocates of providence have endeavoured in 
 various ways to solve it. It is frequently men- 
 tioned in the Old Testament, and receives various 
 answers, according to the different aspects which 
 the subject assumes e. g., Psalm xxxvii. xxxix. 
 xlix., and especially Ixxiii. ; Job, xvi. et passim. 
 Many also among the Grecian philosophers were 
 very much perplexed on this subject; and Di- 
 ogenes the Cynic declared, " that the prosperity 
 of the wicked disproved the power and wisdom 
 of the gods;" Cicero, De Nat. Deor. iii. 34. 
 Others, however, and particularly the stoics, 
 undertook to answer this objection ; and Seneca, 
 in his book "De Providentia," investigates the 
 question how the righteous can suffer, if there 
 is a divine providence ? According to the opi- 
 nion of Bayle this objection cannot be met by 
 any satisfactory answer. But, 
 
 (a) This objection results in a great measure 
 from ignorance, and from the low and false esti- 
 mate put upon the real advantages which the 
 godly enjoy, and the true happiness which flows 
 
 from the possession of them. Most of those 
 who urge the objection, that the righteous suffer 
 adversity, while the wicked prosper in the 
 world, place happiness in external things, in the 
 possession of wealth, or in sensual indulgences ; 
 and of course regard the poor man, who is little 
 thought of by the world, as unhappy. But in 
 this they mistake, overlooking the essential dis- 
 tinction between true and only apparent good. 
 True advantages, such as health of body, know- 
 ledge of the truth, holiness of heart, and others, 
 both of a physical and moral nature, make men 
 happy by their own proper tendency. These 
 are the true spiritual goods, the treasures in hea- 
 ven, of which Christ speaks ; by the possession 
 of which alone the soul is prepared for the true 
 happiness of moral beings. But besides these, 
 there are other things, such as riches, the enjoy- 
 ments of sense, power, and honour, which may 
 become advantages by a wise and rational use 
 of them, but which otherwise are injurious, and 
 the occasions of unhappiness to men. They 
 are, however, regarded by many, even when 
 unwisely and improperly used, as real blessings, 
 because they excite sensations agreeable to the 
 carnal mind. But to those who form a right 
 judgment respecting them, they are, when im- 
 properly used, only apparent blessings, because 
 the pleasure which they produce is transient, 
 and turns at last to pain. The writer of Psalm 
 xlix. very justly decides, therefore, that the life 
 of the profligate is only outwardly and in ap- 
 pearance happy, and is often, in reality, only 
 splendid and showy misery, to envy which 
 would be extremely foolish. In Psalm Ixxiii., 
 Asaph points to the end of the wicked, and 
 shews that their prosperity, being unsubstantial, 
 is suddenly and in a moment lost. We cannot 
 certainly regard that as a good in reference to 
 another, or account him as happy for the pos- 
 session of anything which he himself does not 
 truly enjoy. But it is not unfrequently the case 
 that the things most esteemed by the world, so 
 far from making the possessor happy, are the 
 occasion of disquietude and misery. And so it 
 is often said in common life, that the fortune of 
 the rich and powerful is only shining misery ,- 
 that they are not to be envied ; that we would 
 not exchange places with them, &c. 
 
 (6) When this is considered, and the state 
 of the virtuous and the vicious is then compared, 
 that of the former, though replete with external 
 sufferings, must be pronounced to be more hap- 
 py than that of the latter. For although the 
 good man may have no worldly honour, no 
 earthly riches, no superfluity of pleasures, he 
 has true, spiritual, good treasures in heaven, 
 which moth and rust do not corrupt, and which 
 are secure from thieves, (Matt. vi. 19, 20;) and 
 although he were bowed down under external 
 afflictions, he would yet maintain his integrity 
 
\YORKS OF GOD. 
 
 251 
 
 of heart, and the reward which the favour of 
 God secures the greatest of all the blessings 
 which men can enjoy. Vide Matt. xvi. 25. He 
 lias cheerfulness and tranquillity of soul; while 
 those who seek their good in external things are 
 constantly disquieted by passions, cares, and 
 disappointments. But this blessedness which 
 which the virtuous man enjoys makes but little 
 show in the world, and is hence so often under- 
 valued by worldly men. They find it impos- 
 sible to see or believe that there can be any 
 happiness in things for which they have so little 
 taste. This train of thought is much dwelt 
 upon by the stoical philosophers, and by the 
 sacred writers. 
 
 (c) It is a mistake, however, to suppose that 
 the virtuous always endure more external suf- 
 ferings than the wicked ; for the righteous are 
 frequently prosperous, even in their worldly 
 affairs ; while the wicked are unsuccessful in 
 all their undertakings. But these cases are less 
 noticed, because they seem to follow in the na- 
 tural course of things. 
 
 (rf) Even good men often bring upon them- 
 selves the sufferings which they endure by their 
 own fault ; they do not in all cases act according 
 to the law of duty and the rules of prudence; 
 and in such cases they cannot justly ask to be 
 excepted from the common lot of faulty and in- 
 judicious men, and must expect to endure the 
 unhappy consequences of their errors and follies. 
 Christ says, Luke, xvi. 8, " The children of this 
 world are wiser in their generation than the 
 children of light" i. e., those whose affections 
 are fixed upon the world, the worldly-minded, 
 are often more wise with regard to the things of 
 time than those whose affections are fixed upon 
 heaven are with regard to their heavenly trea- 
 sures. The former have more care for their 
 welfare in the present life than the latter for 
 their blessedness in the world to come. Should 
 pious and good men exhibit the same-zeal and 
 prudence which worldly men exhibit in ma- 
 naging their worldly affairs, how much would 
 they accomplish for their own advantage and 
 that of others ! But since they do not always 
 come up to this standard, they must suffer the 
 evil consequences of their delinquency. 
 
 (e) Nothing is more common than for us to 
 err in our estimate of the moral state and cha- 
 racter of other men. All are not pious and vir- 
 tuous who appear to be such, and are esteemed 
 such by their fellow men. And it is equally 
 true that all who are accounted ungodly are not 
 the gross criminals and offenders they are some- 
 times supposed to be. Vide Luke, xviii. 10, 
 seq. The character of many a man is made 
 out, by those who look upon him with hatred 
 or envy, to be much worse than it really is. 
 One man commits some flagrant, out-breaking 
 crime, which brings him into disgrace, and 
 
 draws upon him the contempt of the world ; but 
 he may be, at the same time, of a better dispo- 
 sition, and less culpable in the sight of God than 
 many a reputed saint, who covers over his real 
 shame with the hypocritical pretence of virtue. 
 Vide John viii. 3, 7, 10, 11. And since this is 
 the case, and it is always difficult, and some- 
 times impossible for us, who cannot search the 
 heart, to determine the true moral character of 
 men, and of their actions, we ought to be ex- 
 tremely cautious in deciding, whether the good 
 or evil which befalls them is deserved or not. 
 In most cases, our judgments on this subject 
 are certainly very erroneous. 
 
 (/) The afflictions which good men endure 
 are beneficial to them and to others, and are pro- 
 motive of their highest welfare. They often 
 prevent a greater evil which was threatening 
 them ; exercise and strengthen their piety, virtue, 
 and confidence in God ; increase their zeal in 
 the pursuit of holiness, and consequently their 
 true happiness ; and thus verify the declaration 
 of Paul, Rom. viii. 28, "That all things work 
 together for the good of those who are friends 
 of God." Cf. Rom. v. 3; James, i. 2; Matt, 
 v. 10; Heb. xii. 5 -13, especially, ver. 11, 
 which appears to be copied directly from the 
 heart of an afflicted saint. " No chastening for 
 the present seemeth joyous, but grievous; ne- 
 vertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable 
 fruits of righteousness to them who are exer- 
 cised thereby." Hence the sufferings of good 
 men are sometimes called Ttftpa^ot, because by 
 means of them their characters are proved and 
 their faith is tried and strengthened. 
 
 (g) But there is one other consideration, 
 which may remove all our doubts, and make us 
 contented when we see the innocent oppressed 
 and suffering, and the wicked, who forget God, 
 in a prosperous condition viz., that the present 
 life is only the first, imperfect stage of our exist- 
 ence a state of probation, in which we are to 
 prepare for another and more perfect state. This 
 consoling doctrine respecting the future life and 
 retribution beyond the grave, is one of the chief 
 doctrines of Christianity, from which everything 
 proceeds, and to which everything is referred; 
 and the writers of the New Testament con- 
 stantly make use of it, and seek to comfort the 
 pious by the truth that divine justice will not 
 be fully exhibited until the future state shall 
 commence, and that then the righteous shall be 
 richly recompensed, by the exceeding greatness 
 of their future reward, foi; all the evil they have 
 suffered. Vide Rom. viii. 17 ; 1 Peter, iv. 
 1214; 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18, and the parable of 
 Lazarus, Luke, xvi., especially ver. 25. But 
 of those who act here upon the earth from im- 
 proper motives, even if they perform actions 
 which in themselves are good and praiseworthy, 
 Christ says, they have their reward i. e., they 
 
252 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 may indeed obtain temporal advantages, but 
 God will not reward them with the treasures of 
 the future world, Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16. 
 
 SECTION LXXII. 
 
 OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE 
 PROVIDENCE. 
 
 I. It is Universal. 
 
 IT extends to every creature and to every event 
 in the universe to the small and insignificant, 
 as well as to the great and important. The 
 Bible everywhere teaches, that the purpose of 
 God extends not merely to the whole, and to the 
 connexion of all its parts, but to each and every 
 part, their relations and their alterations. His 
 knowledge must accordingly comprehend the 
 smallest and most apparently insignificant cir- 
 cumstances. This follows even from the scrip- 
 tural idea of creation. Vide s. 46. Cf. Ps. 
 cxiii. 5, 6, " He dwelleth on high, and humbleth 
 himself to behold the things in heaven and 
 in the earth." Ps. cxxxviii. 6, "Though the 
 Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the 
 lowly." Ps. xxxvi. 6; cxlviii. Matt. X. 29, 
 30, " Not a sparrow falls to the ground without 
 his notice; he numbers the hairs of our heads." 
 The doctrine, that the providence of God ex- 
 tends even to the minutest things, (providentia 
 circa minima,) leads us, when it is properly con- 
 sidered, to entertain a very exalted idea of God 
 and his attributes, in that he thinks and cares 
 for every creature which he has made during 
 every moment of its existence, and in every situ- 
 ation in which it is placed. But because the 
 manner in which the providence of God can ex- 
 tend to all individuals is incomprehensible by 
 the human understanding, and because men are 
 prone to compare God with themselves, this 
 doctrine has been often either wholly misunder- 
 stood or directly denied. Since it is supposed 
 inconsistent with the dignity of princes and the 
 great of the earth to concern themselves with 
 small affairs, the case is thought to be the same 
 with God ; and his honour, it is imagined, is as- 
 serted, by denying that he cares for what is 
 small and insignificant. This doctrine was ac- 
 cordingly either doubted or denied by most even 
 of the Grecian philosophers ; and indeed it could 
 not appear to them with that degree of clearness 
 in which it appears to us, considering that their 
 ideas respecting matter and the creation of the 
 world, and the relations in which matter and the 
 world stand to God, were so imperfect, and so 
 wholly unlike those which we have derived from 
 the Bible. Vide s. 45, 46. Aristotle main- 
 tained that the providence of God extends to 
 heavenly things, but not to things on the earth 
 (according to Diogenes and Plutarch.) The 
 stoics, on the contrary, believed in a providence 
 
 extending to individual things, in a sense, how 
 ever, somewhat different from that common with 
 us. Vide Seneca, De Providentia, and Cicero, 
 De Nat. Deor. ii. 65, 66; also Plato, De Rep. 
 x., where this doctrine is ably defended. The 
 views entertained by some even of the Christian 
 fathers on this subject were extremely erroneous. 
 Such are those expressed by Hieronymus, in 
 his Commentary on Hab., where he says, "The 
 divine majesty cannot stoop so low as to interest 
 itself to know how many vermin are each mo- 
 ment produced on the earth, and how many pe- 
 rish ; how many flies, fleas, and gnats there are ; 
 how many fishes the sea contains ;" &c. His 
 opinions, however, were opposed by Gregory of 
 Nazianzen, Orat. xvi., and by Chrysostom, in 
 his book "De Providentia;" and very rational 
 and scriptural opinions on this subject were 
 expressed by many other of the ecclesiastical 
 fathers. In modern times, the Socinians have 
 been accused of denying that providence extend s 
 to small things ; at least such was said to be the 
 opinion expressed in the writings of some of 
 the leaders of this sect; but from the obscurity 
 of their language, the truth of the accusation 
 remains doubtful. Many of the modern scep- 
 tics and free-thinkers in England, the Nether- 
 lands, France, and Germany, haveeitherdoubted 
 and denied the providence of God altogether, or 
 at least providentia circa minima. So Bayle, 
 De la Mettrie, Voltaire, the author of the Sys- 
 teme de la Nature, and Frederic II., in the 
 works of the philosopher of Sans souci, Letter 
 Seventh. 
 
 The doctrine that the providence of God is 
 universal, and extends to every individual crea- 
 ture, may be confirmed and illustrated by the 
 following observations : 
 
 1. The division of the creatures of God into 
 classes and kinds answers no other purpose than 
 to assist the feebleness of the human understand- 
 ing, which cannot at once survey all things in 
 their true connexion. We are therefore com- 
 pelled to begin with particulars, and then pro- 
 ceed to what is general ; to begin with what is 
 more easy, and proceed to what is more diffi- 
 cult, in order to render the connexion of the 
 whole in some measure comprehensible to our 
 minds. But God knows all things immediately 
 and at once; there is no succession in his 
 knowledge. Vide s. 22, II. This his know- 
 ledge can occasion him, therefore, no trouble or 
 expense of time, in which, as is the case with 
 us, more important concerns must be neglected 
 or deferred. Employment about small things 
 is made an objection to men, because they are 
 prone to regard trifles as important, (which can 
 never be said of God,) and because, on account 
 of them, they are prone to neglect what is of 
 more value. This danger has been transferred 
 very inconsiderately to God. But as nothing 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 253 
 
 is too great for him, so nothing 1 is too small. 
 He cannot therefore be distracted, as Frederic 
 II. supposed, by being employed about small 
 concerns. 
 
 2. The divine purpose must necessarily ex- 
 tend to particular things; since otherwise his 
 knowledge must be as imperfect and fragmentary 
 as our own. From the theory of the omni- 
 science and the decrees of God stated in s. 22, 
 32, and there proved to be according to scripture 
 and reason, it appears, that when God thinks 
 of men he does not think of them in general, but 
 in particular of all men individually, and in 
 all the various circumstances and conditions in 
 which they exist every moment. In this way 
 does he think of the whole world, and of all its 
 separate parts, from eternity ; and similar to 
 this is his decree respecting the universe, and 
 all its parts. No alteration, therefore, can be 
 made in the smallest portion of the world, which 
 he did not consider and embrace in his eternal 
 decree. 
 
 3. That a human ruler cannot devote equal 
 attention to all the objects which are under his 
 inspection, and that he is compelled to set some 
 of them aside as comparatively unimportant, and 
 to give himself little or no concern about them, 
 is the consequence of human imperfection. The 
 greater the powers of his mind are, the more will 
 he be able to occupy himself with particular ob- 
 jects, and those of minor consequence; and the 
 more he does this, the more just and impartial 
 an estimate will he be able to form of the whole, 
 and consequently the more wisely and prosper- 
 ously will he be able to administer his govern- 
 ment. Hence Plato justly remarked, that a per- 
 fect ruler must have an equal care for all his 
 subjects, and all the offices of state, and allow 
 none of them to pass unregarded, lest the whole 
 should suffer injury from his neglect of a part. 
 Vide Cicero, De Officiis, i. 25. It is this rest- 
 less activity, which seizes upon everything, even 
 things which would appear insignificant to men 
 of common minds, and turns them to its own ac- 
 count, which is so universally admired and ap- 
 plauded in Cassar, Frederic II., and other distin- 
 guished rulers of ancient and modern times. If 
 this is true with regard to human rulers, how 
 much more so with regard to God in administer- 
 ing his government; since he is not wanting 
 either in the knowledge, power, or will, requisite 
 to the most particular providence. If God did 
 not exercise a watchful care over particular per- 
 sons and things, how would he be able to secure 
 the good of the whole, which is composed of so 
 many parts, all intimately connected 1 The 
 whole is only the aggregate of many small 
 portions; and the smallest is as inseparably 
 connected with the largest, as the links are in a 
 chain, or the wheels in a clock. The greatest 
 revolutions which have taken place in the 
 
 world wars, &c., have often proceeded from 
 the smallest causes; from a small spark, great 
 conflagrations, which have occasioned a wide- 
 spread misery and destruction. In these cases, 
 what is small is inseparably connected with 
 what is great. The providence of God, there- 
 fore, either extends to all things, even to those 
 which we denominate small, or there is no di- 
 vine providence. From this alternative there is 
 no escape. 
 
 4. Men are accustomed to regard many things 
 as small, insignificant, useless, and even injuri- 
 ous, because they are unable to see their use 
 and importance in the connexion of things. 
 This is therefore a proof of the weakness of the 
 human understanding, and of the great imper- 
 fection of human knowledge. But as God 
 created all these things, and continually prolongs 
 their existence, he must regard them as useful 
 and necessary, and adapted to promote his ends, 
 in their connexion with the whole. How then 
 can it be inconsistent with his dignity to watch 
 over them, and to preserve them ! If it was 
 not dishonourable for God to give them exist- 
 ence, it cannot be dishonourable for him to pre- 
 serve to them the existence he has given. And 
 indeed his wisdom, power, and goodness, are 
 at least as evident, and often more so, in his 
 least, as in his greatest works. Cf. Plato, De 
 Repub. x. 
 
 II. It is Benevolent, Wise, Unsearchable. 
 
 This follows incontrovertibly from what has 
 already been said, and is perfectly accordant 
 with the instructions of the Bible. Vide Ps. 
 Ixxiii. 16, civ. 24 ; Job, xxxvi. xxxvii., and espe- 
 cially xxxviii. ; Eccl. iii. 11, viii. 17, xi. 5; 
 Rom. xi. 33, 34 ; in which passages the wisdom 
 and unsearchableness of God are particularly 
 noticed. This benevolent and wise government 
 of God is administered in such a way as to 
 promote the highest, which is a moral good, 
 among all moral beings, in order to prepare 
 them to partake of that true and abiding happi- 
 ness which can be attained only by holiness ; 
 since it is principally for moral beings, who are 
 more nearly related to God than any other, that 
 he has created, preserves, and governs all 
 things. 
 
 We must here attend to the question, In what 
 relation the miracles so often mentioned in the holy 
 scriptures stand to the government of God ? We 
 must here presuppose what has already been said 
 respecting miracles, s. 7, III. ; and proceed there- 
 fore directly to consider the philosopho-theolo- 
 gical theory respecting miracles, and to shew in 
 what manner the objections urged against it may 
 be answered. 
 
 1. The changes in the world ordinarily take 
 place under the divine government, according to 
 the laws or the course of nature, since they are 
 Y 
 
254 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 effected through the powers which God has given 
 to his creatures, though not without his concur- 
 rence, but, on the contrary, under his constant 
 guidance and inspection. Now if anything takes 
 place which cannot be explained by these laws, 
 or which transcends them, it is extraordinary, 
 and is regarded as an immediate production of 
 God, (in distinction from what takes place ac- 
 cording to the course of nature, which is said 
 to be a mediate production of God,) and is com- 
 monly called a miracle. Since now both of 
 these effects are to be ascribed to the providence 
 of God, it is divided into ordinary and extraor- 
 dinary ; and because these extraordinary effects 
 are produced both on the body and on the mind, 
 miracles are divided into those which take 
 place in the material world, and in the spiritual 
 world. 
 
 Note. Many things produced by the mediate 
 agency of God are ascribed to his immediate 
 agency, from ignorance of the second causes by 
 which his agency is exerted. Hence ignorant 
 and inexperienced men are accustomed to see 
 more miracles, and to believe in them more rea- 
 dily, than learned men, who are better able to 
 observe the natural causes by which these effects 
 are produced. And this it is which renders 
 learned and scientific men often incredulous and 
 sceptical upon the subject of miracles. But they 
 are apt to presume too much on their own know- 
 ledge, and to think they can explain many things 
 which they really do not understand. It is 
 also a great fault, though a very common one, 
 to draw a general principle from what often 
 occurs, and to apply it to all cases. Because 
 many pretended miracles have been proved false, 
 Hume declares that all miracles, those of the 
 the Bible not excepted, are such, and thus re- 
 jects the most credible testimony. 
 
 2. Thepossibility of such extraordinary effects 
 produced by God is proved in the following 
 manner viz., (a) They are naturally possible 
 i. e., God has power to produce such effects. 
 He is indeed himself the author of the laws of 
 nature, but he is not bound by them i. e., he 
 is not so bound by them that he must necessa- 
 rily act in every case in accordance with them ; 
 he can alter them, suspend them, or depart from 
 them; which, indeed, follows as a just conse- 
 quence from his omnipotence. (6) They are 
 also morally possible i. e., they are not incon- 
 sistent with the divine wisdom, provided they 
 tend to promote some important end, which 
 could not, or at least could not so well, be se- 
 cured in any other way ; nor can it be shewn, 
 a priori, that such cases may not occur. Mira- 
 cles cannot, then, be shewn to be either morally 
 or physically impossible, and to attempt to do 
 this is, as Kant, Fichte, and other modern phi- 
 losophers have allowed, most unpardonable pre- 
 
 sumption. Cf. the similar reasoning of the 
 stoics, in Cicero, De divin. i. 52, seq. 
 
 3. The proof of the reality of miracles depends 
 upon credible testimony. We, as Christians, 
 regard the testimony of the holy scriptures as 
 credible, the historical truth of the events related 
 in them being supposed already established, for 
 which cf. s. 7, III. The miracles mentioned in 
 the scriptures are all of such a nature as to prove 
 the divinity of the truths and doctrines which 
 are taught in them, to seal the divine mission of 
 the teacher, in short, to promote various import- 
 ant ends, especially those of a moral kind. At 
 the time when these miracles were performed, 
 when men would believe nothing without signs 
 and wonders, they were doubtless of special ser- 
 vice, but their utility is by no means confined to 
 those particular times, but they must answer the 
 same great ends with all who are convinced of 
 their historical truth. For if miracles are true, 
 God proved by them his unlimited dominion 
 over the powers of nature ; and to a being who 
 proves this we are bound to yield assent and 
 render obedience. 
 
 4. Tindal, Hume, Morgan, Voltaire, and 
 others, who contend against miracles, bring for- 
 ward the a priori objection that miracles would 
 presuppose an imperfection in the original plan 
 of God. It would be, they say, very unphiloso- 
 phical to represent God as a workman who had 
 not properly planned or executed his work, and 
 who is obliged, when the wheels of the machine- 
 ry stop, or the house is ready to fall, himself to 
 interpose, and regulate and rectify what is wrong. 
 Such ideas, they think, would suit well with 
 that early state of society in which Jupiter was 
 supposed to examine the vault of heaven, to see 
 if it were rent, but are entirely unsuited to our 
 enlightened and philosophical age. To this it 
 may be answered, 
 
 (a) That miracles, like everything else in the 
 world, formed a part of the original plan of God, 
 and were embraced in his eternal purpose re- 
 specting the world and all its changes. Vide s. 
 32. In this purpose, it must have been deter- 
 mined that in the course of ordinary events, in 
 particular places, and at certain times, miracles 
 should take place ; for God must have foreseen 
 that some of his plans would either wholly fail, 
 or could not be so well accomplished by the 
 ordinary course of events, as by his special in- 
 terference. This answer was given by Leibnitz 
 and Wolf. 
 
 (6) The contradiction which the human under- 
 standing appears to find in miracles is owing to 
 the fact that men, from the very constitution of 
 their minds, connect together the causes and ef- 
 fects of the material world by the idea of neces- 
 sity, and cannot do otherwise. But in the view 
 of God, who sees all things as they really are, 
 
WORKS OF GOD. 
 
 255 
 
 there are no necessary effects, even in the mate- 
 rial world ; hut his will is in all things free, and 
 upon his will alone therefore does it depend to 
 produce any effect which may be conducive to 
 his designs. A miracle now is a new effect 
 aside from the usual chain of events, which can- 
 not therefore, like ordinary effects, be connected 
 with what has preceded and with what follows 
 by the law of a sufficient reason, and which we 
 are therefore led irresistibly to ascribe to a power 
 which has unlimited control over the material 
 world, and thus arises the idea of a miracle. 
 But still there is no real change in things them- 
 selves, and as soon as the miracle ceases they 
 proceed as they did before, and are still connect- 
 ed together by the rules of the maxim of a suf- 
 ficient reason. Thus we see that miracles are 
 possible, but we are unable to comprehend how 
 they can be performed ; just as we are unable to 
 understand how God could create a world from 
 nothing. 
 
 5. From these principles it also follows that 
 no miracles are wrought, in cases in which the 
 designs of God can be fully and in their whole 
 extent attained by natural means. And hence 
 we may conclude, that miracles are of unfrequent 
 occurrence, and that their reality must be attested 
 by witnesses who cannot be justly suspected 
 either of intentional fraud, or of enthusiasm, 
 credulity, or any unintentional self-deception, 
 before we can be justified in believing them. It 
 cannot be said that God is more glorified by 
 miracles than by the common course of nature. 
 On the other hand, he is equally glorified, to say 
 the least, by the common course of nature, as by 
 miracles. In miracles his bare omnipotence be- 
 comes more conspicuous, but in the course of na- 
 ture, his infinite wisdom and power are alike 
 evidenced. The opinion here opposed arises 
 from the puerile notion, that it must be more 
 difficult and laborious for God to perform a mi- 
 racle than to produce, in the ordinary way, the 
 natural changes which take place in the world, 
 and that the former therefore is more to his glory. 
 But to God nothing is difficult, and nothing 
 causes him labour. The production of the na- 
 tural world, the constitution of its laws, and the 
 regulation of its changes, require, in themselves 
 considered, as great an exertion of power as the 
 working of miracles. 
 
 6. But although the remarks here made are 
 true, they by no means justify those interpreters 
 who endeavour to explain by natural principles 
 events expressly said in the scriptures to be 
 miraculous, performed for the attainment of im- 
 portant moral ends not otherwise attainable. 
 For such an interpretation is inconsistent with 
 the authority of the Bible, and indeed, is a di- 
 rect impeachment of its truth, and goes to prove 
 that the sacred writers, or those who performed 
 the pretended miracles, were either impostors, 
 
 or themselves deluded fanatics. The doctrine 
 of Christ and the apostles is only so far esta- 
 blished, as they appeal to miracles. For they 
 gave themselves out as extraordinary and imme- 
 diate ambassadors of God. But this claim could 
 not be proved merely by the internal excellence 
 of the doctrines which they taught, and they 
 could expect to be credited only when their ex- 
 traordinary claims were supported by extraordi- 
 nary facts. And it is on account of this intimate 
 connexion between the truth of their miracles 
 and their character as extraordinary teachers, 
 that many who are unwilling to concede the 
 latter are disposed to dispute the former. If 
 the proof from miracles be once allowed, it 
 follows directly that those who performed them 
 were extraordinary and immediate messengers 
 from God. Vide s. 7, and Introduction, s. 7, 8. 
 7. The question is asked, Whether miracles 
 occur at the present time, and whether we, in 
 accordance with the promises of the New Testa- 
 ment, may expect to perform miraculous cures, 
 and hope to possess the gifts of inspiration, di- 
 vination, &c. 1 This has been believed by pre- 
 tended thaumaturgists, prophets, and enthusiasts 
 of every kind, ancient and modern. And many 
 also, who cannot be accused of enthusiasm, have 
 assented to this opinion. Grotius, for example, 
 believed that Christian missionaries might hope 
 to perform miracles, and Lavater supposed, that 
 any Christian who could firmly believe that God 
 would work miracles through him, would be 
 able to do what he believed. But if history and 
 experience are consulted, we shall soon know 
 what to think of the pretended wonder-workers 
 since the times of the apostles, and be able to 
 put them down either as impostors or as deluded 
 fanatics. But does not the New Testament 
 afford reason to hope that miraculous powers 
 may be continued in the Christian church ? No ! 
 For (a) these miraculous gifts were by no means 
 promised by Christ to all his followers, at alt 
 times, but only to the apostles and first teachera 
 of Christianity, to be used by them in proclaim- 
 ing Christian truth, and in establishing the 
 Christian church, Mark, xvi. 17, 18, coll. ver. 
 15, 16, 20; John, xiv. 12, coll. ver. 11, 13, 14. 
 (6) In Eph. iv. 13, seq., Paul teaches what is 
 well worthy of notice, that these gifts were in- 
 tended only for the first age of the church, and 
 would cease when the church had become tho- 
 roughly established, when more clear knowledge 
 of the truth had been diffused, and the contro- 
 versies between Jewish and heathen Christians 
 were ended. The same truth is taught in I 
 Cor. xiii. 8 ; the gift of tongues, &c., it is there 
 said, will hereafter cease, (with some reference 
 to the present world, though principally to the 
 world to come, where these gifts will be wholly 
 useless,) but faith, hope, and charity will abide 
 (and that in the present world as well as in the 
 
256 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 future) as long as the church shall continue, 
 (c) Add to these the consideration, that it can- 
 not be proved that the power of conferring these 
 gifts was granted to any besides the apostles, 
 (cf. Acts, viii. 14 17,) and that after the death 
 of the apostles and their immediate successors 
 in the Christian church, these gifts would there- 
 fore cease, as a matter of course. 
 
 On this subject, cf. Toellner, Vermishchte 
 Aufsatze, th. ii. Abhandl. 2, Warum Gott nicht 
 iibernatiirlich thut, was natiirlich geschehen 
 kann. Ammon, De notione miraculi ; Gottingae, 
 1795, 4to. Also the work entitled, Betracht- 
 ungen iiber den Endzweck der Wunderwerke, 
 und die Kraft des Wunderglaubens in unsern 
 Tagen ; Berlin, 1777, 8vo; and the works occa- 
 sioned by the opinion of Lavater and others ; 
 Middleton's Essay on Miraculous Gifts after 
 the Death of the Apostles ; F. T. Riihl, Werth 
 der Behauptungen Jesu, und seiner Apostel ; 
 Leipzig, 1791, 8vo; Koppen, Die Bibel ein 
 Werk der gottlichen Weisheit. One of the latest 
 works in opposition to miracles is entitled, De 
 miraculis enchiridion, a philosopho Theologis 
 exhibitum; Zwickau, 1805, 8vo, a prejudiced 
 and partial work. Vide the Review in the Jen. 
 Lit. Zeit. for 1806, No. 168. 
 
 Note. In respect to its practical influence, 
 the doctrine of the providence of God is one of 
 the first importance. In addition to the parti- 
 culars enumerated s. 67, I., Note 2, the religious 
 teacher, in his practical instructions, should in- 
 sist upon the following points, which are made 
 prominent in the holy scriptures, where we may 
 see an example of the proper mode of exhibit- 
 ing them. 
 
 (a) He should shew, that we ought never to 
 stop with the second causes through which our 
 blessings come to us, or by which the effects 
 which we witness are accomplished, but should 
 always go back to GOD as the first cause, and 
 sincerely love and honour him, as the author of 
 every good gift. Vide James, i. 17 ; iv. 13, 15. 
 Instead of dwelling upon the second causes by 
 which events are brought about, and wholly 
 overlooking the agency of God, (the common 
 method of modern historians,) the sacred his- 
 torians refer everything to God, and hence they 
 so frequently clash with the views and feelings 
 of those who look upon the world from a dif- 
 ferent and lower point of view. Vide s. 70, 
 II. 2. 
 
 (6) If we would enjoy the blessings, whether 
 temporal or spiritual, which are designed for us, 
 and promised to us by God, we must, on our 
 part, fulfil the conditions to the performance of 
 which he has annexed this enjoyment. Cf. s. 
 71, II. Moms, p. 83, s. 8. 
 
 (c) Natural evils and calamities are under the 
 
 control of an all-wise and benevolent Being, and 
 are intended to lead us to repent of our sins, and 
 lead holy lives, or to confirm and strengthen us 
 in holiness, and in every way to contribute to 
 our advantage. Cf. s. 71, II. 2. 
 
 (d) We should feel especially indebted to 
 God for any holiness or moral rectitude whicli 
 we may perceive in ourselves. By cherishing 
 the feeling that whatever is good in us is the 
 gift of God, we shall be kept from that selfish 
 blindness and pride which would spring from 
 the thought that we ourselves were the authors 
 of it. God gave us our moral nature, and to 
 him we owe all the powers which we possess, 
 and all the means, in the use of which we attain 
 to holiness. Our faults and crimes, on the con- 
 trary, we must charge wholly to ourselves, and 
 never to God. Cf. James, i. 13 15 ; 1 Cor. 
 iv. 7; 2 Cor. ix. 11 ; Phil. ii. 13. 
 
 (e) God employs all his creatures as instru- 
 ments for the promotion of his own purposes, 
 and hence they are called (e. g., Ps. ciii.) his 
 servants, his messengers, who do his will. But 
 to none of the creatures who inhabit his foot- 
 stool, has God assigned so large a sphere of 
 action, and none does he so much employ in the 
 accomplishment of his most important purposes, 
 as man, and man is what he is through the 
 moral nature which God has given him, and 
 which he constantly preserves in exercise. In 
 this his moral nature man resembles God, and 
 can continually become more and more like him, 
 yea, in this he is related to him, and partakes 
 of the divine nature. Every man, in every sta- 
 tion and calling in life, is employed by God as 
 an instrument for the attainment of important 
 ends. The more faithfully a man performs all 
 the duties of his station, however inferior it may 
 be, and especially the more he labours after true 
 holiness, the more will his life be conformed to 
 the divine will, and answer the ends for which 
 he is employed. And one who fails to dis- 
 charge these duties, and is unprofitable in the 
 service of God, proves that he mistakes his own 
 true worth and dignity. It is therefore our 
 highest duty to exert ourselves, to the utmost 
 of our powers, to do good in all the relations in 
 which we stand under the government of God, 
 and especially to promote holiness in ourselves 
 and others. Cf. s. 69, ad finem, and s. 70, II. 
 2. Morus, p. 78, s. 4. 
 
 As Christians, however, we should exercise 
 these feelings, and yield this obedience, not to 
 God only, but also to Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 God. He counsels and guides all who believe 
 in him ; they ought therefore to imitate and fol- 
 low him. It is the peculiarity of the Christian 
 system to require of us that we should do every- 
 thing Iv ovofjiatt 
 
BOOK II. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF MAN 
 
 33 
 
 Y2 
 
 (257) 
 
ON THE PLAN, ORDER, AND SUCCESSION OF TOPICS 
 IN THE SECOND BOOK. 
 
 THIS Book is properly denominated, theological Anthropology, because it contains the 
 doctrine respecting man, and his relation to God. In respect to the order and succession 
 in which the various topics belonging to this doctrine are treated, there is a great 
 diversity in the systems of theology, both ancient and modern. The particular order in 
 which doctrines are treated is, indeed, of no great importance, provided only that those 
 doctrines are placed first which constitute the basis of those which follow, or which 
 contribute essentially to the illustration of them. To place the doctrine respecting 
 Christ e. g. respecting his person, the redemption effected through him, &c. at the 
 very introduction of the system, (as some have done,) is certainly very preposterous, 
 since a great deal in these doctrines cannot be placed in the proper light until the 
 scriptural doctrines of the depravity of man, of sin, and the punishment ^of sin, have 
 been previously illustrated. The plan adopted by Morus, of placing the latter doctrines 
 first, has therefore greatly the advantage over the other. Still, on any method which 
 may be adopted, there will always be found difficulties and imperfections. Some have 
 made a merit of deviating from the method generally pursued in systems of theology, 
 of inventing a method wholly new, and especially of giving new titles to the various 
 divisions of the subject. But no new land is won for the science itself by means of 
 these innovations; and, on the contrary, the study of it is rendered very perplexed to 
 beginners, and they are compelled, whenever they take a new system in hand, to begin 
 as it were anew, and to learn a new language. 
 
 We adopt the following order viz., (a) Man may be considered in his former or 
 original condition the state of innocence, and of this an account has already been given 
 in Book I. s. 53 57. Further, man may be considered (i) in his present state that 
 in which he is, since the state of innocence has ceased. In this connexion belong the 
 doctrines respecting sin, its origin, the various kinds of sin, and its consequences ; Art. 
 ix. s. 73 87, inclusive. Finally, man may be considered (c) in that better state to 
 which he is restored. Here the whole doctrine respecting the redemption of the human 
 race belongs. (1) De gratia Dei salutari, the gracious institutes which God has 
 established to promote the holiness and happiness of men, especially those established 
 in and through Christ, the different states of Christ, his person, his work, and the 
 salutary consequences of it to the human race; Art. x. s. 88 120, inclusive. (2) On 
 the conditions (repentance and faith) on which we can obtain the blessedness promised 
 to Christians by God; Art. xi. s. 121 128, inclusive. (3) On the manner in which 
 God aids those who believe in Christ, and enables them to fulfil the prescribed condi- 
 tions, or, respecting divine influences and the means of grace; Art. xii. s. 129 133, 
 inclusive. (4) On the Christian community, or the church; Art. xiii. s. 134 136. 
 
 (5) On Baptism and the Lord's Supper, or the sacraments; Art. xiv. s. 137 146. 
 
 (6) On the passage of man to another world, and his state in it, of death, the immor- 
 tality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the day of judgment, the end of the 
 world, and future happiness and misery; Art. xv. s. 147 160. 
 
 (258) 
 
BOOK II. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF MAN. 
 
 PART I.-STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT 
 BY THE FALL. 
 
 ARTICLE IX. 
 
 OF SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 
 
 SECTION LXXIII. 
 
 WHAT IS MEANT BY SIN; THE DIFFERENT WORDS 
 USED IN THE BIBLE TO DENOTE SIN, AND THE 
 MEANING OF THEM. 
 
 I. Definition of Sin. 
 
 IN, understood objectively, 
 and taken in its wider sense, 
 is, any deviation from the law 
 of God, or, what is not right, 
 according to the divine law; 
 what is opposed to the law. 
 In the language of jurists, a 
 deviation from the law is called a 
 crime, (Germ. Verbrechen, crimen;} 
 in theology, and when the concerns 
 of religion are made the topics of dis- 
 course that is, when men are consi- 
 dered in their relation to God, it is 
 called sin,- and it is an advantage which the 
 German language [and also the English] pos- 
 sesses, that it is able to designate this particu- 
 lar form of transgression by an appropriate 
 word. Sin, therefore, properly speaking, is a 
 deviation from the divine law, or, according to 
 the scripture phraseology, what is not xata to 
 ^'to^a tov fov. This word is always used 
 with reference to God, as Legislator; and be- 
 cause the Bible, in entire conformity with ex- 
 perience, regards all men in their present condi- 
 tion as transgressors of the divine law, it calls 
 them sinners, Rom. iii. 9, 23, 24. 
 
 But would we define subjectively that act by 
 which one becomes a sinner, or punishable, we 
 might say, sin is a free act, which is opposed to 
 
 the divine law, or which deviates from it. Here 
 it must be remarked, 
 
 (a) That in order for an action to be imputed 
 to any one as sinful, it must be a free action ; 
 for whenever a man acts by compulsion, and it 
 does not depend upon himself either to perform 
 or omit the action, it cannot be imputed to him 
 as sin ; the consideration of which will be re- 
 sumed in s. 81. 
 
 (6) Properly speaking, it is the law which 
 makes sin what it is. All morality proceeds 
 from the law; and where there is no divine 
 law, there is no sin. This is taught by Paul, 
 Rom. iv. 15, ov ovx ttfT't voy,o$, ov8s 7tapaj3ac?is 
 (ecrft). Were there no law given, the actions 
 now denominated sins (e. g., licentiousness, 
 theft, murder,) while they must still be regarded 
 as foolish and injurious, and be called evils, 
 (Germ. Uebcl,") could no longer be denominated 
 sins. Wild beasts often despoil and destroy 
 other beasts and human beings. This is an 
 evil, and has injurious consequences, even for 
 the beasts themselves; they are ensnared, and 
 hunted down. But what they do is not sin, 
 because they have no law given them; and no 
 reasonable man would call such things in brutes 
 sins, or seriously affirm that a beast had sinned. 
 Nor is even the word crime applied to their out- 
 rages, because they are exempt alike from hu- 
 man and divine laws. 
 
 By law is meant, the precept of a ruler, accom- 
 panied with comminutions ; and by a ruler is 
 meant one who has the right to prescribe rules 
 of acting to others, and to connect these rules 
 with threatenings. Commands and laws are two 
 different things. In every law there is a com- 
 mand, but every command is not a law. A 
 command must be rightful in order to be a law ; 
 the preceptor must be entitled to give commands, 
 and those to whom they are given must be 
 bound to obey ; and on these conditions only 
 
260 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 does a command become a law. Hence the de- 
 mand of the robber to give him our property, 
 with the threat which he annexes, that he will 
 murder us if we refuse, is no law. The laws 
 of God are made known to us partly through 
 nature, and partly by immediate revelation 
 through the holy scriptures. The latter are de- 
 signed to renew, impress, confirm, illustrate, 
 and enlarge or complete the law of nature. God 
 has thus, both by the works of nature and by 
 the doctrines contained in the holy scriptures, 
 given us information respecting his designs, as 
 his will respecting men and a rule for them, to 
 which they should continually have regard, and 
 according to which they should regulate their 
 conduct. Morus, p. 106, n. 3, 4. 
 
 II. Scriptural Terms for Sin. 
 
 1. The most common word for sin is the He- 
 brew nston, generally rendered by the Grecian 
 Jews apaptia.. Both of these words are used 
 in various senses. 
 
 (a) The Hebrew vssn signifies literally to de- 
 viate from one's way, to slip aside a meaning 
 which it has among the Arabians. Hence to 
 fail of one's end, to see his design frustrated, Job, 
 v. 24 ; Proverbs, x. 2. In the same way are 
 the words apap-tavfiv and d^uaprta employed by 
 the Greeks in reference to those whose expecta- 
 tion is disappointed, who lose, or are deprived 
 of something, who miss their aim, and come 
 short. Thus, e. g., Xenophon speaks of those 
 apaptwovtss fjjfj J3ovX7?<jfwj, whose counsel was 
 frustrated ; and even in Homer we find the 
 phrase djwapi'rjcrac&at tvj$ ortcort^j, to be deprived 
 of sight. In the Iliad (xxiv. 68) he says, with 
 regard to Hector, that he never suffered the gods 
 to want for offerings worthy of their accept- 
 
 ance 
 
 oiire <f>i\wv ftpdprave tiwpwv. 
 
 Hence (6) these words are used figuratively, 
 and are transferred to the soul, and denote the 
 faults and defects of the understanding and of 
 the will, and also of the actions ; of the latter 
 more frequently, though sometimes of the for- 
 mer e. g., John, viii. 46, EXfy^ttv jtspi d/iop- 
 tft'aj, erroris convincere, and John, xvi. 8, 9, where 
 d/tapr't/'a signifies, delusion, blindness of the under- 
 standing. More commonly, however, it is used 
 with reference to the will and the actions, and 
 denotes every deviation from the divine law in 
 willing and acting. 'H apaptia, therefore, often 
 signifies, sometimes every transgression of a 
 grave character, and sometimes, in general, im- 
 piety, profanitas, irreligion. Thus the heathen 
 were denominated by the Jews, d/iapfcoW, 
 O'son, in opposition to themselves, the gens 
 sancta. In Heb. x. 26, afiaptavstv signifies to 
 apostatize from the Christian faith. In Romans, 
 vii. 9, Paul uses djuopT'/a to denote the propen- 
 
 sity to sin (Germ. Hang zur Siinde) which is 
 everywhere observed in man, and which is na- 
 tural to him. [Cf. Usteri, Entwickelung des 
 Paulinischen LehrbegrifFs, Zweiter und Dritter 
 Theil. TR.] 
 
 (c) This, and all the words which signify 
 sin, are often used by the Hebrews and Hellen- 
 ists to denote the punishment of sin e. g., 
 Isaiah, liii. ; 2 Kings, vii. 9, seq. 
 
 (d) They also signify a sin-offering e. g., 
 Ps. xl. 7; 2 Cor. v. 21, $vaia rtspi d^uapT/aj. 
 
 2. Besides this word, there are many others 
 by which the idea of sin is expressed by the 
 Hebrews and Greeks. Among these are, 
 
 (a) In Hebrew, ]-\y, guilt (raz/ws), sin, Psalm 
 lix. 5 ; frequently rendered in the Septuagint 
 aSixtjpa, or afitxia. j?tte, strictly, apostasy from 
 the true God, or rebellion against him. [The 
 word mo, from "no, has the same signification. 
 TR.] Forsaking the worship of Jehovah for 
 that of idols, and every deliberate transgression 
 of the divine law, were justly regarded as rebel- 
 lion against God, and so called by this name, 
 2 Kings, viii. 10; Jer. iii. 13. yvfa is therefore 
 a stronger word than nwsn. j?ch is used to de- 
 note the injustice of judges, when they lose sight 
 of what is just (pi*), and decide unjustly and 
 partially, Job, ix. 24 ; Ezek. vii. 11 ; hence ap- 
 plied to any misdeed or wickedness, by which 
 the desert of punishment is incurred, Psa. v. 5. 
 Hence jr?n signifies, one guilty, (reus, damna- 
 tus,} sensuforensi. pen is rendered in the Sep- 
 tuagint by the words afiixia, aatpeia, x. *. A. 
 Diw, guilt, guiltiness, r\nv, or nx-or, error, mis- 
 take,- transgression, Psa. xix. 13. Sept. jta- 
 pdrtfu/jin. Classical Greek, Tthdvq. 
 
 (6) In the New Testament, the words which 
 denote sin are mostly taken from the Septua- 
 gint, where they are used interchangeably the 
 one for the other. Among these are xapaxor;, 
 Hebrews, ii. 2; 7topaj3a/n$, Romans, iv. 15; 
 aSixia and aSixyfjia, (like d^tapr'i/'ci and d^apT'^ta,) 
 Romans, i. 18; vi. 13; 6<j> a^a, Matt. vi. 12. 
 (The Hebrews often represent sins under the 
 image of debts, which must either be remitted or 
 paid.) ItapartT'cofia, Matt. vi. 14, also used to 
 signify apostasy from religion, Rom. xi. 12; 
 dyi/o^a, a sin committed through ignorance, er- 
 ratum, Heb. ix. 7. (So Aquila renders pj?, Lev. 
 xxvi. 39, by dyvota' so also rt^avjy. 'Avo^ta, 
 illegality, transgression of the law, or sin, Matt. 
 vii. 23. It is also sometimes used in the sense 
 of irreligion, heathenism, since VO/AO$ often sig- 
 nifies the religion revealed by God. Hence the 
 heathen are called di/o^uot, Rom. ii. 12; vi. 19. 
 Cf. dcrt/Sfta, dtfcjSjjs. In the text, 1 John, iii. 4, 
 YI d / uapT'ict sti-tw % dvo/ua, it is not the intention 
 of the writer to give a logical definition of sin, but 
 rather to oppose those deceivers who maintained 
 that a sinful life was allowable. The meaning 
 of the text is as follows : " Whoever leads a 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 261 
 
 sinful life, acts in opposition to the precepts of 
 the divine law ; for every sin is against the di- 
 vine law, (which commands us to live holy and 
 without sin. Vide ver. 3.)" 
 
 In the discussion here following of the doc- 
 trine respecting sin, this order will be observed 
 viz., (1) The origin of sin among men, or the 
 sin of our first parents, and the moral corruption 
 of human nature, derived, according to the 
 scriptures, from them, will be first considered, 
 s. 74 80. (2) The origin and nature of the 
 particular sinful actions of men, which have 
 their ground in that moral depravity, together 
 with the different kinds and divisions of these 
 actions, s. 81 85. (3) The punishment of sin, 
 as learned from reason and revelation, s. 86, 87. 
 
 SECTION LXXIV. 
 
 WHAT DOES REASON, WITHOUT THE USE OF THE 
 BIBLE, TEACH US RESPECTING THE SINFUL 
 STATE OF MAN, AND THE ORIGIN OF IT 1 AND 
 HOW FAR DO THE RESULTS OF REASON ON THIS 
 SUBJECT AGREE WITH THE BIBLE 1 
 
 , I. Opinions of Heathen Philosophers. 
 
 THE fact that human nature is imperfect, and 
 has a morally defective constitution, shewing 
 itself in the earliest youth, was observed and 
 conceded by most of the ancient heathen philo- 
 sophers; and the fact is so obvious, and so con- 
 formed to experience, that it could hardly have 
 been otherwise. It was formerly observed, as 
 it is now, that man has more inclination to im- 
 morality and sin than to innocence, holiness, 
 and moral purity. A perpetual conflict was 
 seen to exist in man, from hrs youth up, between 
 reason and sense a contest in which man 
 oftener sided with the latter than with the 
 former, and thus made himself unhappy. It 
 was seen that man, even when enjoying the best 
 moral instruction, and when possessed of a full 
 conviction of the justice of the requisitions of 
 the moral law, still often acted immorally ; and 
 this, even when perfectly convinced that in so 
 doing he did wrong; and that he was thus in a 
 state extremely wretched. Vide Morus, p. 109, 
 s. 3. Now, if it was with man as it should be, 
 he would suffer his will to be at once determined 
 by what his understanding perceived to be true 
 and good, and would regulate his conduct ac- 
 cordingly. That this is not so, experience suf- 
 ficiently teaches. It is false, therefore, to assert 
 that everything depends upon instruction, and 
 that if the mind were only enlightened with re- 
 gard to duty, the will would soon follow. So 
 it should be, but so it is not; and it is the great- 
 est of all moral problems, how to render the will 
 obedient to the dictates of the understanding. 
 
 These things having been observed in ancient 
 times, the writings of the pagan philosophers are 
 
 full of complaints over the moral corruption of 
 man. Socrates is said by Plato (De Repub.) to 
 have complained that all nations, even the most 
 cultivated, and those advanced farthest in intel- 
 ligence and knowledge, were yet so depraved 
 that no human discovery or art sufficed to remove 
 the disorder. The writings of Plato, Aristotle, 
 and Cicero, are full of expressions of the same 
 kind. Aristotle called this evil ffuyym j, Ethic, 
 ad Nicom. iii. 15. Plato says in his Meno, that 
 children by nature (<j>v<5ft) are not good ; for in 
 that case, says he, ironically, it would only be 
 necessary to shut them up, in order to keep them 
 good. He saw that it was a mistake to suppose 
 that man is made wicked merely by education, 
 or that he becomes so merely by the imitation 
 of bad examples. Cicero says, in his Tusculan 
 Questions (iii. 1), Simulac editi in lucem et sus- 
 cepti sumus, in omni continuo pravitate, et in 
 summa opinionum perversitate, versamur: ut 
 pcene cum lade, nutricis errorem suxisse vide- 
 amur. De Amicit. (c. 24,) Multis signis natura 
 declarat quid velit: obsurdescimus tamen nescio 
 quomodo ; nee ea quse ab ea monemur, audimus 
 our will does not follow what our understanding 
 approves as right and good. In this connexion 
 we may cite the common declaration, Nitimur 
 in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata ,- and that 
 of Ovid, (Metam. vii. 18, seq.) 
 
 Si possem, sanior essem. 
 Sed trahit invitum nova vis ; aliudque cupido, 
 Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora proboque, 
 Deteriora sequor. 
 
 [Very remarkable are the words of Seneca, in 
 his work De dementia, 1. i. c. 6 : " Quotus 
 quisque ex qusestoribus est, qui non ea ipsa lege 
 teneatur, qua quant 1 ? Quotus quisque accusa- 
 tor, vacat culpa 1 Et nescio, an nemo ad dandam 
 veniam difficilior sit, quam qui illam petere sse- 
 pius meruit. Peccavimus omnes, alii gravia, 
 alii leviora ; alii ex destinato, alii forte impulsi, 
 aut aliena nequitia ablati; alii in bonis consiliis 
 parum fortiter stetimus, et innocentiam invite ac s 
 renitentes perdidimus. Nee delinquimus tan- 
 turn, sed usque ad extremum aevi delinquemus." 
 Compare with this what he says in his Treatise 
 De Ira, (ii. 8,) ' Omnia sceleribus ac vitiis plena 
 sunt. Plus committitur quam quod possit coer- 
 citione sanari. Certatur ingenti quodam nequi- 
 tiae certamine. Major quotidie peccandi cupi- 
 ditas, minor verecundia est. Nee furtiva jam 
 scelera sunt; preeter oculos eunt; adeoque in 
 publicum missa nequitia est, et in omnium pec- 
 toribus evaluit, ut innocentia non rara, sed nulla 
 sit." Cf. also the declaration of Sopater, 
 ov/Afyvtov dv^pwTtotj 7*6 aftaptavf iv. For numer- 
 ous other passages of similar import, the student 
 may consult Tholuck, Lehre von der Siinde, s. 
 48, 49 ; 72, 73 ; and the works commended by 
 Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 359. For the opinions of 
 
262 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the later Jews, vide Eisenmenger, Entdecktes 
 Judenthum, theil. ii. s. 80, f. TR.] 
 
 All this is in perfect accordance with the de- 
 clarations of the sacred writers, and especially 
 with that of Paul, Rom. vii. 15, For that which 
 I do, I allow not; for what I would, that I do 
 not ; but what I hate, that do I." It is also in 
 accordance with the experience of every indivi- 
 dual. And yet there have been philosophers, 
 especially in modern times, who have denied 
 the truth of such representations, and have at- 
 tempted to demonstrate the contrary, and who 
 have sought to found new systems of education 
 upon their peculiar views respecting the charac- 
 ter of man. 
 
 As to the real causes of this depravity, which 
 was so universally seen and acknowledged, the 
 opinions were very various. 
 
 (1) Men in the earliest times, and among the 
 rude heathen nations, being left to themselves, 
 either neglected all reflection upon this subject, 
 or invented various philosophemes or narrations, 
 in order to facilitate to themselves the under- 
 standing of the origin and diffusion of this evil. 
 In all of them, however, it was assumed that the 
 human race was originally better than after- 
 wards, and that either by slow degrees, or sud- 
 denly and at once, it became corrupt. As soon 
 as men begin to reflect upon God and them- 
 selves, they exhibit almost universally the feel- 
 ing, that it is necessary to suppose that mankind 
 was originally in a better condition ; nor can this 
 feeling be obliterated by any subtle reasoning. 
 Cf. s. 56. 
 
 (2) The ancient Grecian philosophers adopted 
 in part the fables and narratives which they 
 found already existing; but they also undertook 
 to investigate the first origin of evil more parti- 
 cularly. In doing this, they soon came to the 
 result, (which indeed had been already observed 
 by the authors of those narratives,) that the de- 
 fective constitution of man consisted in the un- 
 due power of sense (Sinnh'chkeir), and that this 
 had its seat in the body. Paul distinguishes in 
 man the vo^o^ tv *oi$ ptteaiv (i. e., iv uopact, ver. 
 18), and the VOIJLOS *ov vooj. The former, he 
 says, avtivtpatsvftcu, 1^0/49 vooj, xai igpcdUHfe^M 
 fjts *(? f69 tr t $ cumpT'ia*, Rom. vii. 23. We 
 have thus a dictamen sensuum, and a dictamen 
 rationis. So Araspas in Xenophon distinguishes 
 in every man an dyo^ and a ytovr^a, tyvzr t , Cyrop. 
 vi. 21 ; and Plato makes mention of the xoyi<m- 
 
 These Grecian philosophers proceeded 
 on the supposition, that there are two equally 
 eternal and original principles, God and matter. 
 The former they supposed to be the rational, 
 thinking principle, and the origin of all good, 
 physical and moral; the latter, the irrational 
 principle, and the cause of all evil. Vide s. 46, 
 II. To the former principle they supposed the 
 
 rational soul of man belongs, and his body to 
 the second; and as his body consists of matter, 
 so his soul is a part of the divine nature, and a 
 pure effluence from the same. 
 
 They were too prone, under the influence of 
 these views, to overlook the advantages which 
 the human soul derives from its connexion with 
 the body advantages which could not otherwise 
 exist, and to regard the body too much as a pri- 
 son, in which the soul is impaled. So taught 
 the Persians, and most of the oriental philoso- 
 phers, [vide Neander's account of the Gnostic 
 Systems;] so Pythagoras and Plato, especially 
 in Timaeus ; so Aristotle, the stoics, and their 
 followers. In conformity with these views, 
 Socrates and Plato always gave the advice, 
 
 They believed, however, that after death the 
 soul would be reunited with God, after having 
 undergone various degrees of cleansing and pu- 
 rification from the matter cleaving to it; re- 
 specting which, vide s. 150, II. [This purifi- 
 cation was the intent of the transmigration of 
 souls (metempsychosis) a doctrine held in all 
 the religions of the East, and in that also of an- 
 cient Egypt. The soul, it was supposed, would 
 be purified by the sufferings endured in wander- 
 ing through uncongenial matter, and be at length 
 prepared to merge into the pure fountain from 
 which it originally emanated. For some valu- 
 able remarks on this, and other religious ideas 
 and observances in the East, vide Schlegel, 
 Philosophic der Geschichte. TR.] 
 
 (3) The account which the holy scriptures 
 give of the origin of sin is as follows : " God 
 made man, not only as to his soul, but his body 
 also; and both pure and without sin; by a 
 daring transgression, however, the nature of 
 man is changed, and from being pure and im- 
 mortal, has become defective and mortal. This, 
 however, is overruled by God, for our good, by 
 means of Jesus Christ, the Restorer of the 
 human race." 
 
 [Note. The traditions of many of the Ori- 
 ental nations correspond remarkably with the 
 narrative in Genesis, and confirm its truth. 
 This is the case, especially, with the doctrine 
 of Zoroaster, which so strikingly agrees with 
 that of Moses as to indicate a common source 
 in the historic fact of an original temptation and 
 fall. According to Zoroaster, the first human 
 pair were offered heaven on condition of virtue, 
 and of refraining from homage to the Dews the 
 demons of the Persian mythology. For some 
 time they complied with these conditions ; but 
 at length Ahriman (Satan) caused the thought 
 to be infused into their minds by a Dew, that he 
 was the creator of the world. They believed 
 this lie, and so became, like Ahriman, evil and 
 unhappy. On one occasion they went out upon 
 a hunting excursion, and found a wild goat, and 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 263 
 
 tasted its milk, which was sweet to their taste, 
 and reviving 1 , but injurious to their body. The 
 Dew then offered them fruit, which they ate, 
 and in consequence were still more injured, and 
 stripped of their remaining blessings. Vide 
 Kleuker, Zend-Avesta, 3 thl. s. 84, if. Cf. 
 Schlegel, Philos. der Geschichte, b. i. TR.] 
 
 II. Results of independent Reason and Observation. 
 If, in investigating the origin and causes of 
 this evil, we disregard all authority, even that 
 of the holy scriptures, and proceed solely from 
 those considerations to which experience con- 
 ducts us, we arrive at the following results, 
 which are not indeed entirely satisfactory, but 
 which yet somewhat illustrate this subject, and 
 therefore may be useful to those to whom the 
 instruction of the young is committed. 
 
 It may be remarked in general, that the phi- 
 losopher, as such, can assign no other ground 
 than that man is a limited being, and conse- 
 quently can err. The nature of this limitation 
 and liability to sin is now to be more closely 
 examined. Man has a twofold nature, one part 
 of which is rational and moral, (wiij,) by means 
 of which he can act with reference to ends, and 
 possesses understanding and free-will ; the other 
 part of which is sensuous, (sinnlich,} and con- 
 sists of desires and appetites, (4-t^.) By the 
 former, he belongs to the world of spirit; by the 
 latter, to that of sense. He is therefore to be 
 regarded as a being compounded of reason and 
 sense, (Germ.vernunftig-sinnliches Wesen.) In 
 this way, man is distinguished from the brute, 
 which has indeed sense, but no rational or moral 
 nature. This in man should be the ruling power, 
 the other subject to this; and then only is man 
 free when he acts independently of the impulses 
 of his lower nature, and obeys the voice of the 
 moral law, uttered so imperatively within him. 
 But in man in his present state we notice a con 
 tinual conflict between these two natures a 
 conflict which cannot be explained away by any 
 subtleties. This conflict rests upon the dis- 
 tinction between these two dissimilar natures 
 in man, and is the immediate result of their 
 connexion in human beings, according to their 
 present constitution. 
 
 Beyond this, the essential nature of man, the 
 mere philosopher cannot go, in his inquiries 
 after the causes of sin ; and the fact of a parti- 
 cular corruption of our nature, or of the invisible 
 agency of evil spirits, cannot be resorted to by 
 him to account for the existing evil. In short 
 the mere philosopher who is unacquainted with 
 what the scriptures have taught on this subject 
 or who will make no use of their instructions 
 cannot proceed from facts, because these are 
 either unknown to him, or doubtful and uncer 
 tain. Hence the truth of what many of the ol( 
 theologians have said, that the fact of a bette 
 
 tate of human nature depends for its proof upon 
 he holy scriptures ; and that neither that state, 
 lor the fall which succeeded it, can be demon- 
 itrated from mere reason. But we are now ex- 
 libiting those results only to which unassisted 
 eason would arrive. 
 
 In noticing the defects and imperfections 
 vhich result from the connexion of these two 
 natures in man, the many advantages which 
 ,lso spring from it ought not to be overlooked, 
 t should be remembered that man could never 
 lave been what he is, if this constitution were 
 different. Many possesses various faculties, 
 which have their ground in this constitution, 
 which may indeed, and actually do, mislead 
 im into many faults and errors, but which are 
 n themselves good, and, when rightly culti- 
 vated and employed, bring him great advantage. 
 Such are self-love, so deeply implanted in the 
 human breast, (hence the instinct for self-pre- 
 servation and for personal improvement,) the 
 love of honour, the tendency to imitate, and others, 
 which are in themselves good, and only need to 
 be kept under the control of reason, and pro- 
 perly directed to the ends for which they were 
 given. 
 
 After these remarks, we come now to inquire 
 after the more immediate causes, from which 
 the prevailing power of sense, and the inability 
 of reason to control it, are to be explained. We 
 design in this place to give only the result of 
 human observation and experience, which will 
 be very inadequate to the full explanation of this 
 subject. We shall afterwards exhibit the doc- 
 trine of the scriptures, and inquire how far it 
 agrees with these results. These causes are to 
 be found partly in the strength of the feelings 
 belonging to human nature, partly in the man- 
 ner in which the powers of the human soul de- 
 velop themselves, and partly in the external cir- 
 cumstances in which this development proceeds. 
 
 (1) The feelings of man are much stronger 
 than those ideas of his mind which have their 
 foundation in his reason ; and the mere philo- 
 sopher, who receives no light from revelation, 
 cannot tell that this has not always been the 
 fact with man. For he cannot conclude with 
 any certainty, from his mere reason, that human 
 nature was originally in a better state than that 
 in which he now finds it; he must take man as 
 he finds him, and on the supposition, which he 
 has no means of refuting, that he was always 
 the same. In general, the end of this constitu- 
 tion of our nature would seem to be, to guard 
 against insensibility and inactivity. For the 
 mere motives of reason would act far too feebly 
 and slowly; and except for this influence of the 
 feelings, many actions which are useful and ne- 
 cessary for our own good and that of others 
 would remain undone. And so it is found, that 
 men of a cold and phlegmatic temperament, 
 
264 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 who have but little feeling and excitability, 
 though they may have good heads and benevo- 
 lent hearts, are generally indolent, irresolute, 
 and inactive, and accomplish very little. It is 
 often the case, indeed, that a man suffers him- 
 self to be carried away by his feelings, and re- 
 solves and acts without regard to consequences. 
 The advantages of this constitution must, how- 
 ever, be greater than the disadvantages, because 
 it is so established by God. But on this sub- 
 ject much may be said, without leading to any 
 satisfactory conclusion. This visible inordi- 
 nateness of one portion of our nature can hardly 
 be made to harmonize with our conceptions of 
 the divine attributes. But beyond this the phi- 
 losopher as such cannot go. 
 
 (2) In the earlier years of our life, before we 
 can rightly use our reason, we have no other 
 rule for desiring or avoiding anything than our 
 feelings. And on this account, that they have 
 no maturity of reason, children and minors can- 
 not be left to themselves, but need to be guided 
 and governed by others. We thus become ac- 
 customed from our youth up to desire those 
 things which excite agreeable sensations in us, 
 and to shun those things which have an oppo- 
 site effect. Now the kind of agreeable sensa- 
 tions with which man is earliest acquainted is 
 that which arises from the gratification of his 
 animal desires. For in the earliest years of his 
 life, man, having not yet attained the full use 
 of his rational faculties, has no taste for the 
 more pure and spiritual joys, which are above 
 sense, and which are attendant only on the 
 knowledge of the truth, and holiness of heart 
 and life. When now, after a long time, and by 
 slow degrees, man has attained to the full use 
 and the maturity of his rational faculties, he has 
 for a long time been habituated, even from his 
 youth, to will and act according to his feelings 
 and the impulses of sense, without duly consult- 
 ing reason, and carefully weighing everything 
 by his understanding. This long practice has 
 produced in him a habit, and it is now hard for 
 him to break this habit, and to acquire, in place 
 of it, the habit of rational consideration before 
 action. Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit 
 odorem testa diu. Very true, therefore, is the 
 remark of Tacitus (Vita Agricol. c. iii.), "that 
 human weakness is of such a nature, that the 
 remedies do not act as efficiently as the dis- 
 ease." 
 
 From these remarks we draw the following 
 important inference : that we should endeavour, 
 as early as possible, to awaken, cherish, and 
 develop the moral sense in the youthful heart. 
 And there is no way for us to do this so suc- 
 cessfully as by means of religion. Vide Intro- 
 duction, s. 2. It is therefore one of the most 
 perverse and injurious maxims to say that young 
 children should not have religion taught them. 
 
 The evil effects resulting from this maxim have 
 been deeply felt in our age. 
 
 (3) The first knowledge of man is derived 
 from his senses ; at first, he can acquire infor- 
 mation in no other way than from sensible ob- 
 jects. The senses must, in all cases, serve as 
 the vehicle of knowledge ; and they are often 
 misemployed. Since now, from the nature of 
 the case, man must, from his earliest youth, be 
 so familiar with visible and sensible objects, it 
 is not strange that he should be too little affected 
 by the instructions given him respecting objects 
 not cognizable by the senses, and especially re- 
 specting God, the Invisible; and that he should 
 be so indifferent to the motives to love him, and 
 from love to obey him. The remark, 1 John, 
 iv. 20, " he that loveth not his brother, whom 
 he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he 
 hath not seen," is therefore psychologically 
 true. If we see a man who has no true love 
 to his neighbour whom he hath seen, we may 
 safely conclude that he has no love for the 
 invisible God. Hence we may explain the 
 natural coldness of the carnal mind to God, 
 and everything which belongs to the moral 
 and spiritual world ; and hence too we may de- 
 rive the duty of opposing this at the very ear- 
 liest periods of life ; for the longer a man lives, 
 the more fixed and habitual does it become, and 
 the harder to be removed. 
 
 (4) Man brings with him into the world va- 
 rious powers and faculties ; but, according to the 
 plan of God, these can be developed and brought 
 to a good end only by instruction and a wise 
 education. Man does not come into the world 
 with any inborn habits of action, or with any- 
 thing which answers to the instincts of brutes, 
 the place of which must be supplied by instruc- 
 tion. But this instruction in religion, morality, 
 and other useful things, which is so necessary 
 to the proper development of our powers, is en- 
 joyed by very few, and some are wholly desti- 
 tute of it. And the instruction given on these 
 subjects is often defective, and calculated to 
 mislead. It allows men to be satisfied with a 
 merely formal worship, in which the heart re- 
 mains cold and unimproved; it is generally 
 above the capacities of the young, and by taxing 
 the memory more than affecting the heart, it 
 often produces aversion and disgust. The 
 whole moral education, especially in the so 
 called higher circles of life, is often extremely 
 deficient; so that frequently the rude children 
 of nature, left to grow up by themselves, are in 
 a better condition than those who have been 
 reared in the midst of refinement and cultiva- 
 tion. At least, they are not so perverted and 
 corrupted, although they may be wanting in 
 some of the artificial accomplishments which 
 the latter possess. 
 
 Evil example, too, has an indescribable effect 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 265 
 
 upon children and youth, and brings them to an 
 earlier acquaintance with vice than with virtue. 
 It should be remarked that the outbreakings of 
 many perverse inclinations and dispositions 
 which are perceived in children are the signs 
 and the consequences of some endowments of 
 human nature in themselves good. The exhi- 
 bitions of these dispositions are important hints 
 to the teacher and guardian of the young ; and 
 if he is wise and skilful, may receive such a 
 direction from him as will turn them to good 
 account in the ultimate character of those en- 
 trusted to his charge. For example, selfwill 
 and obstinacy indicate firmness of character; 
 forwardness and inquisitiveness indicate a cu- 
 rious and active mind. 
 
 (5) The social life of man, the gradual in- 
 crease of cultivation, refinement, and luxury, 
 and the propensity to seek for the pleasures of 
 sense, while they are in some respects advan- 
 tageous, are the cause of great evil and injury. 
 Cf. Rousseau, Stir Vinegalite. des hommes. The 
 wants of men are greatly multiplied, their sen- 
 sual appetites are greatly excited by the con- 
 stant presentation of new objects, and their true 
 peace and contentment (av-rapx/a) are prevent- 
 ed. They thus become continually more pas- 
 sionate and insatiable, and more withdrawn 
 from invisible and spiritual objects. 
 
 Civilized man has, indeed, more means in his 
 power to resist the evils arising from the social 
 state ; but these means are too little regarded 
 and employed. Luxury makes men selfish, 
 proud, and hard-hearted, and paves the way to 
 other vices; and when self, which is so pam- 
 pered by luxury, once gets firm possession of 
 the heart, morality and virtue are for ever ban- 
 ished. The observation of the evils which 
 arise from the connexion of men in social life, 
 and from the progress of cultivation, suggested 
 to many even of the ancient heathen world the 
 thought that men were formerly in a better con- 
 dition than at a later period. Vide s. 56. But 
 Philosophy, uninstructed by Revelation, can 
 never prove, a priori, that a change has taken 
 place in human nature, and that it is now differ- 
 ent from what it was. At least, the philoso- 
 pher can never attain to perfect certainty on this 
 subject, and will find many things enigmatical 
 and inexplicable. 
 
 Cf. on this subject the works from the differ- 
 ent schools. Jerusalem, Betrachtungen u'ber 
 die Wahrheiten der Religion, b. ii. th. ii. s. 731, 
 f. ; Junge, Philosophische und Theologische 
 Aufsatze, th. ii. s. 297, 367 ; Steinbart, System 
 der Glvickseligkeitslehre, cap. iii. s. 46, f. ; 
 Eberhard, Apologie des Socrates ; Tollner, 
 Theologische Untersuchungen, b. i. St. 2, s. 
 112, f. As, however, in some of these works, 
 especially in Steinbart, the depravity of man is 
 very inadeqately represented, and the present 
 34 
 
 state of man is placed in far too advantageous 
 and favourable a light, in contradiction both to 
 the Bible and to experience, we refer with plea- 
 sure to the views of Michaelis on this subject, 
 expressed in his book, "Von der Sjiinde," s. 
 4854, and in his " Moral," th. i. s. 1 05130 ; 
 also to Kant, "Ueberdas radicale Uebel," first 
 essay in his "Religion innerhalb der Granzen 
 der blossen Vernunft;" and to Morus, "Theol. 
 Moral," and Reinhard's " Dogmatik" and " Mo- 
 ral." 
 
 [Cf. on this subject Bretschneider, Dogmatik, 
 b. ii. s. 17, s. 120, Ursprung der Siinde; also 
 Tholuck, Lehre von der Siinde. Coleridge, 
 Aids to Reflection, p. 154 178, especially 158 ; 
 Neander, Allg. Kirchengeschichte, b. i., Abth. 
 ii. s. 640 ; Hahn, s. 342, s. 77. TR.] 
 
 III. Could God have prevented Sin? 
 
 The question here arises, How can God be 
 justified as the author of this constitution ? Could 
 he not have guarded against moral evil in the 
 world ? Might he not have constituted human 
 nature less weak, and less inclined to err and 
 sin? It is not strange, considering how imper- 
 fect is our knowledge of the eternal plan and of 
 the universal government of God, that reflecting 
 minds should have always been disturbed by 
 doubts on this subject, and that they should have 
 devised various means of relieving their doubts, 
 and of vindicating God, and that, after all, they 
 should have been unable, by mere philosophy, 
 to attain to satisfaction. A great portion of the 
 ancient philosophers endeavoured to relieve 
 themselves of this difficulty by supposing two 
 eternal principles. Vide No. I. 
 
 In philosophizing on this subject we make 
 the following general remarks : 
 
 (1) It is an established point that to God all 
 evil, both physical and moral, as such, must be 
 displeasing; and that he seeks to prevent it, 
 wherever it may be done. But since there is 
 much imperfection, evil, and sin, actually exist- 
 ing in the world, we must conclude that God has 
 effected and will effect more good by the per- 
 mission of sin than could be effected if he had 
 not permitted it. He must have seen that he 
 would have prevented the good, if he had not 
 permitted the evil. Vide s. 48, ad finem ; and 
 s. 71, I. To shew this was the object of Leib- 
 nitz in his "Theodicee." 
 
 (2) We must proceed on the same principles 
 in judging of moral evil and corruption, espe- 
 cially among men. Hateful to God as this moral 
 evil must have been, and punishable as it is in 
 itself, God yet must have seen that by means of 
 this constitution, of human nature a greater 
 amount of good would be accomplished for the 
 human race as a whole, and for the world, than 
 if he had made man more perfect, had secured 
 him against every opportunity to sin, or had 
 
 Z 
 
266 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 hindered his transgression by the immediate ex- 
 ercise of his power. The latter could not take 
 place, as God had given to man a moral nature, 
 which is placed under the law of freedom alone, 
 and to which compulsion and necessity, which 
 prevail in the material world, where everything 
 proceeds by mechanical laws, cannot be applied. 
 But as in every other case, so in this, God 
 knows how to overrule evil in such a way that 
 higher good shall result from it. Throughout 
 the world there is a constant successive develop- 
 ment, and a struggle after an advancement and 
 improvement of condition ; and so it is with man. 
 Vide Rom. viii. 20 23. Sin itself may serve 
 for the promotion of good, and may contribute 
 to the perfection of man. Through his liability 
 to err, he may indeed pursue a retrograde course 
 with regard to virtue and moral perfection ; but 
 without this liability he could not make ad- 
 vancement ; and his virtue would cease to have 
 any worth, and would no longer deserve the 
 name if there were no possibility of wrong. 
 Neither morality nor happiness can be con- 
 ceived to exist without freedom. So much 
 may be said on this subject in the way of phi- 
 losophy ; it is, however, far from being satis- 
 factory. 
 
 SECTION LXXV. 
 
 MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE SIN OF OUR FIRST 
 PARENTS. 
 
 THE moral depravity of the human race is 
 derived everywhere in the New Testament 
 from the disobedience of our first parents. This 
 universal corruption is denominated by theolo- 
 gians, peccatum originatum, or originate, or ori- 
 ginis ; the first transgression, peccatum origi- 
 nans. More frequently, however, is this trans- 
 gression denominated lapsus, fall, according to 
 the Hebrew usage, where the verba cadendi 
 signify to err, to sin, also to become unhappy ; 
 as Prov. xxiv. 16, 17; Rev. ii. 5, ixrtlfttsiv. 
 In the same way is labi used in Latin instead 
 of peccare, errare; and cadere, excidere, to be 
 miserable, to lose a thing. Moses in his narrative 
 first gives an account of the divine precept, 
 that Adam and Eve should not eat of the tree 
 of knowledge, &c., Genesis, ii. 15 17; (vide 
 s. 52, II. 2 ;) and then follows the account of 
 the transgression itself, Gen. iii. 1, seq. We 
 must therefore refer back to what has been 
 already remarked, in general, respecting the 
 creation of the world and of man ; s. 49, I. ; 
 and s. 52, II. We now proceed to explain this 
 account. 
 
 I. Different ways in which this passage has been 
 
 explained. , 
 
 The interpreters of this passage were formerly 
 divided into two general classes. Some have 
 
 regarded it as an allegory, and interpreted it 
 metaphorically, admitting no real serpent, tree, 
 &c. Others consider it as a literal narrative of 
 events which actually occurred in the manner 
 here recorded. To these two classes a third 
 has been added in modern times, who hold that 
 it is merely a didactic fable. With respect to 
 the history of these various interpretations, cf. 
 Pfaff and Buddeus, in their systems of theo- 
 logy ; also Ode, De Angelis, p. 498 ; M. J. 0. 
 Thiess, Variarum de cap. iii. Geneseos recte 
 explicando specimen I. ; Lubecse, 1788, 8vo. 
 [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 345, f. s. 78. Bret- 
 schneider, Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 58, s. 125 TR.] 
 
 (1) The Allegorical interpretations. These 
 are very various, and prove by their variety that 
 no certain results can be attained by allegorical 
 interpretation. All the explanations of this 
 kind are forced and artificial. To suppose an 
 allegory in this passage, which is preceded and 
 followed by plain and simple history, is alto- 
 gether unnatural, and foreign to the spirit of 
 these ancient monuments. Nor is any hint or 
 key to such an interpretation given us by the 
 writer. This mode of interpreting this passage 
 was resorted to merely for the sake of avoiding 
 certain difficulties, some of which seem to 
 arise from the great simplicity of this narrative, 
 (for to the learned interpreter this simplicity 
 constitutes an objection,) and others, from the 
 great dissimilarity in the manner of thought 
 and expression of this narrative from that which 
 is found in this cultivated and refined age. 
 The interpreters of this passage thought it 
 necessary, therefore, to make the writer say 
 something of higher import, and more philoso- 
 phical, than is contained in the simple words ; 
 and proceeded with regard to Moses very much 
 as the later Grecian interpreters did with regard 
 to Homer. 
 
 The first attempts at allegorical interpretation 
 are found among the Grecian Jews, and princi- 
 pally in Philo, De Opificio Mundi, p. 104, seq. 
 ed. Pfeif. He was followed by Origen in this 
 general principle of interpretation, though the 
 latter gave a different turn to the narrative ; and 
 Origen was again followed by Ambrose, in his 
 book, "De Paradise," I. Some of their fol- 
 lowers understand all the circumstances here 
 mentioned allegorically ; others, only some of 
 them e. g., the serpent, and allow the rest to 
 stand as history. It is said by some, that the 
 whole is intended to teach, by allegory, how 
 unhappy man becomes by the indulgence of 
 violent passions, and the evil consequences 
 resulting from the prevalence of sense over rea- 
 son. To this view of the subject Moms is in- 
 clined, p. 99, n. 2. He supposes that by the 
 serpent are intended, in general, the external 
 inducements to evil by which we are surprised 
 and overborne; but that the very things which 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 267 
 
 constituted the original temptation are unknown 
 to us. 
 
 (2) Literal interpretations. A large proportion 
 of the church fathers, (e. g., Justin the Martyr, 
 Irenseus, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, 
 Augustine, and Theodoret,) and also most of 
 the older theologians even in the protestant 
 church, were united in the opinion that this 
 passage should not be explained as an allegory, 
 although they differed among themselves in the 
 interpretation of particular expressions. They 
 agreed, however, for the most part, in consider- 
 ing the serpent as something else than a mere 
 natural serpent, as it was regarded by Josephus 
 and other Jewish interpreters. Some affirmed 
 that the serpent was simply the devil an opi- 
 nion justly controverted by Vitringa, on account 
 of the great difficulties by which it is encom- 
 passed. Others, and the greater part of the 
 older Jewish and Christian interpreters, sup- 
 posed that the serpent here spoken of was the 
 instrument which was employed by the evil 
 spirit to seduce mankind. So it is explained 
 by Augustine, who was followed in this by 
 Luther and Calvin; and this, from their time, 
 was the prevailing opinion of protestant theolo- 
 gians, until the middle of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury. There is, indeed, nothing said in the ori- 
 ginal text respecting an evil spirit ; but as the 
 serpent is here introduced as acting and speak- 
 ing after the manner of an intelligent, though 
 evil-disposed being, it was thought fair to con- 
 clude that an evil being actually spoke through 
 the serpent; and so has it been understood even 
 among modern critics e. g., by Michaelis and 
 Zacharia. 
 
 This exposition respecting the serpent is in- 
 deed ancient; but still we can find no distinct 
 traces of it in the books of the Old Testament 
 written before the Babylonian exile; and we 
 are therefore alike unable to prove or disprove 
 that before that period this passage was so 
 understood. To suppose that the serpent in 
 this passage was the instrument of an invisible 
 being is certainly entirely in the spirit of the 
 most ancient people, who imagined that evil and 
 good spirits were everywhere active in all the 
 evil and good done in the world. After the 
 Babylonian exile, however, we find it expressly 
 said by the Jewish teachers, that in the tempta- 
 tion an evil being was invisibly active through 
 the serpent. This point may therefore be one 
 of those (of which we find many relating to the 
 doctrine of spirits) which belong to the later 
 disclosures of the prophets. Vide s. 58. In 
 the Apocryphal books before Christ we find it 
 said that the devil deceived mankind, and 
 brought sin and death into the world e. g., 
 Book of Wisdom, i. 13, 14; and especially ii. 
 23, 24, (<fov9 Sia^o^ou, x, t. X.) This is con- 
 ceded on all hands. 
 
 It is asserted, however, by many learned men, 
 that this idea does not occur in the New Testa- 
 ment, and they appeal to 2 Cor. xi. 3, where it 
 is said that the serpent deceived Eve, and no 
 mention is made of the devil ; and also to Rom. 
 v. 18, where Paul makes no allusion to the 
 devil, although he is treating of the origin of 
 evil. In answer to this it may be said, (a) that 
 considering how prevalent this explanation was 
 at the time of Christ, and that neither he nor his 
 apostles contradicted it, nor said anything in- 
 consistent with it, the probability is, that they 
 also assented to it. Morus seems to admit this, 
 although in so doing he cannot be altogether 
 consistent with himself. But (6) it deserves 
 also to be considered that there are many allu- 
 sions and references in the New Testament, in 
 which this interpretation is presupposed, and 
 from which it appears that Christ and his apos- 
 tles assented to it, and authorized it e. g., 
 John, viii. 44, w$purtoxtovo$ art dp^jjs ; 1 John, 
 iii. 8, drt' dp2?Jj o 5iaj3o7.oj d^aptavf t, ; also the 
 titles in Revelation, gpd^wv ^tf'yaj, 6 o$tj 6 
 dp^atoj, Rev. xii. 9, seq. From these texts we 
 can see how the text 2 Cor. xi. 3 is to be under- 
 stood. The New-Testament writers therefore 
 assumed it as a fact, that in some way, not fur- 
 ther determined, the devil was concerned in the 
 temptation of man. It is not, however, expressly 
 said in any one passage that the devil spoke 
 through the serpent. 
 
 The principal advocates of the interpretation 
 formerly adopted by theologians, and in opposi- 
 tion to the allegorists and to the class of inter- 
 preters to be hereafter mentioned, were, among 
 the more ancient, Aug. PfeifFer, Dobia vexata, 
 cap. 6; among the more modern, Joh. Balth. 
 Liiderwald, Die allegorische Erklarung der drey 
 ersten Capitel Mosis, u. s. w. in ihrem Ungrund 
 vorgestellt; Helmstadt, 1781, 8vo; also Karl 
 Traugott Eifert, Untersuchung der Frage, 
 Konnte nicht die Mosaische Erzahlung vom 
 Fall buchstablich wahr, und durch den Fall ein 
 erbliches Verderben auf die Menschen gekom- 
 men seyn? Halle, 1781; especially Storr, De 
 Protevangelio ; Tubingae, 1789, (in his Opus- 
 cula, torn. ii. num. 7,) and Koppen, Die Bibel 
 u. s. w. th. ii. [To this class the great body of 
 American theologians belongs.] 
 
 (3) To the third class belong those interpret- 
 ers who consider this narration as a mythus, or 
 a truth invested in a poetic form. According to 
 this idea, this passage has been interpreted in 
 modern times by Eichhorn, in his " Urgesch- 
 ichte;" in such a way, however, that he al- 
 lows some things in the account to be histori- 
 cal and others allegorical. Such, i\i some re- 
 spects, is also the interpretation of Rosenmuller, 
 (Repertor. th. i. s. 160,) who supposes that the 
 narrative in Genesis was taken from a hiero- 
 glyphic picture i. e., transferred from pictorial 
 
366 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 representation to alphabetic signs. These inter- 
 preters have endeavoured to unite the historical 
 and the mythical or allegorical interpretations. 
 But this is inadmissible. If the mythical inter- 
 pretation is adopted, the whole narrative, in all its 
 parts, must be considered as a mythus, like what 
 other nations had, in order to represent to them- 
 selves, each in its own way, in a distinct and 
 vivid manner, the first sin of man, and its con- 
 sequences. So Eichhorn, Paulas, Gabler, and 
 many others. One of two things must be ad- 
 mitted; either this narrative throughout must 
 be considered as a veritable history of events 
 which took place just as here related, (and this 
 agrees with the New Testament,) or it is wholly 
 a didactic or moral fiction. In both cases the 
 interpreter must proceed in the interpretation of 
 the particular portions of this account from the 
 same principles. It is undoubtedly the fact, 
 that Moses, or the writer from whom he took 
 this account, (vide s. 49,) understood these ex- 
 pressions just as they stand, according to their 
 literal meaning ; and that these other ideas which 
 are attached to this narrative were ascribed to it 
 at a later period, in order to adapt it more to the 
 tastes and feelings of cultivated and speculative 
 minds. 
 
 In confirmation of the internal truth and con- 
 sistency of this narrative let the following things 
 be considered ; and they are equally deserving 
 of notice, whether this passage be literally or 
 historically understood. Conversation with ani- 
 mals is something, which to man, in his natural 
 condition, and before the refinements of social 
 life, is perfectly common, and by no means 
 strange and incredible. How often is it the 
 case with children, (even with those, too, who 
 are somewhat grown up,) that they address 
 inanimate things, and still more frequently 
 living creatures, imagining what they would 
 answer, and then replying to them in turn ! 
 They will often, too, relate to others the conver- 
 sations they have had with the animals around 
 them. Hence the fables of ^Esop were more 
 agreeable and impressive, and less strange and 
 startling, even to mature minds, in the ancient 
 world than now. Hence, too, the supposition 
 which once prevailed even in the heathen world, 
 that in the golden age beasts actually spake, j 
 Again ; the author understood the speaking of 
 God, here mentioned, as real, articulate speech, 
 perhaps with a voice of thunder. For the idea 
 was very prevalent in the ancient world that the 
 Deity was, as it were, personally present, and 
 appeared to the men of early times in the most 
 free and familiar intercourse ; somewhat as the 
 gods were supposed by the Greeks to have as- 
 sociated with men in the heroic ages. Vide 
 s. 54, 1. 
 
 This whole representation, however, whether 
 it be fact or moral fiction, is entirely conformed 
 
 to the nature of the human soul, and describes 
 in a manner perfectly true, the history of the 
 temptation and sin of man, as it is witnessed 
 every day, through the impression which sensi- 
 ble objects make upon him. Here then, by the 
 example of our first parents, two things are 
 shewn : the way in which sin commonly arises, 
 and the way in which it actually first entered 
 the world. In this, however, there is a differ- 
 ence, that in the case of our first parents they 
 had come to maturity without having yet sinned. 
 The first sin committed upon earth was one of 
 momentous consequences for themselves and 
 their posterity. In looking at this transaction, 
 we are again impressed with the idea that the 
 state of innocence in which our first parents were 
 placed was a state of immaturity, of childhood, 
 and infantine simplicity ; and that they then 
 had no very extended knowledge or experience. 
 They were deceived in nearly the same way as 
 an innocent and inexperienced child is now de- 
 ceived. In this point of view this narrative has 
 been very justly apprehended, even by Moms, 
 p. 99, n. 1. 
 
 [Note. There is an interesting essay on the 
 Mosaic account of the Fall in the Appendix to 
 Tholuck's " Lehre von der Siinde." While he 
 contends for the historic fact of the fall, he at the 
 same time regards the representation here given 
 of this fact as figurative, and finds insuperable 
 objections in the way of the literal, and very 
 plausible arguments in favour of the moral inter- 
 pretation. He gives the following as the moral 
 import of the passage : " Man, who, in accord- 
 ance with his destination, enjoyed a holy inno- 
 cence, in which he knew no other will than that 
 of God, abandoned this state, became selfish 
 (autonomic), and would no longer acknowledge 
 the divine law of life as the highest;" s. 266, 
 of the work above mentioned. The views of the 
 German theologians on this subject are very vari- 
 ous ; and though often fanciful, sometimes deep- 
 ly interesting and profound. It will be suffi- 
 cient to refer to some of the more important of 
 these, which the ardent student of theology, 
 who wishes to overstep the limit of merely tra- 
 ditionary ideas, may consult at his leisure. Cf. 
 Schleiermacher, Christ. Glaub. b. ii. s. 59. 
 Schlegel, Philosophic der Geschichte, b. i. s. 
 42, 43. Herder, Geist der Ebra. Poesie, b. i. 
 s. 155. To these we may add the speculations, 
 ingenious and exciting, even when unfounded 
 and fanciful, of Coleridge. See his " Aids to 
 Reflection," notes, p. 324, 325; also p. 176, 
 177. TR.] 
 
 II. Particular Expressions and Representations. 
 
 (1) Respecting the divine law, the transgres- 
 sion of it, and the temptation. Genesis, ii. 17, 
 coll. ver. 9, and chap. iii. 1 6. For an account 
 of the name, tree of the knowledge of good and 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 269 
 
 evil, vide s. 52, II. The question is here asked, 
 What design had God in view in giving this 
 precept? According to the opinion of many 
 theologians, this command was given by God 
 merely for the sake of putting the virtue of 
 Adam and Eve to the test, there being no inju- 
 rious quality in the tree itself which should lead 
 him to forbid it ; and so they suppose that the 
 punishment of death threatened and inflicted by 
 God had no natural connexion with the eating 
 of the forbidden fruit, but depended merely upon 
 the divine will. This is supposed by Ernesti, 
 Vindiciae arbitrii divini, in his " Opusc. Theol." 
 p. 231 ; and among the ancients, by Theophilus, 
 Ad Autolyc. 1. ii. c. 35. But against this sup- 
 position there are many reasons, both of an in- 
 ternal and external nature, which have been 
 well exhibited by Michaelis, Von der Siinde, s. 
 559. The fact that this forbidden tree is set 
 over against the tree of life, would lead us to 
 think that it was in itself a poisonous tree, and 
 in its own nature destructive to man. And to 
 this opinion even Morus assents, p. 102, s. 16. 
 The writer here designs to shew by what natu- 
 ral means the life of man was to have been pro- 
 longed, according to the divine appointment, 
 in the state of innocence; and this means is 
 the tree of life, or life-giving tree; and after- 
 wards, by what means death came into the 
 world namely, by a poisonous tree. It is 
 against the latter, which bore an alluring, beau- 
 tiful fruit, that God warns inexperienced man, 
 as a father cautions his child not to taste of a 
 pleasant poison which may lie in his way. 
 Since man entered his new abode as a stranger, 
 it was naturnal that he should receive all neces- 
 sary instructions and cautions from the being 
 who prepared it for him, and introduced him to 
 it. Tasting of the fruit of this tree introduced 
 disorder into the human body, which, from that 
 time forward, was subject to disease and death. 
 In this way is God justified, as every one can 
 see, from the charge of being the author of human 
 misery ; just as a father is acquitted from blame 
 in the misfortune of his children if he had before 
 cautioned them against the poison. In this way, 
 too, every one can understand why God should 
 require obedience from man. The father requires 
 obedience of his children, because he knows 
 better than they do what is best for them. For 
 the same reason should we unconditionally obey 
 God. Nor is the explanation now given, by 
 which the forbidden fruit is considered in its 
 own nature poisonous, a new explanation; it 
 is mentioned by Chrysostom, although he re- 
 jects it. 
 
 The propriety and consistency of the account 
 of the temptation by means of the serpent may 
 be illustrated by the following remarks. The 
 serpent was used by almost all the ancient na- 
 tions as the symbol of prudence, adroitness, and 
 
 cunning. Vide Matt. x. 16 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3. Eve 
 sees a serpent upon this forbidden tree, and pro- 
 bably eating of its fruits, which to a serpent 
 might not be harmful. And it is very natural 
 that this should be first observed by the woman, 
 that her interest and curiosity should have been 
 arrested by the sight, and that, with her greater 
 susceptibility to temptation, her desires should 
 have been first kindled, and she first seduced 
 from obedience. Paul mentions it as worthy 
 of notice, that the woman first sinned, 1 Tim. 
 ii. 14, coll. Sir. xxv. 32, drto ywouxoj op^ ofiap- 
 tf/aj. We may compare with this part of the 
 narrative the Grecian mythus of Pandora. As 
 to what follows, we very naturally understand 
 that Eve reflected upon what she had seen, and 
 expressed her thoughts in words: "The ser- 
 pent is a very lively and knowing animal, and 
 yet it eats of the fruit which is forbidden us. 
 This fruit cannot, therefore, be so hurtful, and 
 the prohibition may not have been meant in 
 earnest," &c. the same fallacies with which 
 men still deceive themselves when the objects 
 of sense entice and draw them away. The fact 
 which she observed, that the serpent ate the 
 fruit of the forbidden tree without harm, excited 
 the thought which in ver. 4, 5 are represented 
 as the words of the serpent, that it was worth 
 while to eat of this fruit. It did not seem to 
 occasion death ; and, on the other hand, appeared 
 rather to impart health, vigour, and intelligence, 
 as was proved from the example of the serpent, 
 which remained after eating it well and wise. 
 " Consider me," the serpent might have seemed 
 to her to say, "how brisk, sound, and cunning 
 I am," &c. Now, as she knows of no being 
 who surpasses man in wisdom, excepting God 
 only, she supposes, in her simplicity, that if she 
 became wiser than she then was, she should 
 be like God. Meanwhile, the desire after that 
 which was forbidden became continually more 
 irresistible. She took of the fruit and ate. The 
 man, who, as is common, was weak and pliable 
 enough to yield to the solicitation of his wife, 
 received the fruit from her and ate with her. 
 
 All this may have been as now stated, even 
 on the supposition, so conformed to the spirit 
 of the ancient world, and fully authorized in 
 the New Testament, that the evil spirit had an 
 agency in this transaction. This supposition 
 can occasion no alteration in the verbal explana- 
 tion of this record. Satan can be allowed to be 
 no otherwise concerned in this affair than as in- 
 stigator and contriver ; somewhat after the man- 
 ner of a malicious and crafty man, who might 
 secretly injure another, by tempting him, either 
 by words or in any other way, to taste of a poi- 
 sonous article. Those to whom the real speak- 
 ing of the serpent seems strange and incredible, 
 may understand it as above. 
 
 Now it was in this transgression of the divine 
 z2 
 
270 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 law, which made strict abstinence from the for- 
 bidden tree binding upon them, that their sin is 
 placed ; and it is this which the apostle calls 
 Tiopaxojj, Rom. v. 19. The rising desires which 
 our first parents felt to eat the fruit were founded 
 in their nature, and were not imputed to them 
 as sin. Nor is the springing up of involuntary 
 desire in the heart of man ever considered in 
 scripture as sin,- but merely the entertaining, 
 cherishing, and accomplishing of this desire. 
 Vide James, i. 14. The sin of our first parents, 
 then, properly consisted in this that they were 
 not implicitly obedient to God, as Paul remarks 
 in the passage just cited. This disobedience 
 to God is the greatest wrong, and draws after 
 itself inevitably the mostinjurious consequences, 
 whether it is shewn in greater or smaller in- 
 stances. Cf. 1 Sam. xv. 23. They did what 
 God had forbidden, under the impression which 
 men are accustomed to have in such cases, that 
 it was something trifling, and of little import. 
 From this first act, there now arose in their 
 minds alienation from God, distrust of him, the 
 desire of independence of him, &c. They began 
 to say, "that God had not allowed them to be 
 like himself," &c. thoughts from which they 
 should have shrunk with abhorrence, and ban- 
 ished instantly from their hearts. 
 
 (2) The consequences of this transgression are 
 narrated, ver. 7, seq. The author does not give 
 such a representation as would lead us to think 
 that all piety, virtue, and religion, ceased with 
 man immediately upon his first transgression. 
 For we see in the sequel, that the knowledge 
 and worship of God were perpetuated in the 
 family of Adam. We perceive too, that our 
 first parents felt repentance and shame after the 
 fall, and these feelings are sufficient proof that 
 morality and rectitude were not wholly oblite- 
 rated by the fall. Some theologians maintain 
 that by the fall man lost the image of God, but 
 this is denied by others. And both may be true, 
 according as the image of God is understood in 
 a wider or more narrow sense. The whole dis- 
 pute is more respecting words than things. 
 Vide s. 53, ad finem, and s. 54. The author 
 places the consequences of this transgression 
 in the following particulars viz., 
 
 (a) In the disturbed balance of the powers and 
 inclinations of man, and in the preponderance 
 which the impulses of sense now obtained over 
 reason. For this balance and harmony of powers 
 was that which constituted, according to the ac- 
 count of Moses, the principal advantage of the 
 state of innocence. That this was the conse- 
 quence of the first transgression is clearly taught 
 by Moses in the expression, " and they knew that 
 they were naked" which may be euphemistically 
 expressed as follows: "They felt the motions 
 of sense uncommonly strong, which they were 
 no longer able to control as heretofore, but by 
 
 which they were now governed, whence the 
 feeling of shame arose in their minds;" as is 
 still the case with innocent youth, when it first 
 begins to have such desires. It is possible that 
 this may be considered as also the effect of the 
 harmful fruit which had been eaten by them, 
 by which their nerves were strongly excited ; 
 for there are many poisonous plants by which 
 violent excitement is imparted to the nerves, 
 and by which great disorder is produced both in 
 soul and body spasmodic affections, stupefac- 
 tion, and delirium; such are belladonna, opium, 
 thorn-apple, and hemlock. This supposition 
 will at least serve to render the subject more 
 intelligible, and to explain how this effect may 
 have been propagated from Adam to his poste- 
 rity, although it is by no means necessary to 
 understand this effect as a physical one; and at 
 all events this should not be brought into popu- 
 lar instruction, as it is merely conjectural.* 
 
 * The views here expressed respecting the nature 
 of the forbidden fruit, and the consequences of eat- 
 ing it upon our first parents, are the basis of our au- 
 thor's ideas respecting the natural character of man ; 
 they ought therefore to be carefully examined here, 
 where they are first introduced. It is easy to see 
 how Dr. Knapp's love of plainness and simplicity of 
 interpretation, and his aversion to the metaphysical 
 and speculative spirit of his times, should have in- 
 clined him to sentiments like those which he has 
 here expressed respecting the narrative in Genesis. 
 Indeed, they may be said to result fairly from adopt- 
 ing and carrying through the principle of literal in- 
 terpretation in application to this passage. To the 
 same conclusion substantially were Michaelis and 
 Reinhard brought before him, by reasoning on the 
 same principles. But we ought to hesitate before 
 adopting principles which strip this opening page of 
 human history of its chief moral and religious inter- 
 est, and substitute transactions so unimportant and 
 even trivial. To teach that the forbidden tree was 
 one of physical poison; that on this account mainly, 
 and not for the purpose of testing their obedience, 
 our first parents were warned against it ; that by 
 seeing a serpent feed on it with impunity, they 
 falsely concluded they might do so ; that having thus 
 by mistake been led to taste of it, their nerves were 
 excited, their passions inflamed, and reason weaken- 
 ed ; and, lastly, that the propagation of this physical 
 disorder is the cause of the universal predominance 
 of sense over reason, in short, of human depravity; 
 these are propositions so strange that we must won- 
 der how they could have been soberly propounded 
 by writers of such eminence. 
 
 To minds of a particular cast, which had been dis- 
 gusted with the assumptions of philosophy, and 
 wearied with travelling through its thorny mazes, so 
 simple and easy a solution of the mysteries of our 
 present condition might naturally furnish repose. 
 But a just and unperverted critical taste must be of- 
 fended with an interpretation so flatly and frigidly 
 ad literam as that which is here suggested. 
 
 If this narrative is to retain the least doctrinal in- 
 terest, it must be regarded as exhibiting the trial of 
 man as to obedience to the divine will, and the un- 
 happy issue of this trial. And if this meaning be 
 extracted from this history, it is not of so much con- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 271 
 
 (i) The consequences of the first transgres- 
 sion are seen in still other evils. Physical evils 
 are usually regarded as the consequences of an- 
 tecedent moral faults, and experience shews 
 this to be correct, though mistakes are easily 
 made in applying this principle to particular 
 cases. When man was more perfect, and lived 
 in a state of innocence, he bore none of those 
 loads which he is now called to sustain ; he 
 was under no necessity of tilling the ground 
 with weariness ; he lived free from care, needed 
 no clothing, &c. Vide s. 56. All this now 
 ceased; and the evils which began to appear 
 were regarded as the consequences of the fall, 
 and as punishments inflicted by the Deity. 
 Hence it is related, ver. 8, that God sat in so- 
 lemn judgment upon our first parents, and pro- 
 nounced their sentence. And this was done in 
 a thunder storm, which took place oi'n nnS i. e., 
 at eventide, when the cool evening wind began 
 to blow at sunset, as it does in the east. This 
 term is used in opposition to ovn on, meridies, 
 Gen. xviii. 1. Man hid himself; the natural 
 effect of the consciousness of having acted 
 wrong; and then comes the trial. All this is 
 perfectly natural, and like what we see every 
 day in the case of crime and of an evil con- 
 science. Men, as here, fear the presence of 
 God, and wish to conceal themselves from him, 
 although they well know that this is impossi- 
 ble. It is hard for them to acknowledge their 
 sins, repent of them, and confess them. They 
 seek vain excuses, and throw off the guilt from 
 themselves to others; Eve upon the serpent, 
 and Adam upon Eve. And indeed, in these 
 words the woman which THOIJ GAVEST me, 
 Adam seems to throw the guilt upon God, as 
 
 sequence whether it be by an allegorical or literal 
 interpretation. But to make this the history of the 
 imprudent conduct of Adam and Eve in eating of a 
 fruit of whose fatal qualities they had been fore- 
 warned, and thus poisoning themselves, is to empty 
 it of its high interest as the account of the birth of 
 sin, and to reduce it to a common-place story, un- 
 worthy of its place at the head of the history of man. 
 It was well said by Theophilus of Antioch, long ago, 
 " that it was not the tree, but the disobedience, which 
 had death in itself," Contra Autyl. Luther, too, 
 who in general followed the literal interpretation, 
 says, with regard to this passage, " Adam indeed 
 stuck his teeth into the apple ; but he set them, too, 
 upon a thorn, which was, the law of God and dis- 
 obedience against him ; and this was the proper 
 cause of his misery." Com. on Gen. ii. 5. 
 
 Some of the remoter consequences of Knapp's 
 view of the transgression of our first parents and its 
 influence on their posterity are not less singular than 
 the first appearance of his interpretation, 'if the re- 
 sult of the fall to Adam was a physical disorder which 
 we inherit from him, then it would seem that, in 
 order that man might be restored, a physical cure 
 ought first to be effected, and the first step towards 
 his recovery should be a medical prescription. But 
 of this more hereafter. TR.] 
 
 much as to say, "hadst not thou given her to 
 me, this evil had not been done." 
 
 But the most distinct punishment for the 
 transgression of the divine law was this that 
 they must die; Gen. ii. 17, coll. iii. 19. In the 
 former of these texts the phrase is nrcn DID (best 
 rendered by Symmachus, ^t^foj toy) ; in the 
 latter, thou shalt return to the earth from whence 
 thou wast taken. In the latter passage, there- 
 fore, it can be only mortality which is spoken 
 of; and the theological distinction of spiritual, 
 bodily, and eternal death has no connexion with 
 this passage. Some theologians assert even 
 that it does not relate to bodily death at all, but 
 only to spiritual and eternal. So Calovius, 
 Seb. Schmidt, Fecht, &c. This mortality now 
 was the consequence of the harmful fruit they 
 had eaten, just as their immortality was de- 
 scribed as what would be the consequence of 
 eating of the tree of life. And as men were 
 henceforward to be deprived of immortality, 
 they were no more permitted to eat of the tree 
 of life, and were therefore removed by God from 
 the garden, ver. 22, 24. In the same way that 
 their removal from the garden is represented as 
 an act of God, are we to understand the direc- 
 tion that they should be clothed with the skins of 
 beasts, (" God made them coats of skins," as it 
 is said, ver. 21) viz., as an instruction which 
 they received directly and immediately from 
 God ; for it was a common opinion throughout 
 the ancient world, that God had directly com- 
 municated to men the knowledge of many use- 
 ful inventions. 
 
 In the words, ver. 22, "Adam has become 
 like one of us, knowing good and evil," there 
 is something ironical, and they refer to ver. 5, 
 as much as to say, " we see now how it is, man 
 wished to become wise and like to God, but in 
 breaking the commandment of God he acted 
 like a fool." Others render these words, "Ae 
 WAS like one of us, but now is so no more." 
 
 With respect to the curse pronounced upon 
 the serpent, ver. 14, many difficulties are found. 
 How can the serpent, which, even supposing it 
 the instrument of the devil, was an innocent 
 cause of the temptation, have been punished 1 
 This certainly does not seem to agree with our 
 present ideas of punishment, and what consti- 
 tutes capacity for it. But if we notice the con- 
 duct of children, and of rude and uncultivated 
 men, we shall find a solution. God deals with 
 men more humano, and condescends in his con- 
 duct to their limited and infantine comprehen- 
 sions. When children are injured by an animal, 
 or even by an inanimate thing, they often pro- 
 ceed in the same way as they would with one 
 like themselves. The sense of the injury which 
 they have experienced, and the displeasure 
 which they naturally feel, leads them to wish 
 for recornpence ; and they feel a kind of satis- 
 
272 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 faction when the cause of the injury done them, 
 even if it be a lifeless object, is in their view 
 repaid. To these conceptions does God here 
 condescend, and designs to impress upon the 
 minds of our first parents, by this vivid repre- 
 sentation, the idea that the tempter in this 
 transaction would not go unrewarded, and that 
 every tempter must expect to receive from him 
 unavoidable and severe punishment. This is 
 the doctrine which is taught them in this, so to 
 speak, sensible, manner. The punishment in- 
 flicted upon the invisible agent concerned in 
 this temptation could not be made obvious to 
 them ; it must therefore be made to fall upon the 
 instrument. Enough for them that they could 
 derive from the punishment of the serpent this 
 doctrine, which, in the state in which they then 
 were, could have been in no other way made so 
 obvious and impressive. Hence the fear and 
 dread of the serpent which is felt by man and 
 beast. It is the image of baseness, and cleaves 
 to the ground. To eat dust, is a figurative ex- 
 pression, denoting to be levelled with the ground, 
 laid in the dust, Is. xlix. 23. So, 1o eat ashes, 
 Ps. cii. 10, and the phrase humum ore memordit, 
 used by Virgil with respect to one struck dead 
 , to the earth. Cf. Horn. Odyss. xxii. 269. 
 
 (3) Ver. 15, 1 will put enmity between thee and 
 the woman, and between thy seed and her seed ; it 
 shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his 
 heel, jnr in the first case denotes the posterity 
 of the serpent the serpent race , in the second 
 case, either collectively, the posterity of Eve, 
 yswytoi yvvaixuv, Matt. xi. 11; or one of this 
 posterity, a descendant or son of Eve ; for in this 
 latter sense may jnr in the singular be taken, 
 according to the Hebrew idiom e. g., Gen. iv. 
 25. Taken in this sense it is referred to the 
 Messiah, the second Adam, who even by the 
 later Jews was denominated jnr, the descendant 
 sometimes of Adam and sometimes of Abraham. 
 Vide Gal. v. 16, and Wetstein ad. h. 1. These 
 words admit of a threefold construction, neither 
 of which is inconsistent with, or entirely ex- 
 cludes the others, and either of which contains 
 instruction for those to whom these words were 
 first addressed, and to their posterity. 
 
 (a) If these words are referred to the serpent 
 here visible, the sense is, " It is my will that en- 
 mity should exist between thee and the woman, 
 between thy breed and her descendants i. e., 
 there shall be a constant hatred between the 
 human and the serpent race. Men shall aim at 
 thy head, and thou at their heel i. e., they 
 shall seek thy life, and thou shalt seek to injure 
 them by thy poisonous bite whenever thou 
 canst." Cf. Zacharia, Bibl. Theol., th. ii. s. 
 318, and Repert. iv. 250, f. 
 
 (6) Everything which took place here was 
 designed to give moral instruction to our first 
 parents. In this way it was intended to teach 
 
 them respecting the external occasions and ex- 
 citements to sin ; and by means of the serpent, 
 this lesson was made plain and ebvious to their 
 senses. Hence w r e have in these words the fol- 
 lowing maxim : " Thou and thy posterity (i. e., 
 all men) will have from henceforward a constant 
 warfare against sin to maintain. The victory 
 of man over the tempter and his seductions will 
 be difficult and uncertain; they will be in con- 
 stant contention with each other, and men will 
 not come off uninjured, nor will they remain 
 hereafter unseduced, and must always feel the 
 injurious consequences of transgression." 
 
 (c) If jnr in the second case denotes a single 
 individual among the descendants of Adam, it^ 
 refers to the Messiah, who has destroyed the 
 power of the tempter and of sin, and who has 
 also made it possible for all his followers to 
 overcome them. Vide 1 John, iii. 8. Our first 
 parents could not indeed have understood these 
 words as a distinct prophecy respecting the Mes- 
 siah, for they were not able at that time to com- 
 prehend the idea of a Messiah in all its extent; 
 nor is this text ever cited in the New Testament 
 as a prophecy respecting Christ. From these 
 words, however, they could easily deduce the 
 idea, that in this contest the human race might 
 and would come off finally victorious. The 
 head of the serpent would be bruised for its en- 
 tire destruction, and the only revenge it could 
 take would be, to bite the heel; it could injure 
 less than it would itself be injured. Hence it 
 was here, as Paul says respecting the patriarchs, 
 Heb. xi. 13, they received the promise from 
 God, but saw that which was promised n6f>^n^tfv. 
 Respecting th,e manner in which this promise 
 should be fulfilled, and the person through whom 
 it should be performed, more full revelations 
 were gradually given at a later period. So that 
 even although our first parents might not have 
 been able to refer this jnj to one particular de- 
 scendant of Adam, they might yet find in these 
 words a consoling promise of God. And for 
 this reason we may justly call this passage, as 
 it has been called by some of the church fathers, 
 protevangelium, because it contains the first joy- 
 ful promise ever given to our race. Vide Storr, 
 De Protevangelio ; Tubingae, 1781. [Hengsten- 
 berg, Christologie. Smith, Scripture Testimony 
 to the Messiah, vol. i. TR.] 
 
 Note. In explaining the history of the fall to 
 the people, the teacher should dwell mostly 
 upon the internal truth and the practical instruc- 
 tion contained in it. In conformity with the 
 remark at the latter part of No. I. of this section, 
 he must shew, from the example of the proge- 
 nitors of our race, not only how sin first entered 
 into the world, but also how it is still accus- 
 tomed to arise. In doing this he can appeal to 
 James, i. 13 15, and then illustrate the truth 
 by examples, such as daily occur. In this way 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 273 
 
 he may rescue this history from the contempt 
 sometimes thrown upon it, and teach those en- 
 trusted to his care to regard it not as a fable, 
 but seriously to reflect upon it in such a manner 
 as may be profitable to them. He must treat it 
 entirely as fact or history, in the same manner 
 as it is treated both in the Old and New Testa- 
 ment. Let him by no means initiate his hear- 
 ers into all the hypotheses and controversies of 
 the learned on this subject, since they are un- 
 able to form a judgment respecting them, and 
 will be rather confounded than enlightened by 
 hearing them recited. And since in the New 
 Testament the devil is represented as having an 
 agency in this transaction, he must also be so 
 represented by the Christian teacher, who, how- 
 ever, must not attempt to determine the manner 
 in which this agency was exerted, as on this 
 point the scripture says nothing. 
 
 [On the general subject of this section cf. the 
 authors before referred to, Tholuck, Lehre von 
 der Siinde, Appendix, s. 264 ; Schleirmacher, 
 Glaubenslehre, b. ii. s. 59 ; Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 
 345, s. 78 ; Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. ii. s. 
 58, s. 125 ; Herder, Geist der Ebrai. Poesie, b. 
 i. s. 136, ff. TR.] 
 
 SECTION LXXVI. 
 
 OF THE IMPUTATION OF THE SIN OF OUR FIRST 
 PARENTS. 
 
 IT is taught in theology, that the transgres- 
 sion of the progenitors of mankind had a two- 
 fold influence upon their posterity viz., a phy- 
 sical influence in the propagation of sinful desires 
 and moral imperfection, and also a moral influ- 
 ence, which is commonly considered as properly 
 imputationem peccati Adamitici. These two do 
 not necessarily belong together, although impu- 
 tatio and peccatum originate have been often 
 connected together by theologians. They may, 
 however, be distinguished ; and one may easily 
 affirm moral corruption while he denies imputa- 
 tion, and the reverse. We shall therefore first 
 treat of imputation, and then show how, accord- 
 ing to the scriptures, the two are united. 
 
 Now, whatever diversity there may exist in 
 the opinions of theologians respecting imputa- 
 tion when they come to express their own views 
 definitely, they will yet, for the most part, agree 
 that the phrase, God imputes the, sin of our pro- 
 genitors to their posterity, means, that for the sin 
 committed by our progenitors God punishes their 
 descendants. The term to impute is used in dif- 
 ferent senses, (a) It is said of a creditor, who 
 charges something to his debtor as debt; like 
 arn, and Xoyi^Ojuat and M.oyo e. g., Philem. 
 ver. 18. (6) It is transferred to human judg- 
 ment, when any one is punished, or declared 
 deserving of punishment. Crime is regarded 
 as a debt, which must be cancelled partly by 
 35 
 
 actual restitution and partly by punishment, 
 (c) This now is applied to God, who imputes 
 sin when he pronounces men guilty, and treats 
 them accordingly i. e., when he actually pu- 
 nishes the sin of men, (jij? atsfri, fcoyradac a^ap- 
 , Ps. xxxii. 2.) The one punished is called 
 yj, in opposition to one to whom nfvtt 1 ? aisfri, 
 who is rewarded, Ps. cvi. 31 ; Rom. iv. 3. 
 
 In order to learn what is taught in the theo 
 logical schools on this subject, we must pursue 
 the historic method, or we shall grope in the 
 dark. 
 
 1. Opinions of the Jews. 
 
 The imputation of Adam's sin is not called 
 in the Mosaic narrative, or anywhere in the Old 
 Testament, by the name of imputation, although 
 the doctrine of imputation is contained in it, as 
 we shall soon see. But in the writings of the 
 Talmudists, and of the Rabbins, and still earlier 
 in the Chaldaic paraphrases on the Old Testa- 
 merit, we find it asserted, in so many words, 
 that the posterity of Adam were punished with 
 bodily death on account of his first sin, although 
 they themselves had never sinned. Cf. the 
 Chaldaic paraphrase on Ruth, iv. 22, "Because 
 Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, all the inhabitants 
 of the earth are subject to death." In this way 
 they accounted to themselves for the death of 
 the greatest saints, who, as they supposed, had 
 never themselves sinned. They taught, also, 
 that in the person of Adam the whole multitude 
 or mass of his posterity had sinned. Vide the 
 Commentators on Rom. v., especially Wetstein 
 and Koppe. As early as the time of the apos- 
 tles, this doctrine was widely prevalent among 
 the Jews. It is clearly taught by Paul, in Rom. 
 v. 12, 14, and is there placed by him in intimate 
 connexion with the more peculiar Christian doc- 
 trines. In this passage he has employed ex- 
 actly the same expressions which we find among 
 the Rabbins. 
 
 How was this doctrine developed and brought 
 to such clearness among the Jews? They pro- 
 ceeded from the scriptural maxim, that man was 
 created immortal, and that the death of Adam 
 was a consequence of his transgression. And 
 since all the posterity of Adam die, although all 
 have not themselves sinned (e. g., children), 
 they concluded that these too must endure this 
 evil on account of Adam's transgression. Cf. 
 Book of W T isdom, ii. 23, 24. Sirach, xxv. 32, 
 arto yvvaixb$ a^x^l aftapfuxj, XOA 8t' avt^v arto- 
 ^vr t oxofji.v rtavffj. Farther than this, which is 
 evidently founded in the scriptures, they did not 
 go. In order to illustrate this doctrine and ren- 
 der it plain, they probably resorted to some 
 analogies ; such, for example, as the fact, that 
 children must often suffer for the crimes of their 
 parents, in which they had no share ; and that, 
 according to the law of Moses, the iniquity of 
 
274 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 parents was visited upon the children of the 
 third and fourth generation. In what way they 
 probably conceived of imputation, and formed 
 their conclusions about it, may be seen from the 
 remarkable passage, Heb. vii. 9, 10. The pa- 
 triarch Levi (who, according to the Mosaic law, 
 receives the tithes) paid tithes to Melchisedec in 
 the person of Abraham i. e., it is to be consi- 
 dered the same as if the Levites paid tithes to 
 Melchisedec when Abraham paid t^em,/or Levi 
 was in the loins of his father Abraham when he 
 met Melchisedec i. e., he already existed in 
 Abraham, although he was not yet born. What 
 Abraham did is to be considered as if it had 
 been done by his descendant ; for had he lived 
 at that time he would have done the same that 
 Abraham then did. 
 
 II. Opinions of the New-Testament "Writers. 
 
 This doctrine is most clearly taught in Rom. 
 v. 12 14, a passage which is very variously ex- 
 plained. It is also briefly exhibited in 1 Cor. xv. 
 21, 22. Vide Tollner, Theol. Untersuchungen, 
 Theil i. st. 2, s. 56. Modern philosophers and 
 theologians have found many things here incon- 
 sistent with their philosophical systems. And 
 some of them have laboured so hard and long 
 upon this passage that they have at length ex- 
 torted a sense from it, in which nothing of im- 
 putation could any longer be discerned ; and this 
 is the case with Doderlein in his "Dogmatik." 
 They did not consider, however, that Paul here 
 makes use of the same words and phrases which 
 were then common among the Jews on the sub- 
 ject of imputation, and that he could not there- 
 fore have been otherwise understood by his con- 
 temporary readers ; and that Paul has also 
 reasoned in the same way on another subject, 
 Heb. vii. 9, 10. Cf. No. I. 
 
 Paul shews, in substance, that all men are 
 regarded and punished by God as sinners, and 
 that the ground of this lies in the act of one 
 man ; as, on the contrary, deliverance from pu- 
 nishment depends also upon one man, Jesus 
 Christ. If the words of Paul are not perverted, 
 it must be allowed, that in Rom. v. 12 14, he 
 thus reasons : "The cause of the universal mor- 
 tality of the human race lies in Adam's trans- 
 gression. He sinned, and so became mortal. 
 Other men are regarded and treated by God as 
 punishable, because they are the posterity of 
 Adam, the first transgressor, and consequently 
 they too are mortal. Should it now be objected, 
 that the men who lived from Adam to Moses 
 might themselves have personally sinned, and 
 so have been punished with death on their own 
 account, it might be answered, that those who 
 lived before the time of Moses had no express 
 and positive law which threatened the punish- 
 ment of sin, like those who lived after Moses. 
 The positive law of Moses was not as yet given ; 
 
 they could not, consequently, be punished on 
 account of their own transgressions, as no law 
 was as yet given to them ; ver. 14. Still they 
 must die, like Adam, who transgressed a posi- 
 tive law. Hence their mortality must have an- 
 other cause, and this is to be sought in the im- 
 putation of Adam's transgression. And in the 
 same way, the ground of the justification of man 
 lies not in himself, but in Christ, the second 
 Adam." 
 
 Such is the argument of Paul in this passage. 
 But respecting eternal death^ or the torments of 
 hell, he here says nothing, and is far from im- 
 plying that on account of a sin committed by 
 another man long before their birth, God pu- 
 nishes men with eternal hell torments. On the 
 contrary, he here speaks of bodily death merely, 
 as the consequence of the sin of Adam. And 
 herein the learned Jews agreed with him. And 
 in the passage 1 Cor. xv. 21, seq., Paul shews 
 that the resurrection to a blessed immortality 
 will be the best and highest proof of our entire 
 restoration through Jesus Christ, even as bodily 
 death is the first and most striking proof of our 
 degeneracy through Adam. [On this passage, 
 cf. Tholuck, Comm. iib. Rom. v. ; Usteri, Ent- 
 wickel. d. paulin. LehrbegriflFs ; Edwards, Ori- 
 ginal Sin, chap. iv. p. 352; Stuart's Comment- 
 ary on Rom. v. and Excursus. TR.] 
 
 III. Hypotheses of Theologians. 
 
 The greatest difficulties with respect to this 
 doctrine have arisen from the fact that many 
 have treated what is said by Paul in the fifth of 
 Romans a passage wholly popular, and any- 
 thing but formally exact and didactic in a learn- 
 ed and philosophical manner, and have defined 
 terms used by him in a loose and popular way, 
 by logical and scholastic distinctions. We do 
 not find anywhere among the ancients, in their 
 popular discourses, an exact and philosophically 
 precise use of terms with respect to the conse- 
 quences and the punishment of sin. They fre- 
 quently use the word punishment in a wider 
 sense, in which it is here and .elsewhere em- 
 ployed by Paul. He and the Jewish teachers, 
 with whom in this particular he agrees, use pu- 
 nishment (xataxpt/ta,) imputation of sin, &c., in 
 the same sense in which it is said respecting 
 children, for example, that they me punished on 
 account of the crimes of their ancestors, that the 
 crimes of their ancestors are imputed to them, 
 &c. ; although they, in their own persons, had 
 no share in the guilt, and could not, therefore, 
 in the strictest philosophical and juridical sense, 
 be considered as the subjects of imputation and 
 punishment. The family of a traitor, whose 
 name is disgraced, and whose goods are confis- 
 cated, are thus said to be punished on his ac- 
 count. Respecting Louis XVI., who was so 
 unfortunate, and suffered so much in consequence 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 275 
 
 of the errors of his predecessors Louis XIV. and 
 XV., it would be commonly said, without hesi- 
 tation, that he endured punishment on their ac- 
 count, and had to atone for or expiate their 
 crimes. Here, what is merely the consequence 
 of the sin of another, is called, from some ana- 
 logy between them, the punishment of one who 
 has no personal guilt in the matter. Just such 
 is the case here. Mortality was to Adam the 
 punishment of his sin, strictly speaking. His 
 posterity are also mortal, since a mortal cannot 
 beget those who are immortal. With them, 
 therefore, mortality is the natural consequence 
 of Adam's sin, but not their punishment, in the 
 proper juridico-philosophical sense of the word, 
 because they themselves had no share in the 
 first transgression. Imputation, therefore, of 
 the sin of Adam, in the strict sense of the word 
 imputation, does not exist with regard to us, his 
 posterity, since we only suffer the baleful con- 
 sequences of the sin of the first man, of which 
 we ourselves were not, however, guilty, and for 
 which we cannot therefore be punished. Speak- 
 ing, however, in a loose and popular way, we 
 may call what we endure, punishment and im- 
 putation. 
 
 By this observation, many difficulties in other 
 passages of scripture are obviated. So when 
 Moses says, " the iniquity of the father shall be 
 visited upon his posterity from generation to 
 generation," (cf. Ezek. xviii. 4, 20, coll. Jer. 
 xxxi. 29, 30,) he is to be understood as speak- 
 ing in a popular way of the consequences which 
 should befal the posterity of the wicked without 
 any fault of their own. When, on the other 
 hand, it is said, "the son shall not bear the 
 iniquity of the father," it is to be understood as 
 a maxim of justice, and to be taken in the literal 
 sense. Paul himself says, in other passages, 
 that man will be punished solely on his own 
 account. Rom. ii. 6, i. 18, seq.; Gal. vi. 5; 
 2 Cor. v. 10. In these he speaks sensu proprio 
 etforensi. He also teaches expressly, that re- 
 ward and punishment do not depend upon na- 
 tural birth and derivation, Rom. ix. 11; and 
 Jesus rejects the opinion suggested by his dis- 
 ciples, that the misfortune of the one born blind 
 was to be regarded as the imputation of the 
 guilt of his parents, John, ix. 2, 3. 
 
 But why is language used in such a manner 
 with regard to this subject in the scriptures'? 
 The principal reason why the word punishment 
 is used in this connexion lies in the fact that 
 there is, in all the mortal descendants of Adam, 
 a preponderance of carnal appetites and pas- 
 sions, and that they are invariably seduced by 
 these into actual sin, and so become punish- 
 able. There is not one upon earth who re- 
 mains uncorrupted, and consequently all are 
 rendered liable to punishment. Vide Rom. v. 
 12 ; Ephes. ii. 3. God would not treat all men 
 
 as sinners did they not in this respect resemble 
 Adam. 
 
 We find, accordingly, that the passage in 
 Rom. v. was never understood in the ancient 
 Grecian church, down to the fourth century, to 
 teach imputation, in a strictly philosophical and 
 judicial sense; certainly Origen and the writers 
 immediately succeeding him, exhibit nothing 
 of this opinion. They regard bodily death as a 
 consequence of the sin of Adam, and not as a 
 punishment, in the strict and proper sense of 
 this term. Thus Chrysostom says, upon Rom. 
 V. 12, 'ExftWu rtsaovtos ('ASc^ii), xai ol py $a- 
 yovff $ drto -fov |v7.oi), yeywcKHv if exsivov ^vytoi. 
 And Cyril (Adv. Anthropom. c. 8) says, ol y- 
 oArtov ('ASujtt), wj ajtb 
 
 The Latin church, on the other hand, was the 
 proper seat of the strict doctrine of imputation. 
 There they began to interpret the words of Paul, 
 as if he were a scholastic and logical writer. 
 One cause of their misapprehending so entirely 
 the spirit of this passage was, that the word im- 
 putare (a word in common use among civilians 
 and in judicial affairs) had been employed in the 
 Latin versions in rendering ver. 13 of Rom. v. ; 
 and that >' u> (ver. 12) had been translated in 
 quo, and could refer, as they supposed, to nobody 
 but Adam. This opinion was then associated 
 with some peculiar philosophical ideas then pre- 
 valent in the West, and from the whole a doc- 
 trine de imputations was formed, in a sense 
 wholly unknown to the Hebrews, to the New 
 Testament, and to the Grecian church. We may 
 hence see the reason of the fact, that the Gre- 
 cian teachers e. g., those in Palestine took 
 sides with Pelagius against the teachers of the 
 African church. 
 
 The following are the principal theories which 
 have been adopted in the Western church, to 
 illustrate the mode of imputation, and to vindi- 
 cate hs justice. 
 
 (1) The oldest hypothesis is that which af- 
 firmed that all the posterity of Adam were, in 
 the most literal sense, already in him, and sin- 
 ned in him in his person ; and that Adam's sin 
 is therefore justly imputed by God to all his pos- 
 terity. This hypothesis has its ground in the 
 opinion that the souls of children have existed, 
 either in reality, or at least potentially, in their 
 parents, and this as far back as Adam ; and that 
 in this way the souls of all his posterity partici- 
 pated in the actions done in his person, although 
 they themselves were never after conscious of 
 such action. Vide s. 57, II. 3. This was the 
 doctrine of the Traduciani, which Tertollian also 
 professed. And it was upon this ground prin- 
 cipally that the strict doctrine of imputation was 
 maintained in the Latin church ; even Ambro- 
 sius placed his defence of it upon this basis. 
 But this doctrine was argued with the greatest 
 
276 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 zeal by Augustine, in opposition to Pelagius, and 
 after his time was generally received in the 
 Western church; although Augustine himself 
 was often doubtful in respect to Traducianism. 
 What Paul had taught in a loose, popular way, 
 respecting the imputation of Adam's sin, was 
 now taken by Augustine and his followers in a 
 strict, philosophical, and legal sense. Ambro- 
 sius says, Omnes in primo homine (Ity w) pecca- 
 vimus, et culpas successio ob uno in omnes trans- 
 fusa cst. Augustine says, In Adamo omnes pec- 
 carunt, in lumbis JLdami. erat genus humanum. 
 Also, Infantes ab eo trahunt peccati reatum, mor- 
 tisque supplicium. For a full collection of texts 
 on this controversy, vide Vossius, Historia Pe- 
 lagiana. [Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 80, An- 
 merk. 1, 2. TR.] In form, these declarations 
 have an apparent resemblance to the doctrine of 
 Paul; but the resemblance is only apparent. 
 Augustine understands in a strictly philosophical 
 sense what, as we have seen above, was said by 
 Paul in a popular manner. 
 
 In opposition to Augustine, Pelagius taught 
 that Adam hurt himself alone, and not his pos- 
 terity, by his transgression, and t.hat it would be 
 unjust for God to impute his guilt to his innocent 
 descendants a doctrine evidently opposed to 
 that of Paul. 
 
 As the theory of Augustine rests upon a base- 
 less hypothesis, it does not need a formal refuta- 
 tion. It was the prevailing theory among the 
 schoolmen, and even throughout the sixteenth 
 centur} r , and until about the middle of the seven- 
 teenth, when it was contested by the French re- 
 formed theologians, Joshua Placaeus, and Moses 
 Amyraldus, who, however, were violently op- 
 posed. In England, too, it was contested by 
 Thomas Burnet. The advocates of this theory 
 endeavoured to defend it by means of the theory 
 of spermatic animalculae^ which arose about the 
 middle of the eighteenth century. W T hen, by 
 means of the magnifying glass, these spermatic 
 animalculae were observed, the thought occur- 
 red that they were the cause of impregnation. 
 And some then affirmed that the souls of all men 
 were in Adam, had their seat in these invisible 
 animalculae, participated in everything which he 
 did, and consequently sinned with him. While, 
 therefore, the Biblical theologians of the protest- 
 ant church have justly held fast the doctrine of 
 imputation, they have abandoned the theory of 
 Augustine, because this does not accord either 
 with reason or with scripture, and because it 
 furnishes no adequate vindication for God in this 
 procedure. In place of this theory, our theolo- 
 gians have substituted others, either invented by 
 themselves or adopted from different authorities. 
 
 (2) Many have inferred the justice of imputa- 
 tion from the supposition that Adam was not 
 only the natural or seminal, bnt also the moral 
 head of the human race, or even its representative 
 
 and federal head. They suppose, accordingly, 
 that the sin of Adam is imputed to us, on the 
 same principle on which the doings of the head 
 of a family, or of the plenipotentiary of a state, 
 are imputed to his family or state, although they 
 had no personal agency in his doings. In the 
 same way, they suppose Christ took the place 
 of all men, and that what he did is imputed to 
 them. According to this theory, God entered 
 into a league or covenant with Adam, and so 
 Adam represented and took the place of the 
 whole human race. This theory was invented 
 by some schoolmen, and has been adopted by 
 many in the Romish and protestant church since 
 the sixteenth century, and was defended even in 
 the eighteenth century by some Lutheran theolo- 
 gians, as Pfaff of Tubingen, some of the follow- 
 ers of Wolf, (e. g., Carpzov, in his " Comm. de 
 Imputationefactiproprii et alieni"} and Baum- 
 garten, in his Dogmatik, and disputation, "de 
 imputatione peccati Jldamitici" But it was more 
 particularly favoured by the reformed theolo- 
 gians, especially by the disciples of Cocceius, at 
 the end of the seventeenth and commencement 
 of the eighteenth century e. g., by Witsius, in 
 his " (Economia fcederum." They appeal to 
 Hosea, vi. 7, "They transgressed the covenant, 
 like Adarn" i. e., broke the divine laws. But 
 where is it said that Adam was their federal head, 
 and that his transgression is imputed to them 1 
 On this text Morus justly observes, "est mera 
 comparatio Judaeorum peccantium cum Adamo 
 peccante." Other texts are also cited in behalf 
 of this opinion. 
 
 But, for various reasons, this theory cannot be 
 correct. And, () The descendants of Adam 
 never empowered him to be their representative, 
 and to act in their name. (Z>) It cannot be shewn 
 from the Bible that Adam was informed that the 
 fate of all his posterity was involved in his own. 
 (c) If the transgression of Adam is imputed, by 
 right of covenant, to all his posterity, then, in 
 justice, all their transgressions should be again 
 imputed to him as the guilty cause of all their 
 misery and sin. What a mass of guilt, then, 
 would come upon Adam! But of all this, no- 
 thing is said in the scriptures, (d) The impu- 
 tation of the righteousness of Christ cannot be 
 alleged in support of this theory. For this is 
 imputed to men only by their own will and 
 consent. This hypothesis has been opposed, 
 with good reason, by John Taylor, in his work 
 on original sin, which will be hereafter noticed. 
 
 (3) Others endeavour to deduce the doctrine 
 of imputation from the scientia media of God, or 
 from his foreknowledge of what is conditionally 
 possible. The sin of Adam, they say, is im- 
 puted to us, because God foresaw that each one 
 of us would have committed it if he had been 
 in Adam's stead, or placed in his circum- 
 stances. Even Augustine says, that the sin of 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 277 
 
 Adam is imputed to us propter consewionem, or 
 consensum prxsumptum. This theory has been 
 advanced, in modern times, by Reusch, in his 
 Introductio in Theologiam revelatam," and in 
 Brunquell's work, "Die gute Sache Gottes, 
 bey Zurechnung des Falls;" Jena, 1749. But 
 it is a new sort of justice, which would allow 
 us to be punished for sins which we never 
 committed, or never designed to commit, but 
 only might possibly have committed under cer- 
 tain circumstances. Think a moment, how 
 many sins we all should have committed if God 
 had suffered us to come into circumstances of 
 severe temptation. An innocent man might, by 
 this rule, be punished as a murderer, because, 
 iad he lived at Paris on St. Bartholomew's 
 Night in 1572, he might, from mistaken zeal, 
 lave killed a heretic. 
 
 (4) Since none of these hypotheses satisfac- 
 ;orily explain the matter, the greater part of the 
 noderate and Biblical theologians of the pro- 
 ;estant church are content with saying, what is 
 nanifestly the doctrine of the Bible, that the 
 mputation of Adam's sin consists in the prevail- 
 ng mortality of the human race, and that this is 
 lot to be regarded as imputation in the strict 
 judicial sense, but rather as the consequence of 
 Adam's transgression, perhaps, as is thought by 
 some, the physical consequence of eating the 
 brbidden fruit, which may certainly be inferred 
 rom Gen. iii. The strict doctrine of immediate 
 mputation was by no means universal among 
 he protestant theologians of the sixteenth cen- 
 ury, and, as is justly remarked by Pfaff, Weis- 
 nann, Burnet, and others, was to many of them 
 mknown even in name. The common theory, 
 le capite morali sive feeder all is not to be found 
 n the symbols. 
 
 For the purposes of popular instruction let 
 herefore the following Biblical statement suf- 
 ice : " Adam, on account of his transgression 
 )f the divine law, was punished with death, and 
 rom thenceforward became mortal ; and being 
 limself mortal, he could beget only mortal de- 
 scendants. Vide 1 Cor. xv. 48 50, coll. Gen. 
 r. 3. Hence we and all men are mortal ; and the 
 rround of this mortality lies in our progenitors, 
 md this mortality is a consequence of their 
 .ransgression." In conformity with these views, 
 et the teacher explain the passage in Rom. v., 
 md abstain from all subtleties and learned hy- 
 potheses. 
 
 Note. Works on Imputation and Original 
 Sin. (1) In opposition to imputation sensu 
 itrictiori, and also the doctrine concerning ori- 
 ginal sin. Of these there have been many 
 among the English theologians of the eighteenth 
 century. Vide especially Dan. Whitby, De 
 imputatione divina peccati Adamitici; Londini, 
 1711; translated into German, with notes, by 
 Semler, 1775; John Taylor, Scriptural Doc- 
 
 trine of Original Sin, in three parts, also trans- 
 lated into German. At a later period these doc- 
 trines were investigated by the protestant di- 
 vines and philosophers of Germany, and partly 
 opposed e. g., by Tollner, Theol. Untersuch- 
 ungen, st. ii. iib. Rom. v. ; Eberhard, Apologie 
 des Socrates, th. i. and ii. ; Steinbart, System 
 der Gluckseligkeitslehre ; Jerusalem, Betracht- 
 ungen, th. ii. 
 
 2. In defence of these doctrines, and in oppo- 
 sition to the works above mentioned. Joh. 
 Andr. Cramer, Exercitationes de peccato origi- 
 nali adversus Jo. Taylor ; Kopenhagen, 1766-67. 
 Sixt, Priifung des Systems, u. s. w. st. i. 
 (in opposition to Steinbart.) The work enti- 
 tled, " Freymiithige Priifung des Steinbart'shen 
 Christenthums" (1792), contains also many 
 excellent and just observations. Seiler, Von 
 der Erbsiinde, oder dem naturlichen Verderben 
 a work directed in general against the ancient 
 and modern objections to this doctrine, especially 
 those of Eberhard and Steinbart; J. D. Michaelis, 
 Gedanken iiber die Lehre der Schrift von der 
 Siinde und Genugthuung, Gottingen u. Bremen, 
 1779, 8vo, one of the most important works in 
 relation to this subject. He lay the doctrine of 
 the Bible at the foundation, and then endeavours 
 to shew its agreement with reason and experi- 
 ence, and to vindicate it against objections. 
 This work contains many very excellent and 
 ingenious observations. There are also valu- 
 able remarks on this subject in Storr's work, 
 " Zweck des Todes Jesu," and in his Comment- 
 ary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cf. Kant, 
 Vom radikalen Bosen. In illustration of the 
 history of this doctrine, cf. W 7 alch, Historia 
 doctrinae de peccato originis; Jenae, 1738 ; Sem- 
 ler, Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, prefixed to 
 Baumgarten's " Polemik." 
 
 [The work of President Edwards "On Ori- 
 ginal Sin" deserves mention among the most 
 celebrated works of European theologians on 
 this subject. Among the later and more tho- 
 rough German writers on the subject of impu- 
 tation are, Schleiermacher, Usteri, Tholuck, 
 Nitzch. The former of these has vindicated 
 some of the highest points of Calvinism by the 
 most profound reasoning. The others follow 
 more or less the general system which he has 
 developed. Tr.] 
 
 SECTION LXXVII. 
 
 IN WHAT THE NATURAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN CON- 
 SISTS ; ITS APPELLATIONS IN THE BIBLE ; WHERE 
 IT HAS ITS PRINCIPAL SEAT IN MAN; AND HOW 
 ITS EXISTENCE MAY BE PROVED FROM THE HOLY 
 SCRIPTURES. 
 
 I. In what Natural Depravity consists. * 
 
 THE descriptions given of it by theologians 
 are very different as to the words employed. 
 
 2 A 
 
278 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Melancthon describes the peccatum originis as 
 an inclination or disposition to all evil, which, 
 however, does not always manifest itself in the 
 same way, or in the same degree, and which 
 does not appear at once, but gradually, and in 
 all men. Others describe it as that disposition 
 of the soul by which evil desires have an exist- 
 ence in it, or rather, spring up whenever occa- 
 sion offers, &c. But they all agree, at last, that 
 the essence of natural depravity is the disturbed 
 balance of the powers or inclinations of man, 
 or the preponderance of the carnal desires over 
 reason. It lies in the fact, that the lower nature 
 of man, made by God to obey, is not submissive 
 to the reason, as the power which should give 
 law, and govern. The following definition may 
 therefore be given of the moral depravity of 
 man, in conformity both with experience and 
 with scripture : it is that tendency to sinful pas- 
 sions or unlawful propensities which is perceived 
 in man whenever objects of desire are placed before 
 him and laws are laid upon him, Rom. vii. This 
 want of harmony between the two natures being 
 but too clearly perceived, and being justly re- 
 garded as an evil fraught with ruinous conse- 
 quences to man, it was early maintained among 
 the Hebrews and other nations, that it could not 
 have existed in the original state of man. We 
 see everywhere that men have felt it necessary 
 to adopt this supposition. It is, moreover, in 
 accordance with the Bible. Vide s. 75, II. 2. 
 We have already considered (vide s. 74) how 
 far unaided reason can go in clearing up this 
 subject; we now come to examine what we are 
 taught respecting it by the scriptures. 
 
 Theologians remark here, by way of cau- 
 tion, that we must carefully distinguish between 
 the essential and accidental deficiencies and im- 
 perfections of our nature. Essential imperfec- 
 tions would always have been seen in man, 
 owing to the limitation of his nature, even al- 
 though he had not fallen. But these imperfec- 
 tions would have implied no fault and no de- 
 pravity. Depravity in any one presupposes a 
 better state, from which he has deteriorated. 
 Hence our essential imperfections cannot proper- 
 ly be considered as belonging to our natural 
 depravity e. g., man cannot be accounted de- 
 praved in consequence of the ignorance in which 
 he is born, and the false judgments which spring- 
 merely from that ignorance, nor for the pleasure 
 which he takes in objects of sense, when sim- 
 ply considered; but only for the other class of 
 imperfections, those that are contingent. Among 
 these may be placed the violence of the pas- 
 sions, their obvious preponderance over reason, 
 and the hindrances we meet with from this 
 source to the knowledge of the truth, and to our 
 progress in holiness. This is shewn by the 
 example of Eve. She was, even before her fall, 
 
 in many respects ignorant and inexperienced ; 
 she judged incorrectly respecting God; she felt 
 too the motions of sense ; but as yet she was 
 uncorrupted. But after she fell she was the 
 subject of those other accidental imperfections 
 which now constitute human depravity. 
 
 II. How Depravity is named in the Bible, and where 
 it is located in Man. 
 
 (1) The word $opa is used in scripture to 
 designate the entire corrupt constitution of man 
 in a moral respect. According to common usage 
 it denotes a constitution and state which is not 
 as it should be. Vide 2 Pet. ii. 19 ; Ephes. iv. 
 22; 1 Tim. vi. 5. 
 
 (2) This depravity (<j&opa) of man exerts a 
 powerful influence upon his soul, his under- 
 standing, and will. Vide Rom. vi. 14 23 ; 
 Ephes. ii. 3. The body is, however, plainly the 
 principal seat of the carnal appetites and desires, 
 and hence the origin of this depravity is to be 
 sought chiefly in the body. Vide Rom. vii. 5, 
 23; vi. 12, seq. And all the ancient heathen 
 philosophers, who considered the preponderance 
 of this lower animal nature as the source of 
 human depravity, made the body the principal 
 seat of this evil, and in doing so were supported 
 by observations familiar to all. 
 
 (a) The ancient Grecian philosophers, Pytha- 
 goras, Plato, Aristotle, the stoics, (vide s. 74, 
 I.,) considered matter, and the human body as 
 consisting of matter, to be the seat and source 
 of evil. With these writers, the Hellenistic 
 Jews agreed. Vide Book of Wisdom, ix. 15, 
 "The decaying body burdens the soul, and the 
 earthy tabernacle presses down the thinking 
 spirit." Of the same mind were most of the 
 early Christian fathers e. g., Justin the Mar- 
 tyr, Origen, (although some passages in his 
 works appear to contradict this,) Hilarius, and 
 Augustine himself. This doctrine was carried 
 to a great length and very much abused by some 
 heretics who sprang up in the Christian church, 
 particularly in the East. They regarded matter 
 as in itself an evil existence, not deriving its 
 being from God, nor depending upon him. So 
 the Gnostics and the Manicheans. 
 
 (6) The doctrine that the body of man is the 
 chief seat of human weaknesses and imperfec- 
 tions, and also the germ of moral evil, was 
 widely diffused among the eastern nations in 
 the remotest antiquity, and was adopted by the 
 writers of the Old Testament, as may be clearly 
 seen from their use of the word ifra, (0ap.) 
 This word signifies originally the human body, 
 then, men themselves, but always with the im- 
 plied idea that they are frail, imperfect, and 
 mortal, or, in a moral respect, that they are in- 
 clined to err and sin. Vide Gen. vi. 12; viii. 
 22; Isaiah, xl. 6, coll. Matt. xxvi. 41; John. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 279 
 
 iii. 6. On the other hand the word nn 
 denotes what is spiritual, moral, divine, perfect, 
 holy, &c. 
 
 (c) This doctrine, the first traces of which 
 we find in the earlier Jewish books, was gra- 
 dually developed, and was at last exhibited in 
 the New Testament with the greatest clearness. 
 Paul places tfapf in opposition to vov$ or ftvsvpa, 
 and depicts the controversy between the two, 
 and the hindrances which the 0ap| opposes to 
 the jtvsvpa, in the knowledge of the truth, and 
 holiness of walk. Vide Rom. vii. 18, 23. 
 With him fypovtiv and j<fpi7ta.tttv xata oapxa 
 mean to indulge sinful desires, Rom. viii. 1, 5; 
 and &typ.a,, (ppot^a, vov$ crapxoj, signify, the 
 corrupt, depraved disposition of human nature 
 the propensity to sin, Gal. vi. 13 ; Ephes. ii. 3. 
 Cf. ijti&vpiM tfapxwccu', bodily, sensual desires, 
 1 Peter, ii. 11 ; also 6 crapxwcos (aipco7toj.) In 
 Rom. vi. 6, 16, Paul says that the Christian 
 should deprive the sw^a d^apr'taj of its power, 
 and not suffer himself to be subject irfgtywm 
 cuytctfoj; and in Rom. vii. 1825, still more 
 plainly; he knew, he says, that in him (or rather 
 in his body, tv aapxi) the seat of moral good was 
 not to be found, (ovx olxtt oya^ov.) He was 
 not, indeed, wanting in good will to live righte- 
 ously, but in power to perform his will. He 
 often could not accomplish the good which he 
 heartily approved from his inmost moral feel- 
 ings ; and, on the contrary, he often did the evil 
 which he disallowed. And thus he knew that 
 sin i. e ., a disposition to sin, sinful depravity 
 dwelt in him. His spirit (vovj, 6 ecu av^pcortoj) 
 approved the divine law, and acknowledged it 
 good and useful ; but in his members (i?/t&M 
 i. e., tv tfw/icwt) there was another law, the law 
 of sin, (diclamen sensuum,} which was opposed 
 to the law of God, and which ruled over him. 
 Hence he exclaims, " miserable man that I 
 am, who shall deliver me from this mortal body, 
 (tfwjta tfo-u ^ava-r'os T'OVT'OD.)" And at last he 
 thanks God that through. Christ he has granted 
 him this deliverance, and that he was no more 
 under the necessity of yielding obedience to his 
 depraved appetites, although they still conti- 
 nued, and often resumed their power. 
 
 The word 4/^1x6?, tyv%ixbs cuporfo$ is also 
 often used in the scriptures, denoting that one 
 does not follow his reason, but is wholly under 
 the influence of his bodily appetites and desires, 
 and will give heed only to what he learns 
 through his senses, and so despises the instruc- 
 tion which God has given respecting spiritual 
 things. Thus Jude, ver. 19 ; for rw and tyxi 
 often signify the impulses, desires, and pro- 
 pensities of our lower nature; and 1 Cor. ii. 14, 
 where tyv%ixo$ ow&pwTtoj is one who scorns divine 
 instruction, and chooses rather sense, darkness, 
 and delusion; one who has no organ for what 
 is above sense, and no taste for divine instruc 
 
 tion, the same with oapxwedj, 1 Cor. iii. 1. 
 The inordinate desires, those which are not as 
 they should be, are often called in scripture, by 
 way of eminence, irt&vfuo* ijf*ytuu crapxdj, 1 
 John, ii. 16, commonly rendered in the Vul- 
 gate concupiscentia ; hence this word is adopted 
 in ecclesiastical Latinity. Vide Moms, p. 107, 
 n. 3, 4. 
 
 (d) From the passages now cited, and from 
 the known sense in which the words above men- 
 tioned were anciently used, it is plain that those 
 writers who make the soul the chief seat and 
 original source of corruption very much mistake. 
 Into this error Buddeus has fallen, as appears 
 from his dissertation, " De anima sede peccati 
 originalis principale;" Jense, 1725; and in this 
 error he is followed by Seiler. It is equally cer- 
 tain, however, that this originally bodily disor- 
 der has a powerful influence upon the soul, on 
 account of the intimate connexion between these 
 two essential parts of man. It acts (a) upon the 
 understanding, since by means of it the objects 
 of knowledge are placed before the mind in an 
 entirely false light, so that- the understanding 
 holds that which is false for true, what is evil 
 for good, and the reverse. (|3) Upon the will 
 and the actions, so that what has been thus false- 
 ly represented by the senses to the understand- 
 ing as good and right, is now desired and ac- 
 complished. The evil consequences of this are, 
 that man prefers apparent to real good, that he 
 allows himself to be more governed by his 
 senses than by his understanding, and often 
 does that which he himself disapproves, and so 
 chooses and acts against his own principles and 
 his better views. Vide Rom. vii. 8, 19, 23 ; Gal. 
 v. 17, "The desire of the flesh is often opposed 
 to the desire of the spirit, so that man is often 
 unable to accomplish his good purposes." The 
 soul, as Paul teaches, is so far weak as the ani- 
 mal propensities (rto^uafa <yapscd$) are strong ; 
 and so feeble that it is the slave of these pro- 
 pensities; and although it may have a better 
 conviction, is not able to carry it into effect, but 
 is so carried away that it must do what itself 
 disapproves. And this is the benefit of Christ 
 (#api<tyia), that he saves us from the power of 
 sin, as well as from its punishment. 
 
 Note 1. Care must be taken here that the 
 doctrine of the injury which we sustain from the 
 body and the inordinate appetites of which it 
 is the seat, be not carried too far, as it has been 
 by Less, and other modern theologians. This 
 extreme in the doctrine very naturally leads to 
 dangerous perversions; and we might expect 
 that it would lead many to resort to suicide, in 
 order to free themselves from the burdensome 
 prison of the body. And indeed suicide was 
 justified on this ground by the stoics, and other 
 ancient philosophers. On this subject it is im- 
 portant to bear in mind the great advantages 
 
280 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 which, as we are taught in the scriptures, we 
 possess from the connexion of the rational soul 
 with the body in our present state. Vide s. 74. 
 The false idea of the ancient Pythagoreans and 
 Platonists that the body is a prison where the 
 soul is incarcerated for its punishment, was held 
 also by many of the mystics and Platonists 
 among the old Jews and Christians; but it has 
 no foundation in the scriptures. The sacred 
 writers never require us, as Grecian philosophers 
 and Christian mystics often do, to eradicate our 
 bodily appetites and desires, (which, if it were 
 possible, would destroy the very nature of man,) 
 but only to control them and subject them to 
 reason. Christian morals therefore insists, not 
 that man should leave off particular sins, or 
 suppress particular outbreakings of unlawful 
 desire, but that a new turn should be given to 
 all the natural desires ; and this is the proper 
 tendency of Christian morals. It designs to 
 bring man from the love of the world to the love 
 of God ; from an improper self-love to the love 
 of others ; from a love to sensible and perishing 
 things to a love of spiritual and eternal good. 
 Such are the instructions which Christ every- 
 where gives. Vide John, iii. 3 21. It is a false 
 assertion that the inculcation of the doctrine of 
 the natural propensity to evil has a tendency 
 to discourage men from the pursuit of good; 
 when properly exhibited, this doctrine has ex- 
 actly the opposite effect, and excites to the vi- 
 gorous employment of our powers. The great 
 point in this doctrine is, that the man who 
 would fulfil his destination must depart from 
 evil, and, not content with merely cultivating 
 and developing his powers, must experience a 
 radical reformation. 
 
 [ Note 2. Does the depravity of our nature con- 
 sist in the inordinateness of our BODILY desires ? 
 
 From the views exhibited in this section it 
 appears that our author adopts the affirmative 
 of this question. He sees in man a conflict be- 
 tween reason and those lower principles which 
 have their seat in the body, and thinks of no ul- 
 terior or more radical evil. To such a concep- 
 tion of human depravity he is necessarily brought 
 by his theory respecting the consequences of the 
 fall, making them to consist chiefly in the dis- 
 arrangement of our bodily constitution. In be- 
 half of these views he appeals, as the reader has 
 perceived, to the universal doctrine of pagan 
 philosophy on this subject, to the familiar ob- 
 servation of the actual inordinateness of the 
 bodily appetites and their preponderance over 
 reason, but principally to the scriptural phrase- 
 ology employed to designate the native charac- 
 ter of man, and which, taken in its first etymo- 
 logical sense, seems to indicate that the body is 
 the ultimate cause and principal seat of human 
 depravity. 
 
 This part of our author's system is of such 
 
 radical importance, and so materially affects the 
 views we must entertain of the other doctrines 
 of Christianity, and especially of the atonement, 
 that it ought not to pass without examination. 
 
 As to the first argument above mentioned, it 
 will be readily conceded that this view of our 
 natural character and state harmonizes well with 
 pagan philosophy. It has a general resemblance 
 even to the Indian and Persian religious sys- 
 tems, as exhibited by the Schlegels and other 
 modern writers on the East. But it corresponds 
 more exactly with the Platonic system, which 
 fully recognises the conflict between the rational 
 principle, (the toyixov), and the irrational, ani- 
 mal principle, (the axoyor.) And while it re- 
 sembles these systems, it must be said also that 
 it is liable to the same objection which has often 
 been urged against them viz., that in some 
 way, by supposing either an eternal intelligent 
 principle of evil, or a blind destiny, or some de- 
 fective bodily organization, or by some other 
 external necessity, they account for the origin 
 and prevalence of evil, instead of charging it 
 upon the perverted use of the moral powers of 
 men. But to all such conceptions of our moral 
 condition Christianity stands opposed, espe- 
 cially in the doctrine of the atonement, which, 
 by is proffer of forgiveness, presupposes, not 
 misfortune merely, but guilt, on the part of man, 
 and which, in its whole bearing, aims at a spi- 
 ritual and not a physical evil. It is in this way 
 that Christianity furnishes a new point of view 
 for observing the character of man, and discloses 
 the essential nature and deeper root of evil. 
 
 The fact alleged in the second argument 
 viz., that there is a visible preponderance of 
 sense or of bodily appetites over reason, is also 
 readily conceded ; but can we conclude from 
 this fact that this disorder is to be attributed to 
 the body, and the affections having their seat in 
 it? Would not the just balance between the 
 higher and lower principles of our nature be 
 equally disturbed by. altering the weight in 
 either scale 1 ? If in the original constitution of 
 our nature, the lower principles of the animal 
 life on one side were balanced on the other by 
 the higher principles of our intellectual life, not 
 by themselves, but in connexion with a communi- 
 cated divine life, of which they- are the organ, 
 (as we shall attempt to shew,) then the mere 
 loss or withdrawment of this divine life would 
 be followed of course by a loss of this original 
 equipoise, and the undue predominance of the 
 lower principles. Thus it can be conceived that 
 the inordinateness of the bodily appetites, in 
 which human depravity might seem at first view 
 to consist, so far from constituting its real es- 
 sence, may "be only the necessary result of an 
 ulterior cause, the defect of the higher princi- 
 ples. Indeed, considering the nature of these 
 higher principles, and their rightful supremacy, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 281 
 
 how can their being drawn away and enslaved 
 by principles so inferior and subordinate be ac- 
 counted for, except from some defect in the spi- 
 xitual part, to say nothing of positively evil in- 
 clinations seated there? 
 
 The argument derived from the use of the 
 scriptural terms -lira and 0ap, and their syno- 
 nymes, is very plausible ; and when Paul calls 
 the j'o^uoj Hrfi 6apx6$ also a vo/j.o$ EV -rotj ^Ifoeft, 
 the question might seem to be decided. But if 
 this is difficult on one side, it is not less so on 
 the other, that pride, envy, and other feelings, 
 the most remote from the influence of the body, 
 are derived by Paul from <jap|, as its immediate 
 fruits. Of. Gal. v. 1922 ; Col. ii. 18. Other 
 reasons against the meaning assigned by our 
 author to these scriptural terms will appear in 
 the sequel of this note. 
 
 The following development of the scriptural 
 doctrine respecting the natural state of man is 
 offered for consideration, in the belief that it is 
 Augustinian and Edwardsean on the particular 
 points in which these systems differ from the 
 Pelagian and Arminian anthropologies. 
 
 In the first place ; that principle, state, or dis- 
 position of human nature, whatever it may be, 
 by which it is designated as corrupt or evil, is 
 more usually denominated <?ap|, one who is in 
 this state, aapxixos', the living and acting in it 
 are described by the formulae, rtfptrtarf lv tv erapxt, 
 xata adpxa ^ijv, typovtiv, x. ?. X. The same state 
 is also described, though less commonly, by 
 other terms nearly synonymous with these. 
 
 Secondly. The most important clue to the 
 meaning of the term crapf, upon which so much' 
 depends, and which is so difficult of interpreta- 
 tion, is the fact that it is placed in constant and 
 direct contrast to the term rtvsvpa, so much so, 
 that it seems necessarily to imply a state exactly 
 opposite to that denoted by the latter term. The 
 opposition between these two principles is point- 
 ed out in the following passages viz., Rom. 
 vii. 25; viii. 1, seq. ; 1 Cor. iii. 4; Gal. v. 19, 
 seq. Hence it is obvious, that in order to attain 
 distinct and specific conceptions of the meaning 
 of oapS, we must fully understand the import of 
 the term rtvsvpa, with which it is contrasted. 
 If rtvevpa denotes merely the intelligent, ration- 
 al principle, (the ^oytxov,) then may sap! desig-' 
 nate merely the irrational, bodily appetites and 
 desires, (the akoyov.) But if Ttvevpa, have a 
 higher import, then to suppose cap! to be still 
 limited, as before, to the designation of merely 
 bodily appetites, would be to lose sight of the 
 direct and invariable opposition in which these 
 terms are placed. 
 
 Thirdly. It would be a very superficial view 
 of the import of rtwDpa, and contrary to the 
 whole scriptural usage, to understand by it the 
 me. e intelligence or reason of man ; on the con- 
 trary it denotes this reason, considered as the or- 
 
 gan of the higher divine life imparted to man, and 
 which is itself more properly the jtvevfia, and 
 upon which the SPIRIT, as a natural faculty with 
 which man is endowed, depends absolutely for 
 its exercise. This, it seems to us, is the gene- 
 ric idea of the term rtvtvfia, although sometimes 
 it denotes more prominently the faculty of the 
 mind, and at others, the divine life itself of 
 which the mind is the recipient; just as^avowoj 
 is used to denote either the natural or the spiri- 
 tual part of the whole penalty of the law, of 
 which it is the generic name, according as the 
 one or the other of these is more prominently in 
 the mind of the writer. And so the itvivfiofewo j 
 is one who not merely possesses reason and go- 
 verns his animal appetites by it, but one who 
 partakes of this higher, divine life, who stands 
 in living communion with God, receives the su- 
 pernatural gifts of his grace, by which the na- 
 tural principles of reason are strengthened and 
 enabled to maintain the proper mastery over the 
 lower principles of sense. Accordingly, 0ap! 
 must indicate that state of man in which he is 
 destitute of this higher life, either having lost 
 it, or never attained to the possession of it, in 
 which the principles of humanity, both the higher 
 and lower, are left to themselves; in short, the 
 state in which man is without the Spirit of God 
 a state which, from this its privative charac- 
 rer, might be appropriately denominated unre- 
 generacy, or ungodliness. And the <sapxix6$ is 
 one who not merely has inordinate bodily appe- 
 tites, and obeys the dictamen sensuum, but one 
 who does not receive and enjoy the presence of 
 the Spirit of God. And so Calvin, in his Comm. 
 on John, iii. 6, explains crop| to mean the whole 
 natural man, considered as without the new 
 birth, or the divine life ; and well remarks, "/n- 
 sulse theologastri ad partem quam vacant sen- 
 sudlem restringunt." 
 
 Fourthly. The correctness of the account 
 here given of the import of crapl is strikingly 
 confirmed by the manner in which its syno- 
 nymes are used throughout the New Testament. 
 Thus 4-v^txdj is used (e. g., 1 Cor. ii. 14 and 
 Jude, ver. 19) to designate one who has not the 
 Spirit, and receives not the things of the Spirit. 
 And in Eph. iv. 22, the rfa&aio; aipco7to$, corrupt 
 according to the deceitful lusts, is opposed to 
 the being renewed. And so everywhere the 
 destitution of the supernatural grace of God and 
 of his life-giving Spirit is the prominent idea in 
 these and similar terms. 
 
 Fifthly. But thus far we attain only a nega- 
 tive conception on this subject. What positive 
 idea, then, shall we form of the State of man 
 destitute of the Divine Spirit, and estranged 
 from God ? An answer to this question will 
 bring us upon the highest dividing points be- 
 tween the Augustinian and Pelagian anthropo- 
 logies; for it was not in the doctrines which 
 
282 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 came most into discussion during the Pelagian 
 controversies that the first and essential differ- 
 ences between these systems lay ; but in points 
 further back, adopted unconsciously by these 
 diverging tendencies, according to their differ- 
 ent nature, and of which the doctrines in discus- 
 sion were only the more remote results. 
 
 According to Pelagius, man was originally, 
 and is still, endowed by God with all the 
 powers and faculties requisite to the ends of his 
 being, and it depends only upon himself, in the 
 exercise of his free will, to practise all good and 
 fulfil his destination. In his system there is 
 therefore no necessity for any supernatural in- 
 fluences of grace, and scarcely any place for 
 them ; certainly a destitution of them does not 
 necessarily imply the corruption of nature, since 
 without them man is adequate to holiness. But 
 according to Augustine it is far otherwise ; and 
 man stands in an absolute and constant depend- 
 ence upon God, as the only source of truth and 
 good ; the faculties of reason and will with 
 which the Creator has endowed us are by no 
 means complete in themselves and self-suffi- 
 cient to the purposes for which they were 
 given, but only organs to receive and reveal the 
 higher life communicated from God, to whom 
 they are related as the eye to the sun ; and this, 
 not merely through the contingency of the fall, 
 but originally and essentially ; so that the loss 
 of this imparted divine life must be followed by 
 the powerlessness of the higher principles of our 
 nature, the predominance of the lower, and so 
 the corruption of the whole man. We have 
 thus a contrast between a state of grace and of 
 nature, between the spiritual and natural man, 
 the former participating in divine life through 
 fellowship with God, and consequently superior 
 to the baser and lower principles; the latter, 
 estranged from this life, and so fallen into en- 
 tire disorder, inability to good, and moral cor- 
 ruption. Such is the positive idea of crap!, and 
 this is the being in the flesh, or being carnal, so 
 often spoken of in the New Testament. 
 
 The views of Edwards, which are exhibited 
 so lucidly and even beautifully in his work on 
 "Original Sin," (p. 330, and especially p. 427, 
 seq. Worces. ed.,) correspond entirely with 
 those of Augustine. " The case with man was 
 plainly this : When God made man at first he 
 implanted in him two kinds of principles. There 
 was an inferior kind, which may be called natu- 
 ral, being the principles of mere human nature ; 
 such as self-love, with those natural appetites 
 and passions which belong to the nature of man, 
 in which his love to his own liberty, honour, 
 and pleasure were exercised : these, when alone, 
 and left to themselves, are what the scriptures 
 sometimes call flesh. Besides these, there were 
 superior principles, that were spiritual, holy, and 
 divine, summarily comprehended in divine love. 
 
 These principles may, in some sense, be called 
 supernatural, being (however concreated or con- 
 nate, yet) such as are above those principles that 
 are essentially implied in, or necessarily result- 
 ing from, and inseparably connected with, mere 
 human nature , and being such as immediately 
 depend on man's union and communion with 
 God, or divine communications and influences 
 of God's Spirit. These superior principles 
 were given to possess the throne, and maintain 
 an absolute dominion in the heart; the other, to 
 be wholly subordinate and subservient. And 
 while things continued thus, all things were in 
 excellent order, peace, and beautiful harmony, 
 and in their proper and perfect state." Again 
 he says : " The withholding of special divine 
 influence to impart and maintain the good prin- 
 ciples, leaving the common natural principles 
 to themselves, without the government of supe- 
 rior divine principles, will certainly be followed 
 with the corruption, yea, the total corruption of 
 the heart. As light ceases in a room when the 
 candle is withdrawn, so man is left in a state 
 of darkness, woful corruption and ruin, nothing 
 but flesh without spirit, when the Holy Ghost, 
 that heavenly inhabitant, forsakes the house. 
 The inferior principles, given only to serve, 
 being alone, and left to themselves, of course 
 become reigning principles ; the immediate con- 
 sequence of which is, a turning of all things 
 upside down. It were easy to shew, if here 
 were room for it, how every depraved disposi- 
 tion would naturally arise from this privative 
 original." (Abridged.) 
 
 But we may attain to still more definite con- 
 ceptions respecting the positive nature of the 
 flesh, by considering it in opposition to the 
 highest principle and spring of the spiritual 
 state. This latter is ascertained by all just rea- 
 soning about the nature of holiness, and by the 
 first precept of the divine law, to be supreme 
 love to God. Hence selfishness is to be regarded 
 as constituting the central point of the natural 
 unregenerate life. 
 
 It will now be obvious how, in the catalogue 
 of the works of the flesh, there should stand such 
 feelings as have no conceivable connexion with 
 the body, and cannot possibly be derived from 
 its influence. 
 
 But it may be asked, why, then, if it is not 
 intended to exhibit the influence of the body, 
 should the term crop! and its synonymes be em- 
 ployed to designate the natural unrenewed state 
 of man 1 ? To this question various answers 
 might be given. One reason is offered by Ed- 
 wards, p. 321 of the work cited above. But 
 the reason suggested by Tholuck corresponds 
 best with the view which has been given of the 
 privative nature of the flesh. As the body is 
 dead without the enlivening soul, so the spirit 
 of man is powerless and dead without the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 283 
 
 higher life derived from the Spirit of God. And 
 thus the mortal part of our animal nature is 
 taken for the designation of our intellectual and 
 moral being, as far as it is dead, powerless, and 
 corrupt, from its being destitute of its higher 
 spiritual life in God. 
 
 This view of human depravity, in opposition 
 to that which makes it consist in the inordinate- 
 ness of bodily appetites, derives its principal in- 
 terest and importance from its bearing on the 
 other doctrines of religion, and especially on the 
 doctrine of atonement. As was hinted in a pre- 
 vious note, if the depravity of man results from 
 any physical disarrangement, then the remedy, 
 in order to meet the exact point of the disease, 
 and to reach its real source, ought to be applied 
 to the physical, instead of the moral, nature of 
 man. It is only on the supposition that selfish- 
 ness is the root of evil, and the central principle 
 of our natural life, and that man is dependent 
 for holiness and happiness upon an imparted 
 life, higher than that of reason, that the pro- 
 visions of the atonement have any signifi- 
 cance. TR.] 
 
 III. How Native Depravity may be proved from 
 
 the Bible. 
 
 (1) In doing this, we should not employ, 
 without selection, all those texts which speak 
 of the moral depravity of man in general, or of 
 that of particular men or nations ; for in many 
 of these passages the sins and vices actually 
 committed by men are the subjects of discourse, 
 and not the disposition to sin inherent in man- 
 kind. It was the intention of the sacred writers, 
 in some of the examples which they have given 
 us of heinous transgressors, to shew to what sin 
 leads, by what terrible consequences it is fol- 
 lowed, in order to deter men from committing 
 it, and not to teach that all men are the same, 
 or have actually sunk to the same depth of vile- 
 ness, although by reason of their inherent de- 
 pravity they might all sink to the same depth. 
 Among texts of this nature we may mention 
 Psalm xiv. 3, seq., where the declaration, there 
 is none that doeth good, &c., relates to the god- 
 less persons mentioned ver. 1. And so Paul, 
 Rom. iii. 10, proves from this passage that there 
 were formerly among the Israelites very wicked 
 men. And Job (chap. xiv. 4) alludes princi- 
 pally to those actual transgressions by which 
 men are brought into that state in which none 
 can be guiltless in the sight of God. In Rom. 
 iii. 9, seq., the apostle shews that the Jewish 
 nation had no advantage over others in point of 
 holiness or moral purity, and that there had al- 
 ways been in it corrupt and vicious men. Nor 
 can the text, Ps. li. 7, be cited in behalf of this 
 doctrine. The mention of natural depravity does 
 not harmonize with the context, and the phrase 
 to be born in or with sin (i. e., to bring sin into 
 
 the world with one) relates, as is evident from 
 John, ix. 34, not to native depravity, which all 
 have, but to the fact that he had not sinned for 
 the first time in the particular crime of which he 
 had then been guilty, but from his youth up had 
 been a great sinner; for such is frequently the 
 meaning of the term jcpar. Cf. Job, xxxi. 18; 
 Ps. Iviii. 4. It may also be said here that David 
 does not make an universal affirmation, but only 
 speaks of himself, designing to describe himself 
 as a great sinner. 
 
 (2) The proof that the doctrine of natural de- 
 pravity and its propagation is founded in the 
 holy scriptures, is rather to be made out from 
 the comparison of many texts taken together, or 
 viewed in their connexion. The doctrine itself 
 is undoubtedly scriptural, although the Biblical 
 writers did not always express themselves re- 
 specting it with equal clearness and distinct- 
 ness, and did not adopt all the consequences 
 which have been since drawn from it by many 
 from its connexion with other doctrines. The 
 Bible speaks, as Musseus and Moms justly ob- 
 serve, far more frequently in the concrete than in 
 the abstract, respecting the sinful corruption of 
 man ; and in this respect it should be imitated 
 by preachers in their popular instruction. Men 
 will readily concede the general proposition, 
 csse perditam naturam humanam ; but they are 
 unwilling that this proposition should be ap- 
 plied to themselves , while yet the effect of the 
 personal self-application of this doctrine is most 
 salutary to every individual. The scriptures 
 teach us how to bring this doctrine home to 
 every heart. 
 
 The course of thought on this subject which 
 the Hebrews followed, and which was gradually 
 developed and transmitted to Christians, is as 
 follows: God created everything, and conse- 
 quently the material from which the sensible 
 world has originated, and from which he formed 
 the human body. All this was good and per- 
 fect in its kind i. e., adapted to the attainment 
 of its end or destination ; Gen. i. The body of 
 man was sustained by the tree of life, and happy 
 and peaceful was his condition in the state of 
 innocence. This Mosaic narrative is at the 
 foundation of the whole. Men ate of the for- 
 bidden tree of poison ; its taste brought sickness 
 and death upon them, weakened their body, and 
 destroyed its harmony. Violent passions now 
 arose within them, and the just balance of the 
 human powers and inclinations was destroyed, 
 and sense obtained predominance over reason. 
 Vide s. 75. All this is indeed spoken in Gen. 
 ii. and iii. only respecting Adam and Eve, and 
 nothing is there expressly said of the propaga- 
 tion of this evil. But their posterity died after 
 the same manner, and experienced the same 
 predominance of sense and inclination to sin, 
 from their youth up. Respecting the race of 
 
284 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 
 man sprung 1 from Adam before the flood, the 
 scripture saith, Gen. vi. 5, Their wickedness 
 was great, and every imagination of the thoughts 
 of their heart (137 rotfnp w^3, all the thoughts, 
 desires, resolves, arising within them, and car- 
 ried out into action; nr, nature, constitution, 
 Ps. ciii. 14, [rather, frame, whatever is made by 
 an artificer, and so here the whole doing or ope- 
 ration of the heart,]) was daily nothing but evil. 
 Nor did any change take place in those who 
 lived after the flood ; but men were found to be 
 the same as before, and so God repeated the 
 same declaration respecting them, Gen. viii. 22. 
 And the constant experience of later times con- 
 firmed the same truth. It was therefore justly 
 concluded that this evil is transmitted from ge- 
 neration to generation, and is the common here- 
 ditary disease of the human race; especially as 
 this evil was seen to exist very early in all men, 
 even from their youth (pap), and so could not 
 have arisen merely from defect in education or 
 the influence of bad example. All the imper- 
 fections, therefore, which were understood by 
 the Jews under the terms -lira and <ja'p| (viz., 
 mortality, the predominance of sense, the bias 
 to sin, &c.) were universally regarded by them 
 as the melancholy consequences of the fall of 
 the first man. Vide No. I. 3. In this, there- 
 fore, lay the germ of all the evil and moral cor- 
 ruption among men. It is obviously to these 
 fundamental ideas that all the prophets refer 
 back, when they speak of the sin and corruption 
 so prevalent among men. And it is the same 
 with the later Jewish writers after the Babylo- 
 nian exile until the time of Christ e. g., the 
 writers of the Apocrypha. And so we find 
 many traces of this in the old Jewish transla- 
 tions of the Hebrew scriptures; in the Chaldaic 
 Paraphrases, and in the Septuagint Version e. 
 g., in Job, xiv. 4, where it is said, none is pure, 
 the Septuagint adds, even although he should live 
 but for a single day upon the earth. 
 
 On the same general views do Christ and the 
 apostles proceed ; and Paul especially teaches 
 this doctrine plainly and expressly, and im- 
 proves it in order to set forth more conspicu- 
 ously the high worth of Christianity, as that 
 system in which more efficacious and sure re- 
 medies against this evil were provided than the 
 Jewish or any other religion ever possessed. In 
 this way does he humble the pride of man, and 
 describe the disorder of the soul in that cele- 
 brated passage before cited, Rom. vii. 14, seq. 
 He calls this innate evil, ver. 17, y olxovaa tv 
 f/tot d/iaprta, ver. 23, etspo$ >op>? sv T'ot'j /tlfocri 
 pov, ver. 25, VO/AOJ d^aprtaj. 
 
 In the text Eph. ii. 3, the term ^rut? is vari- 
 ously explained. The explanation of Morus, 
 that it denotes the state of one who follows his 
 sensual desires, as all men are naturally prone 
 to do, is just, on account of the antithesis in ver. 
 
 5, 10. <v<jtj properly signifies (a) origin, birth, 
 from <j>wo, nascor , so in Gal. ii. 15, tyvati 'lov- 
 SCHOJ, Jews by birth, native Jews ; and so too in 
 the classics. (ft) It is also used both by the 
 Jews and classics to denote the original, inborn, 
 and peculiar properties, attributes, nature of a 
 thing or person, the naturalis indoles or affcctio ; 
 as Rom. xi. 21, 24, where the sense is, "even 
 we who are born Jews, are, as to our nature 
 i. e., that natural disposition which we have 
 exhibited from our youth up equally deserving 
 of punishment with other men, i. e., native 
 heathen; for all, Jews and Gentiles alike, are 
 born with a dangerous predominance of sense, 
 arid deserving of the punishment of all the sons 
 of Adam viz., death" 
 
 After these texts, the passage, John, iii. 6, is 
 easily explained : what is born of the flesh is 
 flesh i. e., from men who are weak, erring, 
 and sinful, men of the same character are born. 
 No one attains, therefore, by his mere birth, 
 (e. g, as a Jew,) to any peculiar privileges from 
 God ; these he attains only by being born again, 
 by becoming a regenerate man, morally changed. 
 On principles like these do the sacred writers 
 always proceed when they teach that all men, 
 without exception, are sinners; John, iii. 6; 
 Rom. iii. 9, 19. 
 
 SECTION LXXVIII. 
 
 OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF THIS COR- 
 RUPTION ; ITS PROPAGATION ; ITS PUNISHABLE- 
 NESS ; ALSO OF THE ORIGIN OF SINFUL DESIRES 
 AMONG MEN, AND THEIR PUNISHABLENESS. 
 
 I. Nature of Human Depravity. 
 
 (1) IT is universal This implies, (a) that 
 no man is wholly exempt from it, however dif- 
 ferent may be the degrees and modifications in 
 which it may exist. The universality of human 
 depravity is proved, partly from the experience 
 of all men and ages (vide s. 74), partly from 
 the testimony of the holy scriptures. Many 
 texts, indeed, treat of the sinful actions and 
 moral corruption of men of mature life; but we 
 are taught by the Bible to look for the first 
 ground even of these in that human depravity 
 or bias to sin without which sin itself would 
 never have prevailed so universally ; s. 77, III. 
 ad finem. 
 
 The texts commonly referred to on this sub- 
 ject are, Job, xiv. 4, (who can find a pure man? 
 none is unspotted,) Rom. iii. 23, where Paul 
 says, in order to humble the pride of the Jews, 
 that they were no better than the heathen, and 
 were,, as w'ell as they, vGTtfpovvets tr^ 6o|>7? tov f 
 also Rom. v. 12 21; Eph. ii. 3; John, iii. 6. 
 No sooner does man begin to exercise his rea- 
 son, and to distinguish between good and evil, 
 than this bias to sin shews itself in him. While 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 285 
 
 he must acknowledge the law as good and obli- 
 gatory, he feels within himself a resistance to 
 it an inclination to do that which is opposed 
 to it, and forbidden by it. Indeed, he is borne 
 away with such power by his lower appetites 
 and passions, that he often does that which he 
 himself knows to be injurious, and neglects that 
 which he knows to be salutary. Rom. vii. 8; 
 Eph. ii. 3; Gal. v. 17. Thus it is with all 
 men ; and each individual must confess that the 
 Bible truly describes his own history and ex- 
 perience. Hence this evil is universal. 
 
 The universality of this corruption implies, 
 (6) that it can never be entirely eradicated, even 
 with the most sincere endeavours of the pious ; 
 that although, through divine assistance, an end 
 may be put to the dominion of sin, and its out- 
 breakings may be prevented, yet the root and 
 germ of evil will remain, and cease only with 
 death, or the laying aside of the body, in which 
 this sinful corruption has its principal seat. 
 Vide Rom. vi. 12; vii. 17, 24; Gal. v. 16, 17; 
 1 John, i. 8. Every one, therefore, who has 
 been freed from the dominion of sin, has still to 
 contend against this propensity to sin, lest he 
 should again fall under its dominion. Rom. 
 viii. 13 ; vi. 12, seq. These remnants of de- 
 pravity which are found even in the best men, 
 make their holiness and virtue very imperfect; 
 and the feeling that they are sinners continually 
 humbles them before God. The truly pious 
 man will never therefore glory in his holiness, 
 or be proud of his virtue, because he well knows 
 that it is imperfect. This is evident from every 
 page of the scriptures. 
 
 (2) It is natural and innate, (naturalis et 
 congenita sive insita vitiositas sive depravatio.) 
 The term natural is taken from Eph. ii. 3, fyvaei 
 xvo, opy^v Vide s. 77, III. 1. Tertullian 
 seems to be the first among the church fathers 
 who used the term naluralis. Vide s. 79, No. 
 4. The use of this term, if it be rightly ex- 
 plained, is unobjectionable. If natural be un- 
 derstood in the sense of essential, it conveys a 
 false idea, and is the same as to say, that this 
 depravity is an essential part of man, that man 
 could not exist as man without it. Matt. Fla- 
 cius of Jena, in the sixteenth century, contended, 
 in his controversies with Victor Strigelius about 
 Synergism, that peccatum originate esse non acci- 
 dens, sed IPSAM SUBSTANTIATE hominis. But he 
 asserted this merely from ignorance of scholas- 
 tic phraseology. He meant only to maintain 
 the entire corruption of man, and his incapacity 
 to all good. And although the authors of the 
 Formula of Concord (Art. I.) nominally oppose 
 Flacianism, they maintain the same doctrine in 
 other words : peccatum originate cum natura et 
 substantia hominis intime conjunctum esse et com- 
 mixtum. 
 
 The term natural is rather used in this doc- 
 
 trine in opposition to what is acquired, or first 
 produced and occasioned by external circum- 
 stances and causes. It denotes that for which 
 there is a foundation in man himself, although 
 it may be an accident, and may not belong es- 
 sentially to his nature. In the same sense we 
 say, for example, that such a man possesses na- 
 tural sagacity, that a disease is natural to an- 
 other, that he is by nature a poet, &c., because 
 the qualities here spoken of are not the result of 
 diligence, practice, or any external circum- 
 stances. In the same way this depravity is 
 called natural, because it has its ground in man, 
 and is not in the first place acquired ; or, still 
 more plainly, because it does not first come to 
 man from without, through instruction or the 
 mere imitation of bad examples. 
 
 As the term natural, however, is ambiguous, 
 and liable to misconception, some prefer the 
 designation innate, (congenitum or insitum) a 
 term which, as well as the other, is scriptural. 
 The word congenitus is used by the elder Pliny 
 in the sense of innate, and as opposed acquisito 
 sive aliunde illato, and is in substance the same 
 as natural. So Cicero (Orat. pro domo, c. 5,) 
 places nativum malum in opposition to that 
 which is aliunde allato. And it is with justice 
 that a quality, which has its origin at the same 
 time with man, which is found in him from his 
 earliest youth, and can be wholly eradicated by 
 no effort, is denominated natural, (jt?3p, applied 
 to the good, Job, xxxi. 18 ; to the wicked, Ps. 
 Iviii. 4, denoting anything which is deep-rooted, 
 and shews itself early in men.) In this sense 
 we speak at the present day of innate or heredi- 
 tary faults, virtues, excellences, both in men 
 and beasts e. g., of cunning, pride, magnani- 
 mity, &c. So Kant speaks of RADIKALE Hose ,- 
 and Sosipater, according to the testimony of 
 Stobaeus, wrote in one of his letters, ci/voct 6s, 
 tbj avfjifyvtov *fo afiapfdvsw dv^pwrtocj. 
 
 (3) It is hereditary. That this evil is trans- 
 mitted from parents to children follows partly 
 from its universality, and partly from its entire 
 sameness in all men. As it was in the parents, 
 so it is in the children, although it shews itself 
 in different degrees, according to the difference 
 in the organization, the temperament, and the 
 external circumstances and relations in which 
 they live. In the same way we judge that cer- 
 tain faults, talents, and virtues, are inherited by 
 children, when we see a resemblance between 
 them and their parents in these respects. The 
 doctrine that this depravity is propagated among 
 men from parents to children, and on this very 
 account is universal, is clearly taught in the 
 holy scriptures, as Rom. v. 12, seq.; John, iii. 
 6, and other texts. Vide s. 77, III. 2. 
 
 Note. Human depravity does not, however, 
 consist in definite inclinations directed to parti- 
 cular objects, but rather in a general disposition 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 to inordinate and violent passions, which shews 
 itself now with regard to one object, and again 
 with regard to another, according to the differ- 
 ence of organization, of temperament, and of 
 external circumstances ; but in all cases, what- 
 ever may be the object of the passion, in such a 
 way that reason and conscience avail but little 
 against passion, or far less than they should. 
 
 II. The manner in which Natural Depravity is 
 propagated. 
 
 (1) From what has been already said, it is 
 plain that a physical propagation of human de- 
 pravity is affirmed in the scriptures, and it is in 
 this that what theologians call original sin 
 (Erbsiinde) principally consists. This may be 
 proved from the following principles, which are 
 undeniably taught in the Bible : (a) tnat human 
 nature was unquestionably more perfect and 
 better formerly than it is at present; (6) that 
 our progenitors were corrupted, and as it were 
 poisoned, by the fall ; (c) that the principal seat 
 of this depravity is to be found in the body, s. 
 77, II. Children derive their bodies from their 
 parents, and so back to the first human pair. 
 The attributes which belonged to the bodies of 
 our first parents after the fall, their excellences 
 as well as imperfections, belong also to their 
 posterity, and so are inherited by children from 
 their parents. Parents could not beget children 
 better or more perfect than they themselves 
 were. Vide 1 Cor. xv. 48, 49. After the fall 
 they had <yapxa, or cjw^a aaapttaj and avdtov, 
 and consequently their posterity, begotten and 
 born after the fall, possessed the same. John, 
 iii. 6, -to ysysvvqvevov ex tfapxoj <jap| (ffapxcxoj) 
 efftt. 
 
 This is illustrated from the analogy of certain 
 diseases of mind and body, which are often pro- 
 pagated through whole generations. It is a 
 matter of experience, that some qualities, intel- 
 lectual and corporeal, are propagated from pa- 
 rents to their offspring, although it is not the 
 case with all. The propagation of moral de- 
 pravity is not, therefore, contrary to what is 
 known from experience, but rather in perfect 
 consistency with it, and this is enough. 
 
 Closely connected with this is the New-Tes- 
 tament doctrine, that the man Jesus Christ was 
 not produced in the common course of nature, 
 like other men, but in an extraordinary manner, 
 by the immediate agency of God. Luke, i. 34 ; 
 Matt. i. 16 20, 25. It was necessary for him 
 to be without sin or depravity, (Heb. iv. 15,) 
 vitiositatis expers, and like the first man in his 
 state of innocence, in order to restore the happi- 
 ness which was squandered by him; hence he 
 is called 6 Sai^poj aipcorto$, o S%aifo^ 'A8dfi, 1 
 Cor. xv. 45, 47; also, 6 Tto? tov cU^pwrfou, the 
 great Son of Adam, or of man. 
 
 It was on this account that, in the twelfth 
 
 century, some teachers in France, and Ansel- 
 mus of Canterbury, in England, maintained the 
 unspotted conception of the mother of Jesus. To 
 this opinion Scotus acceded, and after him his 
 adherents, the entire body of the Franciscans, 
 and, at a later period, the Jesuits. But they 
 were opposed by Thomas Aquinas and his fol- 
 lowers, and by all the Dominicans. On this 
 point there was a violent dispute in the Romish 
 church from the fifteenth to the seventeenth cen- 
 turies, and the popes decided nothing respecting 
 it. This doctrine is wholly unsupported by the 
 holy scriptures. 
 
 When all which has now been said is taken 
 in connexion, it plainly appears that the doctrine 
 of the physical propagation of depravity fully 
 agrees with the other scriptural ideas. Any one, 
 therefore, who receives these representations re- 
 specting the original and more perfect state of 
 man, respecting the sin and fall of Adam, &c., 
 as true, and founded in the scriptures, proceeds 
 inconsistently when he denies the consequences 
 which flow from them, as many modern theolo- 
 gians do. 
 
 In the times of the church fathers, during the 
 third and fourth centuries, this doctrine of the 
 physical propagation of human corruption was 
 often vindicated and illustrated by the doctrine 
 respecting the propagation of the soul per tra- 
 ducem; (vide s. 57, II., and s. 79, No. 2 ;) but of 
 this there is nothing said in the Bible. The 
 manner in which this disposition is propagated 
 can be explained neither psychologically nor ana- 
 tomically. The psychologist does not know the 
 soul as it is in itself, but only a part of its exer- 
 cises. In like manner the interior of our corpo- 
 real structure is a mystery impenetrable by our 
 senses. Into the inmost secrets of nature, whe- 
 ther corporeal or spiritual, no created spirit can 
 pry. We cannot therefore either understand or 
 describe this disposition, which is so injurious to 
 morality, or its propagation, as they are in them- 
 selves, but only according to the appearances 
 and effects which they exhibit in the gradual 
 development of man. 
 
 Note. The universality of depravity (a^uap- 
 -r'ta) and of death Qtaj/afoj) depends, according 
 to the Bible, upon the derivation of all men from 
 one progenitor or father. Hence sin and death 
 are always derived from Mam, Rom. v. 14; I 
 Cor. xv. 22; and not from Eve, although she, 
 according to Paul himself, (1 Tim. ii. 14,) first 
 sinned. If Eve only had sinned, she would have 
 removed her depravity from the world when she 
 died ; and sin would not through her have come 
 into the world in such a way that sin, and death 
 through sin, should pass upon all men. Hence 
 Jesus, when it was necessary that he, as a man, 
 should be without sin, was born of a human mo- 
 ther, but not begotten by a human father. Vide 
 Num. I. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 287 
 
 (2) There is also a moral propagation of this 
 depravity. In this are included, 
 
 (a)- The imputation of the sin of Adam, of 
 which we have treated, both doctrinally and his- 
 torically, in s. 76. By this is understood the 
 universal mortality of man as a consequence of 
 the sin of our progenitors. 
 
 (6) The propagation of depravity through the 
 imitation of bad examples. The bias to evil 
 which lies in the human heart is in no way more 
 excited and strengthened than by bad examples, 
 which very soon obtain approbation and are imi- 
 tated, whether the individual may have seen 
 them himself, or have heard of them from others, 
 or have read respecting them in books. The 
 influence exerted by this cause upon man in the 
 formation of his character is so indescribably 
 great, that many ancient writers regarded it as 
 the only cause of the propagation of human de- 
 pravity, and either wholly denied or, at least in 
 a great measure, doubted the doctrine of its phy- 
 sical propagation. They hence supposed that 
 this evil could be either wholly removed, or at 
 least much diminished, by means of a good edu- 
 cation, and that the propensity to imitation could 
 receive such a direction that the good only should 
 be imitated, while the evil should be shunned. 
 So thought Pelagius, (vide s. 79, No. 3,) and at 
 a later period the Socinians and many Arminians. 
 This opinion has found advocates also among 
 some modern protestant theologians e. g., 
 Steinbart, System, s. 105, f. ; Eberhard, Apolo- 
 gie, ii. 339, f. ; Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii. 
 b. ii. s. 683, f. 
 
 That example and education contribute much 
 to the moral improvement or corruption of man 
 cannot be doubted ; but it is equally true, and 
 conformed to experience, that example and edu- 
 cation are far from being the only and sufficient 
 cause of the prevailing wickedness, and that 
 with the best education man becomes bad much 
 easier than good, with all the pains taken to 
 make him so. Of this the cause lies in the 
 undue predominance of the animal appetites. 
 This accounts for it, that the bias to evil is so 
 much stronger and more active than the bias to 
 good. Were it otherwise, it would be unneces- 
 sary to contend so strenuously against evil, and 
 to employ so many means to incite man to good- 
 ness and to secure him against vice. And among 
 all the thousands who have lived upon the earth, 
 there would have been found some examples of 
 persons who had passed through their whole life 
 free from sin. 
 
 As man, therefore, has within himself a natural 
 adaptation to much which is good, he has also a 
 natural disposition and bias to much which is 
 evil, (malum radicalc,} which soon strikes root, 
 spreads round, and chokes the good. It is abso- 
 lutely inexplicable how the preponderance of 
 sense over reason, so visible in all men, could be 
 
 derived from mere imitation. Were this the 
 case, this preponderance ought to cease as soon 
 as man, in the full exercise of his understanding, 
 were taught better. The will, we should expect, 
 would then obey the dictates of reason. It is not 
 found, however, to be so in fact. The dominion 
 of sense still continues, as the experience of 
 every one proves. The ground of this must there- 
 fore lie deeper; and both experience and reason 
 confirm the account which scripture gives of it. 
 Vide s. 77. 
 
 III. The Imputation or Punishableness of Natural 
 Depravity. 
 
 This is the reatas or culpa vitiositatis, and was 
 asserted by Augustine and his followers. Vide 
 Moms, p. 120, s. 7, coll. s. 79, No. 2. They 
 contended that all men, even before they had 
 committed any sinful actions, and barely on ac- 
 count of this native depravity, were deserving of 
 temporal and eternal death, or of damnation. 
 Others have endeavoured in various ways to 
 mitigate the severity of this opinion. Some mo- 
 dern theologians have taught, in imitation of 
 Augustine, the doctrine that pcccatum originale 
 per se esse damnabile , but that, for Christ's sake, 
 punishment was not actually inflicted. 
 
 But the assertion, that this corruption in and 
 of itself involves condemnation, cannot be 
 proved. For (a) it is irreconcilable with the 
 justice and goodness of God that he should 
 punish (in the proper sense of this term) an in- 
 nocent person for the sins of another. Sin 
 cannot exist, certainly cannot be punished, un- 
 less the action is free ; otherwise it ceases to be 
 sin. Vide s. 76, III. (6) In those texts of 
 the Old and New Testament which are com- 
 monly cited in behalf of this opinion, the death 
 spoken of is not eternal death, or condemnation; 
 but temporal death, Gen. i. 2, 17; Rom. v. 12; 
 1 Cor. xv. 22. Vide s. 75, II. 2. (c) Even 
 bodily death is represented in the scriptures as, 
 indeed, the consequence of Adam's sin, but not as 
 a punishment, strictly speaking, for any beside 
 himself; for none but himself were guilty of his 
 sin. 
 
 In conformity with this view, Rom. v. 12, 14, 
 is to be explained; also Rom. vi. 23, 
 64/uma a/xapi'KX, or ver. 21, ti'ko^ (xaprtoj) aj 
 tlac,' so called because it followed upon Adam's 
 sin, and, as far as he was concerned, was a pu- 
 nishment for it. Vide s. 76, III. The doctrine 
 of the Bible on this subject is the following; 
 "The bias of man to evil, and to do that which 
 is forbidden, is in itself bad, (Germ.fehlerkaftes, 
 esse in vitio, vitiosum,} Rom. vii. 5 ; xiii. 18 ; but 
 it cannot be imputed to man, or he be regarded 
 as punishable on account of it, unless he yields 
 himself to if,, and indulges it. Vide Rom. vi. 
 12; Gen. iv. 7, coll. James, i. 15. This, how- 
 ever, is the case with all men; no one has 
 
288 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 lived upon the earth who has not been led by 
 this propensity into actual transgression, and 
 so has become deserving of punishment." 
 Truly, therefore, does the scripture affirm that 
 we are all subject to punishment, (tixva, 6py?jj, 
 Ephes. ii. 3 ;) not, however, because we are 
 born with this disposition, (for this is not any 
 fault of ours,) but because we indulge it, give 
 an ear to our unlawful desires, and so suffer our- 
 selves to be led on to the commission of sin. 
 
 IV. The Source and Origin of Sinful Inclinations, 
 
 and their Punishableness. 
 From the preponderance of sense now ex- 
 plained, particular sinful dispositions and pas- 
 sions take their origin, and so are the result 
 and the proof of the sinful depravity of man. 
 But in order that we may rightly estimate the 
 sinfulness and punishableness of these desires, 
 we must attend to the following considera- 
 tions : 
 
 (1) The desires >of man are not in themselves, 
 and abstractedly considered, sinful , for they are 
 deep laid in the constitution which God him- 
 self has given to human nature; they arise in 
 man involuntarily, and so far cannot certainly 
 be imputed to him. The essential constitution 
 of man makes it necessary that everything 
 which makes an agreeable impression on the 
 senses should inevitably awaken com spondent 
 desires. The poor man, who sees himself sur- 
 rounded with the treasures of another, feels a 
 natural and involuntary desire to possess them. 
 The mere rising of this desire is no more pu- 
 nishable in him than it was in Eve, \\hen she 
 saw the tree, and felt an impulse to eat its beau- 
 tiful fruit, which is never represented in the 
 Bible as her sin. 
 
 (2) The desires of man become sinful and 
 deserving of punishment then only when (a) 
 man, feeling desires after forbidden things, seeks 
 and finds pleasure in them, and delights himself 
 in them, and so (6) carefully cherishes and nou- 
 rishes them in his heart, (c) When he seeks 
 occasions to awaken the desires after forbidden 
 things, and to entertain himself with them, 
 (d) When he gives audience and approbation to 
 these desires, and justifies, seeks, and performs 
 the sins to which he is inclined. This is fol- 
 lowed by the twofold injury, that he not only 
 sins for this once, but that he gives his appetites 
 and passions the power of soliciting him a se- 
 cond time more importunately, of becoming more 
 vehement and irresistible, so that he becomes 
 continually more disposed to sin, acquires a fixed 
 habit of sinning, and at last becomes the slave 
 of sin. Vide Michaelis, Ueber die Stinde, s. 
 365, f. But if a man repels and suppresses the 
 involuntary desire arising w ithin him because it 
 is evil, he cannot certainly be punished merely 
 because, without any fault of his own, he f( It this 
 
 desire. It were unjust to punish any one for be- 
 ing assailed by an enemy, without any provoca- 
 tion on his part. 
 
 (3) With this doctrine the holy scripture is 
 perfectly accordant. Even in his state of inno- 
 cence man felt the rising of desire ; nor was this 
 in him accounted sin; Gen. iii. 6. Hence we 
 are never required, either in the Old Testament 
 or the New, to eradicate these desires, (which, 
 indeed, is a thing impossible, and would cause 
 a destruction of human nature itself,) but only 
 to keep them under control, and to suppress 
 those which fix upon forbidden things. Vide s. 
 77. In Rom. vi. 12, we are directed not to let 
 our sinful appetites rule, and not to obey the body 
 in the lusts thereof,- here, therefore, it is presup- 
 posed that these tempting lusts remain. Again, 
 in Gal. v. 24, we are charged to crucify the flesh, 
 with its affections and lusts. It is to those who 
 contend against their wicked passions that re- 
 wards are promised, and not to those who have 
 never had these solicitations and allurements 
 to evil. The pretended virtue of such men 
 scarcely deserves the name, and is not capable 
 of reward. 
 
 Some texts are indeed cited in which the pas- 
 sions, in themselves considered, are forbidden, 
 as Rom. vii. 7, ovx sTtL^v^fis- Ex. xx. 17, 
 "Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's house,'* 
 &c. Some also in which they are said to be 
 deserving of punishment from God, as Matt. v. 
 28. But in these texts, such desires are not 
 spoken of as arise involuntarily within us, and 
 for which we are not therefore culpable, but 
 such as man himself nourishes and entertains, 
 or by his own agency awakens within himself, 
 and which he aims to execute. And so in 
 Matt. v. Christ speaks of the actual intention 
 and design of man to commit adultery, if he 
 could ; and not of the passion arising in his 
 heart, which he himself disapproves, and imme- 
 diately suppresses, because it is contrary to the 
 divine law. 
 
 (4) The manner in which man is borne away 
 by his passions to the commission of sin is de- 
 scribed by James (i. 14, 15) in a way that cor- 
 responds with the experience of every one; and 
 this text confirms all the preceding remarks. 
 When desires arise within us, we are in danger 
 of sinning. Some present enjoyment of sense 
 tempts us. Enticements to sin spring up. These 
 James calls temptations, (elsewhere called oxdv- 
 Sctfta, Matt, xviii. 7, 8, Stf?p, Ezek. xvii. 19.) 
 For we look upon that which is represented to 
 us by our senses as charming and desirable, to 
 be a great good, the possession of which would 
 make us happy. This is expressed by e%ei.x6- 
 ptvos and SfXsa^o^fvo?. The image is here taken 
 from animals, which are ensnared by baits (8- 
 Xf ap) laid before them, in order to take them. To 
 these allurements all men are exposed, although 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 I not in the same degree. Thus far there is no 
 sin i. e., the man is not yet caught in the snare 
 under which the bait lies. But here he must 
 stop, and instead of indulging must suppress 
 these desires must fly from the hait. Other- 
 wise, lust conceives, (ira^v^a cri>M,a|3oiJ<?a,) i. e., 
 these desires and passions are approved in the 
 heart, and the man begins to think he can satisfy 
 them. This is wrong and sinful. For this is 
 no longer involuntary, but, on the contrary, the 
 result of man's own will, and he is now deserv- 
 ing of punishment. This is what is called pec- 
 catum actuale internum. But finally, desire 
 brings forth sin, the evil intent passes into ac- 
 tion, and is accomplished. This is peccatum 
 actuate externum. Hence flows ^avaroj, misery, 
 unhappiness of every sort, as the consequence 
 and punishment of sin. 
 
 SECTION LXX1X. 
 
 OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE ANCIENT 
 CHURCH-FATHERS RESPECTING HUMAN DEPRA- 
 VITY J AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EC- 
 CLESIASTICAL PHRASEOLOGY ON THIS SUBJECT 
 AND THE VARIOUS FORMS OF DOCTRINE WERE 
 GRADUALLY DEVELOPED. 
 
 (1) THE oldest Christian teachers were mostly 
 agreed in considering death as a consequence 
 of Adam's sin. Vide s. 76. [It should be ob- 
 served, however, that in these early writers the 
 term <j>^opa stands not only for mortality, but 
 also for depravity. Vide Neander, b. i. Abth. 
 iii. s. 1045. TR.] But we shall look in vain 
 through the writings of most of the Greek teach- 
 ers to find the full scriptural idea of an innate 
 depravity ,- or, at least, it cannot be found exhi- 
 bited with sufficient distinctness or clearness. 
 As there had been as yet no controversy on this 
 subject, nothing respecting it was determined 
 and settled on ecclesiastical authority. Still 
 they agree, for the most part, that the dispro- 
 portion between sense and reason, or the corrup- 
 tion of human nature, began after the fall of 
 Adam, and has been diffused as a universal dis- 
 ease through the whole human race. That this 
 evil, however, in itself considered, is to be re- 
 garded as actual sin, and as such is punished 
 by God, they do not teach ; but rather the con- 
 trary. So Justin Martyr, Ap. i. 54, seq. ; Ire- 
 nseus, Adv. Haeres. iv. 37, seq. ; Athenagoras, 
 Legal, c. 22; Clemens Alex. Strom, iii. (contra 
 Encratitas.) "No one," says the writer last 
 mentioned, "is wholly free from sin; but the 
 child, who has never personally trespassed, 
 cannot be subjected to the curse of Adam, (the 
 punishment of his sin.) Yet all who have the 
 use of their reason are led by this their moral 
 depravity to commit actual sin, and so become 
 liable to punishment." The same writer says, 
 in his Paedag. iii. 12, juovoj 
 37 
 
 yap efafiapi'avEM' jtadtv Ipfyvtov xai, xowov. 
 Cyril of Alexandria, in his Commentary on 
 Isaiah, says, fyvaixov sv d^puirtot$ ovx slvai xaxov 
 and in his work " Contra Anthropomorph." c. 
 8, he says, " Adam's posterity are not punished 
 as those who with him had broken the law of 
 God." So also Origen, Praef. ad libros Ttgpo 
 
 wv, and his followers, Basilius, and Theo- 
 dorus of Mopsevestia, who, according to the 
 testimony of Photius, wrote a book against those 
 who taught that man sinned ${><* xai oi> yno^. 
 There were some, too, of the Greek fathers who 
 traced the origin of the evil passions and of the 
 actual sins arising from them to the mortality 
 of the body e. g., Chrysostom and Theodoret. 
 This hypothesis has been revived in later times 
 by Whitby, who has attempted to carry it 
 through. Vide s. 76, note. 
 
 (2) The same representation is found in many 
 of the fathers of the ancient Latin church, even 
 in Africa. They taught that death (depravity ?) 
 is a consequence of Adam's sin, and yet that it 
 is not, in itself, to be regarded as sin, and pu- 
 nished accordingly. Cyprian (Epist. Synod. 
 Cone. Carthag. iii.) says, "A new-born child 
 has not itself sinned, nisi quod secundum Adam 
 carnaliter natus, CONTAGIUM MORTIS contraxit" 
 In baptism, the sins of the child (which v/ere 
 still not propria but aliena} were supposed to 
 be washed away. Ambrosius says, on Ps. 
 xlviii., "There is a bias to sin in all, but 
 this is not actual sin, and liability to punish- 
 ment ; God punishes us only for nostra peccata, 
 and not for aliense (Adami) nequitiseflagitia." 
 Even according to Tertullian, (detestim. animae, 
 c. 3,) it is only to temporal death that we are 
 condemned in consequence of the sin of Adam. 
 To this opinion, Hilarius and others acceded. 
 The African fathers before the time of Augus- 
 tine, and even Tertullian, seem, however, to 
 have had less distinct and settled views on this 
 subject than even the Greeks, which arose from 
 their misunderstanding the seemingly obscure 
 phraseology of the New Testament, and espe- 
 cially of the Latin version of it. 
 
 [The germs of the controversy which after- 
 wards broke out between Augustine and Pela- 
 gius can be discerned in this earlier period. 
 The Alexandrine teachers, and among these 
 principally Clement and Origen, took the side 
 of the human will, and its ability to good. They, 
 however, by no means carried this so far as was 
 afterwards done by Pelagius, and often express- 
 ed themselves strongly respecting the entire de- 
 pravity of man, and his dependence on the reno- 
 vating influence of divine grace. Vide Clement, 
 Quis dives salv. c. 21. The Eastern teachers 
 were led to vindicate thus strongly the powers 
 of the human will by their opposition to New 
 Platonism, and the Manichean iheosophy, by 
 which sin was attributed either to an eternal 
 2B 
 
290 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 principle of evil, to a blind and resistless des- 
 tiny, or to some necessity of nature, rather than 
 to the perversion of our own moral powers. 
 
 The teachers of the Western church, on the 
 other hand, and especially those of Africa, having 
 no such philosophy to oppose, recognised more 
 fully the peculiar Christian truths of the corrup- 
 tion and inability of human nature, and the ne- 
 cessity of divine grace; but they also were far 
 from representing the grace of God as compul- 
 sory and irresistible, as it was afterwards done 
 in the Pelagian controversies. This tendency 
 in the Western church is represented by Tertul- 
 lian, Cyprian, Hilary, and Ambrosius. 
 
 As yet, however, these opposing tendencies 
 had not come into open conflict, but awaited the 
 causes which brought them into direct collision 
 in the following period. TR.] 
 
 But Augustine carried the matter much fur- 
 ther. He affirmed the doctrine de imputalione 
 peccati Mami in the strictest juridical sense, 
 teaching at the same time the entire depravity 
 of man, and his total inability to all good, in 
 such a sense as it is nowhere taught in the Bible. 
 He may have been led to this by having for- 
 merly belonged to the sect of Manicheans, who 
 hold very strict sentiments on this point; hence 
 his doctrine depeccato originali was called by 
 Pelagius and Julian a Manichean doctrine.* 
 He maintained that the consequence of Adam's 
 sin was not merely bodily death, but eternal, 
 (mors secunda, cujus non est finis ,) and that to 
 this all men, even children, who had not them- 
 selves thought or done either good or evil, were 
 subjected ; though yet the unmerited grace of 
 God delivered some from this punishment, (de- 
 cretum absolutum.) He exhibits these doctrines 
 in his work, De civitate Dei, xiv. 1, and else- 
 
 * [We subjoin the following remarks of Neander 
 with respect to the charge here, and often elsewhere, 
 brought against the system of Augustine. " The 
 anthropology of Augustine," he says, " is unjustly 
 supposed to be derived from the influence of Mani- 
 cheism. His doctrine respecting the moral depravity 
 of man was a very different thing from the dualism 
 of Mani, which was derived from the philosophy of 
 nature. The system of Augustine did not, like that 
 of Mani, proceed from his confounding in his con- 
 ceptions the natural and the moral, but from a pure 
 fact of moral consciousness. On the contrary, it 
 may be said, that while the hope of finding out, by 
 means of speculation, an explanation of the irrecon- 
 cilable opposition between good and evil, of which 
 he had become early conscious in the depth of his 
 soul, led him to Manicheism ; he was led from it 
 again by coming to apprehend this opposition more 
 and more in a moral light. Again ; it was in direct 
 opposition to Manicheism that he adopted the theory, 
 the first germs of which he took from Platonism, that 
 evil is only a subjective deviation of created being 
 from the law of the supreme and only true Being, 
 and not, as taught by Mani, an independent, self-sub- 
 sisting existence." Allg. Kirchengesch, b. ii. Abth. 
 iii. s. 1206. TR.] 
 
 where. Fulgentius Rusp. (De Fide, c. 29) 
 asserts that children who had lived merely in 
 their mother's womb, and yet died without bap- 
 tism, must suffer eternal punishment in hell. 
 And so taught many of the schoolmen, according 
 to Peter of Lombardy, 1. ii. Even Augustine 
 attributed a certain kind of physical influence 
 to baptism, and confined the grace of God to 
 those to whom this ordinance was administered. 
 He held this doctrine, however, in common with 
 many of the Latin fathers before his time e. g., 
 Cyprian. The adherents of Augustine were ac- 
 customed to vindicate their views by the doc- 
 trine of the propagation of the soul per traducem^ 
 though this is not true of all of them. On the 
 contrary, the adherents of Pelagius, for the most 
 part, denied this doctrine, and were creationists. 
 Vide s. 57, II. 
 
 (3) This severe doctrine of Augustine was 
 controverted by Pelagius, and many others who 
 followed him. But Pelagius, in his turn, went 
 too far on the other side, and maintained various 
 principles which obviously are unscriptural. 
 Here were, therefore, two extremes, between 
 which scriptural truth lay in the midst, having 
 both reason and experience on its side. In the 
 system of Augustine, on the one hand, there 
 is much opposed to reason and scripture; and 
 in that of Pelagius, on the other hand, there is 
 much opposed to scriptureznd. experience. Pela- 
 gius not only denied the imputation of Adam's 
 sin, but also the physical propagation of human 
 depravity. He taught that the moral nature of 
 man is unaltered, and that man is now entirely 
 in the same state in which Adam was created. 
 Weakness, imperfection, and death, were, in 
 his view, essential to man from the first, and he 
 is punished only for sinful actions. The pro- 
 pagation- of human depravity is not physically 
 and by birth, but morally only, from the imitation 
 of bad examples. The declaration that in Mam, 
 all have sinned, does not relate, according to his 
 scheme, to any peccatum nascendi origine contrac- 
 turn; but to that acquired propter imitationem ex- 
 empli. Vide in Libro de Natura, ap. August, ad 
 Rom. v. And Julian said, (ap. August, contra 
 Jul. ii. 54,) peccatum primum MORIBUS, non SE- 
 MINIBUS ad poster os fuisse devectum. Adam set 
 a bad example before his children, and they 
 again before theirs, and so on. In this sense 
 only did Pelagius allow of a propagation of sin 
 from Adam. Vide s. 78, II. 2. The views of 
 Pelagius are very clearly exhibited in the work 
 De libero arbitrio (ap. August, de pecc. orig. c. 
 13) : Omne bonum aut malum, quo vel laudibiles 
 vel vituperabiles sumus, non nobiscum nascitur t 
 sed agitur a nobis; capaces utriusque rei, non 
 pleni nascimur, et ut sine VIRTUTE, sic SINE VITIO 
 procreamur. 
 
 These views were totally diverse from those 
 of Augustine and other African teachers, and in 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 291 
 
 many points also from the plain doctrine of the 
 Bible. This deviation from the scriptures Au- 
 gustine perceived and opposed. Through the 
 resistance of Pelagius he became more zealous 
 and heated, and in his polemical zeal advanced 
 continually greater lengths in his positions.* 
 The theory of Augustine, or the African theory, 
 was, however, by no means universal in the 
 fourth century. In the East, and in Palestine 
 especially, Pelagius was received into favour 
 and protection with many who had agreed in 
 many points with Origen, and who therefore 
 saw little reprehensible in Pelagius. Much, 
 indeed, in his theory differed from that then pre- 
 vailing through the Eastern church. But from 
 the indifference of so many Grecian bishops on 
 this subject, it is obvious that nothing can have 
 been at that time ecclesiastically determined re- 
 specting it, and that the importance of the ques- 
 tion by no means appeared to them at first. 
 And even in the Western church out of Africa, 
 there were many who looked upon the Pelagian 
 theory not unfavourably, and on this account it 
 was at first acquitted of the charges brought 
 against it even by Zosimus, the Roman bishop. 
 Through the efforts of the Africans, however, 
 and their connexion with the Anti-Origenistic 
 party, it was finally brought about that the doc- 
 trines of Pelagius were formerly condemned as 
 heretical at the church councils, and that the 
 theory of Augustine, after the year 418, became 
 predominant, at least in the Occidental church. 
 Various attempts were made to unite the two 
 parties, and many took a middle course between 
 them, from whence originated, at a later period, 
 the so-called Semi-Pelagian party. Scotus, and 
 his followers among the schoolmen, very much 
 extenuated the natural depravity of man; in 
 which they have been followed by many of the 
 theologians of the Romish church e. g., the 
 
 * [This remark respecting the theory of Augus- 
 tine, though often made, may be shewn demonstra- 
 bly to be incorrect. Augustine had developed his 
 full system concerning the inability of man and the 
 doctrine of predestination resulting from it, as early 
 as the year 397, in a work directed to Simplician, 
 bishop at Mailand, some time before Pelagius ap- 
 peared at Rome, and at least ten years before his 
 doctrines had excited attention and controversy. 
 Neander says, " Opposition to Pelagianism could 
 have had no influence upon Augustine in forming 
 his system. It may rather be said, with more truth, 
 that Pelagius was excited and induced to develop his 
 own views, by opposition to the principles of Augus- 
 tine respecting the natural depravity of man, and 
 grace and predestination not conditioned by the free 
 will," b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 1215. We ought not readily 
 to attribute the opinions of such minds as Augus- 
 tine's to external causes. Their own internal im- 
 pulse, and their effort after perfect consistency, often 
 carry them to extremes, to which others could be 
 driven only by the pressure of controversy. Cf. the 
 Note to the History of Decrees, vol. i. s. 32, p. 252, 
 Fourthly. Tn.] 
 
 Jesuits, who have been on this account often 
 accused of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. 
 Among the followers of Augustine, many ad- 
 hered to his opinion, that even mere original 
 sin, in itself considered, is punished with eter- 
 nal death, even in the case of children who die 
 before baptism, though they themselves have 
 never done any evil e. g., Gregor. M. 1. ix. 
 Moral, c. 16. Others, to whom this doctrine 
 seemed too severe, held only, that in conse- 
 quence of original sin man is excluded from the 
 full joys of the blessed in heaven, but not mere- 
 ly on that account cast into the pains of hell ; in 
 short, that he is placed in a middle state, in 
 which he is neither damned nor yet perfectly 
 happy. SoDamasus: Pcena originalis peccati 
 est carentia visionis Dei. The same representa- 
 tion respecting children who die before baptism 
 is found also among some Greek writers e. g., 
 in Gregory of Nazianzen, who says respecting 
 them, (Orat. 40,) p.^fe 8o|oc&jv(u, H* 6 xohaa- 
 
 ljef0$at, X. t. X. 
 
 (4) Some additional historical illustrations of 
 the Jiugustinian and African theory respecting 
 natural depravity and respecting the term, PECCA- 
 
 TUM ORIGINIS sive ORIGINALE. 
 
 The depravity of human nature being, accord- 
 ing to the Bible, propagated from Adam, and 
 communicated in the way of ordinary generation 
 to children, it was very natural to denominate it 
 original,- and since, moreover, it is common to 
 all men, and, though not essential to human na- 
 ture, yet properly belonging to it in its present 
 state, it is called natural, especially as the term 
 $v<jc is used in Ephes. ii. 3. Vide s. 78, I. 2. 
 Both of these terms are found in the same pas- 
 sage in Tertullian, (De Anima, c. 41,) where 
 he calls depravity malum animae ex originis 
 vitio and naturale quodammodo. Upon this pas- 
 sage it is important to observe, that he does not 
 use the term peccatum, but malum and vitium; 
 and again, that this is the first passage in the 
 Latin Fathers in which the term naturale is ap- 
 plied to this subject. But because the Latin 
 word naturale is ambiguous, and might be un- 
 derstood in the sense of essentiale, (a sense in 
 which Tertullian would not use it, and in which 
 even Cyril of Alexandria rejected the expres- 
 sion fyvaixov xaxov, vide No. I.,) Tertullian adds 
 quodammodo. The term naturale, as used by 
 him, properly means nothing more than pro- 
 prium, adhaerens, non aliunde contractum. Vide 
 s. 78, 1. 2. Ambrosius, too, says, (Apol. David, 
 c. 11,) Jintequam nascimur, maculamur CONTA- 
 GIO, et ante usuram lucis originis ipsius excipi- 
 mus injuriam. Thus none of these fathers use 
 the term peccatum, or pretend that natural de- 
 pravity in the abstract, or in itself, is imputed to 
 man as sin, or punished. Augustine is the very 
 first who uses the term PECCATUM originate, 
 quid originaliter traditur, as indeed he himself 
 
292 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 says in "Opus imperf. contra Julianum," ii. 
 After this time, this terra, which perhaps may 
 have been used by some Africans before Augus- 
 tine, was repeated by some Latin teachers e. g., 
 by Hieronymus, on Psalm 1., and was finally 
 authorized by councils, and adopted into the 
 terminology of the Western church. It was 
 first publicly employed in the Acts (c. 2) of the 
 Milevitanic council, in the year 416; and those 
 who deny the doctrine de peccato originali, and 
 its punishment, which is removed by baptism, 
 were there denounced with an anathema. 
 
 But how came it to pass that the word pecca- 
 tum should be employed to designate natural 
 depravity, since this depravity, in abstracto, and 
 by itself, is to be regarded as a disease or a sickly 
 moral disorder of man, and not as action; and 
 since man had no guilty agency in bringing it 
 upon himself] It came in this way: in Rom. 
 vii. 9, and elsewhere, Paul uses the term d/top- 
 tia in reference to the bias to sin found in all 
 men, or the disposition to do what is forbidden 
 by the divine law; and this is perfectly con- 
 formed to the usus loquendi. For the Greek 
 a^aprta is employed not only with regard to 
 sinful actions, but any fault or defective state or 
 nature of a thing; like the Latin peccatum and 
 peccare. Vide s. 73, II. In this sense, then, 
 they might justly say peccatum originis, instead 
 of vitium, meaning simply defect, fault, evil. 
 Tertullian, however, did not use the word pecca- 
 tum, probably on account of this ambiguity. 
 But when Augustine found the term peccatum 
 used in the Latin Bible in reference to this 
 natural bias to sin, he supposed that he might, 
 and indeed ought, to employ the same. But not 
 distinguishing sufficiently between the different 
 meanings of this word, he contended, that all 
 that must be true respecting this state, in itself 
 considered, which is true respecting sinful ac- 
 tions, on the ground that the same word is used 
 respecting both in the Bible. He then argued 
 in this way; "All sin is punished, or it brings 
 men into a state of condemnation before God, 
 and consequently this natural depravity itself 
 because it is included under d^apfta, and is 
 called peccatum." Thus arose the scheme of 
 Augustine described in No. 2, although in this 
 he was not throughout consistent with himself. 
 Instead of employing this phraseology, it would 
 have been better for him to have said, The ten- 
 dency to sin is indeed an evil, a moral disorder 
 i. e., a wrong and defective constitution of our 
 nature in a moral respect, from which particular 
 actual sins result ; it cannot, therefore, be other- 
 wise than displeasing to a perfectly holy God ; 
 nor can he, as the scriptures expressly teach, 
 be its author; but neither would God punish 
 men for this, in and of itself. For punishment 
 is first inflicted when man suffers himself to be 
 enticed to actual sin, or transgression of the 
 
 law ; and because none remain unperverted, so 
 all are sinners, and condemned in the sight of 
 God, although the degree of their guilt, and 
 consequently the degree of their punishment, 
 may be different. 
 
 After the time of Augustine, various attempts 
 were made to obviate the innumerable mistakes 
 which attended this doctrine depeccato originali; 
 and among others, a distinction was made be- 
 tween peccatum originale and peccata actualia 
 a distinction which is first found in Joh. Cassi- 
 anus in the fifth century. Vide Coll. P. P. 
 Sceticor. xiii. 7. There were always, however, 
 among the catholics, even those of ancient 
 times, not a few who disapproved of the appli- 
 cation of the term peccatum to the corrupt, moral 
 condition of man, and wished it to be abolished. 
 And it happened to many, merely because they 
 rejected this word, to be counted among the Pe- 
 lagians or Semi-Pelagians. Many of the school- 
 men, too, preferred not to use this term ; though 
 it is true, indeed, that among them there were 
 many actually inclined to Pelagianism. Vide 
 No. 3. The schoolmen rather chose to use the 
 term employed by Tertullian viz., vitium ori- 
 ginale or naturak; or vitiusitas, or depravatio 
 congenita, or naturalis. 
 
 As to the German word in use on this sub- 
 ject, Erb-sunde, (hereditary sin,) it is still more 
 inconvenient than the Latin peccatum origi- 
 nale; for the latter admits, according to com- 
 mon usage, of a correct interpretation, and so, 
 if it is properly explained, may be still retained. 
 But the German word Sunde (sin) is elsewhere 
 always used to denote an action, so far as it is 
 contrary to the divine law; but never a state. 
 Instead of this word, it would be better to use 
 the word Erb-fe.hler, (hereditary defect.) or still 
 better, Erb-ubel, (hereditary evil,) or more defi- 
 nitely, das sittliche Erb-ubel, (the moral heredi- 
 tary evil.) Many of our protestant theologians 
 have therefore for a long time preferred to use 
 the term natural depravity. Vide s. 87, I. 2, 3. 
 Dr. Teller proposed to use the word Tempera- 
 ments-sunde, (sin of the constitution or temper- 
 ament;) this, however, is inappropriate, since 
 it bears another sense viz., some kind of pre- 
 vailing sin, to which a man is especially inclined 
 from his peculiar organization, or his individual 
 naturel. Cf. s. 75. 
 
 Note. The term peccatum originale, as used 
 in the symbolic books of the Lutheran church, 
 comprises the following things: (L) The defi- 
 ciency in true holiness and piety which is found 
 in all men without exception, accompanied with 
 a deficiency in powers for attaining holiness by 
 their own exertions. This is just and scrip- 
 tural ; for in order to be morally good and pious, 
 it is necessary for us to become so ; we are not 
 born with this character; we do not possess in 
 ourselves the powers requisite to this end, and 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 are dependent on divine assistance. (2) The 
 inordinate passions and appetites which are 
 found in all men; the bias within us to do what 
 is forbidden, and to leave undone what is re- 
 quired ; of the truth of which every one's own 
 experience may convince him, and which is con- 
 stantly insisted upon in the scriptures. Thus, 
 by peccatum originate, the symbolic books un- 
 derstand a STATE of man which, morally consi- 
 dered, is not, from the earliest period, what it 
 should be, or what it originally was; and this 
 is certainly just and true, both according to 
 scripture and experience. 
 
 These two things taken together are what 
 the theologians of the Lutheran and reformed 
 churches mean when they say, man is born with 
 sin, or in sin an expression which is taken 
 from Ps. li. 7. And although this expression 
 is liable to be misunderstood, and indeed in that 
 passage is used in a different sense, yet the thing 
 which they intend by the use of it is true and 
 conformed to the Bible. Vide Morus, p. 117, 
 118. 
 
 It is a common, but very unworthy art of 
 many of the opponents of the doctrine of natu- 
 ral depravity, to make the German word denot- 
 ing this doctrine, Erb-siinde, (hereditary sin,} 
 which is acknowledged on all hands to be in- 
 convenient, the object of ridicule, as if the 
 doctrine of the protestant church agreed with 
 the untenable positions in Augustine's theory. 
 While they confute this theory only, they as- 
 sume the air of having overthrown the doctrine 
 of native depravity itself. The scriptural texts 
 which stand in their way are brought into 
 agreement with the most different modern phi- 
 losophical schools, by the aid of that artificial 
 exegesis which makes anything from every- 
 thing; so that the scriptures must say just that, 
 and that only, which the authors of these philo- 
 sophical systems require. Vide Teller's Wor- 
 terbuch, art. Siinde, and other attempts of the 
 theologians of the Kantian school. 
 
 SECTION LXXX. 
 
 RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION RESPECT- 
 ING THE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL DEPRAVITY, 
 AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE MODE OF TEACHING 
 THIS DOCTRINE. 
 
 I. Results of the foregoing Discussion. 
 
 (1) THE doctrine of the holy scriptures, that 
 the native depravity which discloses itself in the 
 preponderance of sense over reason is to be found 
 in all men without exception, is confirmed by 
 the undeniable experience of all men of all 
 times; and every individual may be convinced 
 of its truth by his own daily experience, and by 
 observation of those around him. Any one who 
 is in the habit of self-inspection will be compel- 
 
 led to acknowledge that the confession of Paul, 
 Rom. vii. 18, seq., " To will is present with me, 
 but how to perform that which is good I find 
 not," is drawn, as it were, from his own soul. 
 Even the heathen nations, and those of their 
 chief philosophers, who did not employ them- 
 selves with empty speculations, but who built 
 their views upon the observation of man and of 
 themselves, recognised the existence of this evil. 
 Vide s. 74. 
 
 (2) But although philosophy must recognise 
 the actual existence of this evil, it can give no 
 satisfactory answer with regard to the origin of 
 it. Vide Kant, Vom radikalen Bosen. All the 
 philosophemes upon this subject, from Aristotle 
 down to Leibnitz, Kant, Fichte, and Schelling, 
 are full of gaps ; and in surveying them we meet 
 with one unanswerable question after another. 
 Vide s. 74. Cf. Michaelis, Moral, th. i. s. 127, 
 seq. But there appears in almost all nations a 
 pressing necessity to believe that God made the 
 human race in a more perfect state than that in 
 which it now exists. But they were still unable 
 to solve the riddle. Now this riddle is solved in 
 the holy scriptures more satisfactorily than by 
 all the philosophers. Vide s. 56, ad fin. s. 74, 
 75, &c. And any one who understands the scrip- 
 tural account of the fall of man as a mere fable, 
 or as anything beside a narrative of what actu- 
 ally took place, and who is incautious enough 
 to teach these views to the common people and 
 the young, takes away that for which he can 
 give nothing in return; although he may not 
 design it, he lowers the authority of the Bible 
 in the view of his hearers, and does an injury 
 which he will not be able easily to repair. 
 
 There were two theories which were more 
 prominent among the Christian teachers of for- 
 mer times, and which even now have their advo- 
 cates viz., the African, or Jlugusiinian, and the 
 Pelagian. Vide s. 79. The latter, which nearly 
 accords with the views of the stoics, plainly dis- 
 agrees with the doctrine of the Bible, and, more- 
 over, has experience against it. Vide s. 79, No. 
 3. But since it wears, on the first view, a more 
 rational aspect, and since especially it is more 
 agreeable to the wishes of men, who had rather 
 view themselves in a favourable than an unfa- 
 vourable light, it is not to be wondered at that, \ 
 in spite of experience, it should have obtained, 
 and still possess, considerable currency. But 
 in Augustine's theory there are- also incorrect 
 and untenable positions, and he deduces many 
 false conclusions from texts of scripture wrongly 
 understood. These misinterpretations were in 
 part occasioned, and in part promoted, by the 
 Latin established version, which Augustine fol- 
 lowed, and to which he and his fellow teachers 
 were accustomed from their youth. Besides, 
 Augustine's views on the subject of interpreta- 
 tion were deficient. The middle course between 
 2 B 2 
 
294 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 these extremes is accordant with the Bible, with 
 experience, and the system of the protestant 
 church. Vide s. 77, 78. 
 
 The objection, that the scriptural doctrine of 
 native depravity is irreconcilable with the justice 
 and goodness of God, does not lie so much against 
 the scriptural doctrine itself as against certain 
 false and unscriptural notions which are some- 
 times connected with it e. g., against the Au- 
 gustinian theory. Let the following things be 
 considered viz., 
 
 (a) It is incorrect to assert, as some do, that 
 if Adam himself had maintained his original 
 innocence, no one of his posterity either would 
 or could have sinned. This is nowhere taught 
 in the Bible. The possibility of erring and 
 sinning would have continued, both with Adam 
 himself and with his posterity, even if he had 
 not at that time fallen. And had it been impos- 
 sible for the posterity of Adam, supposing him 
 to have persevered in holiness, to be otherwise 
 than holy, their goodness would have had no 
 value, and would not be entitled to reward. 
 Man would hftve been a machine, having no 
 power to move except in one pre-established 
 and appointed way. It does not, therefore, fol- 
 low that there would have been no error and no 
 sin, and consequently no punishment of sin, 
 among men, if our progenitor had not fallen. 
 It is indeed true, that both particular individuals, 
 and the race of man at large, would have been 
 by degrees more and more confirmed in good- 
 ness, if the state of innocence (or the state of 
 the even balance of the human powers) had 
 continued, as is actually the case with good 
 angels; but this confirmation cannot be under- 
 stood in reference to men more than to angels 
 as removing the possibility of sinning. 
 
 (6) When now God foresaw that sin could 
 not be hindered among men, since they are 
 beings endowed indeed with a moral nature, but 
 at the same time possessing appetites and pas- 
 sions limiting the exercise of reason, he provided 
 that the guilt and ill-desert of sin should be di- 
 minished in Adam's posterity by allowing Adam 
 to fall, and so a general weakness and depravity 
 to pervade the whole race. A stronger and more 
 incorrupt race would, if it sinned, sin far more 
 deeply and unpardonably than a weaker. 
 Hence we see that the sin of the fallen angels 
 is always described in the Bible as far more de- 
 serving of punishment and more unpardonable 
 than the sin of the first parents of our race ; and 
 their whole moral apostasy is described as far 
 greater than that of man. Those among Adam's 
 weaker posterity who resist the inducements to 
 sin, and are diligent in the pursuit of holiness, 
 do, as it were, overcome themselves ; and their 
 virtue can therefore have so much more internal 
 worth, and be so much the more deserving of re- 
 ward. Those, on the other hand, who yield to 
 
 these temptations, and sin, although they are 
 by no means free from the desert of punishment, < 
 (since God has made known the means by ! 
 which sin may be guarded against,) may yet, 
 on account of their weakness and inability, hope 
 for pity, forbearance, and a mitigation of punish- 
 ment. Vide on this subject, Michaelis, Von 
 der Siinde, s. 563. Perhaps God designed by 
 permitting the fall to promote many other and 
 unknown ends. Perhaps the example of the 
 fall of man may be instructive to the higher 
 orders of spiritual beings, who are always de- ^ 
 scribed in the Bible as standing in intimate con- 
 nexion with man and having knowledge respect- 
 ing him. 
 
 (c) Death was to Adam the proper punishment 
 of his sin ; to his posterity it is not, properly 
 speaking, punishment, but the inevitable conse- 
 quence of the sin of Adam. For no mortal can 
 beget an immortal. Vide s. 78, III. Since now 
 death frees us from this mortal body, the princi- 
 pal seat of our sinful depravity, and since the 
 Christian doctrine gives us the comforting as- 
 surance that in the future life we shall possess 
 a more perfect body, (1 Cor. xv. &c.,) death 
 can no longer be regarded as a punishment, but 
 must rather be considered as a blessing, by all 
 those who fall in with the order appointed by 
 God, and fulfil the conditions on which he has 
 promised happiness after this life. Now it is 
 a doctrine which we are everywhere expressly 
 taught in the New Testament, that we are in- 
 debted for this good, for this blessed immortality, 
 to Jesus Christ; and the observation of Paul is 
 therefore well founded, that through the institutes 
 which God has established for the recovery of 
 the human race through Christ, through the di- 
 vine plan of mercy, we have gained far more 
 than we lost through the sin of Adam and its 
 consequences; Rom. v. 15, seq. 
 
 Note. The disposition to transgress the 
 moral law, from which no man is free, cannot 
 be derived from any deficiency of reason, from 
 error, or want of knowledge. There may be 
 from hence a possibility of sinning either from 
 ignorance or design, but a mere possibility of 
 sinning, and an inclination to sin, are very dif- 
 ferent things. And we feel this disposition 
 even where there is no error or defect of know- 
 ledge, yea, even in those cases in which we see 
 most clearly that obedience to the moral law 
 will conduce to our best advantage, and that by 
 disobedience we shall render ourselves misera- 
 ble. Nor can it be a mere fault of education. For 
 then there would be, among all the multiplied 
 and often opposite modes of education, some one 
 which would furnish us with men who would 
 be free from this disposition. Nor is it, as has 
 been before observed, the effect merely of the 
 bad examples which we witness in others. This 
 depravity is not exhibited in all men in the same 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 295 
 
 way. One man is either little, or not at all in- 
 clined to those things for which another has a 
 great propensity. All, however, are inclined 
 to perform many actions which they themselves 
 acknowledge to be sinful and injurious. There 
 is in men a general anomaly, or a general dispo- 
 sition to transgress the moral law, which does 
 not determine to any one particular vice, but 
 which is differently modified in different per- 
 sons. Since this disposition seeks out so 
 many and so different deviations, it has a differ- 
 ent aspect in different individuals; but in all 
 alike, it appears as a strong disinclination to 
 certain duties, and a vehement propensity to 
 certain actions which are morally bad. What 
 is common to this depravity, as it appears in all 
 men, is the preponderance of that which is re- 
 presented to us as good or evil by our lower ap- 
 petites, over that which we perceive in the use 
 of reason to be good. From this depravity no 
 age is free, nor can it in this life be ever wholly 
 eradicated. The faults of youth, such as levity 
 and prodigality, do, indeed, often disappear in 
 later periods of life, but their place is supplied 
 by others, such as ambition and jealousy; and 
 many of the excellences which belong to the pe- 
 riod of youth e. g., innocence, openness, and vi- 
 vacity, often gradually decay in the years of man- 
 hood ; and although a more advanced age seems 
 to have the advantage in point of experience and 
 exercise, yet still it cannot be affirmed as a ge- 
 neral fact, that this higher age is on the whole 
 morally better than youth. It is therefore a 
 well-known proverb, founded in experience, to 
 say respecting old men who only seem exter- 
 nally to have reformed, that they have not for- 
 saken sin, but sin has forsaken them. 
 
 II. On Teaching this Doctrine. 
 
 The questions relating to this subject are, 
 WJiether the doctrine of man's native depravity 
 ought to be exhibited in popular instruction ? and 
 if so, in what way? On this general subject, 
 cf. Knapp's Essay in Ewald's Christlicher Mo- 
 natsschrift; Jahrg. 2, 1802; bd. 2, st. 1, s. 3, f. 
 
 (1) The doctrine of native depravity, as we 
 are taught it both by scripture and experience, 
 is very disturbing, depressing, and humbling 
 in its tendency, The light in which man is 
 here taught to regard himself is not at all favour- 
 able or pleasant, and is calculated to lead him 
 to tremble for himself. But feelings of this 
 kind, although highly salutary, are yet unplea- 
 sant to the natural man (tfopxtxy, ^^1x9), and 
 for the very reason that he is of such a character, 
 he is opposed to everything which awakens feel- 
 ings of this kind ; he prefers to keep this subject 
 out of sight, and is unwilling to hear anything 
 respecting it. It is with him as with a sick 
 man, who is unwilling to acknowledge, either 
 to himself or others, that he is sick, partly be- 
 
 cause he is ashamed of his sickness, and partly 
 because he is reluctant to adopt the severe re- 
 medies necessary to his cure. Thus it is with 
 the carnal man who refuses to undertake the 
 radical cure of the disorders of his soul, because 
 he would feign conceal his sickness from his 
 own view, and dreads to make the bitter sacri- 
 fices which his moral recovery and holiness re- 
 quire. He would rather, therefore, persuade 
 himself and others that he is good, or at least 
 that his case is not so bad as might seem. Now 
 if any one does not believe that he is sick, nei- 
 ther does he believe that he is in any need of a 
 remedy or of a physician ; or if he thinks he is 
 only slightly sick, he hopes he shall be able to 
 help himself, or to recover without the aid of 
 medicine. And so any one who thinks in the 
 same way with regard to his moral state will 
 infallibly be cold and indifferent in the use of 
 all the means which the Christian doctrine pre- 
 scribes for the sanctification of the heart; he 
 will even scorn them as idle and superfluous, 
 because he sees no necessity for them ; yea, he 
 will even feel aversion and hatred towards them, 
 as a sick man is accustomed to do towards a 
 bitter and disagreeable medicine. It is there- 
 fore very intelligible, and may be psychologi- 
 cally explained, why the opinion, that man is 
 not so depraved as is sometimes represented, 
 and the delusion that the Christian means of 
 cure are inappropriate, superfluous, and may be 
 easily dispensed with, should gain currency in 
 an age and among men distinguished above 
 others in egotism, self-sufficiency, and the love 
 of worldly enjoyment. 
 
 (2) We may hence explain the fact why the 
 doctrine of human depravity is repugnant to so 
 many in our age, and why it is almost wholly 
 set aside in the instruction of the common people 
 and of the young. The pretext by which the 
 omission of this doctrine is commonly justified 
 is, that it inspires men with aversion to God, 
 that it makes them irresolute and spiritless in 
 the pursuit of virtue, and that it leads to an un- 
 worthy depreciation of oneself, and even to de- 
 spair, which prevents all improvement. These 
 effects, however, can never be feared when this 
 doctrine is taught as it is in the holy scriptures. 
 Who can bring an example to shew that the 
 scriptural doctrine ever produced such an effect? 
 On the contrary, experience shews that this doc- 
 trine, rightly exhibited, produces just the oppo- 
 sit effects, and animates man in the pursuit of 
 holiness, and leads him to the highest exertions 
 of all his powers for the attainment of it. Vide 
 s. 77, II., ad finem. 
 
 The true ground why so many forbear to 
 preach this doctrine is, that, for the reasons just 
 now suggested, it is displeasing to many of their 
 hearers, whose favour they would gladly conci- 
 liate. It is with them as with those respecting 
 
296 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 whom John speaks, ch. xii. 43. Others have 
 never clearly considered the reasons why they 
 forbear to preach this doctrine, but follow blindly 
 the example set them by some of the eminent 
 and lauded preachers of the day. For the great 
 majority of men, and even of teachers, never 
 think for themselves, but depend upon authority. 
 Again : there are, alas ! many religious teach- 
 ers who are themselves unrenewed men, who 
 even while at home were sunk deep in moral 
 corruption, who become still more depraved at 
 the schools and universities, and who, when 
 they assume the sacerdotal robe, alter only their 
 outward deportment, without experiencing a 
 radical change of heart. Such are blind leaders 
 of the blind. 
 
 (3) The teachers who adopt the principles 
 just mentioned are accustomed to descant large- 
 ly upon the worth, the nobleness, and the dignity 
 of man, since discourse like this is heard with 
 pleasure, and it is far more agreeable to be 
 praised than blamed. In this strain, therefore, 
 preachers of such a character often indulge, and 
 even in their instruction of the young dwell on 
 nothing but the dignity of man. In this way 
 many of them suppose they shall elevate man, 
 inspire him with a zeal for virtue, and by means 
 of this feeling of honour raise him to nobleness of 
 character. And it is, indeed, right to point man 
 to the noble faculties which he possesses, &c. 
 This is often done in the Bible. This, how- 
 ever, we should do, and not leave the other un- 
 done. In the Bible this is always done in con- 
 nexion with the doctrine of the moral apostasy 
 of man. If this doctrine be not brought into 
 connexion with it, the doctrine of the dignity of 
 man is injurious; it nourishes pride and self- 
 righteousness, and prevents that self-knowledge 
 which is so essential, and thus leads aside from 
 the way of true reformation, such as God will 
 accept. It leads men to think that they are per- 
 fect, and have no need of reformation ; that they 
 are in no danger, and at most need only to be 
 ennobled and perfected, and not to be radically 
 renewed. What must be the effect of a doc- 
 trine like this in an age in which self-confidence 
 and selfish blindness are the prevailing fault, 
 and have so deeply imbued the minds even of 
 children and youth, that at the age when they 
 are just beginning to learn, they think them- 
 selves wiser than their teachers, and from the 
 height to which they suppose themselves to 
 have attained, seem to look down with compas- 
 sion upon the aged. 
 
 (4) From these observations it follows, that 
 it is the duty of a Christian teacher to exhibit 
 the doctrine of moral depravity without regard 
 to the fear or the favour of man, after life exam- 
 ple which the inspired teachers have set him 
 the ancient prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. 
 The times have changed nothing belonging to 
 
 this doctrine, nor can they. Human nature is 
 the same now that it has been in every preced- 
 ing age; and the inculcation of this doctrine is 
 not less important in an enlightened than in an 
 unenlightened period. It is by this doctrine 
 alone that the necessity of an entire moral re- 
 novation of the human heart can be placed in a 
 strong light; here man learns to understand 
 himself aright, and to think humbly with regard 
 to himself; here he learns to see clearly the 
 difficulties and mighty hindrances which lie in 
 the way of conversion, and attains to the con- 
 viction that he needs help, and that without di- 
 vine assistance he can do nothing. Truly and 
 beautifully has Seneca said, Initium est salutis, 
 notitia peccati. Nam qui peccare se nescit, cor- 
 rigi non vult. Deprehendas te oportet antequam 
 cmendes, Ep. 28. This is the great principle 
 upon which the inspired teachers proceeded in 
 all their instructions. Christ, for example, took 
 this course in his conversation with Nicodemus, 
 however strange the doctrine might have ap- 
 peared to the latter. And there is no better way, 
 none which is more capable of vindication on 
 psychological grounds. 
 
 (5) But in order that the teaching of this 
 doctrine may attain its end, it is not enough to 
 set forth the mere dogma, and to prove it con- 
 nectedly from the holy scriptures, and then to 
 speak of it in the abstract; for in that case the 
 wholesome and necessary application is easily 
 neglected by the hearer. On the contrary, it 
 ought rather to be spoken of in the concrete; 
 at least, the abstract statement should always 
 be applied to particular concrete cases, and es- 
 pecially to ourselves. This is the wise mode of 
 teaching exhibited in the Bible. Vide s. 77, 
 III. 2. In the popular exhibition of this doc- 
 trine, therefore, the teacher should begin with 
 making his hearer observant of himself, and en- 
 deavour to convince him of his own depravity, 
 or of the preponderance of appetite over reason 
 in himself, as learned from his own experience. 
 This is the easiest way to bring the contemner 
 of this doctrine to silence. For example, let the 
 teacher in his instructions go over all the points 
 which Paul has cited Rom. vii. 7 23, as proof 
 of the moral corruption of man, without at first 
 remarking that this is taught in the Bible. The 
 hearer must confess that he finds it in himself 
 exactly as described that he is not what he 
 ought to be, and what his own moral feeling 
 teaches him that he must be, in order to please 
 God. When he is brought to this conviction, 
 then let him be shewn that the doctrine of scrip- 
 ture corresponds with his own experience. In 
 this way he will acquire regard for the Bible, as 
 he will see that it gives no ideal description of 
 man, but represents him as he actually is. Then 
 he will be constrained to acknowledge: "Yes! 
 I too am actually so; it is as if I myself were 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 297 
 
 here described." Has any one come to this 
 point, there is hope that he may be inclined to 
 employ the means of recovery prescribed in the 
 scriptures, and especially in the Christian doc- 
 trine; particularly if he is shewn how and 
 wherefore they have so beneficial an effect; and 
 if is made to consider, that our own good in- 
 tentions and all the means by which we attempt 
 to help ourselves are inefficacious. In this way 
 is the feeling" of the need of help and of a Re- 
 deemer to be excited in man ; and thus does the 
 knowledge of our moral depravity and inability 
 lead to Christ, as to him through whom alone it 
 can be removed. But all this instruction will 
 be in danger of failing of its effect, unless the 
 hearer perceives that the teacher himself has a 
 personal interest in the matter, that he speaks 
 from his own internal conviction, and that he 
 has experienced on his own heart the efficacy of 
 the means prescribed, and shews their effect in 
 his life and walk. 
 
 (6) None of the profound and learned inves- 
 tigations of philosophers and theologians, re- 
 specting the nature of human depravity, the 
 mode of its propagation, &c., should have any 
 place in the practical and popular exhibition of 
 this doctrine. It is enough for the teacher to 
 stop with the simple doctrine of the Bible, and 
 merely teach, (a) that all men have been ac- 
 tually so, ever since our first parents transgress- 
 ed the divine command ; and (&) that, according 
 to the Bible, the ground why all their posterity 
 are such lies in our first parents ; but that (c) 
 we owe the improvement of our condition, and 
 the restoration of our lost holiness and happi- 
 ness to Jesus Christ, since he redeems or frees 
 us-from sin and its evil consequences, and turns 
 this evil to our good ; Rom. vii. 25. For more 
 on this point, vide the article on Christ. 
 
 SECTION LXXXI. 
 
 EXPLANATION OF THE IDEA WHICH IS COMMONLY 
 CONNECTED IN THEOLOGY WITH THE EXPRES- 
 SION "ACTUAL SINS;" AND OF THE DIFFER- 
 ENT DEGREES OF SIN. 
 
 WE have thus far treated of the moral corrup- 
 tion of human nature, and its causes ; we have 
 also given a history of this doctrine ; s. 74 80. 
 We now proceed to consider particular sinful 
 actions, whose source is found in this same mo- 
 ral depravity. Vide s. 73, ad finem. We shall 
 treat this subject under the two following divi- 
 sions viz., (1) The nature of particular sinful 
 actions, and their different kinds and divisions, 
 s. 81 84; (2) The different state which arises 
 in man on the commission of sin, s. 85 87. 
 
 I. Additional Explanation of the idea of Sin. 
 We have before shewn, under s. 73, I., what 
 is meant by the terms sin and law ; and this will 
 
 38 
 
 be presupposed in the remarks which follow.' 
 Since now we must regard this natural depravity 
 as a sinful state, and since we must regard par- 
 ticular sinful actions as the consequence and re- 
 sult of this state, theologians, since the time of 
 Cassianus, have adopted the division of sin into 
 peccatum originale and peccatum actuale. Vide 
 s. 79, No. 4, ad finem, and Morus, p. 118, supra. 
 Morus has, indeed, omitted the special consi- 
 deration of the doctrine de peccato actuali in his 
 Dogmatik, and assigned the discussion of it 
 wholly to the department of Morals. But the 
 general theory of actual sins belongs to the pro- 
 vince of Dogmatical theology, and is commonly 
 introduced by theologians into this department. 
 
 Actual sins are, moreover, commonly denomi- 
 nated peccata sensu strictiori. By actions, how- 
 ever, theologians do not mean, in treating of this 
 subject, those merely which are external i. e., 
 which are committed by means of the body and 
 its organs ,- but also those which are internal 
 i. e., those which take place merely in the soul, 
 and are performed in thoughts, desires, &c. 
 Hence it has been common to subdivide actual 
 sins into external and internal, of which we shall 
 say more hereafter. Jlctualis is a term which 
 belongs to the later Latin, and was first used by 
 Macrobius ; it answers to the older term actu- 
 osus, active, consisting in action; or to activus, 
 which is sometimes employed in the same sense. 
 Hence Cicero says, vita actuosa, virtus actuosa, 
 Nat. Deor. i. 40 ; instead of which Macrobius 
 writes, virtutes actuates. Seneca has, activa 
 philosophia, Ep. 95, and Quinctilian opposes 
 activum (the practical) to speculativum, (the the- 
 oretical.) But sinful actions are denominated 
 peccata actualia in opposition to native depravity, 
 because they involve an actus transitorius, such 
 as exists in all human actions ; they have a be- 
 ginning and an end. But original sin has in 
 this life no end, but continues as long as man 
 remains upon the earth. It is not an act, but a 
 state. The application of the term sin to this 
 state is indeed inconvenient, because, according 
 to the definition given of sin, native depravity 
 cannot be literally so called ; a more appropriate 
 name would be, hereditary evil. But since the 
 former term is now common among theologians, 
 and the thing denoted by it is accordant both 
 with reason and scripture, it must be understood, 
 and its ground must be known. 
 
 In explanation of the subjective definition of 
 sin given s. 73, I. viz., a free action which is 
 not conformed to the law of God, or which devi- 
 ates from this law, let the following additional 
 remarks be considered. When we would judge 
 respecting any action, internal or external, whe- 
 ther it is sinful or not, our decision must depend 
 upon the three following conditions viz., 
 
 (1) That the man who commits the action 
 had sufficient knowledge of the law, (notitia 
 
298 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 legis.} And this presupposes (a) that the law 
 was actually given to man; (6) that it was 
 known by this individual, or at least, that it 
 should have been known by him, and that so it 
 is his own fault if he remained unacquainted 
 with it ; and (c) that he understood the sense of 
 the law, or might have understood it. Is any one 
 of these conditions wanting, the act contravening 
 the law is, indeed, an evil, (foolish, hurtful in 
 its tendency, &c.,) but not sin. Vide s. 73, I. 
 Cf. Rom. iv. 15; v. 13, djtopT'ta ovx fJOoyfttat 
 
 (JlYl QVtOS VOfJLOV. 
 
 (2) That the action does not, in fact, agree 
 with the law. The determination of this matter 
 has often in particular cases more difficulty than 
 one would think. The over-anxious and scru- 
 pulous man often regards certain actions, both 
 internal and external, as sinful, while they are 
 not forbidden in the divine law ; and in this way 
 he needlessly disquiets himself. Another man 
 mistakes on this subject through indifference 
 and carelessness. But afar more common fault 
 is, to allow self-love to pronounce too light and 
 partial a sentence upon our own actions, while, 
 on the other hand, we judge the actions of others 
 too severely. Vide Matt. vii. 3 5. Nor is the 
 obligation of the law the same for all. Some 
 laws are not universally obligatory, but binding 
 only on certain individuals, and in particular 
 cases. The same action may be sin in one man, 
 and not in another. One does it with a convic- 
 tion that it is not wrong, and so sins not; the 
 other is doubtful, or convinced in his heart 
 that it is wrong, and yet does it, and sins. 
 This may be applied to the so-called dta<|>opa, 
 indifferent things, fastings, amusements, card- 
 playing, dancing, &c. Vide 1 Cor. viii. and ix., 
 and Rom. xiv. 23. The further discussion of the 
 subject of sin ex conscientia errante sive erronea 
 belongs to the department of theological Morals. 
 
 (3) That in the commission of the action, 
 man had the use of \\isfree-will, (to avte f-outftov, 
 or ttev&pa rfpoatpfffts.) An action which we 
 have been compelled to do against our will, or 
 which we have done without consciousness, 
 cannot be regarded as our own action. This is 
 true not only of evil, but of good actions. In 
 order, now, that the action of a man may be free 
 and so imputable, he must in doing it (a) be in 
 a state in which he can exercise his understand- 
 ing, and determine his will according to that 
 which his understanding approves ; for this is 
 essential to freedom. Therefore no infant, no 
 idiot, no insane person, no sleeper or dreamer, 
 can commit sin, because he has not the use of 
 his understanding. The shameful words and 
 deeds, the blasphemy, &c., which we often see 
 and hear in delirious persons, are not sins, be- 
 cause they are not free actions ; and if they are 
 afterwards disposed to trouble themselves on ac- 
 count of what they may have said or done in 
 
 such a state, they ought to be set at rest. In 
 order that a man's action may be free, (6) his 
 power to act must not be hindered by external 
 circumstances. If, therefore, in any case a 
 man is compelled by some external necessity 
 to act wholly against his will, or if he is barely 
 restrained in acting, so that he cannot proceed 
 wholly according to his own will and intent, 
 then his action is not free, or at least not per- 
 fectly free, and so is not imputable, or is not 
 wholly so. Everything depends here upon the 
 intention. A man designs to do an evil deed, 
 but is prevented from accomplishing his pur- 
 pose by external circumstances, and so does 
 not sin indeed externally, but he does in his 
 heart, and in the judgment of God and of his 
 own conscience is deserving of punishment. 
 The case is the same as to the imputation of a 
 good act, the execution of which has been pre- 
 vented by external circumstances. Vide Matt, 
 v. 28, coll. s. 82. 
 
 II. The different degrees of Sin. 
 
 In common life sins are distinguished into 
 gross and great sins, and light and trifling sins, 
 and the latter are judged deserving of less pu- 
 nishment than the former. This difference is 
 founded in the nature of the thing itself. For 
 whoever sins, acts against the obligation which 
 rests upon him to fulfil certain duties; but this 
 obligation has different degrees, according to 
 the difference of the powers of the acting sub- 
 ject, and of his motives to action. Hence it 
 follows that one commits greater sins who has 
 more power and stronger motives for doing 
 right than one with whom these powers and 
 motives were weaker. Again : the less the 
 motives and inducements to sin, and the more 
 the reasons which were calculated to deter from 
 the commission of it, so much the worse is the 
 sin, and so much the more deserving of punish- 
 ment. The motives tending to withhold from 
 sin are to be judged of from the peculiar situa- 
 tion, the circumstances, the mode of thinking, 
 and the knowledge of each individual ; also, 
 according to the nature of the person or thing 
 with respect to which the sin is committed, (e. 
 g., sins against parents, to whom we are under 
 greater obligations than to others;) and also 
 according to the consequences which flow from 
 the sin. The consideration of this matter, how- 
 ever, properly falls into the department of theo- 
 logical morals. 
 
 In entire conformity with these principles 
 does the holy scripture decide respecting the 
 different degrees of sin, and their desert of pu- 
 nishment. Vide Matt. v. 22; John, xix. 11, 
 wv djtopf/a; Luke, xii. 47, 48; Matthew, 
 xi. 2224; 1 Tim. i. 15; 2 Peter, ii. 20, 21. 
 But since this difference of degree in sin de- 
 pends upon so many things, which are not 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 299 
 
 always obvious, and cannot be duly estimated 
 by others ; upon the dispositions and intentions 
 concealed in the heart of him who acts; upon 
 his knowledge, his temptations, his powers and 
 capacities; it is often impossible for us in par- 
 ticular cases to form a correct judgment. God 
 only, who knows the heart of man, and the cir- 
 cumstances in which he acts, can judge truly and 
 decisively respecting his actions. To him, there- 
 fore, should this decision be left. Vide Rom. 
 xiv. 4, av Tfif ft o xplvtav a'M.o'tpiov olxi-t^v ; James, 
 iv. 12; Matt. vii. 1, seq. On this account, it is 
 our wisdom, as well as our duty, although con- 
 trary to the common disposition of men, to judge 
 ourselves with all possible strictness, but the 
 faults of others with forbearance and toleration. 
 This, too, is according to the direction of Christ, 
 Matt. vii. 1 5, coll. Luke, xiii. 2 5. Baurn- 
 garten has discussed this subject minutely in his 
 "Diss. de gradibus peccatorum ;" Halae, 1744, 
 ]y t e i. The philosophers both of ancient 
 and modern times have been almost entirely 
 agreed that there is a difference of degree in 
 sins ; with the exception only of the stoics, who 
 maintained the paradoxical opinion, that all sins 
 are alike. Vide Cicero, Parad. iii. ; Seneca, 
 Ep. 66; Cicero, De finibus honor, et malor. iv. 
 27, seq. They assumed that all virtues were 
 equal ; and hence it followed, by way of contrast, 
 that all vices were equal ; and hence, that all the 
 virtuous and all the vicious were, in their view, 
 on the same level e. g., one who killed a slave 
 without a cause committed, in their view, an 
 equal sin with one who abused his father. In 
 this doctrine they were opposed chiefly by the 
 peripatetics. But although they maintained 
 this equality of virtues and of vices, they yet 
 ascribed to them a different extent and limita- 
 tion, so that some were capable of palliation, 
 others unpardonable; because some deviated 
 more than others from the law ; and so with re- 
 gard to the virtues, which were judged of by 
 them according to their different utility. Hence 
 we see that in substance they agreed with others, 
 and only differed from them by this striking 
 proposition, which they selected on account of 
 its strangeness. All which they mean to affirm 
 is, that one transgression is as much a trans 
 gression as another; and all, in respect to their 
 internal nature, are alike, because they are all 
 violations of the rule, and so are opposite to the 
 virtues. And the same is taught by the text, 
 James, ii. 10, 11. But this internal nature of 
 virtues and vices cannot be made the standard 
 by which their greatness is determined, but the 
 consequences which result from them, the pur 
 pose and intention of the soul from which they 
 flow, and sometimes even the mere "so it 
 seems good" of the lawgiver. Vide Tiedemann, 
 System der Stoischen Philosophie, th. iii. s. 
 151156. 
 
 Note 2. Some theologians have maintained 
 that sin, or rather the guilt of sin, is infinite in 
 the philosophical sense, (culpam sive reatum 
 peccatorum esse infinitum.) They resort to this 
 statement in order to explain more easily the 
 nfiniteness of the satisfaction made by Christ, 
 and also the eternity of the punishments of hell. 
 Whoever, they say, breaks the laws of the 
 Infinite Being, brings upon himself infinite 
 guilt. But this statement, taken in the strict 
 philosophic sense, is incorrect. For (a) it 
 would follow from this that there was no differ- 
 ence of objects ; for the infinite is always like to 
 tself, and cannot be increased or diminished. 
 (6) An action which is directed against a parti- 
 cular object, does not, of necessity, partake of 
 the nature of this object. Whether the object 
 is finite or infinite is a matter of indifference 
 with regard to the nature of the action, and 
 makes no alteration in its character. A finite 
 action cannot become infinite, or involve infinite 
 guilt, merely because it relates to an infinite ob- 
 ject. If it could, then every good action agree- 
 ing with the divine law must be infinite, and 
 have an infinite worthiness ; and so the know- 
 ledge which man has of God must be infinite 
 because it relates to an infinite being, (e) This 
 whole opinion rests upon a comparison of divine 
 and human things carried too far, so as to give 
 rise, as in innumerable other cases, to mistake. 
 We look upon the crimes committed against 
 rulers and magistrates as greater than those 
 committed against others, and we punish them 
 more severely; and this with justice. But the 
 reason of this lies not so much in the personal 
 character or worth of the injured object, as in 
 care for the public welfare or security, which is 
 more endangered by any indignity done to the 
 magistracy than to a private person. Hence 
 this crime, in order to deter others from com- 
 mitting it, must be punished more severely 
 than others. But this principle cannot be ap- 
 plied in its whole extent to God ; although such 
 human representations are often applied to him. 
 For, properly speaking, God cannot be in- 
 jured by men; they cannot frustrate any of his 
 plans, nor set aside, disturb, or throw effectual 
 hindrances in the way of any of his counsels. 
 Vide Eberhard, Apologie des Sokrates, th. i. s. 
 374, f. 
 
 SECTION LXXXII. 
 
 DIVISIONS OF SIN IN RESPECT TO THE LAW, TO 
 THE KNOWLEDGE AND PURPOSE OF HIM WHO 
 COMMITS IT, AND TO THE ACTION ITSELF. 
 
 I. 7n respect to the Law. 
 
 As the law contains both precepts and prohibi- 
 tions, it follows that actions deviating from it 
 may be of two kinds viz., () actions forbid- 
 den by the law, sins of commission, (peccata 
 
300 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 commissions ,-) (6) declining or refusing to per- 
 form actions required by the law, sins of omis- 
 sion, (peccata omissionis.} The latter kind, as 
 well as the former, are mentioned in the Bible, 
 and declared to be equally sins, James, iv. 17, 
 "To him that knoweth to do good, (i. e., who 
 has power and opportunity to perform it,) and 
 doeth it not, it is sin ;" or, every omission of 
 good, to perform which we are obliged by the 
 divine law, is sin. Cf. Luke, xii. 47 ; Matt. vii. 
 19. A man, therefore, who guards merely 
 against sins of commission, so that he cannot be 
 charged with any open violation of the divine 
 will, does not deserve the name of an observer 
 of the divine law. To this character he can lay 
 claim only when he has not to condemn himself 
 for omitting the good which the law required 
 him to perform. Thus, not only does he sin 
 who does what is forbidden by God, but he too 
 who omits to do what God requires. It is, how- 
 ever, a common error of men to regard sins of 
 omission less than those of commission, because 
 they are less externally visible. Some theolo- 
 gians, too, have maintained that sins of omission 
 were less heinous and punishable than those of 
 commission. But this, as a general proposition, 
 and applied to all cases, is false. To neglect to 
 use the powers and faculties given us is often as 
 injurious, sometimes more so, than the abuse of 
 them in sins of commission. But because the 
 evil done in sins of commission is often more 
 immediate and obvious than in sins of omission, 
 where the effect is more slow and is often lost 
 in obscurity, we are easily led to regard the lat- 
 ter as less than the former. In the eyes of God, 
 the thief and the murderer may be less vile than 
 the hardhearted rich man, who refuses to relieve 
 his dying neighbour, and suffers him to perish 
 of hunger; although the former is severely pu- 
 nished by men, while the latter remains unpu- 
 nished, and even may enjoy the highest repute 
 and honour in the view of men. Christ teaches 
 this, Matt. xxv. 41 46, where those who have 
 not fed the hungry and clothed the naked are 
 consigned by the Judge of the world to the 
 place of torment, as well as other offenders. 
 He applies the term xaxorto^lv to the omission 
 of a good action, Mark, iii. 4 ; Luke, vi. 9. 
 
 II. In respect to the Knowledge and the Will of him 
 who sins. 
 
 (1) In respect to knowledge. In case 9f an 
 illegal action, one either knows the law or he 
 does not; hence arises the division of sins into 
 those of ignorance and those of knowledge, 
 (peccata ignorantias, and peccata cum scientia 
 recti commissa.'} Sin, or transgression of the 
 divine law, always presupposes a knowledge of 
 this law ; for without the knowledge of the law 
 there can be no sin. Vide s. 81, I. The sin 
 of ignorance is not found, therefore, in the case 
 
 of one who is wholly ignorant of the divine law, 
 or who has had no opportunity of becoming ac- 
 quainted with it; in short, when his ignorance 
 is without any fault on his part. Hence Christ 
 says, John, xv. 22, 24, "Had I not told it unto 
 you, (that I was a divine teacher,) ye would 
 not have sinned, (in rejecting me;) and had I 
 not done such great miracles, (by which they 
 are furnished with the means of judging cor- 
 rectly respecting me,) they had not had sin." 
 An ignorance of this kind, which is wholly 
 without criminality, is called by the schoolmen, 
 ignorantia invincibilis; and, however various are 
 the explanations which they give of it, they are 
 agreed in saying, that it must be excused, and 
 cannot be imputed. In particular cases, how- 
 ever, it is very difficult to judge respecting 
 others, whether the ignorance of any one is, or 
 is not, without any fault on his part; for what 
 seems to one easy to be known, so that he can 
 hardly conceive how it should appear dark or 
 difficult, is attended in the view of another with 
 insuperable difficulties and hindrances. Hence 
 we ought to be very cautious in judging. God 
 only can determine infallibly whether, and how 
 far, ignorance is attended with criminality. As 
 soon, however, as any one neglects the means 
 within his reach of acquiring knowledge of the 
 law, his ignorance is no longer innocent; he 
 commits actual sin, and is liable to punishment. 
 In order to a sin of ignorance, it may therefore 
 be considered as essential that the person should 
 have been able to know the law, and that his 
 own negligence and forbearing to inquire is the 
 only cause of his ignorance. 
 
 Nearly related to these are sins committed 
 through error, (per errorem commissa;) hence 
 they are often classed with sins of ignorance. 
 Sins of error are those which are committed 
 (a) when one erroneously supposes that a law 
 exists, when in fact there is none e. g., when 
 one supposes it is his duty to persecute heretics 
 and errorists ; (6) when one misunderstands the 
 law, or (c) when, through error, he fails in the 
 application of the law to particular cases; or 
 (d) when he judges erroneously respecting the 
 obligation under which he is laid by the law. 
 The only question now is, whether such an error 
 is without fault, or not; whether it was in our 
 power to avoid it. These different kinds of sin 
 are distinguished in the scriptures, and are al- 
 ways there judged of, according to the principles 
 here laid down e. g., Luke, xxiii. 34, Father, 
 forgive them, (there was, therefore, sin in this 
 case; for they had had opportunity to become 
 better instructed ; and yet there were many 
 things whic diminished their guilt; and so 
 Christ adds,) for they KNOW NOT what they do. 
 Acts, iii. 17, xata o/ywiav f rtpaff-r'? and Paul 
 says, respecting himself, 1 Tim. i. 13, God had 
 forgiven him for persecuting Christians, 6V e. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 301 
 
 Sins in general are 
 sometimes called a/yvoj^uafo., Heb. ix. 7. Heb. 
 ruj?, Lev. iv. 2, 13, where sins of ignorance of 
 every kind are spoken of at length. The fur- 
 ther discussion of this subject belongs to theo- 
 logical morals. 
 
 (2) In respect to the will. Here, again, it must 
 be presupposed, that without the free determina- 
 tion of the will no sin can exist. Such an act 
 does not depend upon me, and is not to be re- 
 garded as mine. Vide s. 81, I. ad finem. In 
 order to estimate correctly the sinfulness of hu- 
 man actions, and their liability of punishment, 
 regard must be had to the motives and induce- 
 ments which act on the human will, and the re- 
 lations of men with regard to them, and the 
 situation in which the offender is placed. Ac- 
 cording to these circumstances must the degree 
 of the sinfulness of actions be judged and esti- 
 mated. Sins may be divided, in respect to the 
 intention with which they are committed, into 
 the following classes viz., 
 
 A. INVOLUNTARY SINS, when one transgresses 
 the law of God, without having formed a proper 
 resolution or purpose of so doing, (si absit con- 
 silium peccandi.~) Among these are: 
 
 (a) Sins of precipitancy, "ywa?," as Cicero 
 says, (Officiis, I. 8,) "repentina aliquo motu 
 animi accidunt," in opposition to deliberate sins, 
 prepense and aforethought. Sins of this kind are 
 committed when persons act so precipitately that 
 they do not once think of thelaw forbidding the 
 action which they perform, or do not duly con- 
 sider the reasons which lie against it. They 
 ought to be carefully distinguished from sins 
 which are committed through levity. In order 
 that a trespass committed by me should be 
 through mere precipitancy, I must not have 
 sought the opportunity to sin ; the time between 
 the resolution and the action must have been 
 very short, and the feeling which has carried 
 me away must have been very strong. The 
 sin, too, must be followed by deep repentance, 
 and a firm resolve to avoid the same in future. 
 Such sins of precipitancy ought not, however, 
 to be lightly regarded, because they often plunge 
 us into great calamity, and, if often repeated, 
 cease to be sins of precipitancy. Sins of this 
 nature are mentioned in Gal. vi. 1, where Chris- 
 tians are exhorted to be on their guard against 
 them, and to endeavour, in the spirit of meek- 
 ness, to restore those who have committed them. 
 Vide also Psalm Ixxiii. 2, coll. ver. 23, seq. 
 
 Sins of weakness, (pcccata infirmitatis.} 
 These, in the strictest sense of the term, can 
 take place only when one knows that what he 
 does is against, the law, but yet is not physically 
 able to forbear doing it. They are seen in per- 
 sons who are not sufficiently confirmed in good- 
 ness, who have not a settled habit of doing 
 right, and whose passions are very violent. 
 
 Sins, however, cannot be said to be committed 
 from mere weakness, unless he who commits 
 them has used on his part a proper watchful- 
 ness, and has resisted his evil desires, and 
 found, after all, that it was impossible for him 
 wholly to exclude them from his mind, or to 
 fulfil his duties and his good intentions. This 
 is the case of which Christ speaks, Matt. xxvi. 
 41, "The spirit is willing (rtpc&i^ov) ; but the 
 fash (i. e., the body, by which the soul is so 
 much influenced) is weak (cw&evijj) ;" i. e., as 
 weak men, whose spirit dwelt in a disordered 
 body, they were not able to execute the good 
 purposes for which they had a willingness. 
 The general maxim contained in this passage is 
 the following: men are often hindered by sense 
 and passion from the execution of their best 
 purposes, and yield to the inducements to sin. 
 The scriptures, therefore, always presuppose 
 in these sins a certain goodness of heart, and 
 the serious purpose of avoiding sin, and deep 
 repentance on account of it when it has been 
 committed. Men, therefore, who are totally 
 corrupt, and in whom all moral sense is sup- 
 pressed, cannot commit sins of weakness; 
 though, on the other hand, it is not entirely 
 true, according to the common affirmation of 
 some theologians, that the pious only and the 
 truly regenerate can commit sins of weakness 
 and precipitancy, and that, as some will say, 
 all the sins of the unrenewed are to be regarded 
 as sins of design, (Germ. Bosheitssiinden.) 
 For, as even the pious man is frequently borne 
 away by the violence of passion to the inconsi- 
 derate commission of deeds which are against 
 his own will and purpose; this must certainly 
 be much oftener the case with unrenewed men ; 
 and unless they are in a high degree corrupt and 
 vicious, it cannot be affirmed with certainty re- 
 specting them, that they always sin from sheer 
 wickedness, and that they never fight against 
 sin and endeavour to resist it. For a man who 
 is addicted to a particular vice, and who often 
 commits one sin, may yet have in him much 
 which is good, and strive with earnestness and 
 zeal against other sins to which he is tempted. 
 Now, little as sin can in any case be approved 
 or exculpated, it is yet true that many very 
 gross outbreakings of sin in particular cases 
 and persons are to be considered as sins of 
 weakness and precipitancy, and that the Om- 
 niscient Being often passes a different judg- 
 ment, with regard ^p the morality of such ac- 
 tions, from that wmch men commonly form, or 
 are able to form. This is the case, for exam- 
 ple, with theft, suicide, homicide, infanticide, 
 and other similar crimes, which, on account of 
 their consequences, need to be severely punish- 
 ed by human courts. 
 
 B. VOLUNTARY SINS, peccata voluntaria, or 
 proserefica, (from rfpoac'pffftj, proposifum, con- 
 2 C 
 
302 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 silium.) These are committed with a determi- 
 nation of breaking the law of God. 
 
 (a) When any one knows the law, and, be- 
 fore he sins, distinctly recollects it, or might 
 easily recollect it, and yet proceeds to sin, then 
 his sin is voluntary,- so also, when he delights 
 himself in the sin which he has committed, ap- 
 proves of it, and wishes for an opportunity to 
 repeat it, notwithstanding he is convinced, or 
 might be, that the act is opposed to the divine 
 law. 
 
 (6) A sin does not cease to be voluntary and 
 deliberate, because he who commits it may have 
 been urged on by the command, the threat, the 
 solicitation, or the contempt, of men. For in 
 this case it is in my power to leave the sin un- 
 done; and if I commit it, I form the resolution 
 of breaking the law of God in order to escape 
 an evil threatened me by man. Vide Matt. x. 
 28. An exception is of course made with re- 
 gard to proper physical compulsion e. g., if one 
 strikes another with my hand, against my own 
 will, the action in such a case is no more mine. 
 
 (c) It is not necessary that every voluntary 
 sin should be a gross one; even the smallest 
 violation of the law which takes place with de- 
 liberation is a voluntary sin; and it may even 
 be that an action which is not in itself sinful, 
 and which is only regarded as such from an 
 unenlightened conscience may become a volun- 
 tary sin by being deliberately performed ; for 
 the person in such a case forms a resolution to 
 break the law of God e. g., when one regards 
 card-playing as forbidden, and yet plays. Vide 
 s. 81, I. 2. 
 
 (rf) The highest degree of voluntary sin is 
 that in which one sins with willingness, from 
 mere wickedness, and for the sake of the sin it- 
 self, (peccatum frivolum, or exovawv.) Every 
 such sin is indeed voluntary; but every volun- 
 tary sin does not spring from pure malice or 
 evil. Such a sin exists only when one violates 
 the law without being tempted to it by external 
 solicitations or opportunities. There are, there- 
 fore, many voluntary sins which do not result 
 from this pure evil, and which are not commit- 
 ted with this perfect cordiality; but which may 
 be even reluctantly performed, through fear of 
 persecution, contempt, or some other cause. In 
 such a case, we have the sin of purpose, not of 
 mere evil. Should one in opposition to his own 
 convictions renounce religion at a time of per- 
 secution, or when irreligious opinions were pre- 
 valent, he would sin voluntarily ; but for him to 
 do this without the influence of persecution, of 
 danger, or of any solicitation from without, 
 would be to sin cordially and from entire wick- 
 edness. Paul names this sinning txovaiw, Heb. 
 x. 26, where he speaks of just such a denial of 
 the faith, and justly declares it to be one of the 
 most heinous and unpardonable of crimes. 
 
 (e) When from the frequent repetition of a 
 sin, a habit is formed, this sin thus made habi- 
 tual is denominated a vice; e. g., the vice of 
 drunkenness, &c. The term vice is used in two 
 senses viz., sometimes to denote the habit it- 
 self of acting against the divine law ; sometimes 
 to denote the particular actions which originate 
 in such a habit. Thus when it is said, a man 
 is guilty of a great vice, the meaning is, that he 
 has committed a sinful action which with him 
 is habitual. Hence every vicious man is a sin- 
 ner i. e., a transgressor of the divine law ; but 
 every sinner is not of necessity vicious. Cf. 
 Michaelis, Von der Siinde, s. 337, seq. and 
 Toellner, Theologische Untersuchungen, th. i. 
 b. 2, Num. 7. , 
 
 Note. As the sacred writers always proceed 
 on the principle that God, as ruler, has a right 
 to prescribe laws to men, and that men, as his 
 subjects, are always bound to obey ; they de- 
 scribe those who knowingly and wilfully trans- 
 gress his authority, as enemies, rebels, and in- 
 surgents, and their crimes, as rebellion, enmity, 
 &c. ; so Psalm viii. 3; Rom. viii. 7; James, iv. 
 4. On the contrary, the virtuous man is de- 
 scribed in the Bible as obedient and submissive 
 (OMJJI), who .willingly and cheerfully bows to 
 *lhe authority of God. Humility often stands 
 for piety, and pride for wickedness, intentional 
 and deliberate sins; and the proud are those 
 who commit them. Vide Ps. cxix. 21, 51 ; 
 xxv. 9. Why are the virtuous called humble 
 and obedient? All virtue should proceed from 
 religious motives, from thankful love, and a 
 spirit of obedience towards God. 
 
 (3) In respect to the actions themselves, or 
 the acting subject, sins are divided into internal 
 and external. We act either with our souls 
 simply, or with them in connexion with the 
 body, of which the soul makes use as its organ. 
 This division is found in the New Testament, 
 Matt. ix. 4; Rom. iii. 13, seq.; 2 Cor. vii. 1, 
 (jnokva/jios uopxoj xai rtvfv^uar'oj.) Peccata actu- 
 alia intsrna, are those which are committed 
 merely in heart, or in thought. They are also 
 called actiones (pravas} animi, and are compre- 
 hended by Paul under the term s'pya, Gal. v. 19, 
 seq. coll. Rom. i. 28 31. Among these, how- 
 ever, we are not to include those evil desires 
 that rise involuntarily and without guilt in the 
 hearts of men; which are rather the disease of 
 the soul than its guilt. They are committed 
 only when the desires after forbidden things 
 rising in the heart are cherished, entertained, 
 delighted in, and executed ; in short, when, as 
 James says, (ch. i. 15,) sin is conceived in the 
 heart. Cf. s. 78, IV. 
 
 Peccata actualia EXTERNA, are those unlawful 
 actions which one commits with the body and 
 its members. They are divided, according to 
 the different manner in which the disposition of 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 303 
 
 the soul is made known through the body, into 
 peccata or is or linguae, (Matt. v. 22 ; Rom. iii. 
 14; James, iii. 2,) gestuum and operis. The 
 external or bodily actions of men are, however, 
 only so far sinful and liable to punishment, as 
 they depend on the soul or the will, Matt. xv. 
 18 20; otherwise, they cannot be denominated 
 sins. Vide No. II. 2, of this section. Hence 
 Christ calls the heart of man the treasury 
 (^ffavpoj) of good and evil, where good and 
 evil actions lie concealed, and are prepared, be- 
 fore they are externally exhibited ; Matthew, 
 xii. 34, 35, coll. Mark, vii. 21. The body is 
 merely the instrument or subject, which obeys 
 the commands of the soul. Hence it is plain 
 that it is false to consider internal sins as less 
 heinous and deserving of punishment than ex- 
 ternal sins, as is commonly done. This mistake 
 results from the fact that internal sins are con- 
 cealed from the view of men, and cannot there- 
 fore be punished by them. We deceive our- 
 selves here also, by conceiving of the relation 
 between men and God as about the same as that 
 which subsists between man and his fellow 
 man, especially like that between subjects and 
 a human ruler, where thoughts are not liable to 
 punishment, so long as they remain mere 
 thoughts, and are unknown to other men. But 
 to God the mere thoughts of men are as much 
 known as their outward actions. Vide 1 Cor. 
 iv. 5, and s. 22; and he can therefore bring 
 them into judgment for the one as well as for 
 the other. Hence, in the Bible, the very signi- 
 ficant epithet, xapSioyviotfT^j (iS npn) is applied 
 to God. It is also obvious that in very many 
 cases internal sins are, in the sight of God, 
 more heinous and ill-deserving than external. 
 For example : one man occupies his fancy with 
 shameless and unchaste images. He commits 
 internal sin, although no other man can reproach 
 him for it, or punish him, because it is done 
 merely in heart. Another man, ordinarily 
 chaste, is borne away by passion at one time 
 actually to cgmmit fornication or adultery, and 
 thus brings upon himself shame or punishment 
 from man, while the other goes free. Both 
 have sinned. But which of the two sins is, in 
 the sight of God, of the darkest character and 
 the most deserving of punishment, the internal 
 or the external 1 ? The decision in this case is 
 not difficult; and if we, like the omniscient God, 
 knew the heart, we should all decide in the 
 same manner with regard to offences of this na- 
 ture. Hence Christ says, Matt. v. 28, whoever 
 looks upon a woman to lust after her hath com- 
 mitted adultery with her already in his heart. 
 Cato pronounced justly a similar judgment: 
 Furtum sine ulla quoque attrectatione fieri posse, 
 sola MENTE atque ANIMO, ut furtum fiat, ADNI- 
 TENTE ; Gellius, xi. 18, ad finem. 
 
 SECTION LXXXIII. 
 
 OF SOME OTHER DIVISIONS OF SIN AND SINS OF 
 PARTICIPATION. 
 
 I. Some minor divisions of sins. 
 
 BESIDES the divisions of sin already mention- 
 ed, s. 82, there are also many others which are 
 either wanting in exactness and philosophic cor- 
 rectness, or are of less consequence, as they 
 cast but little light upon the doctrine itself, and 
 only furnish some contingent characteristics of 
 particular kinds of sin. Some of them are also 
 liable to great abuse. Still, as they are fre- 
 quently found in the writings of the schoolmen 
 and of modern theologians, it is necessary to 
 understand them as matters of history. 
 
 (1) The division of sins in respect to the 
 object of the law against which the sin is com- 
 mitted into those which are committed against 
 God, against one's neighbour, and against one- 
 self, is a very common division, but far from be- 
 ing accurate and just. For the object of every 
 sin, if the formale of it is considered, is God. 
 The obligation to obey the law issues from him 
 as the supreme Ruler and Lawgiver. Again; 
 every one who commits a sin, of whatever kind 
 it may be, sins in each case against himself. 
 For in the commission of it he most injures 
 himself. 
 
 Note. We may here notice the division of 
 sins which is found among the schoolmen, into 
 peccata philosophica (those committed against 
 the laws of nature), and peccata theologica, 
 (those committed against the revealed will of 
 God.) But no characteristics can be given by 
 which these two kinds of sinning can be distin- 
 guished from each other; and the guilt and ill 
 desert of both must be necessarily equal, since 
 God is no less the author of the laws of nature 
 than of those of Revelation. We may learn 
 something of the great abuse of this division, 
 of which some of the Jesuits since the close of 
 the seventeenth century have been chargeable, 
 from church history and theological ethics. 
 
 (2) Sins have been divided, in respect to 
 their greater or less guilt and desert of punish- 
 ment, into mortalia or non-venalia; (unpardon- 
 able), and venalia (pardonable) ; sins unto 
 death, and venial sins. The phrase sin unto 
 death is taken from 1 John, v. 16, where, how- 
 ever it has an entirely different meaning from 
 that which is given to it in this connexion viz., 
 punishment with death at a human tribunal, a 
 crime worthy of death, a capital crime. But this 
 phrase, as used by theologians, is taken in the 
 Hebrew sense, and denotes sins which draw 
 after them death i. e., divine punishment e. 
 g., John, viii. 21, 24, arto$aveia$t ev Ty a^apt/a 
 vuuiv. The term peccatum veniale is found even 
 
304 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 in Augustine. Very different opinions, however, 
 are entertained by theologians as to the mean- 
 ing of this division ; and there has been much 
 controversy about it, especially between the the- 
 ologians of the Roman and the protestant church. 
 In order that this term may be understood in a 
 sense conformed to the Bible, it must be ex- 
 plained in the following way; every sin, as such, 
 deserves punishment, ($dvatov artoxvzt, James, 
 i. 15,) nor do the least remain unpunished. 
 The pious man, therefore, either does not sin at 
 all, or if he sins, deserves punishment, (death.) 
 But if any one has sinned through ignorance, 
 heedlessness, human weakness, or precipitancy, 
 he may hope for the pardon (veniani) of his sin, 
 since he did not commit it with deliberate pur- 
 pose. Vide s. 82. Heinous sins remain al- 
 ways deserving of punishment; but those who 
 repent of their sins and with all their hearts 
 turn from them, receive, according to the doc- 
 trine of the scriptures, pardon from God, through 
 faith in Jesus Christ; and the Christian knows, 
 that through his faith his sins are truly forgiven 
 him. Vide Rom. viii. 1, ov8tv xatdxpipa. 1 
 John, i. 9, coll. ii. 1 ; Ps. ciii. 818. 
 
 (3) As the phrase to cry to Heaven is used in 
 the Bible with reference to particular sins, some 
 have thence taken occasion to introduce the di- 
 vision of sins into clamantia and non-clamantia. 
 The texts are, Gen. iv. 1 ; xviii. 20 ; Ex. iii. 7 ; 
 James, v. 4, coll. Is. xxii. 14. The sins men- 
 tioned in these passages have been comprised in 
 the following distich : 
 
 " Clamitat ad ccelum vox sanguinis et Sodomorum, 
 Vox oppressorum, merces detenta laborum." 
 
 But this crying to Heaven is not given in the 
 Bible as the definite mark of any particular sins, 
 and it may be spoken of many others besides 
 those to which it is actually applied. It depends 
 merely upon the circumstances. It is prosopo- 
 poeia, and is used to denote great and aggravated 
 offences, which have terrible consequences, but 
 which are not punished in this world, either be- 
 cause they remain undiscovered, or because, on 
 account of great public corruption, they are not 
 regarded as sins. Respecting such sins, the He- 
 brew says, they cry to God, or, they call to God 
 for revenge i. e., they are punished by God 
 with peculiar severity, although overlooked by 
 men. Among sins of this nature, e. g., is per- 
 jury, respecting which it is expressly said, Ex. 
 xx. 7, that God will not forbear to punish it, 
 although the phrase crying to Heaven is never 
 used with respect to it in the Bible. On the 
 contrary, it is said, respecting the blood of 
 Christ, Heb. xii. 24, that it speaks better things 
 than the blood of Mel; it calls upon God for 
 favour and the forgiveness of sins, or it results 
 in this, that God does pardon; while Abel's 
 blood called on God to punish, or was followed 
 
 by this consequence, that God punished the 
 murderer. In connexion with these texts, vide 
 Sir. xxxv. 18, "The tears of the widow cry 
 over themselves (to Heaven) against him who 
 extorts them." 
 
 II. Participation in the sins of others. 
 
 In 1 Tim. v. 22, Paul makes use of the lan- 
 guage xoivwtiv apaptiais aMw>rpt<uj. A sin of 
 participation is committed by any one, when the 
 unlawful action, though not performed imme- 
 diately by him, is yet done mediately through 
 him, or, which is the same thing, i.s occasioned, 
 aided, and abetted by him. Everything, there- 
 fore, by which I give to my fellow man oppor- 
 nity, inducement, or occasion to sin, is a sin of 
 participation. The guilt which rests upon me 
 is greater or less, in proportion as I could have 
 foreseen, or did actually foresee and approve, 
 the sins which my fellow man has committed 
 in consequence of these opportunities and in- 
 ducements which I placed in his way. In a 
 great variety of ways can one give to another 
 occasion to sin; by command, by bad advice 
 and counsel (John, xviii. 14; 2 Sam. xvi. 21), 
 by praising wicked deeds, by concealment, by 
 omitting to place all possible resistance in the 
 way of the sin, or by failing to give needful admo- 
 nition, warning, or correction, (1 Sam. iii. 13.) 
 The mere participator, however, has not always 
 equal guilt with the one who himself directly 
 commits the sin. The guilt of the one may be 
 greater or less than that of the other, or that of 
 both may be equal; and this will be according 
 to the circumstances in each particular case. 
 The more full discussion of the whole sub- 
 ject belongs properly to the department of 
 morals. 
 
 There is one class of sins of participation 
 which deserves more particular notice here, al- 
 though the consideration of it at large belongs 
 to theological morals viz., scandals, so called. 
 We subjoin only a few remarks. 'SxdvSa'Kov 
 (tf'pi'D) is, literally, anything by which one is 
 made to fall,- it then signifies anything by 
 which one is injured e. g., snares, plots; 
 finally, in a moral sense, it denotes not only 
 every deliberate and designed solicitation of an- 
 other to evil, but also everything by which one 
 gives to another occasion to sin, even in a more 
 indirect way, and if he had no intention of so 
 doing e. g., the bad example which one sets 
 before another. This term is sometimes used 
 in the discourses of Jesus to signify temptation 
 to apostasy from Christianity e. g., Matt, 
 xviii. 6; John, xvi. 1 ; but it is also used by 
 Christ in a wider sense e. g., Matt. xvii. 27, 
 where it denotes the inducement to disobey ma- 
 gistrates, which one offers to another by his 
 conduct; and in general axavSa^eiv is with 
 him to give occasion to sin, tt^enipt, Matt. v. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 305 
 
 29, 30. Such an offence or scandal may be 
 committed either in word or in external deed. 
 Actions and words may in themselves be right 
 and innocent ; but if one can foresee that by them 
 another may be led into sin, it is his duty to re- 
 frain from them. On these principles, Paul 
 judges respecting the eating of meats regarded 
 as unlawful, and of flesh offered to idols, in pre- 
 sence of persons who had conscientious scruples 
 respecting it, Rom. xiv. 20 25; 1 Cor. viii. 
 10 13. The maxims which Paul lays down 
 in these places are very important and worthy 
 of being laid to heart, because they are applica- 
 ble to all similar cases. The accountability 
 and ill-desert of a person guilty of such an of- 
 fence is different, in proportion to the deed it- 
 self and its consequences. The easier it is to 
 avoid the seductive action, the more important 
 the office and station of the one who does it ; 
 the more unlawful the action is in itself, and 
 the greater the evil done by it, so much the 
 greater and more deserving of punishment is 
 the offence. 
 
 Scandals or offences are sometimes divided, 
 in respect to the subject, into those given and 
 those received a division, however, which is in 
 many respects inconvenient; it is further treated 
 of in theological morals. Scandals given are 
 those actions of an injurious tendency, to the 
 omission of which one is obligated, either from 
 the nature of the actions themselves, or from the 
 particular circumstances of the case. To com- 
 mit an action in such a case is axavSahi^ew tiva 
 (active), Matt, xviii. 6. Scandals received are 
 such actions as may prove temptations to some 
 one, but which are either in themselves good 
 and according to duty, or at least indifferent in 
 their moral character. In the first case, one 
 may give offence or occasion sin without being 
 accessory to it, and so without sin on his part. 
 In the second case, it is a duty to abstain from 
 the action, according to the advice of Paul, as 
 we have seen above. This scandalum acceptum 
 is exav&alwiSfptu, ev tlvi, Matt. xi. 6 ; xiii. 57 (the 
 first case) ; Rom. xiv. 21, (the second case.) 
 
 In judging of sins of participation and of 
 scandals, moralists often mistake by carrying 
 the matter too far in theory, and thus weaken- 
 ing the effect of their rule ; as, on the other 
 hand, men in common life are apt to judge too 
 lightly and indulgently respecting such sins. In 
 order to guard against this latter fault, which is 
 often very injurious, it is well to reverse the 
 case, and see how we should judge respecting 
 participation in good, virtuous, and noble ac- 
 tions, and how careful we should be to make 
 out our title to reward in consequence of this 
 participation. In this way many incautious 
 decisions respecting these sins would be pre- 
 vented. 
 
 39 
 
 SECTION LXXXIV. 
 
 OF THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST, 
 OR THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 THE latter phrase (the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost), which is introduced into theology, is 
 both unscriptural and very inconvenient, on ac- 
 count of its indefiniteness and vagueness. For 
 there are many sins against the Holy Ghost 
 which are not yet blasphemy against him. Vide 
 Acts, vii. 51 ; 1 Thess. iv. 8. The blasphemy 
 of the Holy Ghost (jSxaa^ju'a, or Adyo$ si? rtvev- 
 jtta oiytov) is the sin which is intended in this 
 discussion; and this, too, is the scriptural mode 
 of expressing it. The proof-texts properly re- 
 lating to this subject are, Matt. xii. 31, 32; 
 Mark, iii. 28 30; Luke, xii. 10; with which 
 many compare the texts Heb. vi. 4 6 ; x. 29 ; 
 1 Pet. iv. 14; John, xv. 2224, &c., although 
 their reference to this subject is disputed by 
 others. 
 
 I. Historical Observations. 
 
 Even among the ancients the explanations 
 given of this subject were very diverse, and 
 often very indefinite and unsettled. Athanasius 
 wrote a whole dissertation on this subject; Ep. 
 4, ad Serapion. In this he states, among other 
 things, the opinion of Origen, that " all the sins 
 committed after baptism were sins against the 
 Holy Ghost." But in the writings of Origen 
 now extant, he places the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost in the denial of the divinity of Jesus 
 Christ, by means of which he performed mira- 
 cles (works of the Holy Spirit.) So Theognos- 
 tus of Alexandria, Hilarius, and Ambrosius, 
 although the latter in one place explains him- 
 self differently. In the Pastor of Hermas this 
 sin is explained to be blasphemy in general. 
 
 Since the fourth century, two explanations 
 have, however, found the most approbation ; and 
 although they are both very differently modified, 
 yet the most diverse representations can be ar- 
 ranged under the one or the other of these gene- 
 ral classes. (1) The explanation of Chrysos- 
 tom (Horn. 42, in Matt.), to which Hieronymus 
 also assents, (Comm. in Matt. 12.) According 
 to them, one commits the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost who asserts that the miracles performed 
 by Christ through the aid of the Holy Ghost 
 were done by the agency of an evil spirit. (2) 
 The other is the opinion of Augustine. He 
 is not indeed always consistent with himself in 
 his views respecting the kind of sin which 
 should be regarded as the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost. But he makes the principal character 
 of this sin to be the obstinate impenitence of the 
 sinner till the close of his life, and from this 
 circumstance he explains it, that this sin is not 
 forgiven. 
 
 2c2 
 
306 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 To one or the other of these explanations most 
 of the theologians of the Western church have 
 attached themselves, at least in general. The 
 reformers of the sixteenth century came out of 
 the school of Augustine, and generally adopted 
 his views on this subject. Hence the following 
 description of this sin was the most common 
 among the Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth, 
 seventeenth, and a part of the eighteenth centu- 
 ries viz., it is committed when any one recog- 
 nises the Christian doctrine as divine, and in- 
 wardly approves it, but yet denies it against 
 his own convictions, opposes and blasphemes 
 it, and perseveres in this deliberate contempt of 
 all the means of grace, through which the Holy 
 Spirit acts upon his heart, even till the close of 
 life. 
 
 Against this view, however, many difficulties 
 have been urged, (a) It is said that in the texts 
 of scripture above cited the ordinary operations 
 of the Spirit of God are not intended, but the 
 extraordinary. (6) That every sin, persevered 
 in until death, is followed by condemnation ; and 
 that this cannot therefore be a distinguishing 
 characteristic of the sin against the Holy Ghost. 
 For these reasons other theologians prefer the 
 opinion of Chrysostom and Hieronymus e. g., 
 most of the Arminian theologians, and, after 
 them, Stackhouse, Tillotson, and other English 
 divines. These again were followed by most 
 of the German Lutheran theologians of the eigh- 
 teenth century, after Pfaff, Schubert, Baum- 
 garten, and others, had assented to this view. 
 For the opinions of the theologians of the Rom- 
 ish church on this point, vide Mart. Gerbert, 
 De peccato in Sp. S., S. Blasii, 1760; and Hirt, 
 De logomachiis circa Doctrinam de Spiritu 
 Sancto obviis, where the opinions of the Lu- 
 theran theologians are carefully collected. Vide 
 Noesselt's "Biicherkenntniss" for an account 
 of an almost innumerable multitude of other 
 works on this subject e. g., those of Feuerborn, 
 Musaeus, Schubert, Zellner, Hauber, Flatt (a 
 prize essay, 1770), Buchwitz, Sernler (1768), 
 &c. 
 
 II. Scriptural Representation. 
 
 The Pharisees and Scribes attributed the 
 miracles which Jesus wrought to confirm and 
 establish his divine mission, to the devil, with 
 the malicious purpose of rendering Jesus sus- 
 pected in the view of the people, upon whom 
 his miracles had produced a great impression, 
 as being a magician, standing in alliance with 
 the devil. It was this wicked calumny which 
 led Jesus to make the declaration respecting the 
 unpardonableness of the blasphemy against the 
 Holy Ghost, according to the express informa- 
 tion of Mark, c. iii. 30. The following remarks 
 may serve to explain this declaration of Jesus : 
 
 (a) Bxatj^jiua is any slander or calumny 
 
 which aims to disgrace or dishonour any one, 
 whether it be God or created beings, angels and 
 men, 2 Pet. ii. 10, 11 ; Mark, vii. 22. In this 
 passage it is used in the widest sense, and so 
 includes both. (It is inaccurately rendered by 
 Luther, in Mark, iii. 28, blasphemy against 
 God.} Therefore Christ says, "All other sins, 
 and even blasphemies (against God and men), 
 may be forgiven to men (if they seek forgive- 
 ness in the appointed way); but for that sin 
 alone, which is committed by blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost, is no forgiveness to be expect- 
 ed. It is the most heinous of all sins. 
 
 (6) The phrase Son of man is sometimes ap- 
 plied to the Messiah, considered in his whole 
 character (^mi/^pcortoj) ; it is however borrowed 
 from his inferior nature, and relates chiefly to 
 his humanity. The contemporaries of Jesus 
 were especially offended by the humiliation of 
 the Son of man, which was so contradictory to 
 their expectations respecting the Messiah, Matt, 
 xi. 6 ; 1 Cor. i. 23. Blasphemy directed against 
 the Messiah was indeed, in all cases, a great 
 offence ; but in the ignorant and misguided 
 multitude it was by no means so great a sin as 
 in those who led them astray ; and hence in 
 their case there was hope of pardon. They 
 were among those who knew not what they did, 
 Luke, xxiii. 34. 
 
 (c) The case was very different with the 
 Pharisees ; they blasphemed against the Holy 
 Ghost, since they knew that the Holy Ghost 
 acted through Christ, but yet denied it, and cast 
 contempt upon his agency. The support and 
 guidance of the Son of man is constantly as- 
 cribed by Christ and the apostles to the Holy 
 Spirit. Vide Matt. iii. 16 ; John, iii. 34; Acts, 
 x. 38. It is upt, however, the personal dignity 
 of the Holy Ghost, as God, which is here 
 spoken of, nor does Christ design to say that a 
 sin against one divine person is greater than 
 against another, for which no reason can be 
 supposed ; nor would he intimate that the Holy 
 Ghost was superior to himself and the Father; 
 for, according to his instructions, they are equal 
 in dignity; but he speaks only of the operations 
 of the Holy Spirit, and of his manifestation, 
 which was so plainly exhibited in Christ. For 
 the work of God and the work of the devil are 
 here opposed to each other, and in Mark, iii. 29, 
 30, rtvfvpa ayiov and rtvsvpa axd^aptov and in- 
 stead of the phrase, to cast out devils by the spi- 
 rit of God, which is found, Matt. xii. 28, we 
 find the phrase, by the finger of God, used in 
 Luke, xi. 20. The sin here described is there- 
 fore called blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 
 because it is committed against those divine 
 operations which are especially ascribed to the 
 Holy Ghost as his ceconomic work. But it 
 does not follow that the personal dignity of the 
 Holy Ghost is greater than that of the Father 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 307 
 
 or the Son. The Pharisees, therefore, committed 
 the sin against the Holy Ghost not only by ob- 
 stinately denying, against their own convictions, 
 the miracles which Jesus performed in proof of 
 his divine mission, and which they knew in 
 their hearts to be performed through divine 
 agency, but by giving them out as imposture 
 and the effect of an evil spirit, with whom Jesus 
 stood in alliance, in order thus to render his 
 doctrine suspicious. This, considering the cir- 
 cumstances in which the Pharisees were, shew- 
 ed a high degree of wickedness, and was actual 
 blasphemy against God a designed and deli- 
 berate blasphemy, too, which they were by no 
 means disposed to repent of or to retract. Here 
 two questions arise viz., 
 
 ( 1 ) Can the sin against the Holy Ghost be still 
 committed at the present time ? Those who adopt 
 the opinion of Augustine commonly affirm that 
 it can. But among those theologians who have 
 explained these texts after the manner of Chry- 
 sostom and Hieronyrnus, the opinions on this 
 subject vary, (a) Some of them maintain the 
 affirmative. They think that whoever denies 
 the miracles of Christ, casts contempt upon 
 them, or gives them out as deception, impos- 
 ture, or magic, still commits this sin, although 
 (as they sometimes cautiously add) no one can 
 undertake to decide whether it has been commit- 
 ted by another, (b) But the other side was taken 
 long ago by some Arminian theologians, (e. g., 
 by Limborch.) They maintained that only eye- 
 witnesses of Christ's miracles, as the Pharisees 
 were, could be guilty of this sin, because no 
 others had equal advantages for attaining to a 
 full and undoubting conviction of their certainty. 
 Those in our times who pursue the general 
 course of the Pharisees, deny and ridicule events 
 respecting the historic truth and credibility of 
 which they are in doubt, or which they suppose 
 never to have taken place. Hence it is con- 
 cluded that this sin can no more be committed, 
 because miracles are no longer performed. So 
 Pfaff reasoned, and after him many protestant 
 theologians, (c) There is still, however, one 
 case in which the same sin which was commit- 
 ted by the Pharisees may be still committed 
 viz., where one is fully convinced of the historic 
 truth of the miracles of Jesus, and that they were 
 done through the divine power, and yet, in total 
 opposition to his own convictions, and with the 
 same malicious purpose which the Pharisees 
 had, pronounces them to be imposture and de- 
 ception, the effect of magic or other wicked arts. 
 This would in reality be the same case with 
 that of the Pharisees. For the circumstance of 
 having seen the miracles oneself is of no special 
 consequence, and it is enough if one be con- 
 vinced of their truth. When the conviction of 
 the truth of the miracles is equally strong in 
 one who has not seen them and in one who has, 
 
 the same degree of guilt would seem to be ne- 
 cessarily involved in denying them. Such a 
 case indeed will seldom occur, but the possibi- 
 ity of it must be admitted. 
 
 (2) Why does Christ affirm, that this sin cannot 
 be forgiven ? and what does he mean by this decla- 
 ration ? The theologians who adopt Augustine's 
 hypothesis, understand here a real impossibility, 
 in the proper and philosophical sense, and derive 
 t from the nature of the sin itself, as being con- 
 tinued to the end of life; respecting which vide 
 supra. Those who follow the other hypothesis 
 have different opinions on this subject. Some 
 understand a real impossibility, but do not enter 
 upon the question, why it is impossible. Others 
 take the ground, that this language means only 
 that this sin is forgiven with great difficulty. 
 So most of the theologians of the Romish church 
 who adopt this hypothesis; also many of the 
 Arminian theologians and commentators; like- 
 wise Heumann, Pfaff, and other protestants. 
 These again are divided in their opinions, since 
 some suppose that Christ spoke conditionally, 
 meaning that this sin could not be forgiven if it 
 were not repented of; and others, that Christ here 
 uses the language of feeling, which is accord- 
 ingly to be understood hyperbolically, and not 
 literally Vide Koppe, Quo sensu peccato in 
 Spiritum Sanctum venia a Christo negata fue- 
 rit; Gott. 1781. 
 
 On this question we will give our own judg- 
 ment. The words of Jesus are, ovx d<j&j<jT'cu- 
 tj "tov atwva OVT!E tv tov'tcp tc> atwvt, ovfs fv 
 p&hovti (i. e., according to the usus loquendi 
 of the Jews, neither here nor hereafter) ; tVo^oj 
 'cv aicoWov xpt'fffcoj, or, according to another 
 reading, a^ap-rux?, (he incurs the guilt of a sin 
 never to be pardoned, and for which he must 
 endure the pains of hell.) The meaning cannot 
 be, that God cannot forgive such a sin. For 
 one who has sinned in a manner ever so aggra- 
 vated, may yet repent and reform, and then he 
 surely receives forgiveness ; and this is truly 
 said respecting blasphemy against God of any 
 other kind. It is obvious that Christ here speaks 
 with feeling and righteous indignation ; this is 
 proved by all his words; and-on this account it 
 is unwarrantable in us to give these terms an 
 universal sense, and to apply them to every 
 similar case. This Koppe has well shewn in 
 the Essay before mentioned. But although 
 Christ spoke with feeling, it does not follow 
 that he went too far, or affirmed anything which 
 is not in strict accordance with truth. For the 
 feeling which Christ exhibits is never accom- 
 panied either by error or sin. The case properly 
 stands thus : (a) all experience shews that a 
 man who has arrived at such" a point of wicked- 
 ness seldom comes to a knowledge of the truth 
 or to repentance ; hence Paul says, with regard 
 to such sinners, aSlvatov yap, x. t. >.. ; Heb. vi. 
 
308 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 4 6. Vide other texts cited at the beginning 
 of this section. (6) But Christ, as one who 
 knows the heart, was most firmly convinced 
 that those whom he addressed would never re- 
 pent of that deliberate blasphemy, but would 
 persevere in it to the end. The reason why he 
 spoke so decidedly was, that he knew what was 
 in man, and did not need that any one should 
 teach him ; John, ii. 25 ; xvi. 30. In this way, 
 the theories of Augustine and of Chrysostom 
 somewhat agree on this point ; and we have also 
 a plain reason why Christ speaks so decidedly 
 in this case, while yet we cannot do so in simi- 
 lar cases. 
 
 SECTION LXXXV. 
 
 OF THE STATE INTO WHICH MEN ARE BROUGHT BY 
 THE COMMISSION OK SIN, AND THE DIFFERENT 
 KINDS AND NAMES OF IT. 
 
 1. The stale of sinners in respect to their conduct 
 
 and disposition. 
 
 THOSE in whose hearts evil desires no more 
 prevail, but rather virtuous feelings and a dis- 
 position inclined to moral good, are called up- 
 right, virtuous, (probe*, honestos ;} but those 
 who are thus, out of regard to God i. e., from 
 obedience to the known will and command of 
 God, and from thankful love to him are called 
 pious (pios), religious; although this distinction 
 is not always observed in common discourse. 
 The latter is the state which we are required 
 to possess by the precepts of Christianity. A 
 short summary of Christian doctrine on this 
 point is contained in the first epistle of John. 
 The Bible recognises no other virtue or holi- 
 ness than that which springs from religious 
 motives; religious virtue, we are there taught, 
 is the only virtue which has true worth in 
 the sight of God ; and this we are taught even 
 in the Old Testament. Those who possess 
 this religious virtue are there called Dv?ns, a^i', 
 D^Vpn, D" 1 "^" 1 , 8ix(uoi, ayiot, rtpa? i$, svasfifLS, SovTtot 
 ov, x. t. ?u ; one of the opposite character is 
 called owfj3>j$, aixo$, x. t. 1*. But one who acts 
 according to his corrupt desires, and does so ha- 
 bitually, is called in scripture the servant or slave 
 of sin ; it is said of him that he lives to sin, he 
 serves it, he obeys it, he is sold under sin, and it 
 rules over him. Vide Ps. xix. 14; Rom. vi. 1, 
 
 2, 6, 12, 16, 20 ; vii. 14, 24 ; xiv. 24 ; John, viii. 
 34, seq. ; 2 Pet. ii. 19. He only who is placed 
 in a state in which he can govern his desires, 
 and subject his appetites to reason enlightened 
 by divine instruction, is a/ree man, (John, viii. 
 34 ;) whoever cannot do this is a slave of sin. 
 
 The state of all who are devoted to sin is not, 
 however, alike. Every vicious man is, in his 
 own way, a servant of sin; but all are not so in 
 the same way. Three principal classes may be 
 
 in general here distinguished, (a) Some adopt 
 the appearance of virtue and piety ; they give a 
 saintly appearance even to their crimes, in order 
 to obtain the advantages connected with good- 
 ness. These are hypocrites, and their fault is 
 called vnoxpwis, -iptf, 3j3, TOID ; opposite to which 
 are TON, rmr.N, dtoj^ta, truth, sincerity. This is 
 one of the most shameful, aggravated, and dan- 
 gerous crimes the hatefulness and destructive- 
 ness of which are more fully considered in the 
 department of Morals. Cf. Matt. vi. and xxiii. ; 
 Luke, xi. 3754; 2 Tim. hi. 5. (6) Others 
 have no hesitation in acting out before the world 
 the ungodly desires and purposes of their hearts. 
 Such are called ungodly, improbi, 0,81x01, dofjSsij* 
 DTtih, because they do not fear nor regard God 
 or his law ; opposite to these are those who fear 
 God i. e., act with reverential regard to his 
 commands, (c) Those sinful and godless men 
 who, by long custom in sinning, have esta- 
 blished a fixed habit of it, are called vicious, 
 wicked, scelcratos. Cf. s. 82, II., ad finem. 
 
 II. The state of sinners in respect to the conse- 
 quences which sin involves. 
 
 The different kinds of sinners noticed above 
 are all unhappy, and in the judgment of God 
 deserving of punishment. The feeling of their 
 danger and misery is not, however, alike with 
 them all ; and some live even in entire insensi- 
 bility. In this observation we have the ground 
 of the divisions of the various states which have 
 been commonly made by theologians, and which 
 are founded in experience; though the passage 
 from one to the other of these states is very 
 easy. 
 
 (1) Some men very plainly see the unlawful- 
 ness of their actions, and the evil consequences 
 springing from them ; they often form the pur- 
 pose of renouncing sin and living better ; but the 
 power of the evil inclinations which have ob- 
 tained the mastery over them is so strong, 
 that they allow themselves to be continually 
 hurried away into sin. Such are in constant 
 restlessness, fear, and anguish, on account of 
 their sins ; and their state is denominated by the- 
 ologians, in comformity with scriptural phrase- 
 ology, conditionem sive statum servilem or servi- 
 tutis, a state of slavery ; and this is taken from 
 John, viii. 34 ; Romans, vi. 20, and chap. vii. 
 Men in this state are like slaves, who, at least 
 sometimes, if not always, wish to be free, and 
 make attempts for their own deliverance, and 
 yet always remain slaves. 
 
 (2) Others lead a sinful life, without having 
 an earnest desire to free themselves from the 
 dominion of sin. They pay no regard to their 
 unlawful actions, and have no scruples about 
 them, either from ignorance or levity, or because 
 they hope to remain unpunished, and from many 
 other reasons, often those which are in the 
 
/ 
 
 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 309 
 
 highest degree foolish. This is called the state 
 of security i. e., freedom from care, like the 
 Latin securus ,- status securitatis, or liber tatis 
 carnalis, because those who are in it feel free to 
 follow their sinful appetites, (oap|.) This state 
 is far more dangerous than the preceding one; 
 and with such sinners reformation is far more 
 difficult. Cf. Malt. xxiv. 38; Ephes. iv. 17 
 19; Jude, ver. 4, seq. The state of such is 
 therefore compared with that of the sleeping or 
 of the dead, Ephes. v. 14. They live for sin, 
 but are dead to goodness; while it ought to be 
 the reverse. 
 
 Note. Theologians distinguish between this 
 State and that of spiritual liberty or security. 
 They give the latter name to the state of the 
 pious, the whole disposition of whose heart is 
 so renovated as to be conformed to the precepts 
 of Christianity, who by divine assistance control 
 their evil desires, and are sure of the pardon of 
 their sins. Vide John, viii. 36 ; Rom. v. 1 ; vi. 
 18. For true spiritual freedom consists in being 
 free from the power and dominion of sin, and 
 also from its punishment; and we owe both to 
 Christ. These are the blessed godly ones (Gott- 
 seligen, in 'he proper sense of the term) i. e., 
 those who are blessed in the conviction which 
 they feel of the forgiveness of God, who inter- 
 nally and from the heart enjoy a happiness in 
 which they cannot be disturbed even by out- 
 ward calamities. Happy and unhappy (selig 
 and unselig) are terms which apply properly to 
 the internal state the well or ill-being of the 
 soul ; fortunate and unfortunate, {glucklich and 
 ungliicklich,} more to the external state. 
 
 (3) Others still come into a state of hardness 
 or obduracy. This state exists when any one 
 remains insensible and indifferent under the 
 most powerful motives to repentance, so that 
 they cease to make any impression on him. It 
 springs (a) from the frequent repetition of sin, 
 and from the settled habit of sinning. This 
 produces a gradual diminution of the power of 
 the motives to abandon sin, and at length an 
 entire cessation of their efficacy. (&) But those 
 are in peculiar danger of coming into this state 
 who have had placed before them the most 
 urgent and moving inducements to religion and 
 virtue, but have yet neglected and despised them 
 all. It is in the very nature of the human soul 
 that these motives, at each repetition of sin, lose 
 something of their energy, and that at length an 
 entire indifference must ensue, rendering the 
 conversion of one who has brought himself into 
 such a state morally impossible. This state is 
 called by theologians, statum indurationis per- 
 fedum. It is described by Paul, Heb. vi. 4, 
 6, and Is. vi. 10, " Who have eyes, but see not; 
 ears, but hear not" i. e., who are deaf and in- 
 sensible to all the motives to holiness which are 
 held before them, and which they clearly under- 
 
 stand, and who therefore cannot be heakd i. e., 
 renovated and made happy. Cf. John, xii. 40; 
 Acts, xxviii. 26, 27; 2 Cor. iv. 4; iii. 14; also 
 Exod. vii. 13. 
 
 The words and phrases used in the Bible to 
 denote this state are, (1) -02, /3apw5^at, j3apv$. 
 These words are literally employed to signify 
 what is heavy and inactive , they are then used 
 with reference to the members of the body and 
 the organs of sense, as heavy tongues, hands, 
 ears, denoting their inactivity, and the difficulty 
 of their use; Zech. vii. 11; Gen. xlviii. 10; 
 Matt. xxvi. 43 ; lastly, they are applied to the 
 soul, indicating stupidity of the understanding, 
 and slowness of belief; 1 Sam. vi. 6; 2 Chron. 
 xxv. 19; sometimes also the qualities of the 
 will, and sometimes those of the understanding 
 and will both, an inertness of soul, and an in- 
 capacity to the right use of its essential powers. 
 (2) n^p, literally, hard; Hiphil, rr^pn, crxtojpwEtr, 
 tfxtoypwfc&cu,- hence the term ffx^poxapSi'a, from 
 which obduratio is taken. The state of mind 
 now under consideration is often indicated by 
 this tfxx>?pwc&cu., as Heb. iii. 8, 15, seq. ; Rom. 
 ii. 5 ; and by nrp in the Old Testament, Exodus, 
 vii. 3 ; Ezek. iii. 7. (3) The words which ori- 
 ginally signify fat, denote also this state of in- 
 sensibility and unfeelingness e. g., ip^n, pin- 
 gue fieri, rta^wfcrjku., Is. vi. 10, and Matt. xiii. 
 15; as likewise the Latin pinguis is synony- 
 mous with hcbes, stupidus, tardus e. g., inge- 
 nium pingue is the same as dull and obtuse. 
 The fat of the body of animals is without sensa- 
 tion; and this observation was much more fa- 
 miliar to nations offering sacrifices, and so 
 having much to do with the slaughter of ani- 
 mals, than to us; and hence this phraseology 
 was so current among them. (4) The words 
 which indicate deep sleep, in which all external 
 sensation ceases; xatdw&t, Rom. xi. 8, an- 
 swering in the LXX. to the Hebrew nnnnn. (5) 
 One of the most common words used in the 
 New Testament on this subject is Ttwpwcrt?, and 
 rtwpoco, Ttwpoio^at e. g., Rom. xi. 7, 25 ; 2 Cor. 
 iii. 15 ; Mark, vi. 52, xapSux, jtejtu^^tv^. This 
 word is properly taken from rtwpoj, which means, 
 having a hard, indurated skin, (as in the hands 
 of workmen;) callous, without feeling; and so 
 rttopcocrc-5 figuratively denotes, according to Hesy- 
 chius, the same as % txvtuc&^/a, and is synony- 
 mous with ffxto?poxap6<,'cu All these words 
 which signify hardheartedness are sometimes 
 used in reference to the understanding, (called 
 uS,) sometimes in reference to the will, and 
 often with reference to both. A soft heart is, 
 accordingly, susceptibility for reasons and con- 
 viction, the open ear of the soul. A hard heart 
 is the opposite, and indicates a want of know- 
 ledge and capacity the remiss use of them, 
 inactivity. 
 
 With regard to this sfrrlus indurationis there 
 
310 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 has been a great difficulty, which may be stated 
 as follows: From what has been already said, 
 it appears that when a man comes into this 
 state, he alone is to blame, and has all the 
 guilt of it resting upon himself. This is taught 
 in the scriptures in many of the passages al- 
 ready cited. Still there are other texts of scrip- 
 ture in which God seems to be made the author 
 of this obduracy of men, and of sin in general, 
 and its consequences e. g., Exod. iv. 21, "I 
 will harden Pharaoh's heart:" xiv. 17, seq. ; Is. 
 Ixiii. 17; Deut. ii. 30; Josh. xi. 20; Ezek. xx. 
 25 ; and in the New Testament, John, xii. 40, 
 tfftix^Qxt* o^atyiovj avfwv xal rtfrtiopcoxf xap- 
 SMV. Rom. ix. 18, also i. 24. These and simi- 
 lar texts were explained by the severe particu- 
 larists of the reformed church, also by the Jan- 
 senists and many of the stricter Thomists of the 
 Romish church, to mean, that God is the effi- 
 cient cause of these effects ; that from such men 
 he withdraws or withholds, for some reason to 
 us inscrutable, a certain supernatural or irre- 
 sistible grace, without which they cannot be- 
 come holy or happy; and that he does this by 
 his unconditional decree. This interpretation 
 resulted from ignorance of the usus loquendi of 
 the sacred writers. Let the student consider the 
 following particulars viz., 
 
 (a) Even in modern languages we often use 
 expressions by which we ascribe to an indivi- 
 dual the remote consequences of his actions, 
 even when he did not design to produce these 
 consequences, and perhaps employed all the 
 means in his power to guard against them e. 
 g., after I have often exhorted some one to re- 
 pent, and all without effect, except that, in di- 
 rect opposition to my intentions, he becomes, 
 through my repeated warnings, only the more 
 unfeeling, I then say, I have preached him deaf, 
 I have made him harder and more wicked by my 
 efforts. Thus, Isa. vi. 10, "Make hard this 
 people (by preaching), and let their ears be 
 deaf." Vide Michaelis 1 note on Exod. iv. 21. 
 We speak in the same way when our good pur- 
 poses have miscarried. But, 
 
 (6) In the ancient, and especially the Orien- 
 tal languages, this mode of speech is far more 
 current than in modern languages. It is alto- 
 gether appropriate to the whole manner of 
 thinking and speaking in the ancient world ; 
 but it has by degrees become foreign to the sci- 
 entific dialect of the modern world, although it 
 has not wholly fallen into disuse in common 
 life. Hence it often has a strange appearance 
 to the learned, while to the unlearned it sounds 
 more natural. The simplicity of that early age 
 of the world often ascribes everything which 
 takes place under the inspection and special 
 guidance of Providence, whether it be good or 
 evil, directly to God himself, and regards him 
 as the author and efficient cause of every event 
 
 and of its consequences, because nothing takes 
 place without his permission and foreknow- 
 ledge. Vide s. 58, II. 1, and especially s. 70, 
 note, ad finem. Thus, God performs miracles 
 in order to induce Pharaoh to let Israel go; 
 Pharaoh does not comply ; and the oftener the 
 miracles are repeated, the more hard-hearted 
 does he become. Now it is said that God hard- 
 ened Pharaoh, rendered him unfeeling, and even 
 by those very means which should have render- 
 ed him feeling; and at the same time, the cala- 
 mity which now befals him is regarded as a pu- 
 nishment which God inflicts upon him. This 
 last opinion plainly shews that it was not the 
 belief that God acted irresistibly upon Pharaoh ; 
 for in that case how could he be punished? 
 This language is then to be understood in a 
 manner perfectly consistent with the personal 
 guilt of Pharaoh. Cf. Rom. i. 26; ix. 17; 2 
 Thess. ii. 11. In the same way, the good ac- 
 tions of men are ascribed to God ; and from the 
 misunderstanding of the texts in which this is 
 done originated the doctrine respecting superna- 
 tural and irresistible grace, as from the misun- 
 derstanding of the other, the doctrine of judicial 
 hardness. The mode of thinking and speaking 
 now referred to is found also among the Greeks, 
 and indeed in all ancient writings; it occurs in 
 Homer as well as in the Bible, and also in the 
 Arabic writers. In Homer it is said that the 
 Deity infuses good and evil into the heart, (1^- 
 ]3<m,ft seapSt'^;) that he inspires wisdom and 
 folly, (Odyss. xxiii. 11, seq.;) that he infatu- 
 ates and deceives men, deprives them of their 
 reason, so that they may act foolishly, deludes 
 their senses, Zfv$ ^pf'raj fttatfo, II. ix. 377, xix. 
 137;) tempts them to evil, (Odyss. xxiii. 222;) 
 and is the cause of the wickedness of men. 
 For he does everything. II. xix. 87, 90, seq. ; 
 Odyss. xvi. 280, 297, 298 ; II. ix. 632, seq. 
 
 Qvpov 
 
 A.\\T)KTOV T KCLKOV TE 
 
 arriSsfffft Sfoi Siaav. 
 
 Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath 
 not done it? Amos, iii. 6. 
 
 JVofe. The text, Rom. ix. 18, ov fai !te, 
 ov 8s & ax^pvvfc means, according to many, 
 he, treats hardly, like Job, xxxix. 16, (artosx^- 
 pvm texva;) and the principal reason for this 
 is, the contrast of ttefiv. This interpretation, 
 however, does not agree with ver. 19 ; and the 
 whole passage alludes too plainly to the pas- 
 sage in Exodus respecting Pharaoh to admit of 
 this interpretation. This language is therefore 
 to be understood here also in the common sense, 
 and the verse may be thus explained viz., 
 "The good and the evil which befal men de- 
 pend alike upon the divine will. Some (who 
 are pleasing to him, as his children) he causes 
 to prosper: others he hardens i. e., he suffers 
 them to feel the consequences of their obstinacy, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 311 
 
 insensibility, and indifference to his oft-repeated 
 commands; as in the case of Pharaoh, ver. 17." 
 The same thing which is called fsxtypvvew here, 
 is called Evfct|a0&at opy^v, ver. 22. Vide Rahn, 
 ad loc. Rom. ix. 17 23; Halae, 1789. 
 
 SECTION LXXXVI. 
 
 WHAT PUNISHMENT IS, AND WHAT IS THE OBJECT 
 OF IT; HOW THE DIVINE PUNISHMENTS ARE 
 NAMED IN THE BIBLE, AND WHAT WE ARE 
 THERE TAUGHT RESPECTING THEIR NATURE? 
 ALSO THE VARIOUS DIVISIONS OF THE DIVINE 
 PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 IN our treatment of this whole subject we 
 must proceed on the ground of what has been 
 already said on the divine laws and punish- 
 ments in the discussion of the subject of divine 
 justice, s. 30, 31. Supposing the student al- 
 ready acquainted with these, we proceed to 
 make some additional observations, and a more 
 immediate application of what has been already 
 said. 
 
 I. What is Punishment, and what is its object ? 
 
 "Punishment is an evil (suffering, something 
 awakening unpleasant sensations) which the 
 superior inflicts upon those placed under him, 
 on account of some trespass, (the theologian 
 calls it szn;) and this, for the sake of maintain- 
 ing the authority of his laws for the good of his 
 subjects, or to promote their improvement and 
 welfare." This is the general notion of pu- 
 nishment, which is also to be applied to the di- 
 vine judgments, though with a careful separa- 
 tion of every human imperfection. The follow- 
 ing points need to be carefully considered : 
 
 (1) The one who punishes another must in 
 all cases be the supreme magistrate, whether it 
 be God or man. For no one has the right to 
 punish who has not the right to give laws, and 
 this is the peculiar province of the supreme ma- 
 gistrate. Vide s. 73, I. All punishments there- 
 fore depend upon the law, and one can inflict 
 punishment only upon those over whom he pos- 
 sesses the power of legislation. Consequently 
 the right of punishment belongs to God. 
 
 (2) In order to be punished, one must be sub- 
 ject to a law, and have broken it, and in such a 
 way, too, that his transgression can be imputed 
 to him. And this may be when he has either 
 committed unlawful actions himself, or contri- 
 buted to those of others. But it is only when 
 the trespass can thus be imputed to a person that 
 punishment can be inflicted upon him. 
 
 (3) The objects of punishment are, all unlaw- 
 ful actions. In human judicatories the external 
 actions only are the objects of punishment; be 
 cause the knowledge of men extends no further 
 than these ; but at the bar of God not only these 
 
 but also internal actions, evil thoughts, designs, 
 and desires, are liable to punishment. Vide s. 
 82, ad finem. 
 
 (4) The guilt of a person has, therefore, its 
 ground in his relation to the law transgressed 
 by him, and to its author. On account of this 
 relation he deserves the punishment which is 
 threatened against transgressors i. e., he must 
 take upon himself the evil connected with the 
 transgression of the law. The guilty person 
 (qui culpam sustinef) is called in the scriptures 
 ofyfihf-'fr^, 6 f'^cof c^uapT'i.av, ?vo^oj fo^uov, vrtobixos 
 ^9, ttxvov opyjjj one who must give account, 
 &c. Vide Morus, p. 110, s. 4, note 1. All men 
 are described in the Bible as being such ; and 
 the sacred writers insist upon it with great ear- 
 nestness, that men should look upon themselves 
 as subject to the penalty of the law, as the only 
 way for them to become disposed to accept of 
 the means of improvement offered to them, and 
 to comply with the prescribed conditions. Vide 
 s. 80. 
 
 (5) The last end of punishments. This in 
 general may be best stated as follows: they 
 aim at the welfare and reformation of the sub- 
 ject; or it is their object to support the autho- 
 rity of the law for the welfare and improvement 
 of those placed under it. This subject is treat- 
 ed more at large in s. 31, II. 2, where the opi- 
 nion of Michaelis, that the only object of pu- 
 nishment is to deter men from sin is further con- 
 sidered. The imperfections which cleave to 
 human punishments must necessarily be sepa- 
 rated from divine; nor should human punish- 
 ments ever be made the standard by which 
 divine punishments are to be judged of. 
 
 Note. Some modern philosophers have as- 
 serted that God cannot punish, and that divine 
 punishments ought never to be spoken of, be- 
 cause what are so called are to be regarded as 
 benefits, and have benevolent ends and results. 
 But merely because punishments tend to pro- 
 mote the good of men, and are designed to se- 
 cure the most benevolent results, they do not 
 cease to be evils, and become the same with 
 what are ordinarily denominated benefits. The 
 pain which is felt in sickness is beneficial ; it 
 makes one mindful in time of danger, leads to 
 caution, and so is often the means of preserving 
 life ; still it is an evil which we endeavour to 
 avoid, and the approach of which we fear. 
 Thus it is with punishments. And it is in the 
 highest degree injurious to undertake to oblite- 
 rate from the minds of the great multitude of 
 unconverted men the fear of divine punishment. 
 Too great caution' cannot be used against that 
 miscalled philosophy which does this; for 
 wherever it has found entrance, either in an- 
 cient or modern times, it has always destroyed 
 religion, morality, and civil order. Vide s. 156. 
 
312 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 II. Scriptural names of Divine Punishments, and 
 the nature of these punishments. 
 
 (1) Many of these names bear the impress 
 of the simplicity of the popular phraseology of 
 the earliest times. They are sometimes derived 
 from injured and irritated rulers, who give free 
 scope to their anger, and take revenge for the 
 injury done them; sometimes from judges, who 
 hold judgment over the guilty, pronounce sen- 
 tence upon them, and execute it. It would be 
 a great mistake, however, for any one to charge 
 the scriptural writers with entertaining gross 
 anthropomorphic ideas on this subject merely 
 because they sometimes use expressions of this 
 nature. They only retained the common terms 
 in use among men, while they always under- 
 stood them in a refined and elevated sense. It 
 is not with them, as in Homer, where even the 
 gods fear that Jupiter, when he is enraged, will 
 punish the innocent and guilty alike, II. xv. 
 137. Nothing like this is taught in the scrip- 
 tures. That the sacred writers connected ideas 
 worthy of God with those popular expressions 
 which they made use of is evident from the New 
 Testament, in which, notwithstanding the most 
 just conceptions of the divine nature are un- 
 questionably contained, still the terms in com- 
 mon use with regard to the Divine Being, such 
 as the revenge, the oath, the curse of God, often ap- 
 pear. The same is true in the Old Testament, 
 in the books of Moses and in the Psalms. 
 
 Expressions like these, it may also be said, 
 make a far stronger impression upon the uncul- 
 tivated mass of mankind, depending as they do 
 upon their senses, than terms more abstract; 
 they take firmer hold upon them, and sink 
 deeper and more easily into their hearts, than 
 terms which represent the thing less plainly to 
 the senses. For this reason, terms of this na- 
 ture are employed by the sacred writers, espe- 
 cially when they have to do with men of the 
 character now described ; they alternate, how- 
 ever, such expressions with others ; and in this 
 we ought to imitate them. 
 
 The following are among the names which 
 they employ viz., ^s, jinn, npn, opyjj, 1^0$, 
 Psalm vii. 12; Romans, v. 9, coll. s. 31, ad 
 init. ; nxjfr, Deut. i. 27; opj, exSixyais, Isaiah, 
 Ixiii. 4 ; Luke, xxi. 22. The opposites of these 
 are the love, the favour, the friendship of God, 
 ntri, ]n, aydrty, t'fooj, #api$, x. t. "k. With refer- 
 ence to announcing or threatening the divine 
 punishments, the sacred writers frequently em- 
 ploy words which literally mean to rebuke, in- 
 crepare, which the irritated man commonly 
 does ; especially, ->yj, my a, erti-tipdu, titi-tipta, 
 Jnde, 9, seq. Again : the words which signify 
 cursing, imprecation, are used to denote the 
 same thing as nV?r>, xatdpa, rnxr, &c., Deut. ix. 
 26, seq. ; Gal. iii. 20. Opposite to this is rons, 
 
 jti>, Deut. xxviii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 13. 
 
 As vocabula media (used with reference either 
 to benefits or punishments) all the nominajudi- 
 cii and verba judicandi are often employed ; 
 more frequently, however, with reference to di- 
 vine punishments, as EJECT, jn, 01, xpiaig, xpi t ua, 
 xatdxpi/jia, Gal. v. 10; Rom. ii. 3. The words, 
 too, which designate a judicial declaration, are 
 often employed to denote threatenings and pu- 
 nishments; so even -on, xdyo$, /'^a Qsov. 
 Among the vocabula media belong also all the 
 verba intuendi and aspiciendi, such as rtn, trttt- 
 Sttv, and especially np2, to which the word 
 irtivxtrttfo^ai answers in the New Testament, 
 and in the Vulgate, visitare; in the good sense, 
 to behold any one with a cheerful face, is to shew 
 him kindness or favour e. g., Psalm viii. 5; 
 Luke, i. 68, 78 ; in the bad sense, to behold any 
 one with an angry face, is to punish him ; hence 
 rn;?? and irUGxortri signify often punishment 
 e. g., Isaiah, x. 3 ; 1 Peter, ii. 12. In the Old 
 and New Testament the terms ipir, ip', rtcu- 
 8svtiv, castigare, and jtatSsta, are used to denote 
 the, fatherly discipline and chastisement of God, 
 which is the proper idea to be entertained of the 
 divine punishments, and the ends for which they 
 are inflicted. Cf. s. 31, II. Finally, all the 
 Hebrew words which properly signify sin and 
 guilt are often used to denote punishment e. g., 
 jiiy, nsan, 01. Vide s. 73, II. 2, ad finem; ex- 
 actly as, in Homer, "A-ty signifies crime, and 
 also its guilt and punishment, II. xix. 91. Cf. 
 136, 137. 
 
 A(dj Suyarrjp "Art] r| Trairaj darai, 
 
 Jlte, the daughter of Jupiter, who brings every 
 one into guilt. Cf. II. ix. 50, seq., and s. 30, 31. 
 Note. Some modern philosophers and theo- 
 logians object to the phrase, the anger of God; 
 and many young religious teachers carefully 
 avoid it, and pronounce their older brethren 
 who still employ it very unenlightened. But 
 they do this without any good reason. Anger, 
 in general, is the expression of strong disappro- 
 bation. In this men indeed are liable to err; 
 they may express their disapprobation with re- 
 gard to things which do not deserve it, or more 
 strongly than is proper, and often quite unjusti- 
 fiably ; their anger, therefore, may be, and often 
 is, wrong and sinful. But it is by no means 
 necessary that anger should be so ; there may 
 be a righteous anger, as is often said in common 
 life, when one expresses his deep and lively 
 displeasure in such a way as to be perfectly 
 conformable to the subject, the end, and the cir- 
 cumstances. Nor can a good moral being ex- 
 ist, or even be conceived to exist, without such 
 anger. God, as the most perfect and holy moral 
 being, has certainly the greatest displeasure 
 against sin; and as he is the supreme moral go- 
 vernor of the world, he expresses it in a very 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 313 
 
 impressive manner. He therefore is said to 
 burn with anger, but his anger is always just. 
 
 (2) The divine judgments are inflicted, ac- 
 cording to the Bible, (a) in the present life; (6) 
 by death (although this was strictly a punish- 
 ment for sin only in the case of the first man, 
 and with regard to all others is only a conse- 
 quence of the sin of Adam; vide s. 76, III. and 
 s. 80, ad finem); (c) after death. All these pu- 
 nishments, according to the Bible, stand con- 
 nected with the sin of our first parents. For 
 from that arose the moral corruption which is 
 communicated to all mankind. This is the 
 source of actual sins, and these bring punish- 
 ment in their train. Vide s. 76, seq. From this 
 evil the second Head of our race has freed us. 
 
 That the representations given in the Bible 
 respecting the divine punishments and their end 
 agree perfectly with what sound reason recog- 
 nises on this subject is very evident from the 
 description it contains of the nature of these 
 punishments. They are (a) always just and 
 proper^ vide the texts quoted s. 31 ; moreover, 
 Rom. ii. 2, x^ifio, ?ov ftyft xa^' ahrjcttiav. Vide 
 also those texts which speak of the drtpocycoTto- 
 X^-4/ta &sov. (j3) They have the welfare of men 
 for their object. This is the last end for which 
 they are inflicted ; (vide the texts cited ;) and if 
 this object is not attained with any particular 
 offender, he himself is alone in fault; and his 
 punishment then serves for the good of others, 
 who learn wisdom from his example, (y) They 
 are certain, and will be inevitably inflicted ; they 
 are not mere empty threats ; no one will be able 
 to escape. Vide Rom. ii. 3, coll. Heb. xii. 25, 
 and especially Heb. iv. 12, 13. This follows 
 from the divine veracity; these punishments 
 must be maintained in order to uphold the au- 
 thority of the Divine Being, and to prevent an 
 universal carelessness and indifference about 
 sin. (6) The divine punishments are also de- 
 scribed as terrible ; as in these expressions : Our 
 God is a consuming /ire ; it is a terrible thing to 
 fall into his hands, &c. Heb. x. 30, 31 ; xii. 29. 
 For in order that these punishments may attain 
 their end, they must be sufficiently severe to 
 terrify the transgressor, and must meet him 
 in the point where he can be most strongly 
 affected. 
 
 III. Divisions of Punishments. 
 
 (1) A very ancient division of punishments 
 is into po2nam damni and sensus, in reference to 
 the evil itself which is inflicted on any one by 
 punishment, (a) By punishment, a certain 
 good is withdrawn. The judgments of men 
 respecting their true welfare and their real inte- 
 rests are very diverse; and consequently the 
 withdrawal of their supposed advantages is va- 
 riously estimated and felt. To one person, 
 riches appear a great advantage; to another, 
 40 
 
 not; and so while the former will regard the 
 loss of them as the greatest evil, the latter will 
 not suffer in the least from their loss. It is not 
 here, then, of so much consequence, whether 
 the advantages are real or only apparent, as in 
 what estimation they are held by him from 
 whom they are withdrawn. This withdraw- 
 ment now is called pozna damni, or sometimes 
 poena negativa. (6) When, in addition to this, 
 positively unpleasant feelings are caused and 
 pains inflicted, this is called poena sensus. These 
 two parts of punishment are commonly con- 
 nected. These unpleasant sensations have their 
 proper seat, either in the body, and are commu- 
 nicated through the senses to the soul, or they 
 are confined to the soul, and have their origin 
 there. The latter are felt the most keenly, and 
 are the most dreadful. 
 
 (2) In respect to the connexion of punishment 
 with crime, punishments are divided into natu- 
 ral, and positiv e or arbitrary. The former are 
 such as result from the internal nature of mo- 
 rally bad actions themselves ; the latter are 
 such as stand in no natural and necessary con- 
 nexion with wicked actions, but which are con- 
 nected with them merely by the good pleasure 
 (arbitriuni) of the lawgiver. These two kinds 
 of punishment have been already explained, s. 
 31, as well as the doctrine respecting the natu- 
 ral and positive laws of God, s. 30. 
 
 In this place we shall add a few remarks re- 
 specting the natural punishments inflicted by 
 God upon men, especially in this life; in the 
 following section we shall farther discuss the 
 subject of positive punishments. 
 
 There has been some dispute among philoso- 
 phers (into which we do not mean to enter fully 
 now) whether the natural evil consequences of 
 sin ought to be called punishments; and the 
 propriety of this is by some denied. Judging 
 from the common conceptions on this subject, 
 and the common phraseology founded on these, 
 there can be no doubt but that we may and 
 ought to consider the evil consequences result- 
 ing from the transgression of the divine com- 
 mandments as punishment. So we say, for ex- 
 ample, with respect to a liar, in whom at length 
 no one places any confidence, or with respect to 
 the voluptuary or drunkard, who brings infamy 
 and disease upon himself, and in all such cases 
 that sin punishes itself. Again, if the leges na- 
 turales are properly called laws., (and Vhatever 
 is true of law in any case is true of them,) how 
 can it be doubted whether the consequences re- 
 sulting from the transgression of these laws are 
 properly denominated punishments ? 
 
 But these natural punishments may be distin- 
 guished into two kinds: 
 
 (a) Such as are the necessary and inevitable 
 evil consequences of the actions themselves, and 
 which would result equally from these actions, 
 2D 
 
314 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 were they not forbidden, and were the actions, 
 therefore, not sins. They are called physical 
 punishments. Among these are all the sick- 
 nesses and pains which arise from intemper- 
 ance of every kind ; the poverty which comes 
 from idleness; the grief, sorrow, and shame, 
 which are the results of a dissipated life; &c. 
 It is in order to guard against the necessary evil 
 consequences of sin, and so to diminish them, 
 that the divine law is given ; and in this way it 
 is, that what were before mere evils now become 
 sins. Vide s. 73, I. 
 
 (6) Punishments which result from the rela- 
 tion of human actions to the law, or which have 
 respect to the moral character of men. These 
 are called moral punishments. These moral 
 consequences of sin fall principally and most 
 heavily upon the soul. Hence they are also 
 called spiritual punishments. Among these are, 
 e. g., the reproaches of conscience, telling us 
 that we have violated the law of God, rendered 
 ourselves unworthy of his favour, and disquali- 
 fied for his blessings; also restlessness of soul, 
 and fear of punishment, from the consciousness 
 of guilt or ill-desert the fear of God. Rom. 
 iii. 19, 23 ; 1 John, i. 8, seq. ; iii. 14, seq. These 
 are the most fearful and terrible of all punish- 
 ments. 
 
 This distinction between the different kinds 
 of natural punishment is very important, espe- 
 cially in the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. 
 Vide s. Ill, II. From thence it appears, 
 
 (a) That the natural and physical evil conse- 
 quences of certain wicked actions cannot wholly 
 cease, even after pardon has been bestowed upon 
 men, and they have repented, or after they have 
 appropriated the merits of Christ. For we have 
 no right to suppose that God will remove, in a 
 miraculous manner, the necessary physical con- 
 sequences of sinful actions. From experience 
 we see that God does not do this in the present 
 life. E. g., if any one has brought upon him- 
 self, by his excesses, prolonged sickness or po- 
 verty, he will not become at once well in body 
 and estate merely by reforming his courses ; but 
 he must continue to feel the necessary conse- 
 quences of his errors and crimes, just as the con- 
 sequences of the sin of Adam death and other 
 temporal calamities continue to be felt by all 
 his posterity, even by those who are renewed 
 and pardoned. Vide Rom. viii. 10, 18 23. 
 Nor does the Bible anywhere teach us, that in 
 some miraculous way God will, even in the fix- 
 ture life, remove all the natural and lasting con- 
 sequences of actions ; it is therefore highly pro- 
 bable that some portion of these consequences 
 will continue even hereafter. But these natural- 
 ly evil consequences, (as well those which are 
 temporal as those which continue in the future 
 life,) from which we are not entirely freed by 
 the death of Christ, are yet mitigated, and lose 
 
 the terror of punishment, to those who are par- 
 doned and sanctified. This experience in the 
 present life teaches us, and the holy scriptures 
 assure of the same. Vide Rom. viii. 1, and v. 1, 
 3 10. But the pcsnae naturales spirituals cease 
 entirely with the renewed. Hence, 
 
 (6) The principal evils from which man is 
 freed in this and the future life, when he is par- 
 doned and renewed, are, the moral consequences 
 of sin ; and it is because the believer is freed 
 from these, that even the natural consequences 
 of sin are mitigated to him and lose the terror of 
 punishment. The renewed man will never in- 
 deed forget the sins which he has once commit- 
 ted ; he will condemn them, and mourn over 
 them; but, as he is sure of pardon, his disquiet 
 respecting them, his fear of God as a judge, and 
 the reproaches of his conscience, will either at 
 once or by slow degrees entirely cease ; peace of 
 soul will be restored, together with a lively and 
 joyful feeling of his present happy state, in 
 comparison with his former unhappy condition. 
 This is what the scriptures mean by the peace of 
 God in the heart of the man whose sins are for- 
 given. Vide the texts before cited from Rom. 
 v. and viii. 
 
 SECTION LXXXVII. 
 
 SOME REMARKS ON "POSITIVE" DIVINE 
 PUNISHMENTS. 
 
 IN addition to what we have already said on 
 this subject, in stating the doctrine of divine 
 justice, s. 31, we add here the following re- 
 marks : 
 
 (1) The term arbitrary punishments (p&nse 
 arbitrarias} seems to be somewhat inconvenient, 
 and to be liable to be misunderstood ; it is for 
 this reason objected to by very many modern 
 writers, e. g., Steinbart, Syst. s. 130 ; Eberhard, 
 Apologie d. Sokr. th. i. ; and the author of the 
 " Apologie der Vernunft." And if the term ar- 
 bitrary must be understood to denote a blind 
 caprice, in which no regard is paid to rectitude 
 and propriety, and to the nature of the offence, 
 it could never, without blasphemy, be predicated 
 of the punishments inflicted by God. But no 
 advocate of the arbitrariness of God in the pu- 
 nishments he inflicts has ever understood it in 
 this sense; for it cannot be supposed that even 
 a man of common understanding and goodness 
 would punish in such a manner. These evils, 
 which are called positive punishments, are not, 
 indeed, founded in the internal nature of the for- 
 bidden actions themselves ; they are not the im- 
 mediate natural consequences of these actions ; 
 but they are added to, and conjoined with, the 
 natural consequences of sin, by the special ap- 
 pointment of the legislator; and it is for this 
 reason that they are called arbitrariae. They are 
 mala ex arbitrio i. e., libero Dei (judicis ac 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 
 
 315 
 
 domint) consilio sive institute extrinsecus immissa. 
 But they are always determined by the rules of 
 Supreme Wisdom and goodness, and have all 
 the qualities of the other divine operations. 
 They are moreover resorted to by God, in cases 
 where his object cannot be attained by merely 
 natural punishments. We should not, then, be 
 over-scrupulous about the use of this term, for 
 when we hear it said that God, the All-wise and 
 just, inflicts arbitrary punishments, the associ- 
 ated idea of blind caprice, acting without cause 
 or reason, falls away at once and of itself. The 
 same is true of this term, as of the expression, 
 the anger of God. Vide s. 86. The arbitrium 
 of God is always wise, and never a blind caprice, 
 as it often is with men, especially with passion- 
 ate rulers and magistrates. In case this term 
 were rejected, we might substitute the phrase 
 free punishments. 
 
 (2) That there are positive divine punish- 
 ments, especially in the future world, the Bible 
 teaches with sufficient clearness. And indeed, 
 from the scriptural doctrines, that God forgives 
 sins, (i. e., removes their consequences,) and that 
 Christ, the innocent, endured punishment for us, 
 it seems to follow that the sacred writers be- 
 lieved in positive punishments and their remis- 
 sion. A philosophic argument in behalf of po- 
 sitive punishments is derived from the nature 
 and efficacy of natural punishments, which are 
 not sufficiently great to deter the sinner from 
 crime, or lead him to repentance, so that positive 
 punishments in addition to these are necessary, 
 in order to produce this effect. It was a great 
 object with Michaelis to establish this point. 
 The arguments brought in opposition to it by 
 Steinbart, Eberhard, and others, together with 
 the arguments in its favour, were briefly stated, 
 s. 31. 
 
 But since this subject is attended with various 
 difficulties, which can never be entirely removed 
 by human philosophy, owing to the limitation 
 of our minds, the question arises, What eourse 
 shall the religious teacher pursue on this subject, 
 and what instruction shall he give respecting po- 
 sitive divine punishments ? In order to come to 
 a right decision on this question, and to be able 
 to answer it for ourselves, we must not proceed 
 upon empty speculations or ideal conceptions, 
 but from the following results of experience. 
 The history of all ages teaches that the prevail- 
 ing notion among men always has been and 
 still is, that God inflicts not only natural, bu 
 also positive and arbitrary punishments; or, 
 that moral evil has not only natural evil for its 
 consequent, but also such punishments as de- 
 pend entirely upon the choice of the lawgiver, 
 Hence sicknesses and other calamities, which 
 stand in no natural connexion with crime, were 
 yet often regarded as the punishments of it e 
 g., the pestilence in the camp of the Greeks be< 
 
 ore Troy was so regarded in Homer; cf. Iliad, 
 xvi. 384, seq. Now, in what way did this idea 
 btain so wide a prevalence among men, and so 
 strong a hold upon them ? If we make history 
 and experience our teachers, we shall come to 
 he following conclusions : 
 
 (a) Human legislators can threaten only po- 
 sitive punishments, because they are able to in- 
 lict no other. For they are neither the authors 
 nor the rulers of nature, but are themselves, as 
 well as those over whom they rule, subject to 
 ;hat constitution which God has given to nature. 
 Since, now, men are apt to reason from the hu- 
 man to the divine, they were disposed to trans- 
 fer to God and his government those procedures 
 and institutions common in human families and 
 states. From hence it is obvious how even hea- 
 then nations should have come so generally to 
 this notion. They reasoned thus : As men have 
 the right to enact arbitrary laws and impose ar- 
 aitrary punishments, this right must belong in 
 a far higher degree to the supreme legislative 
 power, which knows of no limitation. It was by 
 such arguments that they arrived at this idea, 
 though by such alone the reflecting mind is not 
 satisfied. But, 
 
 (6) The true cause of this universal belief lies 
 much deeper. There is on this subject a certain 
 feeling of need in human nature which cannot be 
 reasoned away, and which often exercises its 
 power even over the speculative philosopher, al- 
 though he has long suppressed it by his specula- 
 tion. It is but too clearly proved by daily ex- 
 perience, that fear of the merely natural conse- 
 quences of sin is too inefficacious to restrain men 
 from committing it. For these natural punish- 
 ments man has but little regard, and he thinks 
 he can find means to avoid them, or to secure 
 himself against them. The end, therefore, can 
 be more surely answered by positive punish- 
 ments. This result, built upon experience, al- 
 though men were only obscurely conscious of it, 
 awakened in them a feeling which made it ne- 
 cessary for them to believe that there are posi- 
 tive divine judgments. Hence many even of the 
 ancient heathen lawgivers took means to give 
 to natural laws and penalties the authority of 
 positive, and for this purpose they intimately 
 associated the civil and religious institutions of 
 their country. 
 
 (c) If there are positive rewards in the future 
 world, as all concede, it is hard to see how posi- 
 tive punishments can be denied. Vide s. 31. 
 
 (d) To any one who makes the holy scriptures 
 the source of his knowledge, this subject cannot 
 be doubtful ; for the scriptures clearly teach 
 that there are positive punishments, and presup- 
 pose them in many of the most important doc- 
 trines. 
 
 But if any one remains unconvinced by philo- 
 sophical arguments and by the authority of the 
 
316 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Bible, that God actually appoints positive pu- 
 nishments, he must be referred to the fact and 
 observation above mentioned, that this belief 
 cannot be taken away from a people without 
 endangering its morality. Even if a religious 
 teacher should himself entertain doubts on this 
 subject, it would be foolish and wrong in him to 
 communicate these doubts to the people, and 
 thus deprive them of a belief for which he can 
 substitute nothing equally firm and salutary. 
 The history of all ages teaches that nothing has 
 so injurious an effect upon the morality of peo- 
 ple as the persuasion that there are no positive 
 punishments which they have to fear from the 
 hand of God. When such punishments have 
 been expected, the fear of them has always 
 proved a mighty barrier against all the gross out- 
 breakings of sin. For a confirmation of these 
 remarks let the student consult history ; cf. also 
 s. 156, II. Note. 
 
 But, on the other hand, it is equally the duty 
 of the religious teacher to rectify, by scriptural 
 views, the false opinions which people are apt 
 to form respecting the nature of these positive 
 punishments, and to prevent, as far as possible, 
 their injurious influence. In discharging this 
 duty he may be aided by the following scrip- 
 tural observations. From the prevailing false 
 ideas respecting positive punishments, occasion 
 is sometimes taken to condemn others, and to 
 pronounce upon them uncharitable censures, as, 
 on the other hand, from the bestowment of posi- 
 tive rewards, many are disposed to extol and to 
 imitate those upon whom they are conferred, 
 supposing them to be the favourites of Heaven. 
 This results from the mistake that prosperity 
 and adversity in this life are proofs of the plea- 
 sure or displeasure of God with the conduct of 
 men; something as it is with those who stand 
 in favour or disfavour with human rulers. But 
 all such opinions have a most unfavourable in- 
 fluence upon morality and upon the dispositions 
 of men. The teacher must therefore take pains 
 to shew, 
 
 (a) That external prosperity and adversity 
 in this life are not distributed by God as reward 
 and punishment for the moral conduct of men, 
 (vide s. 71, II. ;) and that it is therefore judging 
 hastily to pronounce positively and decidedly 
 that the calamities which befal particular coun- 
 tries or individuals, from natural and not moral 
 causes, are judgments from God, although they 
 may be so overruled by the providence of God, 
 and should be so improved as to contribute to the 
 promotion of moral good and to the diminution 
 of moral evil. 
 
 (j3) That even although positive divine re- 
 wards and punishments should take place in the 
 present life, (which we are not entitled to deny 
 in thesi,} yet men are not in a situation, nor in 
 any way qualified, to decide that they are so in 
 
 particular cases, because they have no sure and 
 infallible marks by which they can distinguish 
 these from advantages and calamities which re- 
 sult from other causes, and have no connexion 
 with the good or ill desert of men. Hence 
 Christ himself warns against such precipitate 
 judgments. Vide s. 31, coll. Ps. Ixxiii. 2, seq. 
 
 (y) The Old Testament is often appealed to, 
 where much is indeed said respecting positive 
 rewards and punishments even in the present 
 life; and by the unguarded application of such 
 texts much injury may be done, even by sincere 
 and well-disposed religious teachers. On this 
 point instruction should be given to the people 
 with due discretion, in conformity with what 
 was said on this point, s. 31, ad finem, in the 
 note. It must be shewn that the same is not 
 true now as was true in that early period of the 
 world, and under the peculiar constitution of 
 the Jewish religion. This matter can be made 
 very plain to any one, by remarking that then 
 there were prophets, who, as the divine ambas- 
 sadors, expressly declared that this and that 
 physical evil was a positive punishment from 
 God ; but that, as we have no prophets now, we 
 are unable in particular cases to pronounce a de- 
 finite decision whether this and that evil is or is 
 not to be regarded as a positive punishment. 
 
 (3) Still another chief objection, which is 
 often urged against the existence of positive re- 
 wards and punishments in the future world, is 
 this : God would have named the positive pu- 
 nishments which he meant to inflict, and would 
 have settled the manner of their infliction in his 
 laws. This is done, it is said, by every hu- 
 mane and just legislator among men; and it is 
 regarded by us as tyranny and despotism for a 
 ruler to inflict punishment which he has not 
 previously threatened. But this comparison of 
 human rulers and magistrates with God, and of 
 their punishments with his, will not hold. For 
 (a) with human judges and magistrates this re- 
 gulation is necessary, in order to prevent the 
 judge from acting unjustly or rashly, or from 
 inflicting too light or too severe a punishment 
 under the influence of momentary feeling. But 
 we are secure from any such danger when the pu- 
 nishments to be inflicted are left to the disposal 
 of an omniscient, all-wise, and benevolent Ruler. 
 There is not, therefore, the same reason for this 
 that there is in the case of men. (6) Human 
 criminal codes, even those which are most com- 
 plete, contain only a few species of crimes; nor 
 can they have any respect in the appointment 
 of the punishment to the motives, the state of 
 mind, and innumerable other circumstances 
 which make the crime greater or less. But to 
 all these circumstances God, who is perfectly 
 wise and just, must have respect. How impos- 
 sible, now, must it be to give a catalogue of all 
 sins and their punishments, according to their 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 317 
 
 endlessly diversified degrees and modifications 1 
 Who would read, understand, or regard such a 
 catalogue! Would it not make many for the 
 first time, and to their great injury, acquainted 
 with sins of which they otherwise would have 
 known nothing? (c) As the future world lies 
 entirely beyond the circle of our ideas, it might 
 not be even possible fully to describe to us, in 
 our present state, every kind of positive reward 
 and punishment, (d) The fear of a positive pu- 
 nishment at present unknown makes a stronger 
 impression upon the sinner, and is more effica- 
 cious in deterring him from sin, than that of a 
 punishment definitely described; for, in the 
 former case, the sinner will always fear the 
 worst, and expect that the punishment will 
 strike where he is most susceptible. 
 Note. The holy scriptures, and particularly 
 
 Jesus and his apostles, make it a great object 
 to unfold all the consequences of sin, and to 
 shew how we can be freed from them. Those 
 who are teachers of the gospel should follow 
 their example in this respect. They insist par- 
 ticularly upon the misery of the soul arising from 
 sin, and upon the punishments of the future 
 world. This entire misery, or the unhappy 
 state of both soul and body, as produced by sin, 
 is called in the scriptures by various names 
 e. g., oto^poj, (xrtwkfta, ^avar'oj, <sxoto$, x. H. X. 
 Vide Morus, p. Ill, prope ad finem. Of the 
 external evil consequences of sin which befal 
 men in the present life the sacred writers speak 
 less frequently, partly because these are not by 
 any means so great and terrible as the other, 
 and partly because they are perfectly obvious, 
 and fall under the notice of every one. 
 
 PART II.-STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT 
 BY THE REDEMPTION. 
 
 ARTICLE X. 
 
 OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 HIS important article has 
 been treated in a great va- 
 riety of ways from the ear- 
 liest times. The teachers 
 of religion and the inter- 
 preters of the Bible have, 
 for various reasons, been 
 dissatisfied with the simple scriptural 
 representation, and have often predeter- 
 mined, by the principles of some school 
 of philosophy, or by religious opinions 
 current at their own time, what could 
 be believed concerning the person, offices, and 
 merits of Jesus Christ. Any declarations of the 
 Bible in opposition to their views have been 
 either overlooked, as if they could not be found, 
 or, by the help of that artificial exegesis which 
 makes anything out of everything, have been 
 so explained as to agree with their preconceived 
 opinions. In this manner has this article espe- 
 cially been treated of late in the protestant 
 church, particularly in the Lutheran church in 
 Germany. And so common has it become to 
 pervert this doctrine in the universities, schools, 
 and in popular discourses and writings, that the 
 teacher who turns aside from the beaten path 
 must possess no small degree of unprejudiced 
 piety. My design is, to exhibit, according to 
 my honest conviction, the, pure, unfalsified doc- 
 trine of the Bible, with its proof, and carefully to 
 
 distinguish it from ecclesiasticl distinctions, and 
 from other additions and alterations. 
 
 The latter I shall consider by themselves, and 
 endeavour to illustrate them from history, and to 
 pronounce judgment upon them according to 
 their true merits. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOR THE RESTO- 
 RATION OF MEN IN A GENERAL VIEW; THE 
 EXPECTATIONS, PREDICTIONS, AND TYPES OF 
 THE MESSIAH, AND THEIR FULFILMENT IN 
 JESUS OF NAZARETH. 
 
 SECTION LXXXVIII. 
 
 OF THE INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED BY GOD FOR 
 THE MORAL RECOVERY AND THE SALVATION OF 
 THE HUMAN RACE IN A GENERAL VIEW ; AND 
 THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES AND REPRESENTA- 
 TIONS ON THIS SUBJECT ; AS A GENERAL INTRO- 
 DUCTION TO WHAT FOLLOWS. 
 
 I. What is requisite for the moral recovery of man. 
 THE Bible everywhere teaches that man is 
 debarred from the enjoyment of that happiness 
 which God intended for him, by the want of 
 holiness, by sin, and deserved punishment. Vide 
 Art. IX. Holiness gives the only right of citi- 
 zenship in the moral kingdom of God, (fBaffttoui 
 0?ov.) Now because sin is universal among 
 men, all have need of forgiveness and reforma- 
 2 D 2 
 
318 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 tion the remission of sins and regeneration, 
 (d<j>mj, [ittdvoia, avayevvqats.) And since we 
 never attain to perfect holiness in this life, what- 
 ever advances we may make, [and hence must 
 be disquieted with regard to our acceptance with 
 God,] it is equally essential that we should 
 have some quieting assurance respecting what 
 awaits us, in order to the exercise of true reli- 
 gion, as that we should reform. These, then, 
 are the principal objects at which Christianity 
 aims. If men are to be redeemed, these hin- 
 drances to their happiness must be removed, 
 they must be reformed, and must be forgiven, 
 and a comforting assurance that they are so must 
 be imparted. This is done in two ways : 
 
 (1) By one method, the power of sinfutfiffec- 
 tions is weakened ; so that reason will again at- 
 tain to its dominion over them ; by which man 
 will be placed in a situation to lead a holy and 
 pious life, (gtxatwj xai fvuejSwj ^v, x. f. 7i.) This 
 means, however, must be of such a nature as to 
 leave human freedom entirely unimpaired. Re- 
 formation in a moral being is effected by bring- 
 ing the desires and inclinations, from which 
 actions spring, under the control of the intelli- 
 gent mind. It is for this reason that in Chris- 
 tianity a doctrine is revealed to men to be re- 
 ceived and believed by them, intended to en- 
 lighten their minds, to teach them how to avoid 
 and overcome the temptations to sin, and how to 
 live agreeably to the will of God and their own 
 destination. This doctrine must exhibit the 
 motives for the avoidance of sin and the practice 
 of virtue and holiness in a manner universally 
 intelligible and convincing, equally designed to 
 illuminate the reason and affect the heart. But 
 it must also shew in what way man can attain 
 power to enable him to be holy. For any mere 
 doctrine of virtue, or code of moral precepts, does 
 not confer upon man the power of becoming ac- 
 tually virtuous. This, as Paul says, is to <i6i>- 
 vatov tov vopov. The moral law, with all its 
 precepts, threatenings, and promises, could not 
 by itself make us holy and acceptable. The 
 fault, however, does not lie in the law, but in 
 that weakness and imperfection which results 
 from our depravity, (Sinnlichkeit.) 'Ev 9 tfa$e- 
 vst 8ta ffapxoj. Now in Christianity, as we are 
 taught by the sacred writers, the most perfect 
 instruction of this nature is given to men. 
 
 (2) But the Bible teaches us that the reco- 
 very of man to happiness requires something 
 more than this instruction. This other means 
 is, the forgiveness of sins, or, freedom from the 
 punishment of sin. Nor was it enough that 
 men should be merely forgiven; their tranquil- 
 lity and happiness require that they should be 
 able to attain to an assurance and certain con- 
 viction of the fact. This can be done through 
 the atonement of Christ. Many ancient and 
 
 modern philosophers and religious teachers have, 
 indeed, maintained that no such atonement is 
 necessary, since God forgives the sins of men 
 whenever they reform. But the whole history 
 of the human race, in ancient and modern times, 
 proves that an universal apprehension, arising 
 from a universal feeling of need, has prevailed 
 among men, that besides inward reformation, 
 some other means of propitiating the Deity, and 
 averting the deserved punishment of sin, are 
 neessary, and do actually exist. 
 
 The following reasons may be given for this 
 feeling: viz. (a) Although one should be 
 guilty of no new transgressions, he cannot feel 
 a comforting assurance that the sins which he 
 has previously committed will be forgiven on the 
 ground of his subsequent reformation. Indeed, 
 he can find no reason to believe this, while he 
 has reason enough to fear the contrary. For 
 how can that which is once done be undone, or 
 the consequences of it be prevented ? (&) Every 
 man, whatever his advances in sanctification, 
 must still confess that his holiness is very im- 
 perfect, and that he frequently sins. How, 
 then, can he hope to deserve the mercy of God 
 by a holiness which is so imperfect and min- 
 gled with sin? It is the voice of conscience, 
 then, which has produced and spread so widely 
 among men this feeling of the necessity of an 
 expiation. There is not a nation upon the 
 globe, as Plutarch has observed, which has not 
 certain appointments for this purpose ; such as 
 offerings, cleansings, and other religious rites. 
 Cf. Meiners, Geschichte der Religionem, s. 
 123, f. 
 
 Now it will be in vain to endeavour to take 
 away this feeling from man, considering how 
 universal and deeply rooted it is, and that it is 
 founded upon the voice of conscience, and cor- 
 responds with the most natural and familiar no- 
 tions which men form respecting God, and his 
 manner of feeling and acting. The religious 
 teacher who withholds from his people the doc- 
 trine of pardon through Christ who represents 
 it as uncertain and doubtful, or entirely rejects 
 it, acts very inconsiderately and unadvisedly. 
 He cannot substitute anything better, or more 
 consoling. And when the consciences of men 
 awake, he will be unable to give other grounds 
 which can prove so entirely sufficient for their 
 consolation. 
 
 II. The different institutions which God has ap- 
 pointed for the restoration and moral perfection 
 of the haman race in a general view. 
 
 (1) The means which God employs for this 
 purpose are very various and manifold. They 
 are designed partly to weaken the power and 
 dominion of sin; partly to instruct men, and to 
 shew them the true way to happiness, and give 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 319 
 
 them power to pursue it. These objects are 
 promoted even by the original constitution which 
 God has given to nature, the movements of con- 
 science, the unhappy feelings which follow upon 
 sinful actions, &c. ; also by the common and ex- 
 traordinary instruction which God has given to 
 men, in one way and another, (ytoXr^fpwj xai 
 jtohvtportus, Heb. i. 1 ;) by the opportunity 
 afforded us of becoming acquainted with the na- 
 ture of virtue and vice the happiness of the 
 good, and the wretchedness of the bad, by ob- 
 serving the example and profiting by the expe- 
 rience of others ; in short, by history, which is 
 one of the best teachers of the human race. 
 
 The history of every nation is useful in this 
 respect ; but that of the Jewish nation possesses 
 uncommon interest. Jesus and his apostles 
 allude to it constantly in their discourses. It is 
 indeed highly instructive, and exhibited in such 
 a way as to make the deepest impression upon 
 the most numerous class of men. It always re- 
 presents God not simply as a metaphysical being, 
 but as conversant with men, and acting after the 
 manner of men. It presents clearly before our 
 eyes the attributes of God, the course of his.pro- 
 vidence, and the salutary discipline he exercises 
 over men. Those religious teachers who en- 
 tirely reject the use of the Old Testament in the 
 instruction of the common people and of the 
 young, and who would gladly see the book itself 
 cast aside, know not what they do. They de- 
 prive themselves and their charge of great ad- 
 vantages. It is, indeed, abused in various ways, 
 as it was at the time of Christ; but this does 
 not prevent its proper use. Respecting the use 
 of the history of the Old Testament, vide 1 Cor. 
 x. 6, 11; Rom. xv. 4, and Koppen's excellent 
 work, "Die Bibel, ein Werk der gottlichen Weis- 
 heit;" and J. G. Miiller, Von dem christlichen 
 Religionsunterrichte; Winterthur, 1809, 8vo. 
 
 But the greatest blessing which God has be- 
 stowed upon men, as the Bible everywhere 
 teaches, is the appearance of Christ in the world, 
 his instructions, and his entire work for the hu- 
 man race; Rom. xi. 33, 36. Still, we ought 
 not to undervalue or exclude the other benevo- 
 lent institutions by which God has benefited 
 and does still benefit, not only Christians, but 
 mankind at large. All these means should be 
 considered as inseparably connected, as they 
 really are, and as the scriptures represent them. 
 Cf. Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii. ; Hess, 
 Vom Reiche Gottes; Lessing, Erziehung des 
 Menschengeschlechts; Berlin, 1780. 
 
 (2) These means are universal. Vide Morus, 
 p. 126, s. 6. God has not, indeed, bestowed 
 them at all times, and upon all nations ; since 
 all men in all ages have not been capable of re- 
 ceiving them ; but he has selected the most pro- 
 per in every age and nation ; so that the know- 
 
 ledge and worship of God, piety and virtue, 
 have never been wholly lost from the earth. 
 We should not confine our attention to the Jew- 
 ish nation, but should search out and thankfully 
 admire the traces of divine care over nations 
 called heathen. Even in the rnidst of their im- 
 perfect knowledge of God, and of their polythe- 
 ism, we often find true religiousness and piety, 
 which, notwithstanding their erroneous views, 
 are certainly acceptable in the sight of God. 
 The aneient writers are full of such instances. 
 The gracious care and providence of God is as 
 learly seen in raising up good legislators, prac- 
 tical sages, teachers of the people, promoters of 
 science and morality, among the Greeks, Ro- 
 mans, and other people of the earth, for their 
 improvement and moral good, as in the institu- 
 tions which he established among the Jewish 
 people for the same purposes. These natural 
 means which God employs redound as much to 
 his glory as the supernatural. 
 
 Paul therefore says expressly, that God has 
 given the heathen opportunity of knowing him ; 
 that he has not left himself without a witness 
 among them ; and that they, too, will be inex- 
 cusable if they leave unimproved that knowledge 
 of God imparted to them through nature, Acts, 
 xvii. 27; Rom. i. 18, seq. Accordingly, the 
 virtue and piety which the heathen practise, 
 after the measure of their imperfect knowledge, 
 is represented in the Bible as agreeable to God. 
 The case of the centurion Cornelius is an exam- 
 ple, Acts, x. God accounted him worthy to be 
 entrusted with more knowledge, because he 
 proved himself faithful in the use of that lesser 
 degree which he possessed. 
 
 The national pride of the Jews led them into 
 the mistake that God had a special regard for 
 them , that they were more agreeable to him than 
 other nations; that they exclusively were his 
 children; and that the Messiah was designed 
 only for them. These mistakes are frequently 
 opposed in the New Testament; there is slj 
 0f6j x.o.l TlatYip rtdvtuv, Ephes. iv. 5, 6 ; 1 Tim. 
 ii. 5, seq. God has no partiality, (rtpocrwrtoto^ux,) 
 Rom. x. 12; Acts, x. 34; all have equal right 
 to the divine blessings, especially to those con- 
 ferred by Christianity; John, x. 16 ; Ephes. i. 10 ; 
 ii. 14, 18; Rom. v. 18, seq.; and the texts cited by 
 Morns, p. 126, s. 6, n. 1, 3. This universality of 
 the divine favours is expressly asserted even in 
 the Old Testament. The prophets frequently 
 affirm that the knowledge of the true God will 
 become universal among the heathen, and that 
 they by no means shall be excluded from it; 
 Deut. xxxii. 31 ; Isaiah, ii. and Ixvi. Indeed, 
 the Old Testament contains promises of far bet- 
 ter times in future for the heathen than for the 
 Jews. 
 
 (3) They are appointed by God with great 
 
320 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 wisdom in reference to the nature of man and 
 the circumstances of particular times. Such 
 means are selected as allow the freedom of 
 man, and leave him at liberty to choose or reject. 
 It is the internal force of truth which is made to 
 influence man, and not external compulsatory 
 means. Moreover, God, like a wise father and 
 teacher, proceeds according to the time and age 
 of the human race in general, and of nations and 
 individuals in particular. He regulates his in- 
 struction according to their capacity. He does 
 not overload their infancy with such laws and 
 precepts as they cannot understand, but saves 
 the higher instruction for the maturer age of a 
 more advanced generation. 
 
 This greater or less capability of some gene- 
 rations and nations in comparison with others, 
 should be considered as one reason why God 
 did not earlier disclose certain truths which are 
 peculiar to Christianity, and why he still with- 
 holds them from certain nations and countries. 
 For such nations, however, he provides in ano- 
 ther way, and leads them to that degree of hap- 
 piness of which they are capable. He is not 
 confined to one method, as is shewn in the 
 Introd uction. Nor is the education of the human 
 race confined to this life ; provision will doubt- 
 less be made to enable those who are innocently 
 deficient here to make up their loss hereafter. 
 
 Note. In the New Testament, the terms 
 #aptj, #apt$ EOV, &op?a for, are used to denote 
 the whole compass of means employed by God to 
 bring men to happiness, as well as any particu- 
 lar means. Vide Morus, p. 122, 125. The term 
 zaptj is used in various senses; and as unscrip- 
 tural ideas are often attached to it, we shall here 
 briefly explain the scriptural significations. It 
 corresponds to the Hebrew in, and sometimes to 
 *iL>n, and similar words. It signifies (1) in gene- 
 ral, the unmerited love and benevolence which 
 God, as the supreme Governor, bears for all his 
 creatures and subjects, and especially for men; 
 and so is synonymous with aydfty, ^p^crrotf^, 
 ^tXav^pQrti'a, Tit. iii. 4 ; and (2) the conse- 
 quences and proofs of this gracious regard ; in 
 short, all undeserved divine favours ; John, i. 
 16, %dpi$ avti %dprtos. These are elsewhere called 
 fcopityia, 5copa, x. f. x. Cf. Rom. v. 15. Inas- 
 much as they are undeserved, they are contrast- 
 ed with fyetXqfta, Rom. iv. 4. 
 
 Hence arise various other significations, by 
 which certain great favours are called ^api^fj, 
 by way of eminence: as (a) the Christian doc- 
 trine and institute in general, and particularly 
 that principal doctrine of Christianity, the gra- 
 cious forgiveness of sin on account of Christ. 
 Xctpi$ xai, aX^fta, John, i. 7; kdyos %dprto$, the 
 benevolent doctrine, Acts, xiv. 3 ; #apij ov, 
 Tit. ii. 11, #aptj XpttfT'ou, and %dpi$ simply, 
 Acts, xviii. 27, seq. (6) Certain employments, 
 
 businesses, and offices in the Christian church, 
 and the talents, abilities, and gifts bestowed by 
 God upon particular persons in reference to 
 these offices. Thus Rom. i. 5, ^aptj xai drto- 
 a-tohr;' also xii. 3. In other texts, #apttyia is 
 used, with which %dpi$ is interchanged as sy- 
 nonymous in 1 Pet. iv. 10, and in the epistles 
 to the Corinthians. From these and similar 
 texts is derived (c) the ecclesiastical usage, in 
 which gratia denotes, by way of eminence, the 
 operations of God upon the hearts of men for 
 their improvement and conversion. These ope- 
 rations were called actiones gratix, and the con- 
 dition of a converted man statum gratix. The 
 Latin church, especially since the time of Au- 
 gustine, has used this word in this sense. Vide 
 Vide infra, s. 129. 
 
 From what has been said, it appears that the 
 grace of God is only his goodness, considered in 
 a particular relation. Grace is the goodness of 
 a superior to a subordinate person. The ruler, 
 properly speaking, is gracious only to the sub- 
 ject, and the lord to the slave. The Bible con- 
 forms to this usage. God, then, is gracious, in 
 the highest sense of this word, because he is the 
 supreme and necessary ruler and governor of 
 men. Everything, consequently, which God 
 does for men, relating to the body or soul, is an 
 operation of his grace, actus gratix divinx. And 
 this grace is free, because no one can compel it; 
 and the very idea of grace excludes all merit, 
 Rom. iv. 4. 
 
 III. The particular purpose of God to restore the 
 human race by Christ. 
 
 The New Testament teaches that God has 
 determined to bestow his favours upon men 
 through Christ, and to lead them to holiness and 
 happiness by him. Hence Christ is called 
 <W?y6$ toijff. Acts, iii. 15, coll. ver. 26. This 
 term is explained by otVtoj aco-r^pta?, Heb. v. 9, 
 coll. Acts, xvii. 30, 31. The gracious decree 
 of God to pardon, sanctify, and bless mankind, 
 and the institutions he has established for this 
 purpose, are called %dpi$ ffcd-r'jjptos, Tit. ii. 11; 
 iii. 4. The following particulars are implied 
 viz., God designs to free men from the unhap- 
 piness occasioned by sin, (crco^tv ;) and also to 
 bestow upon them unmerited favours, ^optrovv, 
 #api, x. f. Ju) These favours are pardon, sanc- 
 tification, and eternal blessedness, also informa- 
 tion communicated by God respecting this 
 blessedness, instruction as to the manner how 
 we may attain to it, and strength imparted to us 
 for this end. This grace of God is called % 
 %dpi$ sov tv XpcuT'9 6o-itfa> 1 Cor. i. 4. It is 
 always represented in the New Testament as 
 bestowed upon us through Christ, and on his 
 account. By him God teaches us and renews 
 us; pardons us on account of his death; and 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 321 
 
 bestows upon us eternal blessedness through 
 him and for his sake. Everything proceeds 
 from him, and is referred to him. This purpose 
 of God is also described in the Bible by the 
 words $t%.r i /j.a, sov, rtp6^<ytj rtpoyycocis and rtpo- 
 opi&u;, Ephes. i. 4, 11; iii. 11. The Bible 
 says, too, that God made this decree fro7n eter- 
 nity, (?tp6 cuwnov, or xai'a/Sotojj xocr^ov.) All 
 the divine decrees are of this peculiar nature, 
 as is implied in the particle rtpo. The passage 
 1 Pet. i. 20 is very clear upon this subject. 
 From the Old Testament, the passage Ps. x\. 
 7, seq., belongs in this connexion. This decree 
 is always described as ihefree determination of 
 God. Thus in the passages cited it is called 
 t vdoxt'a ^c&ifluaT'os. Not that it would have been 
 consistent for God to desert the human race, and 
 leave it to perish; the divine goodness forbids 
 such a supposition. The simple meaning is, 
 that no external necessity compelled him to it, 
 and that it is his free grace, without any desert 
 or worthiness on the part of men. Paul too, in 
 Rom. ix. xi., speaks of the free grace of God 
 in respect to the new institute which he esta- 
 blished upon earth by Christ. 
 
 The following result may be deduced from 
 what has been said : Christianity is founded 
 upon the principles, (a) that all men are consi- 
 dered as sinners in the sight of God ; to which 
 the conscience of every one bears testimony, 
 (vide No. I. ad finem ;) and that therefore 
 (6) they are subject to the punishment of sin, 
 as experience proves. The distinguishing trait 
 of Christianity is this : that it promises to men 
 
 DELIVERANCE FROM SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT 
 
 OF SIN, before it requires of them perfect holi- 
 ness, acceptable to God. It thus comes to the 
 relief of ignorant, desponding, and feeble man ; 
 inspires him with confidence in God, and with 
 love to him ; acquaints him with his destination 
 to true holiness and unalterable happiness, and 
 shews the only way by which he can attain it. 
 Any philosophy or system of religion which re- 
 verses this order, and demands holiness of men 
 before it gives the power to attain it; which re- 
 presents holiness as the procuring cause of for- 
 giveness ; fails of its object, and asserts and 
 requires an impossibility. The great point in 
 this pardon or amnesty which Christianity pro- 
 mises, is the doctrine that Jesus Christ came 
 into the world to bless sinful men, to free them 
 from sin and death; 1 Tim. i. 15, coll. 2 Tim. 
 i. 10; John, iii. 16, 17. This pardon, however, 
 reaches men only when, under divine guidance 
 and assistance, they act according to the con- 
 ditions and precepts laid down. Hence forgive- 
 ness and eternal life are inseparably connected 
 in Christianity with the requisition of repent- 
 ance and faith made active by love. These 
 doctrines are always connected in the scrip- 
 tures; so Tit. ii. 11 14. 
 
 41 
 
 SECTION LXXXIX. 
 
 FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF 
 MESSIAH AMONG THE ANCIENT AND MODERN 
 JEWS; THEIR VARIOUS OPINIONS RESPECTING 
 HIM; AND THE PROOF THAT JESUS WAS THE 
 MESSIAH. 
 
 I. The gradual development of the idea of a 
 Messiah among the Israelites. 
 
 (1) THE idea of a former happy condition in 
 the earliest ages of the world is universal among 
 men, and is found too among the Israelites 
 Vide s. 56. But it is quite as natural to the 
 human mind to console itself in the midst of 
 troubles, sufferings, and the feeling of physical 
 and moral imperfection, with the hope of better 
 times to come, and of a future happy condition, 
 either in this life or the life to come, or in both 
 together. Hence arose the fables of the heathen 
 respecting the return of a golden age, the ex- 
 pected dwelling of the gods upon earth, and 
 pictures of a similar nature, in which their 
 wishes and expectations were embodied. These 
 ideas, like those concerning the original golden 
 age, are held by every nation, and are founded, 
 like those, in a feeling of necessity which is 
 deep laid in the human soul. These ideas, ex- 
 pectations, and wishes, are found in every na- 
 tion; differently modified, however, according 
 to their particular situation and mode of think- 
 ing and representation. One people is more 
 bold and confident in its expectations ; another 
 is more moderate, hoping and wishing rather 
 than determining and deciding. 
 
 (2) The Jewish nation, too, expected such a 
 return of the golden age to the earth ; and they 
 were justified in this by the declarations and 
 promises of their oldest prophets. But this ex- 
 pectation of the Jews was peculiar, and distin- 
 guished from that of others in this respect, that 
 this period was placed by them in the times 
 when the Messiah should appear. These happy 
 times were called N3n oVij?. 
 
 (3) But the question here arises Is the doc- 
 trine respecting the Messiah, the Saviour of the 
 world, a doctrine really revealed by God to 
 men ; or is it merely a human opinion, origi- 
 nating among the Jews from their accidental 
 circumstances, in short, a Jewish fable, em 
 ployed by Christ and the apostles for benevo 
 lent, moral purposes 1 
 
 FIRST. The last supposition is maintained in 
 general by those who deny or question all di- 
 rect revelation ; by all, indeed, who deny the 
 reality of miracles; for predictions belong to the 
 class of miraculous occurrences ; and the objec- 
 tions made to one may be made to the other. 
 Vide s. 7, III., s. 72, II. These writers endea- 
 vour by various hypotheses to explain the na- 
 tural origin of this idea. Cf. Stephani, Gedan- 
 
322 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ken uber die Entstehung und Ausbildung der 
 Idee von einem Messias ; Niirnberg, 1787, 8vo. 
 Eckermann, Theologische Beytrage, b. ii. st. 
 1 ; Altona, 1791, 8vo. Ziegler, Entwickelung 
 des wahrscheinlichen Ursprungs der Idee vom 
 Messias, in Henke's Mag. fur Religionsphilo- 
 sophie, b. i. st. 1, Abhandl. 2. Ammon, Ver- 
 such einer Christologie des alien Testaments ; 
 Erlangen, 1794, 8vo. Their principal opinions 
 may be compressed in the following statement 
 viz., 
 
 Many brave heroes and deliverers (tfwr'^pfj 
 oytyiD) had appeared among the Jews from the 
 earliest period of their history, and had contri- 
 buted to the public weal. Such were the pro- 
 phets and great kings. But the advantages 
 which had been hoped for, both in respect to 
 religious and moral improvement, and also in 
 respect to civil and social welfare, had not as 
 yet been realized, and were still expected in fu- 
 ture time. By degrees, all wishes, hopes, and 
 expectations centred in one person, who would 
 accomplish all which was desired. This idea 
 did not become general, or rather, did not take 
 its origin, among the Jews until after the Baby- 
 lonish captivity. This person was expected to 
 be the deliverer and helper of the Jewish nation, 
 and principally a temporal deliverer, who would 
 establish an earthly kingdom. This idea pre- 
 vailed widely among the Jews at the time of 
 Christ, and, by the aid of the allegorical inter- 
 pretation then current, was carried into the more 
 ancient of their sacred books. Now Jesus, it 
 is said, found this idea, and connected it, such 
 as he found it, with his doctrine ; not consider- 
 ing it himself (as many say) to be really true. 
 He modified this idea, and gave himself out for 
 a spiritual deliverer of mankind by his instruc- 
 tion. Eckermann, therefore, affirms distinctly, 
 that in the whole Old Testament there are no 
 proper predictions of Christ. Beytr. st. 1. 
 
 Remarks on this Explanation. 
 
 (a) All accounts of the origin of this idea, 
 which are exclusive of direct divine revelation, 
 if not otherwise objectionable, are merely con- 
 jectural and hypothetical, and cannot be histo- 
 rically proved. This is the reason why they 
 are so various and contradictory ; there is no 
 sure historical ground and basis upon which 
 they can be established and built; they are mere 
 plays of the imagination, mere conjectures as to 
 the manner in which the thing may possibly 
 have been. And indeed, many cases may be 
 imagined possible, no one of which can be proved 
 to be historically true, and most of which have 
 historical evidence against them. This discre- 
 pancy of views among writers on this subject, 
 therefore, never will or can cease, as long as 
 they proceed in this way. 
 
 (6) The assertion of Eckermann and others, 
 
 that the Old-Testament descriptions of the Mes- 
 siah are not descriptions of Jesus, but of an 
 earthly king, is unfounded. For although the 
 Messiah is often compared to a king, as even 
 God is, he is also named and described as a 
 prophet and priesi. And to free men from sin, 
 to instruct them, and promote their moral im- 
 provement, are ascribed to him as the principal 
 part and proper object of his advent. Psalm 
 xxii., xl., ex. ; Isaiah, ii., xi., liii. 
 
 (c) The predictions of the prophets represent 
 the Messiah not as the king and ruler of a sin- 
 gle nation, as the Jewish kings were, but as the 
 king and benefactor of all who should be friend- 
 ly to him. In the predictions of the Jewish 
 prophets he is promised quite as much, and 
 even more, to the heathen than to the Jews 
 themselves. Vide the passages before cited. 
 The promises given to Abraham, Gen. xii. 3 ; 
 xxii. 18, are certainly free from any Jewish ex- 
 clusiveness, and are as comprehensive as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 (d) The assertion that the idea of Messiah 
 originated during the Babylonish captivity, or 
 afterwards, and that the earlier Jews differently 
 understood the so-named Messianic passages in 
 Moses and the prophets, is contrary to history. 
 For the idea respecting a Messiah was univer- 
 sal among the Samaritans at the time of Christ, 
 and much earlier. And indeed it was held by 
 the Samaritans more purely than by the greater 
 part of the Jews ; as the Messiah was represent- 
 ed by them as the great Prophet and Saviour, 
 John, iv. 25, 42, seq. Therefore this idea must 
 have existed among the Jews before the reli- 
 gious separation between them and the Samari- 
 tans; and consequently before the Babylonian 
 exile. For the Samaritans would not certainly 
 have received it from the Jews after the separa- 
 tion. Whence then did they derive it? They 
 admitted only the five books of Moses from the 
 whole Old Testament. Accordingly, they must 
 have grounded their expectation upon the testi- 
 mony of Moses, and the interpretation of this 
 testimony given them by the Israelitish teach- 
 ers sent to them from Assyria, 2 Kings, xvii. 
 27, seq. The Israelites, therefore, must have 
 had the idea of a Messiah long before the Baby- 
 lonian exile, and must have found it, too, in the 
 books of Moses. 
 
 SECONDLY. The whole opinion that the idea 
 of Messiah does not depend upon divine revela- 
 tion, and that it is not contained in the oldest 
 sacred records of the Hebrews, stands in the 
 most palpable contradiction to the clearest decla- 
 rations of Christ and his apostles. For (a) the 
 writings of the prophets are acknowledged by 
 them to be of divine authority, and the doc- 
 trines and predictions contained in them are not 
 treated as fictions and fables, but as truly re- 
 vealed by God. And (6) it is no less certain 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 323 
 
 that they teach that there are in Moses and the 
 prophets predictions respecting the Messiah, or 
 benefactor of the world, and that these were ful- 
 filled in Jesus. Jesus himself frequently as- 
 serts this in the most impressive and solemn 
 manner, Luke, xviii. 3133; xxii. 37; xxiv. 
 27; Matt. xx. 18, 19; xxvi. 54; Mark, ix. 12; 
 John, v. 39, 46. And in this his apostles ex- 
 actly follow his example. Acts, ii. 16, 25 ; viii. 
 18; x. 34; xiii. 23, 32; xxvi. 22, 23; 1 Pet. i. 
 11 ; 2 Pet. i. 19, and the Pauline epistles. The 
 apostles themselves therefore believed this. 
 
 Now if Jesus and his apostles were merely 
 human teachers, they may possibly have erred 
 in this matter; as also many of the Jewish 
 teachers'of that time, who interpreted these pas- 
 sages in the same way, may have done. But 
 if they were divinely commissioned, what they 
 say on this subject must be believed. For I 
 am not at liberty to proceed optionally in be- 
 lieving the declarations of a man whom I ac- 
 knowledge to be divinely commissioned. I am 
 not at liberty to make selection of what I will 
 admit and what reject at my good pleasure. I 
 must rather yield unconditional faith to each 
 and every thing which he, as a divine messen- 
 ger, teaches and declares. Consistency, then, 
 requires us to go on this principle in this sub- 
 ject. Vide Herder, Briefe das Studium der 
 Theologie betreffend, br. 18, 21, particularly s. 
 303, f. 349352, th. ii. Cf. Herder's Work, 
 " Vom Erloser der Menschen, nach unsern drey 
 ersten Evangelisten ; Riga, 1796, 8vo. [Cf. es- 
 pecially Hengstenberg, " Christologie," where 
 this whole subject is more ably discussed than 
 anywhere else. TR.] 
 
 II. Various opinions of the Jews at and after the 
 time of Christ respecting the Messiah, and the 
 nature of his kingdom. 
 
 (1) At the time of Christ, and previously, 
 the current opinion of the people in Palestine, 
 and indeed of most of the Pharisees and law- 
 yers, was, that he would be a temporal deliverer 
 and a king of the Jews, and indeed, a universal 
 monarch, who would reign over all nations. 
 Thus they interpreted the passages, Psalm ii. 2, 
 6, 8; Jer. xxiii. 5, 6; Zech. ix. 4, seq. Hence 
 those who, during the lifetime of Jesus, ac- 
 knowledged him to be the Messiah, wished to 
 proclaim him king, John, vi. 15, coll. Matt. xxi. 
 8, 9. The apostles themselves held this opi- 
 nion until after the resurrection of Christ, Mat- 
 thew, xx. 20, 21 ; Luke, xxiv. 21 ; Acts, i. 6. 
 And Jesus himself, during his life upon earth, 
 proceeded very guardedly, in order to lead them 
 gradually from this deep-rooted prejudice, and 
 and not to take it away at once. Josephus says 
 that the enthusiasm of the Jews in the war 
 against the Romans, was very much increased 
 by this belief of an universal monarchy. Vide 
 
 Bell. Jud. vi. 5. Suetonius (Vesp. c. 4) and 
 Tacitus (Hist. v. 13) speak of this expectation 
 spread throughout all the East by the Jews. It 
 was expected that he would institute new reli- 
 gious rites, (John, i. 25 ;) that he would perform 
 uncommonly great miracles, (John, vii. 31 ;) 
 that he would be born at Bethlehem, of the line 
 of David, and yet from obscure parents, (John, 
 vii. 42;) and that he would never die, (John, 
 xii. 34.) 
 
 (2) Some, but by far the smallest number, 
 had purer ideas respecting the Messiah ; and did 
 not so much expect an earthly kingdom as for- 
 giveness of sin, instruction, diffusion of truth, 
 and, in short, spiritual blessings. Simeon had 
 this correct view, (Luke, ii. 30, seq. ;) the ma- 
 lefactor on the cross, (Luke, xxiii. 43 ;) and a 
 few other Jews at the time of Christ. Many 
 pious Jews, too, out of Palestine, may be sup- 
 posed to have had the same correct views. For 
 even the common people of Samaria had opi- 
 nions on this subject comparatively pure. Vide 
 John, iv. 25, seq. Jesus approved these opi- 
 nion-s as just and scriptural, and always acted 
 in conformity with them. Vide Luke, xvii. 20, 
 21 ; John, xviii. 3638. It is, then, very un- 
 just to charge him with the intention of esta- 
 blishing an earthly kingdom, as is done in the 
 work " Vom Zweck Jesu, 1 ' Braunschweig, 
 1778. Vide Koppe "Progr. de sententia Judae- 
 orum de Messia et futuro ejus regno;" Gott. 
 1779. 
 
 (3) Many united both of these opinions, and 
 considered the Messiah as a teacher and earthly 
 king at the same time, as the supreme head of 
 church and state. This appears to have been 
 the opinion of the apostles and most of the dis- 
 ciples of Christ, while he lived upon the earth. 
 A multitude of Christians of the Judaizing party, 
 during the first and second centuries, believed 
 that Christ would return to the earth to establish 
 a temporal kingdom for a thousand years an 
 opinion which has been indulged by many 
 Christians in every age down to the present 
 time. 
 
 (4) Some of the Jews at the time of Christ, 
 and previously, were free-thinkers, and appear 
 to have rejected the whole notion of a Messiah 
 as a popular superstition, a fabulous and ground- 
 less expectation. Especially was this the case 
 after the destruction of the Jewish state by the 
 Romans. Many of the Jews out of Palestine, 
 especially the learned Grecian Jews, appear to 
 have been of this way of thinking. Accord- 
 ingly, there is no mention of this idea even in 
 the Book of Wisdom, or in all the writings of 
 Philo. And even Josephus, in his desire to 
 please the Greeks and Romans, appears to have 
 been ashamed of this faith of his fathers, and so 
 always avoids the subject. They were satis- 
 fied with mere morality, and connected the Gre- 
 
324 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 cian philosophy with the doctrines of the Jew- 
 ish religion and theology. This silence is the 
 more remarkable, especially in Philo, consider- 
 ing how much he was given to the allegorical 
 interpretation of the Old Testament. 
 
 (5) We find all these different opinions re- 
 peated in the writings of the Jews who lived 
 after the time of Christ and the destruction of 
 the temple, in the Chaldaic paraphrases, in 
 the book Sohar, in the Talmud, and in the Rab- 
 bins, where so many of the ancient traditions 
 are exhibited. 
 
 (a) The opinions of the more modern Jews 
 were very various respecting the importance of 
 the doctrine itself. Some considered it to be 
 the most important doctrine of their faith, and 
 expected that a complete restoration of religion, 
 morality, and happiness, would be effected by 
 the Messiah. In their view he was to accom- 
 plish, as it were, a new political and moral 
 creation; so Maimonides. Others considered 
 it as a doctrine of less importance, and seldom 
 mentioned it. Many of them appear, in reality, 
 to have rejected it altogether, or to have been 
 ashamed of it. 
 
 (6) In respect to the institutions of the Mes- 
 siah, and the object of his mission, they exhi- 
 bited the same diversity as prevailed at an ear- 
 lier period. Most adhered to the gross opinion 
 of the establishment of an earthly kingdom, and 
 the subjection of the DMJ. Others made his 
 most prominent object to be, the improvement 
 of doctrine, the restoration of morals, and spiri- 
 tual blessedness. But these were comparatively 
 few. 
 
 (c) Some of the Jews who could not under- 
 stand how the Messiah should be described by 
 the prophets sometimes as king (Ps. ii., ex. ; 
 Is. xi.,) and sometimes as inferior, lowly and 
 despised, (Ps. xxii. ; Is. liii.,) invented the doc- 
 trine of a twofold Messiah, in order to reconcile 
 these accounts ; one, the inferior, despised Mes- 
 siah, Joseph's son, in whom Christians believe; 
 the other, David's son, who is yet to come and 
 establish his kingdom. 
 
 (d) Many of the Jews endeavoured to account 
 for the long delay of the Messiah by the sinful- 
 ness of which their nation is guilty. The pro- 
 mise, they say, was made conditionally. But 
 this hypothesis derives no support from the 
 Messianic oracles in the Old Testament. 
 
 III. The method of proving that Jesus of Nazareth 
 is the true Messiah. 
 
 (1) This is proved from the marks and de- 
 scriptions which the Old Testament gives of 
 the Messiah, all of which meet in Jesus in the 
 most remarkable manner. This proof that Jesus 
 is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, 
 may be made extremely convincing. Chris- 
 tians, however, do not, as Collins supposes, by 
 
 any means rely solely on the predictions of the 
 Old Testament for the Messianic authority of 
 Jesus, nor does Christ himself. Vide John, v. 
 34, seq. For these predictions, though ever so 
 valuable and important in themselves, are al- 
 ways, like all predictions, in a certain degree 
 obscure. The Old Testament is indeed very 
 instructive and useful, when rightly employed, 
 but it is not the only ground on which the con- 
 fidence of Christians rests. It affords important 
 proof even for Christians, but not the only proof. 
 Vide vol. i. s. 12, II. 
 
 This method of proof from the Old Testament 
 is especially useful in convincing the Jews, and 
 in refuting their objections. Thus Christ ap- 
 plies it, John, v. 39 47. All the marks which 
 the Jews consider characteristic of the Messiah, 
 according to their sacred books, agree exactly 
 in Jesus. And all those traits and minute cir- 
 cumstances which are exhibited in passages of 
 the Old Testament acknowledged by the Jews 
 themselves to relate to the Messiah, meet in him 
 as they do not in any other person known in 
 history. He was born at Bethlehem, of the fa- 
 mily of David, of which the Jews have now for 
 a long time had no continued genealogical ta- 
 bles. He had a precursor. He confirmed his 
 doctrine by the most striking miracles. He 
 died, was honourably buried, and rose again. 
 His garments were divided. Vinegar was 
 given him to drink. And many other circum- 
 stances of the same nature, greater and smaller, 
 which were predicted concerning the Messiah, 
 were fulfilled in Jesus. Such passages are 
 therefore very frequently urged by the apostles 
 against the Jews, in order to convince them. 
 
 (2) Christians who acknowledge the divine 
 authority of the New Testament, and the credi- 
 bility of Jesus and the apostles, have an addi- 
 tional and principal ground of their belief of 
 this truth, in the testimony and information 
 contained in the books of the New Testament. 
 Throughout these books Jesus is represented as 
 the greatest divine messenger, Lord over all, the 
 Saviour of the world, (Swf^p, $w? T'OV xotytov, 6 
 Kvptoj.) In short, he is described as the same 
 person whom the Jews call Messiah. If divine 
 wisdom had seen proper to raise him up in an- 
 other country, and under other circumstances, 
 his name and the form of his doctrine might, in- 
 deed, have been different, while the substance 
 itself would have continued the same. 
 
 According to the constant representation of 
 the New Testament, God himself confirmed the 
 truth that Jesus was the Messiah. He did this 
 by John the Baptist, John, i. 19 41 ; by voices 
 from heaven at the baptism of Christ, and on 
 other occasions ; by angels, Luke, i. 30 38 ; by 
 Jesus himself, who confirmed the truth of his 
 declarations by miracles, John, iv. 25, 26 ; Matt. 
 xxvi. 62, 63 ; and by the apostles commissioned 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 325 
 
 to be his messengers, Acts, ii. 22 38; 1 John, 
 i. and ii. 1 ; &c. 
 
 Thus in all the passages of the New Testa- 
 ment where it is said that Jesus is the Messiah, 
 or that the Messiah has come in the person of 
 Jesus, the idea is always implied that Jesus is 
 the promised Lord and Redeemer, the Benefactor 
 and Saviour. In short, the word Messiah, which 
 grammatically signifies king, becomes a doc- 
 trinal word, synonymous with Krptoj and 2w- 
 -r-ijp. And in this way the erroneous views of 
 the Jews respecting the Messiah were correct- 
 ed. If we would consider the subject in this 
 light, and be satisfied with the representations 
 which the New Testament gives of it, we should 
 easily avoid the difficulties with which many 
 have been perplexed regarding this doctrine. 
 Vide Eckermann, Theol. Beytr. st. 1. We 
 should not then declare, with this writer and 
 others, that the doctrine that Jesus is the Mes- 
 siah belongs only to the Jews, and is not an es- 
 sential doctrine of pure Christianity. The He- 
 brew name irefo was Jewish or Israelitish, but 
 the thing denoted by it was intended for all, and 
 is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 
 
 Note. Works on some of the subjects treated 
 in this section. For information respecting 
 the Jewish opinions of the Messiah, vide Maii 
 "Synopsis Theol. Judaicze;" Giess, 1G98, 
 4to; Glassner, De gemino Judaeorum Messia; 
 Helmst, 1739, 4to; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes 
 Judenthum; Keil (Prof. Lips.), Hist. Dogm. 
 de regno Messiae, Jesu et app. aetate ; Lipsiae, 
 1781. On the point that Jesus is the Messiah, 
 vide the ancient works of Olearius and Schott- 
 gen, in " Hor. Hebr." t. ii. The most com- 
 plete work after these is that of Bishop Kidder, 
 " Convincing Proof that Jesus is the Messiah," 
 translated from the English by Rambach ; 'Ros- 
 tock, 1757, 4to. [For a fuller account of the 
 literature of this subject, cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 
 444, Anmerk. Vide especially the late work 
 of Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T. TR.] 
 
 SECTION XC, 
 
 OF THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH WE ARE TO INTER- 
 PRET THE LITERAL AND FIGURATIVE PREDIC- 
 TIONS CONTAINED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 RESPECTING THE MESSIAH, AND THE NEW IN- 
 STITUTE FOUNDED BY HIM. 
 
 I. Brief History of the manner in which Christians 
 have interpreted the Messianic Predictions. 
 
 THE allegorical method of interpretation pre- 
 vailed among the early Christian fathers, espe- 
 cially the Egyptian fathers e. g., Justin the 
 Martyr, Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Ta- 
 tian, and still more after the age of Origen. 
 They considered the Bible, as Philo and other 
 learned Grecian Jews had done before them, to 
 
 be a repository of every kind of useful informa- 
 tion, and especially of all religious truth. Any 
 truth of this kind which they did not find clear- 
 ly exhibited in it, they introduced by means of 
 their allegorical interpretation, exactly in the 
 same way as the stoics, and many other learned 
 Grecians, had proceeded with Homer and some 
 other of their sacred books. On this principle 
 it was that many of these fathers endeavoured 
 to find all the perfection of Christian knowledge 
 in the Old Testament, and carried back into it 
 the entire Christian system. But in this they 
 deviated widely from the mind of the apostles, 
 who expressly say that the patriarchs saw the 
 promised blessings only from afar off, (Heb. 
 xi. 13,) and that there was much obscurity in 
 the predictions concerning Christ, 2 Peter, i. 
 1921; 1 Peter, i. 1012. 
 
 But this extreme was objected to by many of 
 the learned fathers e. g., Eusebius the Eme- 
 sene, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodorus of Mopsu- 
 estia. Some of these fell into the opposite ex- 
 treme, and allow few or no passages in the Old 
 Testament to refer to the Messiah. Chrysos- 
 tom, Theodoret, and others, took a middle course 
 between these two parties. This difference of 
 opinion has continued down through all ages of 
 the Christian church. Some have seen the 
 Messiah rarely or nowhere, others everywhere, 
 in the Old Testament; while others still have 
 pursued a middle course. Vide Ernesti, " Nar- 
 ratio critica de interpret, prophetiarum Mess, in 
 eccl." in Opusc. Theol. 
 
 II. Examination of the principles of the theory of 
 accommodation applied to the interpretation of 
 the Messianic Predictions. 
 
 Since the time of Semler, about the middle of 
 the eighteenth century, an opinion has prevailed 
 widely in the protestant church, that the Old 
 Testament contains very few passages, or none 
 at all, which treat literally and properly of Jesus 
 Christ, and that all or most of the passages 
 cited in the New Testament are used in the way 
 of accommodation. The following reasons have 
 been offered in support of this theory. The Jews 
 at the time of Christ were very much given to 
 the allegorical interpretation of scripture. Ever 
 after the time of the exile, when the expectation 
 of a Messiah had become universal among them, 
 they had eagerly searched the Old Testament for 
 everything which in the least favoured this ex- 
 pectation; and had succeeded, by the help of 
 their allegorical interpretation, in making their 
 scriptures seem to contain predictions respect- 
 ing a Messiah. Jesus and the apostles were 
 therefore compelled to pursue the same method, 
 and to use it as a means of gradually bringing 
 the Jews to a better knowledge of religion. 
 Their pursuing this course does not prove that 
 they themselves considered these passages as 
 2E 
 
326 
 
 CHRISTIAN 
 
 actual predictions. That they did not so con- 
 sider them appears from the fact that they pur- 
 sued a different course when teaching gentiles, 
 and did not in that case appeal to the Old Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 But in this statement we must carefully dis- 
 tinguish between what is true and what is erro- 
 neous and exaggerated. 
 
 (1) The allegorical interpretation of the sa- 
 cred scriptures cannot be historically proved to 
 have prevailed among the Jews from the time 
 of the exile, or to have been common with the 
 Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ and his 
 apostles. Although the Sanhedrim and the 
 hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Tes- 
 tament, according to the testimony of the New- 
 Testament writers, they give no indication of 
 the allegorical interpretation. Even Josephus 
 has nothing of it. The Platonic Jews of Egypt 
 began, in the first century, in imitation of the 
 heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old Testament 
 allegorically. Philo was distinguished among 
 those in that place who practised this method, 
 and he defends it as something new, and before 
 unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the 
 other Jews; De Confus. Lingu. p. 347, seq. 
 Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation where 
 he was compelled to comply with a prevailing 
 custom of allegorical interpretation; for this 
 method did not prevail at that time among the 
 Jews; certainly not in Palestine, where Jesus 
 taught. 
 
 (2) The writers of tne New Testament them- 
 selves make a clear distinction between the alle- 
 gorical and literal interpretation of the Old Tes- 
 tament. When they use the allegorical method, 
 they either say expressly, here is allegory, Gal. 
 iv. 24, or they shew it by the context, or by ore- 
 fixing some particle of comparison ^e. g., <Zart(p 
 xc&w$, Heb. vii. ; John, iii. 14; Matt. xii. 40. 
 But they express themselves very differently in 
 texts which they quote as literal prophecy for 
 the purpose of proof. 
 
 (3) If the apostles did not allude to the Old 
 Testament in the instructions which they gave 
 to gentiles, it does not follow either that they 
 believed the Old Testament to be of no use to 
 them, or that they did not seriously consider 
 the passages which they cited as predictions 
 in their instructions to the Jews to be really 
 such. The reason why the apostles omitted these 
 allusions in the commencement of the instruc- 
 tion which they gave to the heathen is the same 
 as leads the wise missionary at the present day 
 to omit them in the same circumstances. Their 
 gentile hearers and readers knew nothing of the 
 Bible, and could not, of course, be convinced 
 from an unknown book. The apostles, however, 
 gradually instructed their gentile converts in the 
 contents of this book, and then appealed to it as 
 frequently before them as before Jews or con- 
 
 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 verts from Judaism. This is proved by the 
 Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. Thus 
 Peter says to the heathen centurion, Cornelius, 
 after the latter had become acquainted with the 
 prophets, "Of this Jesus testify all the pro- 
 phets," &c., Acts,x. 43, coll. Acts,viii. 2635, 
 and the epistles of Paul. 
 
 (4) It cannot be shewn, in general, that Jesus 
 and his apostles, in compliance with the current 
 prejudices of their contemporaries, ever taught 
 anything or seemingly affirmed anything to be 
 true which they themselves considered as false. 
 No more can it be shewn, in particular, that they 
 adopted and authorized any explanations of the 
 Old Testament which they themselves consider- 
 ed as invalid, merely because they were common 
 among their contemporaries. Such compliance 
 is entirely contrary to their usual course of ac- 
 tion ; (vide Matt. v. 19, 23 ;) nor can it be at all 
 justified on pure moral principles, as even mo- 
 dern theologians are beginning more and more 
 to allow. When Christ, therefore, says dis- 
 tinctly, Matt. xxii. 43, that David, by divine re- 
 velation, called the Messiah, Lord (Ps. ex.), he 
 must have believed exactly as he said, and so 
 have admitted a divine prediction respecting the 
 Messiah in this psalm. The same when he says, 
 John, v. 46, " that Moses wrote concerning him." 
 Hence it follows, that whenever Jesus and the 
 apostles expressly assent to the Jewish expla- 
 nations of the Old Testament, or build proofs 
 upon them, they themselves must have consi- 
 dered these explanations as just. 
 
 Here everything depends upon the doctrine 
 above stated ; if Christ and his apostles were 
 mere human teachers, they may have erred ; but 
 if they spake as divine messengers, they must be 
 believed on their simple authority. 
 
 III. The principles of Interpretation on which Christ 
 and his Apostles proceed in quoting from the Old 
 Testament, especially the Messianic Passages. 
 
 Undoubtedly many of the same principles 
 often appear in Jewish writings, as well as the 
 same formula of quotation, "thus is fulfilled," 
 &c. Vide Wahner, Antiqq. Heb. t. ii. ; Suren- 
 hus, Btj3xoj xaraM.(vy?i$. Wetstein ad Matt. i. 
 22, and Schottgen, in s. 89 of his book last cited. 
 Now if Christ, by his own example, authorizes 
 the principles which were embraced by the 
 Jews, he himself must have considered them to 
 be true. Whether we must on this account 
 consider them as true, must be determined by 
 the alternative above stated. The principles of 
 interpreting the Old Testament which many 
 modern commentators have adopted, differ alto- 
 gether from those which Christ and his apostles 
 followed; still these modern principles must 
 not be ascribed to Christ and his apostles, but 
 we must inquire historically, What were the 
 principles on which Christ and his apostles pro- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 327 
 
 ceedcd? These need not necessarily be the 
 same as those which modern interpreters adopt. 
 
 (1) God determined /row eternity (rtpo xata- 
 jSotoJs xoapov} to send a benefactor and saviour 
 (Sco-r^p, Messias) to bless the world made 
 wretched by sin. This purpose was revealed 
 very early, and was from time to time repeated 
 and rendered more plain. Thus Christ and the 
 apostles declare, with the Jews, " that Moses, 
 the Psalms, and the prophets spake concerning 
 him." Vide s. 89. 
 
 (2) God saw best to communicate his will to 
 the patriarchs of the Jewish nation, and to trans- 
 mit this revelation to their posterity by means 
 of extraordinary men, messengers, (ais^j;) thus 
 making the Israelites, as it were, the deposita- 
 ries of the divine revelations for the salvation 
 of men during the earlier ages of the world. In 
 this respect, too, Christ and the Jews were 
 agreed; and in this, also, that God had refer- 
 ence, in all his instructions and ordinances given 
 by the prophets, to his great plan respecting the 
 Messiah. 
 
 (3) Consequently, according to the doctrine 
 of Christ, the writings of the prophets, from 
 Moses downwards, contain literal predictions 
 respecting this Saviour of the world and the 
 new institute to be founded by him, though all 
 these predictions are not of equal clearness. 
 
 (4) But to these prophets themselves every- 
 thing which they predicted was not perfectly 
 plain and intelligible. God saw best to reserve 
 the more clear explanation of the sense of many 
 of his earlier oracles to be communicated by 
 prophets at a later period. Thus many of the 
 predictions respecting Christ and his apostles 
 could be more distinctly and justly interpreted 
 in after times than by the prophets themselves 
 who originally uttered them. This maxim 
 often appears in the writings of the Jews, and 
 is expressly mentioned in the New Testament ; 
 1 Pet i. 1012, and 2 Pet. i. 19. Vide Progr. 
 ad h. 1. [Vide the discussion of this point in 
 the Bib. Repository, No. I. Art. 4; also No. 
 IV. Art. 4. Cf. Woods on Inspiration, Lect. i. 
 p. 33. TR.] 
 
 (5) The duties and offices of the Messiah very 
 much resemble the duties and offices of the Old- 
 Testament prophets, priests, and kings. These 
 names are therefore frequently applied to him. 
 As a king of the house of David, he inherited, 
 as it were, all the rights, privileges, and titles 
 of the kings, (e. g., of David or Solomon;) as 
 a prophet, those of the Jewish prophets, (e. g., 
 of Moses and others;) and as a priest, those of 
 the priests, (e. g., of Melchisedec and Aaron.) 
 The character which they possessed, and the ac- 
 tions which they performed imperfectly, and on 
 a small scale, he possessed and performed per- 
 fectly, and on a large scale. This canon of in- 
 terpretation is held by the Rabbins, and is not 
 
 in any way objectionable. The case is very 
 much the same as when the rights of an empe- 
 ror are proved by shewing from the history of 
 the empire that his predecessors possessed them ; 
 or when the official rights of a person are esta- 
 blished from the ancient privileges of the office, 
 and from the history of his predecessors in it. 
 Cf. Psalm Ixxxix. 27, 3134. 
 
 This principle casts light upon the passages 
 of the New Testament, where texts are cited 
 from the Old, which appear at first sight to 
 treat of different persons and objects. All the 
 texts in which the rights, offices, and dignities 
 of the Israelitish prophets, priests, and kings, 
 are the subjects of consideration, relate to the 
 Messiah, the greatest of their successors, and 
 are directly applicable to him. He possesses 
 all the greatness, distinction, and pre-eminence 
 ascribed to them, only in a far higher degree. 
 So it is in the writings of the Jews, and in the 
 New Testament, Heb. i. and ii., and other 
 places. 
 
 (6) The Jews generally, though not uniformly, 
 asserted the pre-existence of the Messiah before 
 his visible appearance upon the earth, although 
 the doctrine of his miraculous birth was not as 
 yet entirely clear to them. This is seen in the 
 Chaldaic paraphrases and in the writings of the 
 Rabbins. Christ himself affirms his pre-exist- 
 ence in the clearest manner, John, viii. 58 ; chap, 
 xvii. seq. The writers just mentioned ascribe 
 everything which was done in the Old Testa- 
 ment for the salvation of men, and particularly 
 of the Jews, to the Messiah, as the efficient or 
 concurrent cause. He led them from Egypt, 
 defended them in their journey through the de- 
 sert, and spake to them by the prophets. They 
 explained many passages of the Old Testament 
 in which the appearance of God, or of the angel 
 of the Lord, is mentioned, as applying directly 
 to the Messiah. This principle, too, is author- 
 ized and adopted in the New Testament. Ac- 
 cording to 1 Pet. i. 1 1, it was the Spirit of Christ 
 which inspired the prophets of the Old Testa- 
 ment, and communicated revelations through 
 them. According to 1 Cor. x. 4, the Rock (a 
 common appellation of God) which accompa- 
 nied the Israelites in the desert was Christ. 
 When they tempted God by disobedience, they 
 tempted Christ, (ver. 9.) Isaiah, who saw God 
 in his glory, (Isaiah, vi.) is said to have seen 
 the glory of the Messiah, John, xii. 41. 
 
 Thus we see why texts of the Old Testament, 
 which treat of God in general, and of his works 
 among men, especially among his own people, 
 are applied in the New Testament directly to 
 the Messiah. 
 
 (7) Instruction by means of allegories, sym- 
 bols, and symbolical actions, is very suitable to 
 men; especially during the childhood both of 
 individuals and nations. Such instruction is 
 
328 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 exactly in the spirit of the Hebrews, and of 
 other oriental nations. This being so, it would 
 have been a subject of wonder if instruction of 
 this kind had not been given respecting so im- 
 portant an object as the new dispensation to be 
 instituted by the Messiah. That such instruc- 
 tion was given, the Jews have always main- 
 tained ; and it is clearly contained in many pas- 
 sages of the Old Testament e. g., Ps. xl. 7, 
 seq. The writers of the New Testament dis- 
 tinctly teach that some of the ordinances ap- 
 pointed by Moses and the other prophets by 
 divine command, were designed by God to 
 prepare the way for the future Saviour of the 
 world, to point to him, and to be types of him 
 and his blessings. Sacrifice, expiation, and 
 other ordinances of the Old Testament, were 
 not appointed on their own account, but were 
 intended as images of the more perfect ordi- 
 nances to be expected in future time. Many 
 of the expressions and images in the discourses 
 of John the Baptist and of Christ respecting 
 sacrifices and the sacrificial lamb, lead to this 
 conclusion ; and the correctness of it is distinctly 
 declared by the apostles. Vide Col. ii. 17; 
 Rom. iii. 21 ; the epistle to the Galatians, and 
 Heb. viii., ix., x. ; John, xix. 36. 
 
 But we are very liable to go too far in the 
 illustration and development of these allegorical 
 predictions ; and this study frequently degene- 
 rates into an idle amusement. The charge of 
 extravagance in this respect may be justly made 
 against many of the ecclesiastical fathers, and 
 many protestant theologians of later times, espe- 
 cially against Cocceius and his followers, at the 
 close of the seventeenth century. The best way 
 to avoid such mistakes is to admit of no allego- 
 rical predictions except such as are mentioned 
 in the New Testament, and to extend the resem- 
 blance no further than it is carried there. 
 
 But we must not suppose, because some have 
 made this subject ridiculous by their extrava- 
 gance, that the New Testament does not author- 
 ize the belief of allegorical predictions. Such 
 a supposition is most obviously untrue; and the 
 only reason why any have supported it is, that 
 they would prefer that an idea so inconsistent, 
 as it seemed to them, with the spirit and ideas 
 of our own age, should not be found in the New 
 Testament. That the design of God relating 
 to the future was not always made known im- 
 mediately on the establishment of the ordinances 
 of the former dispensation, does not prove that 
 God, in founding those ordinances, had no such 
 design. It was sufficient that he made it known 
 as soon as men were capable of understanding 
 it. Vide supra, No. 4. 
 
 These allegorical or symbolical predictions 
 and indications are commonly called types. So 
 they were called by the fathers, who took this 
 term from Heb. viii. 5; Rom. vi. 7; 1 Cor. x. 
 
 6, 11. They were divided into typos personates, 
 certain persons (rulers, prophets, priests,) who 
 were the representatives of the Messiah; and 
 typos reales, to which the Levitical ritual, sacri- 
 fices, and other ordinances of Moses belong. 
 Vide Michaelis, Typische Gottesgelahrtheit; 
 Dr. Rau, Freymiithige Untersuchung iiber die 
 Typologie; Erlangen, 1784, 8vo; and, most of 
 all, Storr Commentar iiber den Brief an die 
 Hebraer, particularly s. 199208. 
 
 Note. In the instruction of the common 
 people, the following view of this subject may 
 be most scripturally and safely presented : 
 By means of various religious ordinances and 
 remarkable persons among the Israelites, God 
 represented and pointed out the Messiah ; to 
 these Jesus and his apostles often allude, in 
 order to shew that the present dispensation was 
 of old designed and decreed by God, and in 
 order to excite a due estimation of these bene- 
 fits in us, who have not the shadow simply, but 
 the full enjoyment and possession of them; 
 Col. ii. 17. 
 
 Those who deny any direct revelation of the 
 divine will during the Old-Testament dispensa- 
 tion, declare themselves against allegorical pre- 
 dictions with great zeal. And so they must, in 
 order to be consistent. But this shews that 
 their doctrine is not agreeable to the scriptures, 
 which affirm that both the Old and New Testa- 
 ments contain direct divine revelations. 
 
 (8) Finally, all these observations are per- 
 fectly consistent with the principle that many 
 texts of the Old Testament are cited merely on 
 account of some accidental resemblance in sub- 
 ject or expression; in the same way as quota- 
 tions are made in works of every kind ; convey- 
 ing the idea, that what was true in the passage 
 cited in one sense is true here in another sense. 
 Thus the text, Is. liii. 4, 5, "he removed our 
 sicknesses," denoting spiritual sicknesses, is 
 applied, Matt. viii. 17, to bodily infirmities. 
 The discourse of Christ, John, xviii. 9, coll. 
 chap. xvii. 12, affords a similar example. Cf. 
 on this subject, Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk 
 der gottlichen Weisheit, th. i. s. 235; Michaelis, 
 Dogmatik, s. 122 128; Scrip. Var. Arg. p. 
 609, seq. respecting Tttofpco^vat, x. -t. h. ; Kleu- 
 ker, Tractat. de nexu prophetico inter utrumque 
 constitutionis divinse foedus. [Vide also Woods 
 on Inspiration, Lect. ii. TR.] 
 
 SECTION XCI. 
 
 OF THE SUCCESSIVE DEGREES OF THE REVELA- 
 TIONS AND PREDICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT RESPECTING THE MESSIAH. 
 
 DIVINE providence frequently makes a long 
 and secret preparation for great and important 
 events, before they are actually accomplished. 
 Commonly it gives at first only intimations 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 329 
 
 and distant allusions, but gradually unfolds its 
 designs more clearly. We might expect, then, 
 with much probability, that the divine revela- 
 tions respecting the Messiah would, at first, be 
 comparatively scanty and obscure, and would 
 gradually become more clear and evident. And 
 such we find to be the fact. Besides, the early 
 childhood of the world and of the Jewish nation 
 was not prepared to receive full information upon 
 this subject. Theologians observe, very justly, 
 that God has most exactly adapted the instruc- 
 tion given respecting the Messiah to the neces- 
 sities of men, and the circumstances of particular 
 times. The Messiah, accordingly, is sometimes 
 represented under the image of a king, some- 
 times under that of a prophet, again under that 
 of a priest, &c. ; s. 90. 
 
 Four periods are commonly distinguished. 
 
 (1) The first period extends from the com- 
 mencement of scriptural history to the time of 
 David. In this period there is, by general con- 
 fession, the most obscurity. From the remotest 
 ages, however, there was a general belief that 
 a time would come, in a distant futurity, in 
 which God would shew signal favour to men, 
 and especially to pious men, in some extraordi- 
 nary manner, by means of his prophets, and 
 particularly one of them. This belief was suf- 
 ficient ; " They saw the promised blessings from 
 a distance," Heb. xi. 13. 
 
 The first text of this kind occurs Gen. iii. 15. 
 Vide s. 75, ad finem. [Also Hengstenberg's 
 Christolo^ie, s. 26, ff.] It was during the life 
 of Abraham, and the times immediately follow- 
 ing, if we judge from the Bible, that the general 
 truth was made known, that his family would 
 be the medium of communicating this great 
 blessing to a future age. Here belongs the pro- 
 mise, Gen. xii. 3, that " in Abraham all nations 
 should be blessed." This cannot mean that 
 they should prosper if they received him and 
 his posterity with kindness and treated them 
 as friends, and be unfortunate if they did the 
 contrary ; but that this happiness should be dif- 
 fused over all through Abraham and his posteri- 
 ty; he should be the instrument or agent in the 
 hand of Divine Providence. Further, Gen. xxii. 
 8, "In (or through) thy seed shall all nations 
 be blessed." This cannot mean that Abraham's 
 posterity, as well as he himself, should be re- 
 markably favoured by God; and all nations 
 friendly to them, and who wished them well, 
 should be prospered on their account. But here 
 again is the idea conveyed that the great happi- 
 ness of the nations should proceed from Abraham 
 and his posterity, the Israelites. The former 
 passage is explained by this. The word J?-\T 
 may be used collectively here, as Paul uses it, 
 Rom. iv. 13. But, in Gal. iii. 11, he refers this 
 JHT. more especially to the Messiah, and remarks 
 that it may be translated in the singular. Christ 
 42 
 
 says expressly, that Abraham rejoiced in view 
 of the birth and appearance of the Messiah upon 
 the earth, John, viii. 56; and all the writers of 
 the New Testament agree in referring these 
 texts to the Messiah. 
 
 Another text is found in the song of Jacob, 
 Gen. xlix. 10. This is not, indeed, cited in the 
 New Testament as a Messianic prediction ; but 
 it is so understood by the Chaldaic paraphrast, 
 the Talmud, and many of the Rabbins among 
 the Jews ; and by Justin the Martyr, in the se- 
 cond century ; and afterwards by Augustine and 
 others among the Christian fathers. The word 
 rr ; , which Luther renders held (hero), has been 
 explained in a great variety of ways. But in 
 whatever way this word is understood, the rest 
 of this text applies very well to the Messiah ; and 
 if Abraham expected such a deliverer, and waited 
 for the day of the Messiah, according to the de- 
 claration of Christ above quoted, the same cer- 
 tainly may be true, in the view of Christ, re- 
 specting his grandson, who had the same pro- 
 mises and indulged the same hopes as Abraham. 
 This texts declares, that " the sceptre shall not 
 depart from Judah," (i. e., the pre-eminence of 
 this tribe over the others shall continue, although 
 Judah was not the firstborn; that tribe furnished 
 the nation with the greatest kings and warriors, 
 long before the time of the Messiah,) "until at 
 last the riW (to be descended from it) should 
 come, and to him should other nations gather 11 
 i. e., many other nations, besides the Jewish, 
 should be subjected to him and dependent upon 
 him. The best translation of n'W is proles ejus, 
 filius ejus, especially his great descendant. After 
 Schultens, Stange has explained this word in 
 the best manner, in his work, " Symmikta," th. 
 ii. s. 224, f., Halle, 1802; though I cannot 
 consent to refer the whole passage to Solomon, 
 as he does. 
 
 The last text is Deut. xviii. 18, "A prophet 
 like me will Jehovah raise up," &c. This text 
 is referred to Christ in the discourses of Peter 
 and Stephen, Acts, iii. 22 and vii. 37 ; and is 
 probably alluded to in John, i. 45. Moses is 
 giving the distinguishing mark of true and false 
 prophets, and wishes to assure the Israelites 
 that they would not be destitute of direct mes- 
 sengers from God after his death. By itself, 
 therefore, it might be taken collectively, meaning 
 " prophets like me," &c. But if at the time of 
 Moses there was a belief in a general reforma- 
 tion of religion and morals, which should be 
 ffected in some future time in a special manner, 
 by a prophet sent from God, (the opposite of 
 which cannot be proved,) this word may be used 
 especially to denote this future reformer; and 
 Jesus expressly says, " Moses wrote concerning 
 me," John, v. 46. 
 
 Besides these, the origin of many of the sym- 
 bolical predictions respecting the Messiah may 
 2E2 
 
330 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 be traced to this period ; respecting them, vide 
 s. 90. 
 
 (2) The second period comprises the reign of 
 David. A considerable number of texts are 
 found in the Psalms of David which may be 
 referred to Christ more easily and naturally than 
 to any other person. Some of them make men- 
 tion of very minute circumstances which had 
 their accomplishment in Jesus. These Psalms 
 are actually referred to Christ in the New Tes- 
 tament. The most important of them are, Ps. 
 ii., xvi., xxii., xl., ex. Now many of the 
 Psalms from which passages are cited in the 
 New Testament as referring to the Messiah, 
 may, indeed, be understood to refer, in their 
 primary and literal sense, to another king, from 
 whose history they may be explained. But 
 this is no objection to considering them, as the 
 New Testament does, to be predictions of the 
 Messiah, according to the principle contained 
 in s. 90, III., No. 5 ; e. g., Ps. xlv., Ixviii., 
 Ixix., Ixxii. 
 
 Sometimes, in these Psalms, the Messiah is 
 represented as a king and priest in short, in 
 his exaltation. The wide extension of his king- 
 dom is described ; and the spiritual nature of his 
 mission is denoted with sufficient clearness. 
 Thus Psalm ii. and parts of Psalms xvi., xl., 
 ex. Again, he is represented in suffering and 
 humiliation. Thus Psalm xxii. and part of 
 Psalms xvi. and xl. The piercing of his hands 
 and feet, and the parting of his garments by lot, 
 are mentioned in Psalm xxii. 7, 14, seq. His 
 death and resurrection are mentioned in Psalm 
 xvi. 10, 11, and also in Ps. xxii. 25. 
 
 It was during this period that the appellation 
 rwo (zpiffi'os) i. e., king, by way of eminence, 
 became common; because the Messiah was de- 
 scribed as a ruler appointed by God, as the repre- 
 sentative of the Deity upon earth. At this time, 
 too, it was distinctly predicted that he should 
 be born of the line of David. Vide 2 Sam. 
 vii. 12, seq.; Ps. ii. and Ixxxix; Acts, ii. 30; 
 xiii. 34. 
 
 (3) The third period extends from the reign 
 of David to the Babylonian captivity, and a 
 little later. The writings of the prophets during 
 this period contain many passages which treat 
 of the future restoration of the Jewish state, and 
 of the church, then fallen into great degeneracy, 
 and which encourage the hope that a distin- 
 guished reformer and deliverer, commissioned 
 by God, would appear, and that with him the 
 golden age would return to the earth. These 
 blessings are not promised, however, to the 
 Jews only, but also to the heathen, and to all 
 who should desire to share in them. Indeed, far 
 better promises are given in these prophets to 
 the heathen than to the Jews; e. g., Is. ii. and 
 Ixvi. promises which have been confirmed by 
 the result. In this period, as in the second, the 
 
 Messiah is described as a king and ruler, born 
 from the line of David, as a prophet and a re- 
 former of religion and morals ; as Is. xi. 1, seq. ; 
 chap, xl. Ixvi. 
 
 But the passage, Isaiah liii., is particularly 
 applicable to the Messiah. It describes his hu- 
 miliation, rejection, death, exaltation, the diffu- 
 sion of his doctrine, &c. No other person has 
 been found in history to whom this passage can 
 apply, although some have referred it to Heze- 
 kiah, others to the Jewish people, and others to 
 Jeremiah. Vide Doderlein, " Uebersetz'ung des 
 Isaias," (edit. 3rd,) where he endeavours to ap- 
 ply this passage to the Jewish people. Dr. 
 Eckermann (Theol. Beytr. st. i. s. 192) endea- 
 vours to shew that the new Israelitish state is 
 here meant by the servant of Jehovah. Staudlin 
 understands it of Isaiah, explaining it from the 
 Jewish story, that king Manasseh persecuted 
 Isaiah, and at last caused hirn to be sawn asun- 
 der. But this interpretation is forced, and the 
 story itself a modern fable. Paulus refers the 
 passage to the better part of the Jewish nation, 
 which was called rrirp 155. The New Testa- 
 ment always refers this passage to Christ, and 
 to none else ; and all other explanations must be 
 allowed to be difficult and forced. There is no 
 person in history to whom it applies as well as 
 it does to Christ. If we were not sure that it 
 was written long before the birth of Christ, we 
 might be tempted to believe that it was an imi- 
 tation of the evangelical history, and was an ex- 
 tract from it, clothed in poetical language. 
 
 The passage of Micah, (who was a contem- 
 porary of Isaiah,) chap. v. 1, was considered by 
 the Jewish Sanhedrim as giving indubitable in- 
 dication cf the birth-place of the Messiah, Mat- 
 thew, ii. 4, seq. In Zech. xii. 12, 13, we have 
 the lineage of the family of David, from which 
 the Messiah should be born (vide Dathe in loc.); 
 and in Hag. ii. 7 9, an exact indication of the 
 time in which he should appear viz., the time 
 of the second temple. This passage treats, in- 
 deed, more particularly of the gifts, presents, 
 and offerings, which foreigners would bring to 
 the second temple. Still it exhibits those cheer- 
 ful prospects for the future which were first 
 realized at the time of the Messiah. The pas- 
 sages Mai. iii. 1, iv. 5, 6, respecting the Mes- 
 siah and his precursor Elias, are more clear. 
 
 The passage, Dan. ix. 24, seq., respecting 
 the seventy tveeks has been commonly considered 
 very important, and as calculated to carry con- 
 viction even to the Jews. But the passage is 
 so obscure, and is encompassed with so many 
 difficulties, that it is not so useful as many be- 
 lieve for the purpose of convincing the Jews 
 that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Some 
 modern interpreters have even doubted whe- 
 ther the Messiah is the subject of the passage. 
 By rytfo some have understood Cyrus, others, a 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 331 
 
 king. Modern commentators have laboured 
 with the greatest zeal to throw light upon this 
 subject. Clauswitz, Michaelis, Hassenkamp, 
 Dathe, Blayney, Gerd.es, "Velthusen, Less, 
 Doederlein, and Berthold, have written upon it; 
 but much yet remains uncertain. Still it can- 
 . not be referred to any but the Messiah, without 
 doing violence to the words. And so much is 
 clear from this passage, that the advent of the 
 Messiah is fixed to a time, which has now been 
 past for upwards of a thousand years. The 
 Jews, then, may be convinced from this passage, 
 that the Messiah has long since come ; and then, 
 from other passages, that Jesus is the person in 
 whom all the characteristics of the Messiah are 
 found. [Cf. the late Commentary of Hengsten- 
 berg on Daniel. TR.] 
 
 (4) Fourth period. We have already shewn 
 in s. 89, from the New Testament and other 
 writers, how general the expectation of the Mes- 
 siah was about the time when Jesus appeared, 
 and shortly after, especially after the Jews be- 
 came subject to the Romans, and how this idea 
 was modified by the great multitude, and inter- 
 mingled with various unscriptural views. A few, 
 however, entertained right conceptions. If we 
 had more Jewish writers of this later period, 
 especially more from the Jews of Palestine, 
 who had written upon the religious opinions of 
 their nation, we should certainly obtain more 
 accurate and distinct knowledge upon this point. 
 Still, in what we do know with certainty, we 
 have enough for our thorough conviction. Fur- 
 ther: one age was distinguished above another 
 in the earnest expectation of the Messiah to 
 come, just as among Christians one age is dis- 
 tinguished above another in its belief on the 
 Messiah already come. Even in the Christian 
 church some one doctrine has, at one particular 
 time, been made more prominent than others. 
 And so it was in the Jewish church. 
 
 Thus far the first chapter, as introductory. 
 We have now to consider the doctrine respect- 
 ing Jesus Christ himself, what he was accord- 
 ing to the description of the New Testament, 
 and what he performed for the salvation of men. 
 The New Testament-proposes Christ himself as 
 the foundation of the Christian faith, John, xvii. 
 3. We shall treat first of the history of Jesus, 
 or of the doctrine of the states of Jesus, in chap. 
 ii. ; then of the person of Jesus Christ, in chap, 
 iii., (it being inconvenient to treat of this sub- 
 ject first, as is done in many systems;) finally, 
 the doctrine respecting what Christ has done 
 for the good of man, or respecting the work and 
 office of Christ (de munere Christi}, in chap. iv. 
 Morus discusses all these subjects, p. 134 196, 
 and has interspersed many excellent exegetical, 
 doctrinal, and practical observations, but he 
 treats them in a very broken and disconnected 
 way, and in an entirely different order from 
 
 what is common in the systems ; and, in short, 
 in a manner not very much calculated to facili- 
 tate the subject to the student just commencing 
 his theological studies. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 HISTORY OF JESUS IN HIS TWO STATES OF 
 HUMILIATION AND OF EXALTATION. 
 
 SECTION XCII. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURAL REPRESENTATION OF THE TWO 
 PRINCIPAL PERIODS IN THE LIFE OF JESUS ; 
 THE SCRIPTURAL NAMES OF THESE PERIODS; 
 THE PROOF-TEXTS J AND SOME CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 BEFORE the man Jesus was raised by God to 
 that illustrious dignity (5d|a) which, according 
 to the testimony of the New Testament, he now 
 enjoys even in his human nature, he lived upon 
 the earth in greater depression and indigence, 
 more despised and neglected, than the greater 
 part of mankind. This gave occasion to the di- 
 vision of the whole life of Christ into two parts, 
 or conditions the state of humiliation, and the 
 state of exaltation , or better, status humilitatis 
 et glorias. These conditions might be called, 
 with equal scriptural authority, the states of 
 subjection and of dominion, of poverty and 
 splendour, of lowliness and majesty, &c. 
 
 I. Scriptural names of both conditions. 
 
 (1) Tajtftvoj, tfajtEmotftj, and af 
 
 These, which are the more common theological 
 terms, are taken from Phil. ii. 8, 
 savr'ov,) and ver. 9, (0f6j av-r'ov v 
 Tartstvo? denotes, in general, misery, inferiority, 
 indigence ; and i^oj, elevation, greatness, majes- 
 ty , James, i. 9, 10; Matt, xxiii. 12. 
 
 Note. The word v^ovv is applied by Christ 
 himself, in a different sense, to his crucifixion, 
 John, iii. 13, 14 ; viii. 28 ; xii. 32, 34. For the 
 verba exaltandi signify also among the Hebrews, 
 to hang up, publicly to execute a malefactor. Vide 
 Gen. xl. 13, 19. 
 
 (2) SopS, and the opposite rtvevfia,. 2ap| 
 and -c % 3 do not denote simple humanity and 
 human nature, but frequently weak, mortal, suf- 
 fering humanity, and the depressed condition in 
 which man lives. They are nearly synonymous 
 with mortalis, conditio mortalis. The opposite 
 rtvsvfjLa denotes what is perfect, a perfect condi- 
 tion. Thus Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 50, calls the mor- 
 tal body of man crapt xai al^ua, which he after- 
 wards calls ^rttya IQV, and ow^ua fartstvuxjfwj. The 
 heavenly body he calls rtvEvpa'tixov, and the 
 heavenly condition of Christ ftvtvpa,. Accord- 
 ingly, the humble life of Christ upon the earth 
 is called ^uipai tr ( $ ffapxoj, Heb. v. 7, and j3/o$ 
 
332 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 iv crapxt, 1 Pet. iv. 2. The same explanation 
 must be given to the following terms, viz., 
 Xptcwoj iJwjOmgys*, i$avepi4$ri ev ffapxt, 1 John, iv. 
 2; 1 Tim. iii. 15, 16; 0dp| syeveto John, i. 14; 
 ffrte'pjtta AavtS xata odpxa, Rom. ix. 5 ; i. 3, 4 ; 
 and 1 Pet. iii. 18. Vide Doderlein, in Repert. 
 ii. s. 1. f. 
 
 (3) The term rta^or'a is applied to the 
 state of humiliation, 1 Pet. i. 11; and the 
 phrase at ueta tavfa 5o|at to the opposite 
 state. For, in fact, the sufferings and calami- 
 ties of Christ were by no means confined to the 
 last period of his life, but were extended 
 through the whole of his state of humiliation. 
 Cf. Luke, xxiv. 26, where rta&iv stands con- 
 trasted with flash&tv nj T^V 6o|av. The phrase 
 8o|a xal ftpy is used in the same way in Heb. 
 ii. 9 (Ps. viii.), and Sotac&jpcu very frequently 
 in John, as in chap. xvii. 
 
 (4) The words tteiu$r t va,c and -r^uocns are 
 applied to the state of exaltation, Heb. ii. 10 ; 
 v. 9. The phrase, 8ia jto&jiM'tav (r^teiwcraO* 
 added in Heb. ii. 10, signifies AFTER the suffer- 
 ings endured. These words are literally used 
 to denote the reward of victors in mock con- 
 tests, when they receive the prize (|3paj3toi>) ; 
 in which sense Philo uses them. Cf. xii. 23. 
 
 II. Most important proof-texts. 
 
 These are, on the general subject, 1 Pet. i. 
 1 1 ; Heb. i. 3, 4 ; v. 79 ; xii. 2, 3, seq. The 
 first of these has been already explained, No. I. ; 
 the second will be when we come to speak de 
 statu exaltationis. But the two passages, Phil, 
 ii. 6 11; and Heb. ii. 9 11, may be consi- 
 dered as the most full. A brief explanation of 
 these two passages is here subjoined. 
 
 (1) Phil. ii. 6, seq. Paul exhorts Chris- 
 tians to imitate, in respect to their feeling to- 
 wards others, the example of Jesus, who re- 
 nounced and sacrificed all his own advantages 
 for their good. The passage relates to Jesus, 
 considered as the Messiah. Mop^j? eov stands 
 in opposition to p-opfyq Sovhov, ver. 7, and so de- 
 notes divine authority and majesty. Mop^ is 
 the same as cr^^a, ver. 7. The same senti- 
 ment is expressed more strongly by the phrase 
 flvcu loo, 9 equal to God, the image of God. 
 Homer applies the epithets OsosixsKos, avffesos 
 divine, equal to God, to Ulysses and Achilles. 
 The antithesis is o^ouo^ua cU^pwTtcov, ver. 7, 
 which signifies, not merely similar to, but the 
 same as, men. (" He that sees me, sees the 
 Father," John, xiv. 9.) Christ is the image 
 of God upon earth, Col. i. 15 ; Heb. i. 3. 
 
 Ov% aprtayfjibv rjyriso^o' i. e., he did not wear 
 his divinity for the sake of ostentation, nor did 
 he make vain a display of it; the antithesis of 
 which is in ver. 3* 'Exsvuaw fawtov, ver. 7, is 
 synonymous with ttarttivuxifv tavtov, ver. 8. 
 oj corresponds to the Hebrew p^n ; and p 11 "} 
 
 is rendered poor, needy, in the LXX., and in 
 Luke, i. 54, where xevov$ and rOjovtovvto.s are 
 contrasted. This phrase, then, is synonymous 
 with the one used in 2 Cor. viii. 9, fatuzsvoe 
 8c -i^aj, se insum demisit ad statum tenuem he 
 let himself down, he freely sacrificed the riches, 
 privileges, and all the divine majesty and glory, 
 which he might still have possessed. 
 
 'Ei/ o{ioi<*>[Aa*'tt, dv^-pcorftov ysvojufvoj, after he ap- 
 peared as man, he assumed the form of a ser- 
 vant. Indeed, (ver. 8,) he went so far in his 
 obedience to the divine will, that from love to 
 his Father, and to us his brethren, he submitted 
 to death, and even to a disgraceful crucifixion. 
 
 "Therefore" (in reward for his sacrifice and 
 obedience) "has God highly exalted him," (this 
 is explained by what follows,) "and raised him 
 to supreme dignity," (ovcyta, Heb. i. 4.) The 
 reference is to the name Lord, ver. 11, which 
 denotes his dominion over everything in his state 
 of exaltation; according to ver. 10, 11 ; Heb. i. 
 4. "That before Jesus," (or at the name of 
 Jesus, the name Krptoj audito nomine Jesu i. 
 e., before Jesus as their Lord,) " the inhabitants 
 of heaven, earth, and the under-world, should 
 bow the knee" i. e., universal reverence and 
 adoration should be rendered to him, (as to 
 kings, Is. xlv. 23;) "and that all, with one 
 mouth, should confess that Jesus, the Christ, is 
 Lord, (Kvptov,) or universal ruler, (ver. 10.) 
 Etj 86%av ov nat-pdj. " this contributes to the 
 honour and glorification of the Father," John, 
 xvii. 4, 6. Whoever does this, honours the 
 Father; for it is his will that all should honour 
 the Son; John, v. 23; inasmuch as Christ, 
 even now, since his return to God, provides for 
 the extension of the kingdom of God upon 
 earth, and promotes morality and happiness. 
 
 (2) Heb. ii. 9 11. Paul shews that man, at 
 some future time, will pass into a happy life, and 
 into a perfect condition, although, while upon 
 earth, he is imperfect and mortal. This he illus- 
 trates from the example of Christ, who in this is 
 similar to us. 
 
 "We see that Jesus, who [like other men] 
 was inferior in dignity to the angels, (vide 
 Psalm viii. 5,) was crowned with glory and 
 honour, after he had endured sufferings." (He 
 was thus depressed, in order to suffer death for 
 the good of us all, according to the gracious 
 purpose of God.) "For it became God, from 
 whom all things proceed, and to whose glory 
 everything contributes it became him (i. e., no- 
 thing else could be expected from his justice 
 and goodness) to bestow upon Jesus the highest 
 blessedness, after he had endured sufferings, and 
 had led so many children (worshippers of God) 
 to glory, (the enjoyment of eternal blessedness ;) 
 and had thus become the author of their salvation, 
 (dp^yoj tfwTjfpt'as.) For he that sanctifies (6 
 iwv, Jesus) and they who art sanctified (ayia- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 333 
 
 gn 
 26. 
 
 are of ONE race, (or common human ori- 
 | svo$ sc. Tta-r'poj sive ai'^aroj, Acts, xvii. 
 He is man, as well as we.) Hence he is 
 not ashamed to call us brethren, (relatives.)" 
 Here we see clearly on what analogy the apostle 
 argues. 
 
 III. Results from these and other texts,- and general 
 observations on the doctrine of the conditions of 
 Christ. 
 
 (1) The states of humiliation and exaltation 
 concern the human nature only, and not the di- 
 vine nature of Christ. These texts refer only to 
 the man Jesus, or to Christ as man. For as God 
 he is always the same, (o avi'oj,) and can nei- 
 ther be humbled nor exalted. But the ancient 
 writers frequently express themselves incau- 
 tiously and loosely upon this subject. Origen 
 says, "the divine nature let itself down from its 
 majesty, and became man." De prin. ii. 6. 
 Gregory of Nyssa says, " XE v ovi'at ^ ^eof^s Iva 
 ^wp^T'jJ yevjfT'a* ty dv^-pwrttV^ <J>i;(jc.." Such lan- 
 guage, indeed, admits of explanation, and was 
 understood by them in a right sense; but it is 
 hard and inconvenient, and not according to the 
 example of the holy scriptures. 
 
 (2) Two things, as we may learn from these 
 passages, are implied in the humiliation of 
 Christ, (a) The abdication, surrender, or re- 
 nunciation which he made, for the good of man, 
 of the exalted privileges which he could have 
 enjoyed, (carentia sive abdicatio usus majestatis 
 suse.) This is commonly called jelvwtfij, from 
 Phil, ii., xvo)dv tavtov, which Luther renders, 
 "jEr ausserte, or ent-dusserte sich selbst." The 
 idea, however, is founded rather upon the whole 
 subject of this passage and of other passages, 
 such as 2 Cor. viii. 9, than on this particular 
 word. It is also implied in the idea of his ele- 
 vation; for he then entered upon the possession 
 and enjoyment of all his rights and privileges. 
 (6) His submission to great misery and to many 
 sufferings. Although innocent himself, as the 
 Bible represents him, yet for our good he freely 
 submitted to all that distress and wretchedness 
 which are the inevitable consequences of our 
 sins. Vide Phil. ii. and the other texts cited. 
 
 Note 1. Theologians have disputed whether 
 Christ laid aside the use of his divine attributes, 
 or continued in the actual possession of them, 
 only veiling them from the eyes of men. There 
 were various opinions upon this subject in the 
 Lutheran church, even as early as the sixteenth 
 century. But in 161 6, a controversy commenced 
 between the theologians of Giessen and Tubin- 
 gen, and other theologians of Wiirtemberg. 
 Those of Giessen maintained that Christ fre- 
 quently renounced the use of his divine attri- 
 butes, and alleged the word exsvutit. But the 
 theologians of Tubingen maintained that the 
 *T?rcfi$ idiomatum divinorum existed in Christ 
 
 even in statu exanitionis, although he never 
 used them ; so that it was a mere xpt'4-tj. This 
 controversy was in a good measure logomachy. 
 The theologians of Saxony rather favoured the 
 views of the theologians of Giessen than of Tu- 
 bingen. So much, however, is certain, that if 
 the person of Christ, even during his life upon 
 earth, was the person of the Son of God, (as he 
 himself clearly affirms,) it was possible for him 
 to exercise his divine attributes. But, on ac- 
 count of the work which he had to perform upon 
 earth, he forbore the full use of them ; which is 
 just what the theologians of Tubingen would 
 say. Vide the works cited by Morus, p. 173, 
 n. 3. Cf. p. 192, n. 3. [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, 
 s . 470. -TR.] 
 
 Note 2. Theologians generally allow some 
 use of these attributes on different occasions. 
 Others object that this is not consistent with 
 the constant humiliation of Christ while upon 
 the earth, and is not clearly supported by the 
 New Testament. He himself frequently says, 
 especially in the gospel of John, that he per- 
 formed the miracles which he wrought as man 
 through a miraculous divine power, and as the 
 messenger of the Father. The case was the 
 same as to his instruction. Neither Jesus him- 
 self, nor the apostles, ever alluded to his proper 
 divinity in such a way as to imply that it qua- 
 lified him, as a man upon earth, to instruct and 
 work miracles. He had resigned his divine 
 prerogatives, and his qualifications are always 
 considered as derived from the Father. Vide 
 s. 102. But this free renunciation of the privi- 
 leges which belonged to him as God did not 
 exclude the use of them when occasion should 
 require. Christ himself said that he performed 
 his work in common with his Father, John, v. 
 17, seq., and chap, x.; he that saw him, saw 
 the Father, John, xiv. 9; his glory, which the 
 apostles had seen, was a glory which belonged 
 exclusively to the only begotten Son ; John, i. 14. 
 
 (3) Although Jesus lived upon earth in humi- 
 liation and indigence, his whole life upon earth 
 cannot be called, as it is by many, a state of hu- 
 miliation. The passage, Phil, ii., is often ap- 
 pealed to in behalf of this opinion. But Paul 
 evident!)' mentions the fcwtetviooris, sewooij, and 
 /uop<j>j7 oovhov, (ii. 8, 9,) as constituting only a 
 part of this life. The incarnation is never men- 
 tioned in scripture as belonging to the state of 
 humiliation. It is so considered, however, by 
 many of the ecclesiastical fathers; as Origen, 
 Gregory of Nyssa; and by many of the Latins, 
 as Leo the Great, in his epistles. They are con- 
 sequently compelled to assert that God, or the 
 divine nature of Christ, lowered itself by be- 
 coming man. Neither are the forty days which 
 Christ lived upon earth after the resurrection to 
 be enumerated among the days of his humilia- 
 
 tion, 
 
 crapxoj.) 
 
334 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 (4) The state of humiliation is commonly di- 
 vided into five gradus, degrees, periods ; and the 
 state of exaltation into the same number. Some, 
 however, suppose more, and others fewer. The 
 common division and arrangement is taken from 
 the so-named apostolical creed. But the object 
 of this creed was not to make a systematic and 
 logical division, and to determine the limits of 
 the two conditions ; but to oppose certain doc- 
 trines condemned by the orthodox church as er- 
 roneous. The conception is made to stand first; 
 but this does not belong to the state of humilia- 
 tion, because the divine nature cannot be lower- 
 ed ; nor could the human nature before it existed. 
 [Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 471. TR.] 
 
 We proceed now to treat of Christ considered 
 as man, or of the man Jesus, in the state of his 
 humiliation upon earth, s. 93 96 ; and then in 
 the state of his exaltation and glory, s. 97 99, 
 inclusive. 
 
 SECTION XCIII. 
 
 OF THE ORIGIN, CONCEPTION, BIRTH, AND YOUTH 
 OF JESUS ; HIS TRUE HUMANITY, AND THE EX- 
 CELLENCES OF IT. 
 
 JESUS was the son of Mary, conceived by her 
 in a miraculous manner (5ta jtvtvpa-tos dytov,) 
 (Matt. i. 18; Luke, i. 35;) of the posterity of 
 Abraham (Rom. ix. 5;) and the royal line of 
 David. The register of his descent is inserted 
 both in Matt. i. 1, seq. and in Luke, iii. 23, seq. 
 They both agree in making him the descendant 
 of David, however they may apparently differ in 
 tracing his descent. Ancient writers did not 
 agree upon the method of reconciling the two 
 tables. The most correct solution is this : that 
 Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, of 
 whom Jesus was the adopted son; and Luke 
 that of Mary. Both descended from David; 
 Joseph through Solomon, and Mary through 
 Nathan, who also was David's son. Jesus was 
 born in the reign of Augustus, (Luke, ii. 1 ;) 
 probably earlier by some four or five years than 
 the common Dionysian mode of reckoning, 
 which we follow ; accordingly, in the thirtieth 
 year of the reign of Augustus, 749 (according to 
 Dionysius, 754) from the building of Rome. 
 We subjoin the following doctrinal observa- 
 tions : 
 
 I. Miraculous Conception of Christ. 
 
 The scriptural view of the events of the world 
 is altogether different and higher than the com- 
 mon view. The Bible derives everything which 
 takes place in the material world directly from 
 the will and agency of the Supreme Being, and 
 refers everything back to him. But it teaches 
 at the same time, in what way, by what means 
 and appointments, God arranges and accom- 
 plishes all things which take place around us. 
 With regard to all important events especially, 
 
 we are taught, by scriptural principles, that they 
 have their deeper origin in the invisible world, 
 and that the way is prepared for them by God, 
 and that they are finally brought forward into 
 maturity and accomplishment chiefly through 
 the ministry of superior spirits. Such, then, for 
 a higher reason, was the fact respecting that 
 most important of all events, the appearance of 
 the Saviour of the world, and of his precursor. It 
 was required, not only by the Jewish nation, but 
 by the whole ancient world, that great and ex- 
 traordinary persons, employed by God as instru- 
 ments for the accomplishment of his designs, 
 should receive some extraordinary and miracu- 
 lous attestation of their mission, and proofs of 
 their authority. Such attestation was expected 
 at and before their birth, during their life, and at 
 and after their death. Vide Wetstein on Matt. 
 i. 20. Now though God is represented in the 
 Bible as a being high and exalted over all, he is 
 still described as willingly complying with the 
 necessities of men, as condescending to them, 
 and in his intercourse with men acting after the 
 manner of men; especially whenever by so do- 
 ing he can attain his great objects, their sancti- 
 fication and salvation. Accordingly, those ex- 
 traordinary men by whom God intended to pro 
 mote these objects received his seal to their tes- 
 timony in that extraordinary manner which was 
 calculated to convince mankind, and to satisfy 
 their expectations. In this manner, the Bible 
 informs us, was the testimony of Moses and all 
 the prophets down to John, of Jesus also and his 
 apostles, confirmed by God. 
 
 It deserves to be mentioned in this connexion 
 that the Jews called the Messiah the second 
 Mam, (as Paul did,) arid that they imagined he 
 would be born as guiltless and pure as Adam 
 was when he first came from the hands of God, 
 and was therefore called tov fov, (Tloj,) Luke, 
 iii. 38. In common generation, as scripture 
 and experience teach us, the depravity of man 
 is propagated. But Christ is described in the 
 New Testament as similar indeed to us, but 
 without sin. 
 
 Hvsvpa aytov, (Luke, i. 35,) signifies miracu- 
 lous divine power, and is synonymous with Svva- 
 5/wj v^6tov. Vide Acts, i. 5, 8. Every extra- 
 ordinary and supernatural event takes place 
 through the influence of the Holy Spirit, and 
 the performing of all miracles is referred to him. 
 The phrases, to come upon one (ertftavete-r'ai), 
 and, overshadow one (trtujxtaoft) amount to the 
 same thing: "thou shall experience a miracu- 
 lous divine power exerted upon thee; thou shalt 
 become pregnant by this divine miraculous 
 power, in an extraordinary way." In Matt. i. 
 20, it is briefly said, " that which is born of her 
 
 Hi'tvfKrtbs ttrttv aytou." 
 
 The phrase, conceived from the Holy Ghost, 
 which occurs in the ancient creeds, (e. g., in 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 335 
 
 the apostolic creed,) is derived from this pas- 
 sage (Matt. i. 20.) (This phrase was intro- 
 duced as antithetic to the declarations of such 
 as considered Jesus to be a natural son of Jo- 
 seph and Mary. For he was so considered by 
 many of the Jews at the time of Christ, (cf. 
 Luke, iii. 23,) and by some Christian sects, as 
 the Ebionites. Vide Iren. Haeres. v., c. i. This 
 same opinion has been advocated lately in a 
 work entitled " Versuch eines schriftmiissigen 
 Beweises, dass Joseph der wahre Vater Christi 
 sey;" Berlin and Stralsund, 1792, 8vo. The 
 author of this work does palpable violence to 
 the sacred writers, and has not considered this 
 narrative in the spirit of the age in which it was 
 written. His explanation goes upon the sup- 
 position that the first two chapters of Matthew 
 are spurious, and that Luke, in his narratives, 
 followed a report which had circulated only 
 among a few Christians respecting the concep- 
 tion of Christ.) From the New Testament it 
 is certain that before the conception of Jesus 
 Mary was a virgin. Cf. Matt. i. 23, and Luke, 
 i. The extraordinary manner of her conception 
 has led many to say that the name of ytap^'voj 
 belongs to her, even since the birth of Christ. 
 This name, however, is not given to her in the 
 New Testament after this event; on the con- 
 trary, Christ is said to be ytvopsvov fx yuvaweoj, 
 Gal. iv. 4. When the monastic life became 
 popular, and the unmarried state was regarded 
 as the most holy and pleasing to God, the opi- 
 nion prevailed, that after the birth of Christ, 
 Mary lived, even in the married state, in entire 
 continence, like a nun, and had no children by 
 Joseph. Hence she was called cUirtap^'i/oj. In 
 the fourth century this opinion was almost uni- 
 versal ; and Epiphanius and Hieronymus pro- 
 nounced Apollinaris, Helvidius, Jovinian, and 
 others, who disputed it, to be heretics. But 
 Basilius the Great considered it as a question 
 of minor importance. 
 
 II. True Humanity of Christ. 
 
 From the New Testament it is evident that 
 Christ was a real man, both as to body and soul. 
 He had feelings, senses, and organs of sense, as 
 we have. He hungered, thirsted, shed his 
 blood, and died. He exhibits, too, all the pro- 
 perties of the soul. He attained gradually to 
 the knowledge and understanding which he 
 possessed as a man ; Luke, ii. 52. He displayed 
 human feelings, joy, sorrow, indignation, &c. ; 
 Luke, xxii. 42, 44; xxiii. 46. Paul calls him 
 expressly, ai^pcorto? Xpttfr'os 'Iqeovs, 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
 Men are called his brethren, Heb. ii. 11 14. 
 He frequently calls himself, 6 vloj tov ow^pwrtou ; 
 the more proper meaning of which phrase is, the 
 son of Adam, the great son of Adam, 6 Ssvttpos 
 'ASa^, as Paul says. But in whatever way this 
 phrase is understood, it clearly denotes the true 
 
 humanity of Christ. The phrases, he came or 
 appeafed in the flesh, he became jlesh, denote the 
 same thing; John, i. 14; 1 John, iv. 3; Rom. 
 viii. 4, seq. 
 
 But certain popular prejudices and incorrect 
 philosophical principles led some to doubt, and 
 others to deny, this clear truth. Hence the true 
 humanity of Christ was expressly mentioned in 
 the ancient creeds. 
 
 (1) Some taught that Christ did not possess 
 a true human body, but only a bodily phantom 
 and shade ; that he appeared iv Soxrfifi or tyav- 
 'tdop.o.'ti, for such aerial bodies were then as- 
 cribed to departed spirits, and even to divini- 
 ties. These were the persons who believed 
 that matter was the origin of all evil, and did 
 not proceed from God, but from an evil and ma- 
 licious being. Hence, according to their view, 
 the pure divine spirit of Christ, one of the high- 
 est aeons, could not have dwelt in a material 
 body. Those who held these opinions were 
 called Docetae and Phantasiasts ; they comprised 
 most of the Gnostics, as Marcion and others ; 
 also the Manicheans and their followers. 
 
 (2) After the fourth century, others denied 
 the existence of the human soul of Christ, be- 
 lieving that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as 
 the Logos supplied its place. We find, indeed, 
 that the oldest fathers had no particular and dis- 
 tinct conception of the human soul of Christ. 
 They did not deny its existence, but they made 
 no distinct and express mention of it in their 
 writings, presupposing it as understood of 
 course. Origen, in the third century, taught, for 
 the first time, the exact doctrine of the human 
 soul of Christ, and shewed its importance. It 
 was a considerable time, however, before this 
 doctrine was introduced into theology as a spe- 
 cific article. It did not become universal among 
 the catholics until after the middle of the fourth 
 century, when Apollinaris the younger appear- 
 ed, and boldly denied that Christ had a human 
 soul. Afterwards he determined more exactly 
 that Christ indeed possessed the $v%rjy, (animal 
 soul,) which was the organ by which the Logos 
 operated upon the human body of Jesus; but 
 that he was destitute of the Ttvtv^o, rovj, (the 
 rational soul,) the place of which was supplied 
 by the Logos. Attention was now excited, for 
 the first time, to this doctrine ; it was introduced 
 into the Christian creed; scriptural refutation 
 of the error of Apollinaris was sought; decrees 
 of councils were made, and laws were enacted 
 against it. [Vide Hahn, Lehrb. s. 95, s. 456. 
 Neander, Kirchengesch. b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1060, 
 ff., and b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 904; Abth. iii. s. 
 1170. TR.] 
 
 III. Excellences of the Humanity of Jesus. 
 
 A. In respect to his body. 
 
 (1) The beauty of his appearance. Many of 
 
)3G 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the fathers imagined him to be the ideal of man- 
 ly beauty ; and the painters of succeeding ages 
 have endeavoured to express this in their pic- 
 tures of him. The New Testament itself gives 
 us no means of determining either for or against 
 such a supposition. Only we must be careful, 
 if we adopt this opinion, not to consider it es- 
 sential, and must remember the declaration of 
 Christ, % crap! otix w^f^-fc ovSsv, John, vi. 63 ; 
 and what Paul says, that yivuaxE iv Xpuj-r'ov xata 
 edpxa is not the thing required; 2 Cor. v. 16. 
 Vide Carpzov, Progr. " de forma oris et corpo- 
 ris Christi;" Helmstadt, 1777. 
 
 (2) The immortality of his body. We reason 
 thus : Immortality belonged to Christ because 
 he was without sin, for death is the consequence 
 of sin ; Rom. vi. 23. He was not subjected to 
 the necessity of dying, although he actually 
 died, in obedience to God, and from love to us, 
 and for our advantage. This took place, how- 
 ever, not against his will, but with his consent, 
 John, x. 18. Hence Paul mentions it as the 
 express design of the incarnation of Jesus, that 
 he might suffer death. 
 
 B. In respect to his soul. Among these are 
 
 (1) His extraordinary human understanding, 
 sagacity, and knowledge. His whole history 
 proves, that even as a man he was not of the 
 common and ordinary class, but one of those 
 great and extraordinary persons of whom the 
 world has seen but few. But he was like other 
 men in this respect, that his talents and intel- 
 lectual faculties did not unfold themselves at 
 once, but gradually, and were capable of pro- 
 gressive improvement. Hence Luke records 
 (ii. 52), that he ttpoixorttt aofyiq. Hence, too, 
 he learned and practised obedience to the divine 
 command, and submission to the divine will, 
 Heb. v. 8 ; he prepared himself for his office, &c. 
 
 (2) His perfect moral purity, and the blame- 
 lessness of his life. Theologians call this, the 
 sinlessness (di/ap^ar^/a) of Jesus. The great- 
 est honesty, virtue, and piety shone forth in all 
 the doctrines and discourses, in the whole life 
 and conduct, of Jesus. Hence most of the ene- 
 mies of Christianity admit this excellence of the 
 moral doctrine and of the person of Christ, and 
 consider him as an example of piety and virtue. 
 Cf. Hess, Geschichte der drey letzten Lebens- 
 jahre Jesu. [Also the remarkable passage in 
 Rousseau's Conf. du Vic. Sav. in his Emilius.] 
 The most important passages which treat of the 
 sinlessness of Jesus are, 2 Cor. v. 21, ^ yvovta 
 apafrtltto i. e.,peccaii expertem esse (Is. lix. 8) ; 
 1 John, iii. 3, 5, ayvo$ la-ci, and a/jLaptia ovx fVr't 
 Iv avz'Q. Heb. iv. 15, "He was like us, but 
 #wpt$ a^apT't'aj' 1 Pet. i. 19, a^ivov djituyiov xai 
 dcTTKOoy. The texts also in which it is said that 
 he was obedient to the will and command of 
 God belong in this connexion; as Heb. v. 8, 
 
 (which is called obedientiam activam,) and 
 many passages in John. 
 
 Jesus being free from sin, was free from the 
 punishment of sin, and from all that evil which 
 men bring upon themselves by their own sins. 
 He suffered what he did suffer, undeservedly 
 and voluntarily. Vide Heb. vii. 27; 1 Pet. i. 
 19. The sinlessness of Jesus is to be regarded 
 as a consequence of the fact that he was born 
 without moral pollution. Cf. s. 92. 
 
 But this subject is frequently represented as 
 if it would have been impossible for the man 
 Jesus to sin; and as if his virtue and holiness 
 were absolutely necessary. Cf. Baumgarten, 
 Diss. de drap^a-r^wx Christi; Halle, 1753. 
 But, 
 
 (a) The scripture nowhere teaches that the 
 possibility of sinning would have ceased in 
 Adam and his posterity if Adam had not fallen. 
 The possibility of erring and transgressing 
 would belong to man, even if he had no natural 
 depravity. Otherwise Adam could not have 
 fallen; for before the fall he was without origi- 
 nal sin. The case must have been the same, 
 therefore, with the man Jesus, although he was 
 without natural depravity. Vide s. 80, II. 2. 
 
 (6) If it should be impossible for a man to live 
 otherwise than virtuously, or if his virtue should 
 be necessary, it would have no value and no 
 merit. All freedom, in that case, would vanish, 
 and man would become a mere machine; ac- 
 cording to the remarks made in the place just 
 referred to. The virtue of Christ, then, in re- 
 sisting stedfaslly all the temptations to sin, ac- 
 quires a real value and merit only on admission 
 that he could have sinned. It was in this sense, 
 doubtless, that Scotus made that affirmation 
 which was alleged against him, humanam na- 
 turam Christi nonfuisse avap.d^Tfov. 
 
 (c) This opinion is, in fact, scriptural. For 
 (a) we are frequently exhorted to imitate the 
 example of Jesus, in his virtue, his conquest of 
 sinful desires, &c. But how could this be done 
 if he had none of those inducements to sin which 
 we have, and if it had been impossible for him 
 to commit it. (j3) Improvement in knowledge 
 and in perfections of every kind is ascribed in 
 scripture to Christ; and Paul says, "that 
 through sufferings he constantly improved in 
 obedience (t/io&fv vrtaxo^v)," Heb. v. 8. (y) 
 We read expressly, that Christ was tried i. e., 
 tempted to sin; but that he overcame the temp- 
 tation, Matt. iv. 1, seq. This temptation took 
 place shortly before his entrance upon his public 
 office, and tended to prepare him for it. It was 
 intended to exercise and confirm him in virtue, 
 and in obedience to God. But what object 
 could there have been in this temptation, if it 
 had been impossible for Jesus to yield to it? 
 And what merit would there have been in his 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 337 
 
 resistance 1 No difference is made in the thing 
 itself, and in its consequences, by considering 
 it, with Farmer and others, as a vision and pa- 
 rable, and not as a real occurrence. If it was 
 impossible that Christ, as a man, should sin, it 
 would be hard to find what the Bible means 
 when it speaks of his being tempted, and com- 
 mends him for overcoming temptation. 
 
 IV. Early History of Jesus. 
 
 As the gospels contain but little important in- 
 formation respecting the events of the childhood 
 of Christ, the apostles themselves could not have 
 been acquainted with many credible circum- 
 stances relating to it. The apocryphal gospels 
 contain a multitude of stories and fables upon 
 this subject, especially the gospel "infantiae 
 Christi." Vide Fabricii Codex apocr. N. T., 
 T. I. It cannot be proved, that Jesus performed 
 miracles before his entrance on his public office, 
 to which he was consecrated by John the Bap- 
 tist. The supposition is, in fact, contradictory 
 to the clear declaration of John, who calls the 
 miracle in Cana of Galilee, olp^v aqft*itMf t ii. 11. 
 
 Joseph was a mechanic. Hence Jesus is 
 called 6 tix-tovo$ utoj, Matt. xiii. 55. All the 
 ancient stories agree that he followed the em- 
 ployment of his father, which is very probable, 
 since he himself is called 6 isxtw, Mark, vi. 3. 
 Besides, it was not uncommon for the Jewish 
 literati to learn and practise some handicraft. 
 So Paul did, Acts, xviii. 3. It appears from 
 the united testimony of the ancient fathers that 
 Jesus wasfaber lignarius, tsx-tuv tvtoov. Even 
 in Hebrew, chn denotes a carpenter, by way of 
 eminence, 2 Kings, xxii. 6. 
 
 But Jesus was also learned in the Jewish law 
 and all Jewish literature, although he had not 
 studied at the common Jewish schools, nor with 
 the lawyers. Vide John, vii. 15, rtwj olio$ 
 ypafiftai? a ol8e, /x^ jUfju,a^xu>j. Cf. Matt. xiii. 
 54. Probably Divine Providence made use, in 
 part, of natural means, in furnishing Jesus with 
 this human knowledge. Mary was a relative 
 of Elizabeth, the pious mother of John the Bap- 
 tist, and a guest at her house, Luke, i. 36, 40. 
 We may imagine, then, that Jesus received 
 good instruction in his youth from some one of 
 this pious, sacerdotal family. We see from the 
 first chapters of Luke, that Joseph and Mary 
 belonged to a large circle of pious male and 
 female friends, in whose profitable society Jesus 
 passed his youth, and who contributed much to 
 his education as a man, especially as they ex- 
 pected something great from him, from his very 
 birth, as appears from Simeon. Respecting the 
 early history of Jesus, vide Casauboni " Exer- 
 citt. in Annales Baronii." Hess, in the appen- 
 dix to his " Geschichte der drey letzten Lebens- 
 jahre Jesu ;" and Heilmann, ** Opusc." torn. ii. 
 p. 501, seq. 
 
 43 
 
 SECTION XCIV. 
 
 OF THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS, AND HIS OFFICE AS 
 TEACHER. 
 
 THE work committed to Christ by God was 
 twofold : (a) to teach by oral instruction and 
 example ; (6) to suffer and die for the good of 
 men. Both together compose what is called 
 the tpyov of Christ, John, xvii. And it was that 
 he might execute both of these offices that, ac- 
 cording to the Bible, he became man. We treat 
 here, in the first place, of his office as teacher. 
 
 I. Commencement and continuance of his office as 
 Teacher,- also the names and importance of this 
 office. 
 
 (1) Jesus entered upon his office as teacher, 
 according to the custom of Jewish teachers, 
 when he was about thirty years of age ; Luke, 
 iii. 23. Respecting the continuance of his office, 
 the opinions of the learned have differed from, 
 the earliest times. The opinions most wide 
 from the truth, are, on the one side, that of Ire- 
 naeus, that it was sixteen years; and, on the 
 other, that it was only one year. Origen sup- 
 posed, that it was three years and a half, which 
 has become the common opinion, and is founded 
 upon Luke, xiii. 7, 33, and upon the computa- 
 tion of the passover, especially according to 
 John. Cf. Morus, p. 149, s. 3. 
 
 (2) The New Testament everywhere teaches 
 that Christ, considered as a man, was qualified 
 by God for his office as teacher, by extraordinary 
 intellectual endowments ; like the prophets of 
 old, and his own apostles in after times, only in 
 a far higher degree than they. John, iii. 34, 
 God gave to him ovx tx jtaVpou to rtvevpa,. The 
 prophets had these endowments, but in a less 
 degree ; he, as the highest messenger of God, 
 had them loithout measure. Acts, x. 38, pi<jfv 
 avtbv o 0f6j ftvsv/jiain, 07/9 xai Swapst. Jesus 
 received these higher gifts of the Spirit when 
 John baptized him ; for he himself submitted of 
 his own accord to this baptism, by which the 
 Jews were to be initiated into the kingdom of 
 the Messiah. John himself was convinced, by 
 a confessedly miraculous occurrence at his bap- 
 tism, that Jesus was the Son of God, and heard 
 a heavenly voice which expressly declared him 
 such; Matt. iii. 1317; John, iii. 31 33, coll. 
 Luke, iv. 1, 14. Whatever, therefore, the man 
 Jesus either did or taught after his baptism, he 
 did and taught as the messenger of God as an 
 inspired man, under direct divine command, 
 and special divine assistance; iv rtvfvpati, as 
 the New Testament expresses it. Vide Morus, 
 p. 149, note. 
 
 The name of a prophet, (N>3J,) which denotes 
 in general an immediate messenger, and author- 
 ized ambassador of God, (vide s. 9, No. 2,) was 
 given to Christ, because, as above remarked, he 
 2F 
 
338 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 taught by divine inspiration, and proved to his 
 contemporaries the truth of his doctrine and of 
 his divine mission by miracles; John, xiv. 10. 
 The Jews expected this of the Messiah, whom 
 they hence called soin, 6 rtpo^-r^j, by way of 
 eminence. Vide John, vi. 14; Matt. xxi. 11 ; 
 Luke, xxiv. 19 ; Acts, iii. 22; and other texts. 
 
 Christ commonly called his office as teacher, 
 and indeed his whole office, f'pyov, his work, bu- 
 siness, (cf. John, xvii. 4 ;) also to lypov T'OV rta- 
 rpoj, (John, iv. 34, seq.,) in order to shew that 
 the Father himself had commissioned him ; ac- 
 cording to what he elsewhere declares, that his 
 doctrine was not his own, (discovered by him- 
 self as a man,) but revealed and entrusted to 
 him (the man Jesus) by God; John, xii. 49; 
 xiv. 10. 
 
 The name autrip (benefactor of men) is given 
 to Christ, partly because he died for our good, 
 and partly because he is our teacher by precept 
 and example. Both of these belong to the great 
 work of Jesus, and one ought not to be separated 
 from the other. He himself says (John, xviii. 
 37) that he was born and had come into the 
 world to proclaim the true doctrine, (dx^sta;) 
 and that his kingdom (jSatftXsta) was the king- 
 dom of truth. But we owe it to his death alone 
 that we become citizens of this kingdom, John, 
 iii. 6. His death is always described as the 
 procuring cause of our salvation ; and our sins 
 are not forgiven us on account of our own refor- 
 mation and holiness, but on account of the death 
 of Christ. 
 
 II. Christ 1 s method and manner in his Ministry , 
 and the chief contents of his Doctrine. 
 
 (1) The instruction which Christ gave was 
 partly public, (John, xviii. 20,) and partly confi- 
 dential, or private. And accordingly the manner 
 and nature of his discourse were different. Like 
 all the ancient teachers, he had two classes of 
 hearers and disciples ; the exoteric, those who 
 were publicly instructed, and the esoteric, the 
 disciples of the inner school, to whom he gave 
 private instruction. The Jews of Palestine, at 
 the time of Christ, were very ignorant, mis- 
 guided, and prejudiced. Christ was therefore 
 compelled to condescend to their level, and was 
 unable fully to instruct them in many truths, 
 for which they had no relish, and which they 
 could not understand. He could carry them no 
 further than the first elements of his doctrine ; 
 and had, first of all, to endeavour to excite them 
 to attention and inquiry. Vide Matt. xiii. 11, 
 seq. Luke, x. 1, 10, vp.lv (esotericis) 8s8otai 
 yi/wvat ^utff^pta jScwttat'aj* txsivois (exotericis) ov 
 SsSotat. His disciples were not, however, to 
 keep any secret doctrines (disciplina arcam) for 
 themselves, but as soon as their hearers were 
 prepared for it, to give them still further instruc- 
 
 tion, and declare to them the whole. Vide 
 Matt. x. 26, 27; Luke, viii. 17. 
 
 But although the instruction of Jesus was so 
 variously modified as to manner and subject, 
 according to the wants of his hearers, his doc- 
 trine itself was always the same. He had no 
 twofold scheme of salvation one for the refined 
 and the noble, the other for the mean and uncul- 
 tivated ; but one and the same for all. " Repent 
 and believe the gospel" was his direction, as it 
 was of John the Baptist. This was the great 
 point which he brought to view in all his dis- 
 courses before rich and poor, enlightened and 
 ignorant. We do not find that Jesus ever with- 
 held or omitted any of his doctrines, or even 
 proposed them less frequently, because they 
 might be offensive or unpleasant to his hearers, 
 or opposed to their inclinations. On the contrary, 
 he exhibited these very hated truths with the most 
 frequency and urgency, because they were the 
 most important, salutary, and indispensable to 
 his hearers. He disregarded their persecution 
 and contempt. The doctrines of his death and its 
 consequences, of the necessity of regeneration 
 and of holiness, are examples of this kind ; John, 
 iii., vi., viii., x. His early disciples followed 
 his example in this respect; as appears from 
 Acts and the epistles. And his disciples in all 
 ages are sacredly bound to do the same ; and if 
 they do not, they are unworthy of him. 
 
 Moreover, his public religious instruction was 
 in a high degree intelligible, throughout prac- 
 tical, and adapted to the necessities of his 
 hearers. It was without fear or favour of man, 
 Matt. xxii. 1C, 46. He was eloquent and im- 
 pressive, and skilfully availed himself of the 
 present occasion, place, and circumstances; 
 John, iv. 14, 34, seq. The populace, accord- 
 ingly, found his instructions far more excellent, 
 impressive, and sincere, than those of the Phari- 
 sees or lawyers. With all this, however, he was, 
 as a teacher, in a high degree modest and unpre- 
 tending. Vide Matt. xi. 29 ; John, vii. 1618. 
 
 Considering the imperfect knowledge of his 
 hearers, Jesus endeavoured to represent the 
 truth as palpably and obviously to their senses 
 as possible, and frequently spoke in figures. 
 He frequently availed himself of the sayings 
 and proverbs current among his contempora- 
 ries. Following the example of the an- 
 cient, and especially of the oriental moralists, 
 he frequently taught moral principles in apo- 
 thegms, as in the sermon on the Mount. But 
 he made the most use of parables, which were 
 very commonly employed by Jewish teachers 
 in their instructions. Vide Vitringa, De Synag. 
 Vet. 1. 3. Storr, De Parabolis Christi, in his 
 Opusc. Academ., torn. i. 
 
 He gave most of his instructions in the reli- 
 gious diakct common with the Jews. And many 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 339 
 
 of his expressions e. g., in the sermon on the 
 Mount, in his address to Nicodemus, &c., can- 
 not be clearly understood without a knowledge 
 of this dialect. It is the same, for the most 
 part, as we find in the Talmud and in the writ- 
 ings of the Rabbins. But much of the ancient 
 Jewish phraseology had been frequently misun- 
 derstood and perverted. These abuses Christ 
 corrected, and gave a different, more just, and 
 important meaning to this ancient phraseology ; 
 as wise* teachers of religion have always done. 
 But the superior impression which the scriptural 
 language and the phraseology of the Old Testa- 
 ment made, led Christ to use them, in prefer- 
 ence to any other, even where another might 
 have answered hie purpose. 
 
 We observe in all the discourses of Jesus a 
 wise forbearance and indulgence of such preju- 
 dices (e. g., respecting the kingdom of the 
 Messiah, s. 89) as could not have been at once 
 removed, or were not necessarily of injurious 
 practical tendency. This is called avyxarfd- 
 jSaoftj, ceconomia, accomodatio. But we find no 
 case in which Jesus ever taught any thing 
 which he considered as false or erroneous, 
 merely because it might be pleasing to his 
 hearers, or agreeable to prevailing prejudices. 
 Such a course would be contrary to his own 
 maxims and his whole mode of procedure, and 
 could not be justified on correct moral principles. 
 Vide s. 64, 65. This, it seems, is more and more 
 conceded by modern theologians. Many who 
 do not consider Jesus as a divine teacher in the 
 strict sense, prefer saying that he mistook in this 
 or that particular, to allowing that he declared 
 or taught anything which he himself considered 
 erroneous. They perceive that the latter sup- 
 position is entirely irreconcilable with the moral 
 purity which is everywhere exhibited in the 
 character of Jesus. Others, however, who are 
 not willing to allow that Jesus taught anything 
 inconsistent with their own opinions, affirm that 
 Christ did not actually believe, in such cases, 
 what he said, but accommodated his doctrine to 
 Jewish opinions, in which he himself had no 
 belief. But they cannot prove the fact; and they 
 do not consider in what a suspicious light they 
 place his character. One that allows Christ to 
 be a divine teacher, if he would be consistent, 
 must admit his declarations and doctrines with- 
 out exception, and will not venture to select from 
 them at pleasure what he will believe, or to pre- 
 fer his own views to those of Christ, or to affirm 
 that Christ could not have taught such a thing 
 because it appears differently to him, or because 
 it is contrary to the prevailing opinions of his 
 age. See Heringa, Ueber die Lehrart Jesu and 
 seiner Apostel in Hinsicht auf die Religions- 
 begriffe ihrer Zeitgenossen ; a prize essay ; Of- 
 fenbach, 1792, 8vo; Storr, Erlauterung des 
 
 Briefs an die Hebraer, th. ii. s. 536, f., and 
 Dpusc. Theol. Iste Abhandl. 
 
 (2) The contents of the public instruction of 
 Jesus. On this subject, and on the plan of 
 
 hrist in general, cf. Dr. Reinhard, Ueber den 
 Plan des Stifters der Christ. Relig. 
 
 () He instructed his disciples in the doctrine 
 respecting God and his attributes ; especially re- 
 specting his impartial and universal love to sin- 
 ul men, and his desire for the welfare of all, 
 respecting providence, and reward and punish- 
 ment after death. This last doctrine he made 
 eminently practical. 
 
 (6) He taught them with still more particu- 
 arity the destination of man and the duties of 
 the true worshipper of God ; especially the love 
 of God and of our neighbour, in opposition to 
 Jewish exclusiveness. He placed before them 
 the motives for the fulfilment of these duties, 
 and refuted many practical prejudices which 
 were common among the Jews and other nations. 
 He always opposed the arrogance, self-right- 
 eousness, and self-confidence of men, and en- 
 deavoured to shew them that their virtue was 
 very imperfect, and that they deserved nothing 
 on account of it, and received every favour from 
 the grace of God ; Luke., xvii. 9 ; xviii. 9 ; Matt. 
 xx. 1, seq. 
 
 (c) He endeavoured to give them juster views 
 respecting the Messiah, and the benevolent de- 
 sign of God in his mission, and the new order 
 which he was to bring about in short, respect- 
 ing the kingdom of God. He proved to them 
 that he was the Messiah, and predicted the wide 
 extension of his religion. He endeavoured to 
 awaken in his hearers a feeling of the necessity 
 of a Saviour. 
 
 (d) He instructed them in the exalted hea- 
 venly dignity of his person (John, v., viii., x.,) 
 respecting his death, its causes, and happy con- 
 sequences. He assured them that he was the 
 person through whom and on whose account men 
 would be saved ; that he was the Saviour of 
 men, through whom they obtained freedom from 
 sin and from the punishment of sin ; and all this 
 through the influence of his doctrine and instruc- 
 tion, and especially of his death; John, iii., vi., 
 viii., x. He announced the entire abolition of 
 the Old-Testament dispensation and the Mosaic 
 institute, and the near approach of the time when 
 a spiritual and perfect worship should be esta- 
 blished universally. Instructions of this kind 
 are mostly found in John. Still they were only 
 the first indications : for Christ had reserved the 
 more perfect instruction to be given by his dis- 
 ciples after his death and ascension. He only 
 went before them, and prepared his hearers for 
 the instruction which they would afterwards 
 give. He sowed, but it was for them and their 
 successors to reap the full harvest; John, iv. 
 
340 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 We find, as a general thing, that Jesus, in his 
 public instructions, aimed principally at the im- 
 provement and correction of the Jewish doctrine, 
 in order to prepare and qualify the great multi- 
 tude for the reception of his religion ; while in 
 his private instructions, on the other hand, he 
 discoursed more particularly on his own institu- 
 tions. Vide Matt. xxii. 29; John, iii. 1, seq. ; 
 iv. 7, seq. In his public discourses, he fre- 
 quently treats of general moral truths; not, how- 
 ever, in the common unprofitable way in which 
 men are told what they ought to do, without be- 
 ing told how to do it. He shews how the law of 
 Moses should be interpreted, and warns against 
 the false explanations commonly given to it, 
 and the additions made to it by men, and against 
 the falsification of the Divine commands; Matt. 
 v. seq. 
 
 He was accustomed, like many of the Jewish 
 teachers in his age, to travel about with his dis- 
 ciples, and to teach in the synagogues, on the 
 highways, in the market-places, the field, and 
 the temple. Vide John, xviii. 20. 
 
 (3) The private instruction of Christ. 
 
 He had destined his intimate friends (esoteric 
 disciples) to be the future teachers, through 
 whom his great plan should be carried into exe- 
 cution. To these he gave more minute expla- 
 nation and instruction respecting the doctrines 
 mentioned in No. 2. He solved for them any 
 difficulties or obscurities which remained in his 
 public discourses. Vide Mark, iv. 10, 11, 34. 
 But even this instruction was in a great measure 
 only elementary, and preparatory to their future 
 destination. Hence he frequently endures their 
 weakness and their prejudices with wise for- 
 bearance; John, xvi. 12 15, 25, seq.; Acts, 
 i. 7, seq. He tells them expressly that they 
 could not understand or endure, at that time, 
 many things which it was important for them 
 to know. And he promises to instruct them 
 more perfectly after his departure, by means of 
 the Paracletus, and to make known to them the 
 whole extent of whatever it should be neces- 
 sary for them to know and to teach, for their 
 own good or the good of others, John, xiv. 26 ; 
 xvi. 1214, &c. 
 
 Note. Although Jesus frequently declares 
 that his doctrine is of divine origin, and reveal- 
 ed to him by God himself, (since he was the 
 greatest of the divine messengers,) we are not 
 to suppose from this that every particular doc- 
 trine which Christ taught was given out by him 
 as entirely new, and as imparted to him by di- 
 rect inspiration of God. Many of his theoreti- 
 cal and practical doctrines were known to the 
 Jews of his age, from the writings of the Old 
 Testament, as Christ himself says, Matt. v. 17; 
 or by some other means e. g., the unwritten 
 instructions of the prophets who lived at and 
 after the time of the Babylonian captivity. But 
 
 Christ completed and amended these doctrines, 
 made additions to them, and placed them in 
 relations and connexions which were entirely 
 new and peculiar, thus giving them new weight 
 and interest. This was the case with the doc- 
 trine of the immortality of the soul, regenera- 
 tion, prayer, &c. It may therefore be said, with 
 truth, that a great part of all the doctrinal and 
 moral instruction which is found in the dis- 
 courses of Jesus, actually existed among the 
 Jews of his own age. We find many of his 
 maxims, parables, &c., in the Talmud and the 
 Rabbins. Vide Lightfoot, Schottgen, and 
 Wetstein, on the New Testament. 
 
 But while we willingly concede this, we may 
 also truly maintain that Jesus founded a new 
 religious system. He himself says distinctly 
 that the religious teacher must make use of both 
 new and old doctrines. "A Christian teacher 
 must be like a householder, who brings out of 
 his treasure things new and old; Matt. xiii. 52. 
 But Christ did more than any other religious 
 teacher before or since his time, by teaching, 
 not simply what men have to do, but by pro- 
 viding and pointing out the means by which 
 they can perform their duties. Vide John, i. 
 17; Titus, ii. 11, seq. 
 
 The question disputed by theologians, Whe- 
 ther Christ can be called a new lawgiver, may 
 be decided by these considerations. Civil laws 
 and institutions are here out of the question; 
 such Christ did not intend to establish, since 
 his kingdom is not of this world. Law must 
 be understood as synonymous with religion, re- 
 ligious doctrine; according to the use of the 
 Hebrew rnin, and the Greek v6po$. The ques- 
 tion would then be, more correctly, whether he 
 was a new religious teacher. The remarks above 
 made shew that Christ is entitled to this name, 
 and in a far higher sense than Moses was. He 
 himself calls his religion, and the ordinances 
 and institutions to be connected with it, XO.LVTV 
 8ia^r t xt]v, in opposition to the ancient Mosaic 
 dispensation, Matt. xxvi. 28. And Paul calls 
 Christ the author and founder of the new dis- 
 pensation, (jfcmVjf? JCCUMJJ 5icjjx7$,) Heb. ix. 
 15; xii. 24. His religion, according to Paul, 
 succeeds to the Mosaic, and puts an end to the 
 Mosaic dispensation as such. The term novus 
 legislator has been rendered suspicious in the 
 view of some theologians from the use which 
 Socinians make of it, designating by it the whole 
 office and merit of Christ. 
 
 jy f e 2. Jesus always appeals to his miracles, 
 and proves by them that his doctrine is divine; 
 John, vii. 11. His apostles do the same ; Acts, 
 ii. 22. But this proof is altogether rejected by 
 many at the present day, or, at least, very little 
 regarded. This is the case among those, prin- 
 cipally, who labour for the abolition of all posi- 
 tive religion, and the introduction of the religion 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 341 
 
 of reason; for the positive divine authority of 
 the religion of Jesus stands or falls with his 
 miracles. The truths of reason which Jesus 
 taught would, indeed, remain valid, although 
 confirmed by no miracles; but, in that case, his 
 declarations would not continue to possess di- 
 vine authority. We should no longer be com- 
 pelled to believe in any of his doctrines because 
 he taught them, as he always requires us to do; 
 John, iv. Our belief, on the contrary, would be 
 entirely independent of him and of his declara- 
 tions. His declarations and doctrines would be 
 subjected to the revision of human reason, like 
 the declarations and doctrines of any merely 
 human teacher. The authority of Jesus would 
 not be more binding than that of Socrates, of 
 Confucius, Zoroaster, and other wise men of 
 antiquity. Whoever, then, denies the miracles 
 of Jesus, removes all that is positive in the 
 Christian religion ; the sure consequence of 
 which is, that every man may believe as much 
 of the Christian doctrine as he pleases, and is 
 by no means bound to admit the truth of what- 
 ever Jesus says, because he is of opinion that 
 the doctrine of Jesus is subjected to the revision 
 of his reason. To such an one the writings of 
 the New Testament may possess an historical, 
 but not a doctrinal value. Cf. Riihl, Werth der 
 Behauptungen Jesu und siener Apostel ; Leip- 
 zig, 1792, Svo; especially the first treatise. 
 
 SECTION XCV. 
 
 OF THE HARDSHIPS AND SUFFERINGS OF JESUS. 
 
 I. During his whole life upon the earth. 
 
 ALTHOUGH it is true that Jesus suffered a 
 great deal while he was upon the earth, we 
 should avoid all unscriptural exaggeration of 
 this subject, and not maintain that his whole 
 earthly existence was mere uninterrupted suf- 
 fering. We find scenes in the life of Jesus 
 which caused him many happy and cheerful 
 hours, Luke, x. 21 ; Matt. xvii. 1, seq. Jesus, 
 as a man, possessed very tender feelings and 
 warm affections, John, xi. Both pain and plea- 
 sure, therefore, made a strong and deep impres- 
 sion upon his heart. The evangelical history ex- 
 hibits him as at one time in deep distress, and 
 at another in great joy. 
 
 His external trials and hardships consisted 
 principally in his great poverty and indigence, 
 Matt. viii. 20; Luke, ix. 58; 2 Cor. viii. 9; 
 the many difficulties and hindrances in the way 
 of the accomplishment of his office as teacher; 
 contempt, persecution, danger, and the suffering 
 which the disobedience and obstinacy of his 
 contemporaries occasioned him. The sufferings 
 which he endured at the end of his life will be 
 considered in No. II. The following remarks 
 will serve to the better understanding of the 
 
 doctrine respecting the suffering and adversities 
 of Jesus. 
 
 (1) Human infirmities and calamities are 
 of two kinds viz., (a) Natural,- which are 
 founded in the laws and constitution of human 
 nature, and are therefore common to all men. 
 Jesus, too, we find, was subject to these, s. 93, 
 but in common with all others; and when he 
 became a true man he of course subjected him- 
 self to them. (6) Contingent, (accessoria?,) 
 which do not happen to all, but only to a few. 
 Such are lowliness, poverty, contempt, &c. 
 Jesus, as a man, was not necessitated to endure 
 these ; and the very opposite of them was ex- 
 pected in the Messiah. He submitted to them, 
 because the divine plan for the good of men re- 
 quired it; Heb. xii. 2; Phil. ii. G, 7. 
 
 (2) Many things which are commonly ac- 
 counted hardships and trials are not so in the 
 eyes of the true sage, who is superior to the pre- 
 judices of the multitude. And, on the other 
 hand, many things which are commonly admired 
 as the best fortune do not appear to him either 
 good fortune or real welfare. We should be 
 careful, therefore, not to enumerate among the 
 sufferings and afflictions of Jesus such things 
 as would be so accounted only by the voluptuary 
 and libertine, and not by the wise man. Such 
 things are, his frequent journeys, his being born 
 in a stable, laid in a manger, &c. These cir- 
 cumstances, in themselves considered, were no 
 hardships to a man who disregarded conve- 
 nience and worldly honour. 
 
 Religious teachers must exercise great caution 
 on this subject. There is a double disadvantage 
 in enumerating such circumstances among the 
 sufferings of Jesus; one is,, that the common 
 people will be confirmed in the error, (which is 
 very prevalent,) of considering the goods of for- 
 tune, rank, birth, splendour, and other external 
 advantages, as of great value ; the other is, that 
 they will be encouraged in effeminacy and false 
 sensitiveness. The example of Jesus in his 
 humiliation ought, on the contrary, to be em- 
 ployed to shew that a man of true piety and 
 magnanimity needs none of those external ad- 
 vantages which are commonly so highly es- 
 teemed, in order to be happy and contented ; that 
 a man, even in poverty and humiliation, may be 
 highly useful to others, &c. The sufferings of 
 Jesus, considered in this light, are very encour- 
 aging and cheering to despised or neglected 
 worth. And the New Testament makes this 
 very use of the doctrine of the sufferings and 
 humiliation of Jesus e. g., Hebrews, xii. 2, 
 atrr^vf^j xoT'a<}>po'7jffa$ i. e.., he was so supe- 
 rior to his enemies in greatness and strength of 
 spirit that he disregarded their insults and their 
 foolish judgments respecting him. 
 
 The sufferings of Jesus are eminently calcu- 
 lated to impress our minds with a view of his 
 2F2 
 
342 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 great love to men. He became poor for our 
 sakes, that we might become rich. The proper 
 effect of this view is to lead us to gratitude and 
 cheerful obedience. 
 
 (3) Some are accustomed to particularize the 
 sins for which Jesus atoned by particular hard 
 ships and sufferings, and also the virtues, for 
 the performance of which he at such times pro- 
 cured us the power. But we ought not to go 
 beyond the New Testament, and to make arbi- 
 trary distinctions, which have no scriptural 
 ground. The Bible does not represent Christ 
 as enduring, in the highest possible degree, 
 every imaginable distress of mind and body. 
 The greatness of the merits of his sufferings de- 
 pends neither upon their continuance nor upon 
 their magnitude and variety. The sufferings of 
 Christ would still possess their whole adequate 
 value, even if he did not endure every imagina- 
 ble distress. 
 
 II. Sufferings of Christ at the end of his life ; 
 commonly called his passion. 
 
 (1) The sorrowful feelings of his sow/, or his 
 mental suffering, his anguish of heart, exhibited 
 most strikingly on the Mount of Olives in Geth- 
 semane; Matt. xxvi. 37 44; Luke, xxii. 41 
 44. This anguish is described by Luke as great 
 to an extraordinary degree. He felt it shortly 
 before his enemies commenced their abuse. In 
 view of this distress many difficulties have 
 arisen. The martyrs of religion have frequently 
 exhibited, under greater sufferings than these, 
 and tortures which they have actually solicited, 
 a joy and firmness which we have been accus- 
 tomed to admire. Besides, Jesus exhibited 
 throughout all the rest of his life and his after 
 sufferings an unexampled magnanimity and 
 power. He foresaw his sufferings with cheer- 
 ful courage, and undertook them of his own ac- 
 cord. But Jesus did not exhibit, either in the 
 last moments of his life, or at any other period, 
 that ill-timed enthusiasm which was so much 
 admired in the Christian martyrs of the second 
 and third centuries; nor, on the other hand, did 
 he shew any cold insensibility to suffering. 
 Both enthusiasts and philosophers are therefore 
 displeased with his allowing himself to feel this 
 fear and timidity ; and many interpreters have 
 exerted their skill upon these passages, to per- 
 vert their true meaning. Why such despond- 
 ency and anguish just at this time 1 ? We remark 
 upon this subject, 
 
 (a) There is nothing in the conduct of Jesus 
 at this time which is inconsistent with a great 
 man. He was far from that apathy and sto- 
 cism wbich the martyrs exhibited, either from 
 affectation, enthusiasm, or insensibility. He 
 actually endured therefore, for a considerable 
 time, the pains of death which are natural to 
 men, as appears from Matt. xxvi. 39 44 ; John, 
 
 xii. 27 ; and Paul says distinctly, Heb. v. 7, 8, 
 that Christ wished to resemble us, his brethren, 
 in respect to the painful accompaniments of 
 death, in order to qualify himself better to be- 
 come a compassionate high-priest. " He pray- 
 ed to God, who could deliver him from death, 
 with loud crying and tears." A forced, stoical 
 apathy is entirely opposed to the spirit of 
 Christ and his religion. Christianity pronounces 
 against every thing which is forced, artificial, and 
 unsuited to the nature which God has given us. 
 It is the duty of men to improve and to increase 
 in holiness; but they should still continue to be 
 men, and not be ashamed of human feelings, 
 and of the natural and innocent expressions of 
 them. The example of Christ is instructive in 
 this respect. But the most important consider- 
 ation is the following viz., 
 
 (6) These sufferings, as Jesus and his apos- 
 tles always taught, were endured for our sakes, 
 and were the punishment of our sins. This be- 
 ing the case, it was necessary for Christ to feel 
 that he suffered. He could not, and should not, 
 remain insensible. We must see by his exam- 
 ple what we deserved to suffer. Some hours 
 before his death, Jesus assigned this as the true 
 object of his sufferings: "He would shed his 
 blood for the remission of the sins of men," and 
 he instituted the Lord's supper in memory of 
 this great event; Matt. xxvi. 28. This suffer- 
 ing, therefore, arose principally from a view and 
 a lively feeling of the great multitude of sins, 
 their criminality, and liability to punishment. 
 Cf. Harwood, Ueber die Ursachen der Seele- 
 nangst Christi, 4 Abhandl. ; Berlin, 1774. The 
 history of the sufferings and death of Christ is 
 considered in this light throughout the gospel 
 and epistles. He suffered and died for us, and 
 on our account; and we thus learn what we de- 
 serve. This history was not intended to pro- 
 duce a short and transient emotion, or mere 
 compassionate sympathy : and the preacher who 
 employs it for these purposes only neglects its 
 proper object. This is a great fault of many 
 Passion and Good-Friday discourses ! 
 
 (2) The great bodily sufferings and tortures 
 which he firmly endured ; with which is con- 
 nected, 
 
 (3) His condemnation to a violent death on 
 the cross, and his undergoing of this sentence. 
 His life of humiliation on the earth ^julpa* tfapxoj 
 closed with his death; for the time which he 
 lived upon the earth after his resurrection did 
 not belong to it. Crucifixion, which was de- 
 signed for slaves and insurgents^ was a very 
 disgraceful punishment. Vide Galatians, iii. 
 13, coll. Deut. xxi. 23. Paul therefore consi- 
 ders it as the lowest point of the humiliation of 
 Jesus, and calls it tfartswoortf in distinction, Phil, 
 ii. 5 8 ; cf. Heb. xii. 2. Every thing was or- 
 dered by God in such a way as to convince the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 343 
 
 world, beyond a question, that his death had 
 actually taken place. Vide the circumstances, 
 John, xix. 30, seq. In that age no one doubted 
 the fact. Jesus was laid in the tomb as plainly 
 dead. He remained in the tomb until the third 
 day, that the fact of his death might he the more 
 certain. His burial was honourable. The pas- 
 sage, Is. liii. 9, may well be referred to this 
 event: "he was destined to a grave among 
 transgressors ; but was buried with the rich." 
 The New Testament does not, however, ex- 
 pressly cite it as applicable to this event. 
 
 The question has sometimes been asked, 
 Whether the burial of Jesus belonged to his. 
 state of humiliation or exaltation. It is suffi- 
 cient to answer, neither to one nor the other. 
 The burial concerned only the lifeless body, 
 separated from the soul. But according to the 
 common way of thinking and feeling among 
 men, the circumstances of the burial were ho- 
 nourable to Jesus, and should therefore be ra- 
 ther connected with his exaltation than his hu- 
 miliation. 
 
 Note. At the time of the apostles no one 
 doubted the actual death of Jesus. All, Chris- 
 tians, Jews, and Gentiles, as appears from the 
 New Testament, were firmly convinced of it as 
 an undeniable fact. Some, however, appeared 
 in the second century, who either doubted or 
 denied the actual death of Christ; or who gave 
 such a turn to the affair as to remove from his 
 death and crucifixion whatever was offensive to 
 the Jews and heathen. The death of Jesus was 
 not, however, disputed on historical grounds, 
 for there were none ; but merely for doctrinal 
 reasons. The doctrine of Christ's death was 
 inconsistent with some of their philosophical 
 hypotheses. Most of the Gnostics and Mani- 
 cheans, who maintained that Christ had a seem- 
 ing or shadowy body, contended that he did not 
 actually suffer tortures and death ; but only lv 
 Septet (seemingly, in his seeming body.) Vide 
 s. 93, II. The Basilidiani maintained that Jesus 
 was not crucified, but Simon of Gyrene in his 
 stead. Cerinthus taught that one of the highest 
 aeons, Christ or the Aoyoj, united himself with 
 the man Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, at 
 his baptism ; that Christ deserted the man Jesus 
 during his sufferings, and returned to heaven; 
 and that thus the man Jesus alone suffered and 
 died. In accordance with this opinion, he and 
 his followers explained the exclamation of 
 Christ upon the cross, "My God! why hast 
 thou forsaken me!" Matthew, xxvii. 46. 
 
 This desertion (derelictio a Deo) has been 
 very differently understood, even in modern 
 times. The words which Christ uses are taken 
 from Ps. xxii. 1 a psalm which he frequently 
 cites as referring to himself. It is the language 
 of a deeply distressed sufferer, who looks for- 
 ward with anxious longing to the termination 
 
 of his sufferings, and to whom the assistance 
 of God, comfort, and consolation, seem to dis- 
 appear altogether, or to delay too long. The 
 phrase to be deserted by God is frequently used 
 without implying a prevailing doubt in the ac- 
 tual providence of God; as Ps. Ixxi. 11; Isa. 
 xlix. 14. Notwithstanding, this anxious feeling 
 was one of the greatest and most piercing of the 
 mental sufferings of Jesus. At the same time 
 it is very consoling and quieting to one who 
 comes into similar circumstances, especially at 
 the close of his life, since he can count upon 
 being heard in the same way. Thus Jesus was 
 enabled, shortly before his death, when he saw 
 his approaching end, joyfully to exclaim, uti- 
 XECTT'CU i. e., now everything which I had to do 
 or to suffer according to the will of God is ac- 
 complished and perfected ; John, xix. 30, coll. 
 v. 38. This term refers especially, as jthqpovv 
 does in other cases, to the fulfilment of what 
 was predicted concerning him as the decree of 
 God. Vide Luke, xviii. 31 ; xxii. 37; Acts, 
 xiii. 29. 
 
 III. Attributes and Motives of the Sufferings of 
 Christ. 
 
 Jesus underwent all these sufferings, and 
 death itself, (I) innocently, Luke, xxiii. 14, 15, 
 and the parallel texts, 2 Cor. v. 21 ; 1 Pet. ii. 
 22 ; iii. 18 ; (2) freely, Matt. xvi. 2124 ; John, 
 x. 11, 17, 18; xiii. 1, 2133; xviii. 18; (3) 
 with the greatest patience and firmness, 1 Pet. 
 ii. 23; (4)/rom unexampled and magnanimous 
 love to us ; also, from obedience to God, he herein 
 subjected himself to the will and decree of God. 
 Vide s. 88; John, xv. 13; Rom. v. G 8. 
 
 Theologians call this obedience which Jesus 
 exhibited in suffering, passive obedience, from 
 Phil. ii. 8, "obedient unto the death of the 
 cross." The active obedience of Christ, his 
 doing everything which was suitable to the 
 divine will and command, was considered s. 93, 
 III. They are one and the same obedience in 
 reality. The origin and advantage of this dis- 
 tinction will be further considered in the Article 
 on Justification. The various objects and uses 
 of the sufferings of Christ will also be consi- 
 dered more fully in the same Article, s. 115. 
 Cf. Morus, p. 160, 161, s. 7. 
 
 SECTION XCVI. 
 
 OF CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL. 
 I. Meaning of the phraseology, " to descend into 
 
 hell," (SlW Sx TV, KaTafiaivetv eig a'Jrjv,) and an 
 explanation of the texts relating to this subject. 
 
 (1) THE ancients believed universally, not 
 excluding the Orientalists and the Hebrews, 
 that there was a place in the invisible world, 
 conceived to be deep under the earth, into which 
 
344 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the disembodied souls of men, good and bad, 
 went immediately after death. The name of 
 this place was Sixr, a5^j, orcus, the under-world, 
 the kingdom of the dead. This word never de- 
 notes the place of the damned, either in the scrip- 
 tures or in the fathers of the first three cen- 
 turies. Accordingly, the phrase descendere in 
 orcum always denotes in the Bible the separation 
 of the soul from the body, and, the condition of the 
 disembodied spirit after death; Num. xvi. 30, 
 33 ; Job, vii. 9 ; Ps. Iv. 16 ; Isaiah, xiv. 15 ; and 
 frequently in the apocryphal books of the Old 
 Testament. When the heroes of Homer are 
 slain, their souls are said to descend to Hades. 
 
 This phrase may then be explained, in this 
 sense, to refer to the death of Christ; and so it 
 is a tropical or figurative representation of his 
 death, and the separation of his soul from his 
 body. When he died, he descended into Hades, 
 and continued there, as to his soul, as long as 
 his body continued in the grave. We find the 
 continuance of Christ in Hades actually men- 
 tioned in this sense in the New Testament. 
 Peter, in his speech, (Acts, ii. 27,) cites the 
 passage, Psalm xvi. 10, ovx eyxatate^sis t^v 
 bv%r t v IJLOV ftj <x5ot>, which is always referred to 
 Christ's death and continuance in the grave. 
 The phrase xatapaivsiv n$ a$qv does not indeed 
 occur in that passage ; but the omission is mere- 
 ly accidental. It was certainly used by the 
 first Christians respecting Christ as deceased, in 
 the same way as respecting other dead. 
 
 (2) But the chief dependence is placed upon 
 two other texts of the New Testament, in which 
 the descent of Christ to hell is expressly men- 
 tioned, and in one of which his employment in 
 Hades is thought to be determined. 
 
 (a) Ephes. iv. 9. But the context shews 
 that the descent of Christ to hell is not the sub- 
 ject in this text, but his descent from heaven 
 down to the earth, and his subsequent return 
 into heaven. 
 
 (6) The principal passage is, 1 Pet. iii. 18 
 20. Various explanations are given of this pas- 
 sage. In the earliest times, it was universally 
 considered as denoting the continuance of Christ 
 in Hades ; and this meaning is undoubtedly the 
 most natural, and best suited to the words, the 
 context, and .all the ideas of antiquity. But as 
 this meaning does not accord with modern ideas, 
 various other explanations have been attempted. 
 But the context shews that the continuance of 
 Jesus in Hades is the subject of this passage 
 i. e., that it treats of the condition and employ- 
 ment of the soul of Christ after death. The 
 apostle is shewing, from the example of Jesus, 
 that suffering for the good of others is honour- 
 able and will be rewarded. Christ laid men 
 under great obligations to him, by suffering and 
 dying for them, ver. 18 ; by what he did too 
 after death, while his spirit was in Hades, ver. 
 
 19; (ver. 20 is parenthetic;) by his resurrec- 
 tion, ver. 21 ; his return to God, and his elevated 
 situation in heaven, ver. 22. The sense then is: 
 the body of Christ died, but his soul was pre- 
 served. (Peter always uses oap| and jtvtv^o, in 
 this sense; as iv. 1, 6.) While his body was 
 lying in the grave, his soul (iv 9, sc. Ttvfii^an) 
 wandered down to the kingdom of the dead, and 
 there preached to the disembodied spirits. It 
 was the belief of the ancients that the manes 
 still continued, in the under-world, to prosecute 
 their former employments. Vide Isaiah, xiv. 
 9. The same belief is seen in the fables of the 
 Grecian kings and judges. Tiresias still con- 
 tinued to prophesy. Vide Isaiah, xiv. 9. Christ, 
 by his instructions and exhortations to reforma- 
 tion, deserved well of men while he was up'on 
 earth. He continued this employment in Hades. 
 He preached to the greatest sinners ; and Noah's 
 contemporaries are particularized as distinguish- 
 ed examples of ancient sinners, ver. 20. Now 
 that Peter really supposed that Christ descended 
 to Hades appears from Acts, ii. 31. 
 
 II. A Sketch of the History of this Doctrine. 
 
 For the various opinions of commentators re- 
 specting the descent of Christ to hell, cf. Die- 
 telmaier, Historiadogmatis de descensu Christi 
 ad inferos, ed. 2 ; Altorf. 1762, 8vo ; Semler, in 
 Programm. Acad. p. 371, seq.; Pott, Epistola 
 Catholica perpetua annotatione illustr., vol. ii. ; 
 Gottingen, 1790; Excurs. iii. (ad 1 Pet. iii.;) and 
 Dr. Hacker, (court-preacher in Dresden,) Diss. 
 de descensu Christi ad inferos, ad provinciam 
 Messiae demandatam referendo ; Dresden, 1802. 
 [Cf. Hahn, s. 472.] 
 
 The passage, Acts, ii., coll. Psalm xvi. 10, 
 was the foundation upon which this doctrine 
 was built. Its simple meaning is, that Christ 
 really died, like other men, and that, while his 
 lifeless body lay in the grave, his soul was in 
 the same place and state with the souls of all 
 the dead. So the early Christians undoubtedly 
 understood it. The question now arose, Was 
 the soul of one who while on earth had been so 
 active for the good of men, idle and unem- 
 ployed in Hades I No. Hence a third ques- 
 tion, What was his employment while there? 
 The same as on earth he instructed was the 
 natural conclusion, which was confirmed by the 
 word sxTjpvts, 1 Pet. iii. 19. But since, in later 
 times, Hades was understood to signify only 
 the place of the damned ; and since $vAax7 and 
 sinners are mentioned by Peter in this passage ; 
 it was thither to the place of the damned that 
 Christ was supposed to have gone, to preach 
 repentance, (a^pv^fir,) to shew himself as a 
 victor in triumph, &c. 
 
 Such is the course which the investigation of 
 this question naturally took. Now the histori- 
 cal sketch itself. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 345 
 
 (1) The ecclesiastical fathers of the first 
 three centuries were agreed in the opinion that 
 during the three days in which the body of 
 Christ lay in the grave his soul was in the 
 kingdom of the dead. This opinion they de- 
 rived correctly from 1 Pet. iii. and Acts, ii. By 
 this representation they supposed, in substance, 
 the condition of Christ, as to his soul during 
 his death, to be described. Thus Irenaeus says, 
 "Christ in this way fulfilled the law of the 
 dead," v. 31. Clement of Alexandria expresses 
 himself in the same way. Origen says, yvpvr} 
 
 ^uafej ytvofjifvt] ^v%^ Contra Celsum, ii. 
 Tertullian says, " Christus forma humanae mor- 
 tis apud inferos (est) functus," &c. 
 
 They differed in opinion respecting his em- 
 ployment there. Most supposed that he preached 
 the gospel to the ancient believers who expected 
 his advent to the patriarchs, &c. Vide Iren. 
 (iv. 45, 50,) Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, 
 Origen, and others. But Origen and some 
 others seem to have believed that Christ rescued 
 the damned who believed on him in Hades, and 
 transported them to the abode of the blessed. 
 Still, the descent to hell is nowhere expressly 
 mentioned in the ancient creeds of the first 
 three centuries, either in the Eastern or West- 
 ern church. No one in this period held it to be 
 the interment of Christ ; nor did any one as- 
 sert that he went exclusively to the place of the 
 damned. 
 
 (2) This doctrine was gradually regarded as 
 fixed after the fourth century, and was adopted 
 into the creeds. The phrase xutil^ovta, sis * 
 xatax^ovia was established at the Arian Coun- 
 cil at Sirmium, in the year 357, and at many 
 orthodox and Arian councils after that time. It 
 was now inserted in the more ancient creeds, to 
 which it had not previously belonged e. g., 
 into the apostolical creed, particularly, as it 
 seems, on account of the controversies with 
 Apollinaris. But all the churches had not ad- 
 mitted it into this creed before the sixth century. 
 Rufnn says (Expos. S. Ap.), that the Romish 
 church did not admit this doctrine into the 
 apostolical creed, "nee in Orientis ecclesiis habe- 
 tur" and adds, that the word BURIED which is 
 there used, conveys the same sense. The rea- 
 son why this doctrine was so much insisted on, 
 and admitted into the creeds, especially after 
 the middle of the fourth century, is, that it 
 afforded a weighty argument against the fol- 
 lowers of Apollinaris, who denied the existence 
 of a human soul in Christ. Vide s. 93, II. ad 
 finem. It may be added, that the fathers of the 
 fourth century, and of the one succeeding, ad- 
 hered for the most part to the opinions found 
 among the earlier fathers, No. 1. 
 
 (3) The opinions of the earlier fathers were 
 gradually set aside in after ages, especially in 
 the Western church. The opinion, that the 
 
 44 
 
 separation of the soul from the body was all 
 that was intended by the representation of 
 Christ's descent to hell, was by degrees entirely 
 laid aside. The infernus was considered by 
 many as the appropriate designation of the 
 place of the damned, and the passage in 1 Pet. 
 iii. as the only proof-text ; and so the descent to 
 hell became equivalent to the descent of Christ 
 to the place of the damned. Such were the 
 views of many of the schoolmen. Thomas 
 Aquinas adopted the opinion of Hieronymus 
 and Gregory, that Christ rescued the souls of 
 the pious fathers who lived before Christ from 
 the limbus patrum, (a kind of entrance to hell, 
 status medius.) So also the Council at Trent. 
 
 They now began to dispute, whether the soul 
 only of Christ was in hell, or his body also ; 
 whether he was there during the whole time in 
 which his body was in the grave, or only on the 
 third day, shortly before the resurrection, &c. 
 Durandus and other schoolmen understood the 
 matter figuratively. According to them, Jesus 
 was not in hell quoad realem prsesentiam (as to 
 his substance), but only quoad efftdum. This 
 opinion had many advocates. 
 
 The protestant theologians since the Reforma- 
 tion have been divided in opinion upon this 
 subject. 
 
 (a) Luther spoke very doubtfully upon the 
 subject, and was unwilling to determine any- 
 thing decidedly. He agreed at first with Hiero- 
 nymus and Gregory, in supposing a limbus pa- 
 trum whither Christ went. But whenever he 
 mentioned the subject, especially after 1533, he 
 was accustomed to remark that Christ destroyed 
 the power of the devil and of hell, whither he 
 went with soul and body. This induced the 
 theologians, who adhered strictly to every par- 
 ticular doctrine of Luther, to represent the de- 
 scent of Christ to hell as his victory over the 
 devil, as was done in the Formula Concordiae, 
 art. ix. M. Flaccius had represented the descent 
 to hell as belonging to the state of humiliation. 
 But they represented it as belonging to the 
 state of exaltation, and declared that on the mo- 
 ment of the resurrection Christ repaired to hell, 
 with soul and body, in both natures, shewed 
 himself to Satan and hell as victor, and then 
 appeared alive upon the earth at daybreak. 
 They are not so unreasonable, however, as to 
 demand a belief in all their distinctions respect- 
 ing this doctrine. Hutter, Baier, Winkler, 
 Carpzov, and others, held these views. But 
 there is no foundation for them in the Bible. 
 Some of the ancient creeds say, the gates of 
 hell (kingdom of the dead) trembled at his ap- 
 proach e. g., the Sirmian creed, 357. 
 
 (6) Beza and other reformers understood the 
 descent of Christ to hell to mean his burial. Russ 
 and Rambach among the Lutherans assented 
 to this opinion. It is false, however ; for de- 
 
346 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 scent to hell, in the sense of the ancients, does 
 not refer to the body but to the soul. Vide 
 supra. 
 
 (c) Others affirmed that Christ preached the 
 gospel in Hades ; some say, to the believers 
 who lived before his advent : others, to the 
 wicked also, and that such as submited to him 
 were delivered from the place of the damned ; 
 almost like the opinion of many of the ancients. 
 Even Seiler thinks this opinion very probable. 
 He supposes, with others, that both the body 
 and soul of Christ were in Hades. But Flac- 
 cius, Brentius, Dreyer, and others, agree with 
 the ancients, that only the soul of Christ was 
 there, while his body lay in the grave. But 
 these differ again on the question, whether the 
 descent to hell belongs to the state of humilia- 
 tion or exaltation. 
 
 (<) Some supposed, as Durandus did, that 
 the whole subject should be understood figura- 
 tively. 
 
 (e) Zeltner, Baumgarten, CEder, and others, 
 returned to the ancient opinion, and understood 
 otfyj to denote hi general the place and condition 
 of departed spirits. So most of the English 
 and Arminian theologians. 
 
 (/) John jEpinus (a Lutheran theologian at 
 Hamburg, of the sixteenth century) affirmed 
 that Jesus endured in hell the pains of the 
 damned, and therefore accounted his descent 
 thither as belonging to the state of humiliation. 
 He had many followers, though he was not the 
 first who advanced this opinion. Cardinal Ni- 
 colaus of Casa had before asserted the same 
 thing in the fifteenth century, and also many 
 reformed and Lutheran theologians since the 
 sixteenth century, as John Agricola, Hunnius, 
 Brentius, Cocceius, and Witsius. 
 
 We omit the mention of the peculiar hypo- 
 theses of some other theologians. 
 
 I. Critical Observations, and a result from what 
 
 has been said. 
 
 Theologians at the present day are agreed, for 
 the most part/that this question is one of minor 
 importance. Some have often affirmed that the 
 passage 1 Pet. iii. did not relate to this subject. 
 But all the other explanations given are forced 
 and unnatural, and the idea, after all, is scrip- 
 tural, for the passage Acts ii. cannot be explained 
 away. According to the passage, 1 Pet. iii., the 
 soul of Christ actually went to the place of the 
 damned (^vXaauj, career caecum) in Hades, and 
 there preached to the disembodied spirits. Until 
 the last judgment the souls of all the deceased 
 are in Hades, (i. e., they are manes, disem- 
 bodied,) but in different regions, distant from 
 each other, (i. e., in vario statu), Luke, xvi. 19 
 31. Christ, then, during his continuance there, 
 did what he was accustomed to do while yet on 
 the earth for the good of men ; he instructed 
 
 
 those who needed instruction, and exhorted, 
 The object and use of this preaching, which is 
 mentioned in the passage in Peter, we cannot 
 see, since those who are in Hades are always 
 represented by Jesus, the apostles, and Peter 
 himself, as fixed in their destiny, and reserved 
 to the day of judgment. Cf. Luke, xvi. 
 
 It will be sufficient for the teacher of religion 
 to say that the phrase, Christ descended to hell, 
 teaches (1) that during the time in which the 
 body of Christ lay in the grave he was really 
 dead; and (2) that the human soul of Christ 
 was in the same unknown condition and place 
 to which the souls of all the deceased go, and 
 where they continue till the day of judgment; 
 (3) that in this respect also, as in others, he 
 was like men, his brethren, and that (4) he had 
 a true human soul ; Acts, ii. (5) Peter assures 
 us that Christ did this for the good of men ; he 
 preached to the departed spirits. The nature of this 
 preaching, its particular object and consequences, 
 what he intended to effect, and did actually effect 
 by it, are entirely unknown to us, as many other 
 things which pertain to the invisible kingdom of 
 spirits. When we ourselves shall belong to that 
 invisible kingdom, and probably nottill then, we 
 shall receive more perfect information respecting 
 this subject, if it can be useful for us to have it. 
 
 SECTION XCVII. 
 
 HISTORY OF CHRIST CONSIDERED AS A MAN, IN HIS 
 STATE OF EXALTATION OR PERFECTION. S. 97 
 99, INCLUSIVE. 
 
 I. Of the Resurrection of Christ. 
 
 (1) THE vivification and resurrection of the 
 man Jesus is not, strictly speaking, pars status 
 exaltationis, but terminus a quo, as some theo- 
 logians have justly remarked. So his concep- 
 tion was the terminus a quo of the state of hu- 
 miliation. The state of exaltation, strictly speak- 
 ing, commences with the ascension of Christ. 
 The events which preceded were merely pre- 
 paratory. 
 
 (2) The resurrection of Jesus is frequently 
 ascribed in scripture to the Father; Acts, ii. 24, 
 32; iii. 15. Vide other texts, Morus, p. 174, 
 s. 1, note. Jesus, however, frequently ascribes 
 it to himself, as the Son of Cod, John, x. 18, 
 coll. ii. 19, "I have power (efjovori'av) to take 
 rny life again." He had this power, inasmuch 
 as he acted in common with the Father, and, as 
 Messiah, had received power from the Father* 
 adequate to this purpose. 
 
 (3) The proof of the resurrection of Christ 
 on the third day is to be deduced entirely from 
 the accounts given of it in the New Testament. 
 The genuineness of these histories, and the en- 
 tire credibility of the accounts contained in them, 
 are here presupposed. On these grounds we 
 may be satisfied of the truth of this fact, even 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 347 
 
 if no inspiration is admitted. Vide s. 6, 8. The 
 following circumstances deserve notice viz., 
 (a) The disciples of Jesus had always ex- 
 pected that he would establish a visible kingdom 
 upon earth. They had never understood, and al- 
 ways perverted, what he frequently said to them 
 respecting his death and resurrection. When, 
 therefore, his death took place, they did not be- 
 lieve that he would actually rise again. Vide 
 John, xx. 9, coll. ver. 24, 25. Accordingly 
 they were so incredulous on this subject, that 
 they regarded the first information of the fact 
 which they received as fabulous and unworthy 
 of credit; Luke, xxiv. 11, coll. Ter. 22 24. 
 Gregory the Great remarks, justly and happily, 
 dubitatum est ab illis, ne dubitaretur a nobis. 
 
 (6) After this event Jesus appeared frequently 
 to his apostles and his other disciples. Ten 
 different appearances have been noticed by some 
 writers in the Evangelists. At these times he 
 conversed with his disciples, and gave them 
 such palpable demonstrations of his resurrec- 
 tion that none of them could longer doubt re- 
 specting the fact. Vide the last chapters of 
 the gospels, and particularly John, xx. 21, and 
 Acts, i. 2, 3; x. 41. Some, at first, regarded 
 his appearance to be that of a dead man with a 
 shadowy body, such as was believed by the 
 Jews, Greeks, and Romans ; very much the 
 same as in Homer and Virgil. So Thomas, in 
 John, xx. 25, seq. For this reason Jesus ate 
 with them, and allowed them to handle him, 
 John, xxi. 
 
 (c) Thenceforward they were so convinced of 
 the truth of his resurrection that they never were 
 or could be persuaded to doubt respecting it. 
 They spake of it, after the final departure of 
 Christ from the earth, as an established fact, 
 which was universally admitted. They pro- 
 claimed it publicly at Jerusalem, where Jesus 
 was condemned, before the Sanhedrim, and other 
 tribunals ; nor could any one convince them of 
 the contrary. Acts, ii.24, 32; iv. 813; iii., 
 x., xiii. ; 1 Cor. xv. 5, seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 21. 
 
 (e?) No solid historical objection has been 
 ever brought against this event ; nor has any 
 ground been alleged sufficient to convict the 
 apostles of imposture, because the data for such 
 proof are wanting. The event must therefore 
 be regarded as true, until the contrary can be 
 proved by historical reasons, or until the wit- 
 nesses can be convicted of untruth. The ene- 
 mies of Christianity have often been challenged 
 to produce a single example of a history so well 
 attested as that of the resurrection of Jesus, and 
 followed too by such important consequences 
 both among cultivated and ruder nations, which 
 has turned out in the end to be false and ficti- 
 tious. But such an example they have never 
 been able to produce. It is worthy of notice, 
 that we do not find in the whole history of the 
 
 apostles that any of the most enlightened ene- 
 mies of Christianity, even the Sanhedrim at 
 r erusalem, undertook to say that Christ had not 
 isen, although they hated the apostles so much 
 as to abuse and condemn them. At that time, 
 no one ventured seriously to question this fact. 
 The grave was watched ; the frightened guards 
 rought the news of what had happened to the 
 Sanhedrim, and were bribed to give out that the 
 disciples of Jesus had stolen his corpse; Matt. 
 xxviiL 11 13. Incredible as this story was, 
 still many of the Jews at first believed it, as 
 Matthew declares, ver. 15 of the same chapter. 
 
 To this latter supposition, the Wolfenb. Un- 
 genannte has entirely assented, in his work, 
 Vom Zweck Jesu, and in the fragment, " Ueber 
 die Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu," which Les- 
 sing published in his " Beytragen ziir Gesch- 
 chte und Literatur," b. 4, 1777. He looks up 
 all possible discrepancies in the narrative which 
 the evangelists have given of minute circum- 
 stances, although they would not be sufficient, 
 even if well grounded, to render the fact histori- 
 cally suspicious. Vide Doederlein, Fragrnente 
 und Antifragmente, 2 thle.; Niirnberg, 1781; 
 Sender's "Beantwortung;" 2nd ed. 1780; Mi- 
 haelis, Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu ; Halle, 
 1783. Among the ancient writers, see Ditten, 
 Wahrheit der christlichen Religion auf der Au- 
 ferstehungsgeschichte Jesu, u. s. w; and Sher- 
 lok, Gerichtliches Verhor der Zeugen fur, u. s. w. 
 
 Some have endeavoured to render this history 
 suspicious, from the fact that Jesus didnotjou&- 
 licly shew himself after his resurrection, and did 
 not appear to his enemies. Some reply that it 
 does not follow from the silence of the evange- 
 lists that he did not. But Peter says expressly 
 that he appeared ov rtavti ^9 7.0.9, a'MC r t p.iv, 
 (the disciples,) Acts, x. 40, 41. What object, 
 now, would have been answered by this public 
 appearance T Those who had not before received 
 him as Messiah would have rejected him anew; 
 and even although they should effect nothing 
 by it, they would still have given' out the whole 
 thing as an imposition. And suppose the whole 
 populace had believed, they might have com- 
 menced dangerous innovations, and made ar- 
 rangements to establish Christ as an earthly 
 king, Cf. John, vi. 15. Those who had no 
 taste or capacity for the spiritual kingdom of 
 Christ would no more have believed in him, or 
 firmly and faithfully adhered to him, after he 
 had appeared to them raised from the dead, and 
 had himself preached to them, than before, when 
 he also preached to them in person, and wrought 
 the greatest miracles before them ; so that he 
 himself would have found the truth of what is 
 said, Luke, xvi. 31. 
 
 Persons have not been wanting who have 
 considered the account of the resurrection of 
 Christ as allegorical. Semler supposed that 
 
348 
 
 Christ did not physically rise from the dead, and 
 that the life which is ascribed to him is spiritual 
 life in heaven and in the hearts of men. Others 
 suppose that he did not actually die upon the 
 cross, but that he lived in private among his 
 friends for a considerable time after his cruci- 
 fixion, and then disappeared. They suppose 
 that when his side was pierced he fell into a 
 swoon, from which he was revived by the evapo- 
 ration of the spices in the tomb ; without think- 
 ing that, even if he had survived the crucifixion, 
 this evaporation in a confined cave would neces- 
 sarily have suffocated him. Spinoza says, 
 somewhere, that the resurrection and ascension 
 were not events which took place in the material 
 world, but in the moral world i. e., they are 
 fictions, ancient Christian fables, which, how. 
 ever, had great moral consequences. Many mo- 
 dern writers, and even some theologians, have 
 adopted this opinion. Dr. Paulus rather in- 
 clines to it in his Comments on the Evangelists. 
 
 (4) The necessity and importance of this doc- 
 trine. It is one of the most important of the 
 positive and peculiar doctrines of Christianity, 
 and is so regarded by Christ, and in the whole 
 New Testament. Morus, p. 175, seq., s. 3. 
 
 (a) The apostles always represent this as a 
 fundamental truth of the Christian faith. The 
 w$ty dyy&otj, he shewed himself alive to his mes- 
 sengers i. e., disciples is mentioned as a 
 fundamental truth, 1 Tim. iii. 16, coll. Rom. x. 
 9. The apostles were called /jLaptvptsavaatdasus 
 Xpttf-zro-u, Acts, i. 22. Paul therefore says, that 
 if Christ be not risen we can have no hope of 
 resurrection, and our whole faith in him is un- 
 founded; 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17, coll. ver. 5 7 ; for 
 the instructions of Christ are attested and con- 
 firmed as certain and divine only by the resurrec- 
 tion. Cf. 1 Pet. i. 3, and Morus, p. 176, n. 5. 
 
 (6) All the apostles agree that Christ by his 
 resurrection received the seal and sanction of 
 God, as the great Prophet and Saviour consti- 
 tuted by him. He himself had claimed to be 
 the Messiah ; but his death seemed to frustrate 
 every hope. Vide Luke, xxiv. 20, 21. His 
 resurrection, however, rendered this belief more 
 sure and unwavering. His disciples now saw 
 that he was the person whom he claimed to be. 
 They were compelled to conclude that God 
 would not, by such a distinguished miracle, 
 authorize and support an impostor, who merely 
 pretended to be a divine messenger. Added to 
 this is the fact, that he himself had prophesied 
 that he should rise in three days ; Luke, xviii. 
 33; John, x. 17. The accomplishment of this 
 prophecy proves that Christ did not teach in his 
 own name, but as the messenger of God ; as he 
 often said; John, viii. x. The following are 
 the most important texts relating to this point 
 viz., Romans, i. 4 ; Acts, xvii. 31 ; 1 Tim. iii. 
 16. The passage, Ps. ii. 7, * Thou art my Son, 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 this day have I begotten thee," is often referred 
 in the New Testament directly to the resurrec- 
 tion. " I have declared thee (by raising thee 
 to life) on this day (the day of the resurrection) 
 to be the Messiah," Acts, xiii. 33, 34. 
 
 II. The Ascension of Christ. 
 
 (1) Jesus spent forty days on earth after his 
 resurrection, in order to render his disciples 
 more sure of the fact, to teach them many im- 
 portant things, and to prepare them for the dis- 
 charge of their public office. Vide the last 
 chapters of the evangelists, and Acts, i. After- 
 wards, he was removed to the abodes of the 
 blessed. These abodes are situated in regions 
 invisible to men, at a distance from the earth, 
 and inaccessible to us while we continue here. 
 They cannot be better described than by the 
 word heaven, which almost all people and lan- 
 guages have, and which the sacred writers fre- 
 quently employ. As they use it, it denotes the 
 place of the highest sanctuary of God i. e., 
 the place where the Omnipresent Being reveals 
 himself with peculiar glory. Cf. John, xiv. 2, 3. 
 Jesus was taken up from earth in view 
 of his apostles, and borne hence, (lyfrjp^ ave- 
 krfl&j elf o-vpayov,) Acts, i. 9 11; 1 Pet. iii. 
 22; Heb. ix. 10, 11, 24. He ascended from 
 Bethany on the Mount of Olives, Luke, xxiv. 
 51. He predicted his ascension to his disci- 
 ples; John, vi. 62} xiv. 2, 3. This doctrine, 
 like that of the resurrection, is enumerated 
 among the fundamental truths of Christianity, 
 1 Tim. iii. 16, (owJWjf^ lv Sot-y ;) 1 Pet. iii. 
 22. He taught his disciples to find in all these 
 events confirmation of his declarations, and joy 
 and consolation. As he had risen, the first 
 that arose from the dead, and had been trans- 
 lated to heaven, they too should one day arise, 
 and be glorified, if they reposed faith and con- 
 fidence in him. They should be with him 
 where he was, at home, in the house of his 
 Father, &c. 
 
 Note. Some modem writers have endea- 
 voured to awaken suspicion respecting the doc- 
 trine of the ascension of Christ, from the fact 
 that Matthew, Luke, and John do not expressly 
 narrate this history of the ascension in their 
 gospels, as Mark does in his, and as Luke does 
 in the Acts. But they could not have been 
 gnorant or doubtful respecting this event, any 
 more than the other writers of the New Tes- 
 tament ; since Jesus had mentioned it in his 
 early instructions, according to John, vi. 62, 
 and had frequently alluded to it afterwards. 
 The writings of Paul, Peter, and the Acts of 
 the Apostles written by Luke, shew how uni- 
 versal was the belief of this event among the 
 irst Christian teachers. And how could these 
 two have been exceptions 1 Vide the Essays, 
 Warum haben nicht alle Evangelisten die 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 349 
 
 Himelfahrt Christ! ausdriicklich miterzahlt? 
 in Flatt's Magazin, Stuck 8, Tubingen, 1802, 
 Num.2. 
 
 (2) According to the clear declarations of the 
 New Testament, Christ lives in the abodes of 
 the blessed, as a true man. Cf. Acts, i. 11; 
 xvii. 31 ; Heb. ix. 10, seq. Vide his appear- 
 ances in the Acts. But the saints in heaven do 
 not have a gross, feeble, perishable body, like 
 the human body which we possess upon the 
 earth ; but a more perfect, imperishable, glori- 
 fied body, very much like that of the gods of 
 Homer and the Grecians. 1 Cor. xv. coll. s. 
 152. New Jesus received such a body in hea- 
 ven, as we shall one day receive; Phil. iii. 21 
 
 dwfjia, 86%r]s (i. e., fVSofoi') avi'ov, which our 
 present earthly body (crw^a rartftWorfcoj) will in 
 future resemble. The same doctrine is carried 
 out, 1 Cor. xv. 42 53. As inhabitants of 
 of earth, men have a mortal body, like Adam ; 
 as inhabitants of heaven, a refined and immor- 
 tal body, like Christ, the second Adam. Christ, 
 however, did not receive this body immediately 
 on his resurrection ; but when he became an 
 inhabitant of heaven. During the forty days 
 which succeeded his resurrection, he ate and 
 drank with his disciples actions which cannot 
 be predicated of heavenly bodies. He bore, 
 too, on his body the scars and marks of the 
 crucifixion. Some few have supposed that he 
 then possessed a spiritual body, from a misun- 
 derstanding of the words Jh>pwv xfxtaicr/itfvwv, 
 John, xx. 19, 26. The declaration in the epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, that he offers to God, as 
 High-priest, his own blood, in the holy of holies, 
 shews that the same Jesus, who according to 
 the divine decree died on the earth for our good, 
 now lives in heaven, and that we may always 
 rejoice in the happy consequences of his sacri- 
 fice; Heb. ix. 14, 24, seq. 
 
 Note. The dispute relative to the Lord's 
 supper has occasioned much controversy since 
 the sixteenth century, respecting the omnipre- 
 sence of the body of Christ, which was asserted 
 by many Lutheran theologians. But the doctrine 
 de omnipresentia or ubiquitate of the human body 
 of Christ, is a mere hypothesis of some theolo- 
 gians, without any sure scriptural support. In- 
 deed, those divine attributes, which, from the 
 nature of the case, cannot be predicated of body 
 in general, cannot be ascribed to the body of 
 Christ, although it be glorified. Besides, we 
 are expressly assured that we shall in future 
 receive a body of the same kind as the heavenly 
 body of Christ, Phil. iii. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 49. 
 Finally, this doctrine is not necessary for the 
 defence of the Lutheran doctrine respecting the 
 Lord's supper. Vide infra respecting this doc- 
 trine. 
 
 (3) There has always been a great diversity 
 
 of opinions on the question, How long Christ, 
 as a man, will continue in heaven, and when, 
 according to his promise, he will return and 
 visibly reappear on the earth. Christ himself 
 has promised no other visible return than that 
 at the end of the world, as the Judge of men. 
 For his rfapoixjta to destroy Jerusalem, and 
 punish his enemies, is a figurative mode of 
 speech, like the adventus Dei so often spoken 
 of by the prophets. But many of the early 
 Christians, who were inclined to Judaism, and 
 expected the establishment of an earthly king- 
 dom, explained many texts in accordance with 
 such an opinion, although there is not one pas- 
 sage in all the writings of the apostles distinct- 
 ly in favour of it. The apostles always sup- 
 posed that Christ would remain in heaven until 
 the end of the world, (during the whole time 
 of the New-Testament dispensation,) and not 
 visibly return until that time; although they 
 did not undertake to determine how long this 
 period would continue. Vide Acts, i. 11; 
 1 Thess. i. 10, coll. 2 Thess. ii. seq. 
 
 Here belongs that remarkable passage in the 
 speech of Peter, Acts, iii. 20, 21, which has 
 been so often misunderstood and referred to the 
 restoration of all things. " God has caused 
 the joyful times of the New Testament to ap- 
 pear, (xcupot dva-4/vffcoj, cf. 2 Cor. vi. 2,) and 
 has sent Jesus Christ, whom now the heaven 
 hath again received, or still retains, as long as 
 this happy period of the New Testament (the 
 new dispensation upon the earth) shall continue.' 1 '' 
 Here, then, is no promise that Christ will re- 
 turn to found an earthly kingdom. Af'tcu&at, 
 when spoken of a place, always means, accord- 
 ing to a Greek idiom, that the place receives or 
 retains any one. So all the ancient interpreters, 
 and Beza, who denied the omnipresence of the 
 body of Christ from this passage. For this 
 reason the Lutheran theologians have preferred 
 to refer fo'tac&at. to Christ. The ^povot outoxa- 
 r'acr-r'actettj are, the times of the New Testament, 
 like zp6f06 Siop^tofffwj, Heb. ix. 10. Vide ver. 
 20. And o#pt, signifies not until, but dum, 
 while, during ; a#ptj cr^tpov xatetT'a*, Heb. 
 iii. 13. Vide Ernesti, Program, ad. h. 1. in 
 Opusc. Theol. p. 483, seq. 
 
 Note. It was intended to teach men by this 
 event, to regard Christ, even in his human na- 
 ture, as henceforth standing in the closest con- 
 nexion with God as in the possession and 
 enjoyment of supreme felicity and power, and 
 as the Ruler and Lord, whose agency and influ- 
 ence were unlimited. The description of God, 
 as dwelling in heaven, suggests the idea of his 
 supremacy over all the inhabitants and events 
 of the world, his controlling providence, bound- 
 less reign, and perfect enjoyment. Morus, p. 
 177, not. extr. 
 
 2G 
 
350 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 SECTION XCVIII. 
 
 WHEREIN THE HEAVENLY GLORY OR MAJESTY 
 OF CHRIST, AS A MAN, CONSISTS? AND THE 
 SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF THE KINGDOM AND DO- 
 MINION OF CHRIST. 
 
 I. Scriptural designation of the Glory of Christ. 
 
 THE imperfection and inferiority which Christ 
 had voluntarily assumed during bis life upon 
 earth ceased immediately on his ascension. He 
 now became, even as a man, immortal and 
 blessed; Rom. vi. 9, 10; Heb. vii. 16, 25. 
 Even in his human nature he was raised by God 
 to a very illustrious dignity ; John, xvii. 5, 
 (5o|a, 6a|apcw,) Acts, ii. 3336 ; Eph. i. 20, 
 seq. ; Col. i. 17. "Ovopa vrtsp jtav ovofia, Phil, 
 ii. 9, 10. He is entitled to honour from every 
 being, even from the higher intelligences, Heb. 
 i. 6; Phil. ii. 9, 10; since he is henceforth 
 raised in glory and majesty above all, 1 Pet. iii. 
 22. Hence a kingdom is ascribed to him, over 
 which he reigns in heaven. He is called King, 
 and divinely appointed Lord; o Kvptoj, Acts, ii. 
 36 ; and Kvptoj Sofys, especially by Paul, 1 Cor. 
 ii. 8, (i. e.,the glorious, adorable Lord, niasn ^p, 
 Ps. xxiv. 7, 8.) In Heb. i. 9, Paul applies 
 to Christ the passage, Ps. Ixv. 8, " God hath 
 anointed thee with the oil of joy above thy fel- 
 lows" i. e., God honours thee more, and gives 
 thee more privileges, than all the partners of thy 
 dignity the other kings, or sons of God. 
 
 Note. Various other appellations are applied 
 in the New Testament to Christ, descriptive 
 partly of his supremacy, and partly of his care 
 for the church as its head. Among these are 
 the following viz., Kf^atoj, the Christian 
 church being often compared with a body, Eph. 
 i. 22, 23 ; v. 23 ; dvjp, maritus, 2 Cor.. xi.-2 ; 
 and npt$to$i John, iii. 29. Also the appellation 
 of a shepherd, and the comparisons taken from 
 it, John, x. 12. So Christ is called by Paul, 
 rtoifteva tbv psyav, Heb. xiii. 20, and dp^tzto^p, 
 1 Pet. v. 4. This is a very honourable appella- 
 tion, since kings were called shepherds by the He- 
 brews, Ps. Ixxx. 2, seq., like the ttoip.svs fccuLv 
 of Homer. We must understand, however, by 
 this appellation, a pastoral prince, such perhaps 
 as Abraham was, and the orientalists frequently 
 were ; the proprietor and owner of the herds, 
 who had servants in his employment as under 
 shepherds. 
 
 II. The Nature and Extent of the Kingdom of 
 Christ, the Administration of his Reign which 
 he carries on from Heaven. 
 
 Cf. Ncesselt, Diss. * de Christo homine reg- 
 nante," Opusc. torn. ii. ; Halle, 1773; and the 
 programm, " De Christo ad dextram Dei se- 
 dente," p. 10, seq. ; Halle, 1787. There are 
 some good remarks, together with many very 
 
 unfounded ones, in Dr. Eckermann's Essay, 
 Ueber die Begriffe vom Reiche und der Wieder- 
 kunft Christi, in his Theologischen Beytragen, 
 b. ii. st. 1 ; Altona, 1891, 8vo. Morus treats 
 this subject admirably, p. 178, seq. 
 
 (1) The terms which signify rule are some- 
 times used figuratively, and denote, a joyful 
 situation, happy, and honourable in an uncom- 
 mon degree freedom, independence, authority ; 
 in short, every kind of distinguished happiness 
 and welfare. Thus- the stoic paradox; "omnem 
 sapientem regnare, sive esse regem ," and Cicero : 
 "olim cum regnare existimabamur." In this 
 sense, Christians are called kings, 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; 
 Rev. i. 6. They are said avppaatteveiv t$ 
 XpttfT'cp, to share with Christ the royal privileges, 
 2 Tim. ii. 12. In the parallel passage, Rom. 
 viii. 17, they are said awdo^ay^vat. They are 
 said, also, x^^ovofjalv paaiteiav, Matt. xxv. 34 ; 
 and j3a<yttavtv ev ij, Rom. v. 17. According- 
 ly, when Christ is said to reign, his life' in hea- 
 ven may be intended. But this phrase applied 
 to him is not confined to this meaning; it sig- 
 nifies something far more great and elevated 
 than all this, as will appear from the following 
 remarks. 
 
 (2) The kingdom of Christ, according to the 
 doctrine of the New Testament, is of very wide 
 extent. 
 
 A. It extends over everything in all the uni- 
 verse. " All power in heaven and on earth is 
 given to me," Matt, xxviii. 18. 'O Ttatvjp rtdvfa, 
 otouxsv stf tpct wv'tov, x. 4. %., John, xiii. 3. 
 God exalted him, even as a man, above every- 
 thing which is great and powerful in the mate- 
 rial and spiritual world, in order that he might 
 rule over them ; and subjected to him even the 
 different orders and classes of good and bad 
 spirits. Christ reigns over them as Lord, Phil, 
 ii. 911; Eph. i. 20, 21; Col. i. 1517; 
 Heb. i. 414 ; 1 Pet. iii. 22. The ground 
 and object of such an extensive rule is this : 
 There are many things both in the material and 
 spiritual world which operate to the advantage 
 or disadvantage of men. Now, if men are to 
 be peculiarly the subjects over whom Christ is 
 to reign as king ; if to promote their welfare 
 and to shield them from all harm ; if to punish 
 his own enemies and the enemies of his king- 
 dom, and to bless and reward his followers, are 
 to be his peculiar concern ; he must be able to 
 control all these other objects. For, 
 
 B. The reign or government of Jesus, as 
 Christ or Messiah, has a principal respect to the 
 human race. He exerts his authority on account 
 of men, and for their advantage. This kingdom 
 is twofold, viz., 
 
 (a) Regnum sensu latiori. Since the time 
 when Christ was received into heaven, (Eph. 
 i. 20,) he has reigned over all men, whether 
 they know and honour him or not i. e., he pro- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 351 
 
 vides for them all that spiritual welfare and true 
 happiness of which they are capable. He re- 
 ceived from the Father right and power over the 
 human race, John, xvii. 2; Matt, xxviii. 18; 
 Eph. i. 10; 2 Pet. ii. 1. 
 
 (6) Regnum sensu strictiori sive angustiori, ex- 
 tends over his worshippers, who know and love 
 him ; over the whole society (ixx^aia, SPIJ?) of 
 those who are united, not by external power and 
 compulsion, but by the power of truth and by 
 instruction. This community is therefore called, 
 in the discourses of Jesus, jSaaitat'a EOV sive 
 ovpavov, Eph. v. 5; Col. i. 13. Over this com- 
 munity he exercises the most special watch- 
 fulness and care. Its members, when faithful- 
 ly devoted and obedient to him, are his rtpopata, 
 ISia. The foundation was laid and the begin- 
 ning made in this community during the life of 
 Christ on earth. From the time of John it suf- 
 fered violence, Matt. xi. 12. But the beginning 
 was small, and, in comparison with what after- 
 wards took place, unobserved by the great mul- 
 titude; ovx ep%ctat psta, Ttopar'^p^cffcof, Luke, 
 Xvii. 20. This kingdom was not extended and 
 widened till after the ascension. 
 
 (3) The manner in which Christ governs or 
 rules his kingdom. He reigns as oco^p, Eph. 
 v. 2329. 
 
 A. Noiu, during the continuance of the pre- 
 sent state of the world, 
 
 (a) By instruction in the truth, John, xviii. 
 37. At his departure from the world he com- 
 mitted this instruction to his disciples, and espe- 
 cially to his apostles as his ambassadors, that 
 they might communicate it everywhere, without 
 regard tonation or kindred, Matt, xxviii. 18 20. 
 It was to be more extensively diffused and 
 widely propagated by means of other teachers, 
 appointed by the apostles under the guidance 
 and authority of Christ, Eph. iv. 11, 15, 16. 
 Accordingly, in the passages mentioned, Paul 
 derives the qualifications and the ministry (#a- 
 ptj, ^aptujua-r'a) of teachers from Christ himself, 
 as Christ also himself does, John, x. 1, seq. 
 
 (6) By that support, help, and assistance 
 which he imparts to his church, his special con- 
 cern in its extension, and the frustration of the 
 designs of its enemies, Matt, xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 25, 26 ; 1 John, iv. 4 ; v. 4, 5. 
 
 Note. All the hindrances which stand in the 
 way of the extension of Christianity, and the 
 success of the designs of Christ to promote hu- 
 man happiness, are frequently called l^pot 
 Xpurtov. This term is borrowed from Psalm 
 ex. 2. Morus has enumerated these hindrances, 
 as presented in the scriptures, p. 180, seq., s. 6. 
 Christ has already removed these hindrances 
 in a measure ; he is constantly diminishing 
 them, and at the end of the present dispensation 
 will have entirely surmounted them. Ps. ex. 
 1, 2 ; 1 Cor. xv. 25. Morus, p. 181, seq., s. 7. 
 
 B. In future, when the present state of the 
 world shall cease, (at which time the greatest 
 revolutions will take place in the whole uni- 
 verse, 2 Pet. iii. 7, 1013.) Then, and not be- 
 fore, will Christ exhibit himself in all his glory, 
 as Lord of the human race. Paul says, express- 
 ly, that all the glory of Christ is not now dis- 
 played, Heb. ii. 8; Col. iii. 3, 4; for all have 
 not yet acknowledged him as Lord, and his ene- 
 mies have still power to harm. But then his 
 glory will become visible, 1 Cor. xv. 26, 27 ; 
 Heb. x. 13. Christ will solemnly and visibly 
 reappear on the earth, Acts, i. 11 ; 1 Thess. iv. 
 16 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 13 ; Heb. ix. 28; Col. iii. 4. 
 He will raise the dead, John, v. 21 23; Mat- 
 thew, xxv. He will sit in judgment upon the 
 dead and the living, 1 Cor. xv. 26, 27 ; Rom. 
 xiv. 10; Phil. ii. 10; and will allot rewards 
 and punishments, John, v. 21 23, 27, seq. ; 
 Matt, xxv.; Acts, xvii. 31. According to the 
 doctrine of the universality of Christ's kingdom, 
 he will judge, not Christians only, but all men. 
 Cf. the passages above cited, and Acts, xvii. 
 31 ; Romans, ii. 6, 7. But the time of this judg- 
 ment is unknown, and was so even to the apos- 
 tles, 1 Thess. v. 1, seq. coll. 2 Thess. ii. 3. 
 Many of the early Christians, however, appear 
 to have supposed that it was near at hand, and 
 was connected with the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem and the temple, which was also called rta- 
 povfft'a Xptff-r'oiJ. For the Jews believed that the 
 temple would stand until the end of the world, 
 Psalm Ixxviii. 69. But the apostles never 
 adopted or favoured this opinion. Vide Thess. 
 ut supra. 
 
 (4) Some further observations on the nature 
 and continuance of the government which Christ 
 as a man administers in heaven. 
 
 (a) The government of Christ is described by 
 himself and his apostles as being, not external 
 and temporal, but spiritual, conducted principal- 
 ly by means of his religion, by the preaching of 
 the gospel, and the power which attends it ; 
 dfc^ct'?, John, xviii. 37; orphan, Eph. v. 26. 
 Vide No. 3. This fact excludes and refutes the 
 objection, that Christ designed to establish an 
 earthly kingdom, s. 89 ; and it frustrates the 
 hopes of the Chiliasts, who, agreeably to Jew- 
 ish prejudices, are expecting such a kingdom 
 yet to come. 
 
 (6) This government which Jesus adminis- 
 ters, as a man, is not natural to him, or one 
 which he attains by birth, but acquired. He 
 received it from his Father as a reward for his 
 sufferings, and for his faithful performance of 
 the whole work and discharge of all the offices 
 entrusted to him by God for the good of men. 
 'E#ap io a I'D OVT'CJ oixyta., and 8 to avtov vjtfpv- 
 4*o<js, Phil. ii. 9. "We see Jesus, after he had 
 endured death, crowned with glory and honour," 
 &c., Hebrews, ii. 9, 10. The Father is de- 
 
352 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 scribed as vrt6fa%a$ Xpttfr*^ rtdvta, 1 Cor. XV. 
 24, 27 ; Acts, ii. 31 36 ; the discourses of Jesus 
 in John, xvii. 5 ; Matt. xi. 27, seq. ; xxviii. 18 ; 
 also many of the texts which speak of his sit- 
 ting at the right hand of God, s. 99. Paul, in 
 his epistle to the Hebrews, frequently makes 
 use, in relation to this subject, of the word 
 fftewo^-jpo*, which is applied literally to the 
 reward of victors. He explains the idea in a 
 very intelligible manner, Heb. v. 8. Christ 
 learned by his sufferings to obey God and do 
 his will; and he who knows how to obey so 
 well is also qualified to govern well. Vide 
 Morus, p. 184, s. 9, for other texts and com- 
 ments. This kingdom is therefore called, at one 
 time, the kingdom of God, from its founder ; at 
 another time, the kingdom of Christ, who ac- 
 complished the plan of God; and still again, 
 the kingdom of God and of Christ, because God 
 and Christ were united in its establishment. 
 
 (c) The Israelites imagined, according to the 
 instruction of the prophets, that the kingdom of 
 the Messiah would be an everlasting kingdom 
 (atiovtoj, perpetuus, continuing as long as the 
 world should endure. Thus it is always repre- 
 sented in the New Testament. " He will reign 
 over the house of Jacob tj T'OVJ cuwj/aj, seat -r^j 
 /Sacrotata* avtov ovx satai T'^OJ," Luke, i. 33. 
 The text, Ps. xlv. 7, 6 ^povoj <jov si$ -tbv cuwva 
 tfov atwj/oj, is explained in the same way, Heb. 
 i. 8. Christ himself says expressly, Matt. xvi. 
 18, 7tv7.at aov ov xai?i(]%v<3ov(Si t^exx^gia^ i. e., 
 the society established by him should not de- 
 cline and perish, like so many others, but al- 
 ways endure. He said, with great explicitness, 
 Matt, xxviii. 20, that his assistance and special 
 care should extend to his followers i'wf *ijj GVV 
 t&timf tfov cuwvoj. His friends should enjoy 
 his constant presence, support, and assistance, 
 in every condition of life, until the end of the 
 world that now is. 
 
 (cZ) From what has been said, it appears that 
 the government which Christ as a man admi- 
 nisters in heaven will continue only while the 
 present constitution of the world lasts. At the 
 end of the world, when the heavenly state com- 
 mences, the government which Christ adminis- 
 ters as a man will cease , so far, at least, as it 
 aims to promote the holiness and happiness of 
 men, since those of our race who labour for this 
 end will then have attained the goal, and will 
 be actually blessed. So Paul says expressly, 
 I Cor. xv. 24 28, in entire accordance with the 
 universal doctrine of the New Testameut re- 
 specting the kingdom of Christ as man. He is 
 speaking of the kingdom of Jesus, or of his of- 
 fice as Messiah, and refers to Ps. ex. 1, "Sit 
 on my right hand, until I subject to thee all 
 thine enemies." The phrase, to sit on the 
 right hand of the Father, he explains by j3a<yt- 
 and comprehends under this term all the 
 
 offices of the Messiah and the institutions 
 which he has established for the good of men 
 i. e., for their holiness and eternal blessed- 
 ness. These offices (his kingdom) will cease at 
 the end of the world, when all the opposers of 
 the advancement of his kingdom upon earth, 
 and even Death, the last enemy of his followers, 
 will be subdued, and when his friends will be 
 introduced by himself into that eternal blessed- 
 ness to which it is his aim to exalt them. Then 
 will his great plan for the happiness of men be 
 completed, and the end of his office as Messiah 
 will be attained. Thenceforward the Father 
 will no more make use, as before, of the inter- 
 vention of the Messiah to govern and bless men ; 
 for now they will be actually blessed. Christ 
 then will lay down his former charge, and give 
 it over to the Father, who had entrusted him 
 with it. For we cannot expect that the preach- 
 ing of the gospel will be continued in heaven, 
 and that the other institutions of the Christian 
 church, which relate only to the present life, 
 will be found there in the same way as they ex- 
 ist here upon the earth. In the abodes of the 
 blessed, the Father will himself reign over his 
 saints with an immediate government, and in a 
 manner different from the rule which he causes 
 to be exercised over them through Christ, his 
 ambassador, while they continue upon the earth. 
 Vide Scripta varii argumenti, p. 60, seq., ed. ii. 
 The glory and majesty of Christ will remain, 
 however, unaltered ; and he will still far excel 
 his friends and brethren, who enjoy a happiness 
 similar to his own. He will still be honoured 
 and loved by them as their Lord, and as the au- 
 thor of their salvation, John, xvii. 24; Rom. 
 viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12. 
 
 SECTION XCIX. 
 
 REMARKS ON THE FORM AND SENSE OF THE SCRIP- 
 TURAL REPRESENTATION RESPECTING THE KING- 
 DOM OF GOD AND OF CHRIST ; AND ON THE SIG- 
 NIFICATION OF THE PHRASE, " TO SIT ON THE 
 RIGHT HAND OF GOD," AS APPLIED TO CHRIST. 
 
 I. Origin and Design of the. Formulae respecting 
 
 the Kingdom of Christ. 
 
 (1) WE must begin with the principle, that 
 many of the images, expressions, and phrases, 
 which are applied to God and his government, 
 are borrowed from those applied to earthly 
 kings. We regard God as possessing every- 
 thing which is considered great, exalted, and 
 pre-eminent among men, but in a far higher de- 
 gree. With us everything is small and limit- 
 ed, with him, great, comprehensive, and im- 
 measurable. But now again, we reason retro- 
 gressively from the Deity, and from heaven to 
 earth. God, by his agency, is the cause of every- 
 thing great and wonderful which takes place 
 on the earth, ovbtv wsv 0ov. Even the govern- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 353 
 
 ment of kings is of divine origin, and they are 
 appointed by the Deity himself. 
 
 Tip)] (Aiorp0oj /?a<nXf)oj) 6' it Ai6f ion, <pi\ei Si I 
 /x/jn'sra Zruj, 
 
 Horn. II. ii. 197. "Jupiter bestows upon kings 
 their sceptre, and the right to reign over others," 
 v. 205. See also II. ix. 98, 99; and Callim. 
 Hymn, in Jov. lx Atoj jSacro,?^ j, x. i. X. They 
 are accordingly the representatives and ambas- 
 sadors of the gods, bear their image, govern and 
 judge in their stead. Hence they are called 
 gods, sons of God, Stoysyftj, 5toT'p$fr$, scot-, 
 cw/T't^fot, x. r. &. 
 
 All these ideas and expressions were com- 
 mon with the Israelitish nation, and were so- 
 lemnly sanctioned by their prophets under direct 
 divine authority. The God JEHOVAH was their 
 proper king, supreme over their state and na- 
 tion. He governed them through the instru- 
 mentality of human regents and deputed kings. 
 Their constitution was theocratic, to make use 
 of a happy term, first applied to this subject by 
 Josephus. Hence the Israelitish state and na- 
 tion are called the possession, and the peculiar 
 people of Jehovah, and also, the kingdom of Je- 
 hovah ; as Ex. xix. 6 ; Ps. cxiv. 2. In the same 
 way the later Jews applied the phrases, king- 
 dom of God, or, of heaven, to the Jewish state 
 and church, and to the whole religion and ritual 
 of the Israelites. When a proselyte was re- 
 ceived by them, he was said to be admitted 
 into the kingdom of God, or, of heaven. Vide 
 Schottgen, De regno crelorum (Hor. Heb.T. I. 
 extr.) ; and Wetstein on Matt. xxi. 25, Note. 
 On this account the Jews called themselves 
 vlov$ jSaoitaKxj, Matt. viii. 12 ; and Christ said, 
 the kingdom of heaven (the rights of the peo- 
 ple of God) should be taken from them, Matt. 
 xxi. 43. 
 
 (2) The Jews, according to the instruction of 
 their prophets, conceived of the Messiah as a 
 ruler and religious reformer, like Moses and the 
 pious kings of antiquity, only far greater, more 
 exalted and perfect than they, (vide s. 89 ;) and 
 so they spake of the eternal king, and the eternal 
 kingdom of David, 2 Sam. vii. ; Psalm Ixxxix. 
 They therefore called the happy condition of the 
 church and state under the reign of the Messiah, 
 and the subjects of his government, by way of 
 eminence, j3a0tXiut eov or ovpavwv. They be- 
 lieved that they exclusively should enjoy this 
 kingdom, and, together with the Messiah, should 
 reign over all nations. After the Babylonian 
 exile, this appellation, applied in this sense to 
 the kingdom of the Messiah peculiarly, became 
 very common, and was probably taken from 
 Dan. vii. 13, 14. It must have been common 
 in Palestine at the time of Christ, but it occurs 
 very rarely in the later Rabbinical writings. 
 (3) Jesus and his apostles did not, then, invent 
 45 
 
 these words and phrases ; they only preserved 
 he terms which they found already existing, and 
 gave them a meaning more just and pure than the 
 common one. This they did, however, with 
 wise caution and forbearance. Christ admitted 
 the expectations of the Jews of freedom in the 
 dngdom of the Messiah, but he shewed that this 
 freedom was not civil liberty, but freedom from 
 the power of sin, John, viii. 32; Luke,xvii. 20. 
 He confirmed the opinion of the Jews, that the 
 sacred writings testified concerning the Messiah, 
 and he agreed with the Jews as to the very pas- 
 sages containing this testimony, but he taught 
 them the more just and spiritual interpretation 
 of these passages. Vide s. 90, III. By re- 
 ceiving the kingdom of God, he means, believing 
 n Jesus Christ, submitting to his guidance and 
 obeying his precepts, and thus obtaining the 
 right of enjoying the divine favours promised 
 through the Messiah, John, iii. ; Mark, x. 15. 
 The same is meant by being received into the 
 kingdom of God, Col. i. 13 ; Ephes. v. 5. It 
 was for this object that John the Baptist had 
 before laboured, although he was ignorant on 
 many points belonging to the new dispensation ; 
 the essentials, however, he understood, and his 
 theme was, " Repent, for the kingdom of God 
 is at hand." He knew Christ to be the "Lamb 
 of God, which taketh away the sins of the 
 world ;" and described the Messiah as the am- 
 bassador of God, a teacher and expiator, John, 
 i. 29 ; iii. 27, 32, 34. 
 
 (4) These attempts of Jesus and his apostles 
 were very much facilitated by the fact that the 
 terms kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven 
 were used figuratively even by the Jews. They 
 frequently gave these phrases a moral and spiri- 
 tual sense, denoting and comprehending all the 
 divine appointments for the spiritual welfare of 
 men, for their happiness in this and the future 
 life ; everything, in short, which serves to pro- 
 mote the progressive holiness and proportionate 
 happiness of man in this life, and the life to 
 come, which is his true destination. Hence 
 they conceived of a twofold kingdom or state of 
 God ; one upon the earth, of which the dispensa- 
 tion under the Messiah constitutes the brightest 
 and greatest epoch, the other in heaven. The 
 pious worshippers of God are translated from the 
 former to the latter. Here they live as strangers 
 in a land of pilgrimage, there they are at home, 
 in their native land. So they called the latter 
 place the Father's house, the upper church, the 
 heavenly or new Jerusalem. And so, compre- 
 hensively, the entire sum of happiness after 
 death and in the future world was called the 
 kingdom of God. 
 
 Now Jesus and the apostles frequently use 
 the phrase J3acutata tov or ovptwwv, in this 
 sense ; and still more frequently do they con- 
 nect the two senses together. One who is a 
 2o2 
 
354 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 member of the kingdom of the Messiah upon 
 the earth, and obey his precepts, has a title to 
 citizenship in the kingdom of God which is in 
 heaven (in the city of God, in the new Jerusa- 
 lem), Phil. iii. 20, 21, coll. Matt. xxv. 34; 
 James, ii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xv. 50 ; 2 Thess. i. 5 ; 2 
 Tim, iv. 18; 2 Pet. i. 11. The remark made 
 respecting jSacftXevftv avv Xpun^, x. t. %., be- 
 longs in this connexion. Vide s. 98, II. 1. 
 
 (7) From what has been said, it appears that 
 images derived from a king and his subjects, 
 and their mutual relations, are more proper and 
 suitable than any other to represent and de- 
 scribe the duties, benefits, and privileges of the 
 worshippers of God, and especially of the true 
 followers of the Messiah. But the Jews, who 
 had little taste for what is spiritual, were con- 
 tent with the mere image, and so forgot the 
 thing itself which the image was designed to 
 indicate. They imagined a king reigning visibly 
 upon the earth. 
 
 Jesus and his apostles preserved these same 
 images, but shewed in what way they ought to be 
 understood and applied. They shewed that the 
 Messiah, after his ascension, did not visibly and 
 bodily reign on the earth, but that henceforward 
 he reigned in heaven ; and there, invisible to 
 mortal eyes, would rule the inhabitants of hea- 
 ven and earth (the latter by his religion and vi- 
 sible support) until the end of the world. They 
 shewed, moreover, that this invisible and hea- 
 venly government was of far wider extent than 
 the earthly government expected by the Jews, 
 and would embrace not one nation only, but all 
 nations without distinction ; because the king- 
 dom of morality, of truth, and happiness, is a 
 kingdom for all, such being the destination of 
 all, and God, as a father, being solicitous for the 
 happiness of all his children, John, x. 16; 
 avaxefyahanAGav^ai Tfa rtdvta tv Xpttf-rcj, Eph. i. 
 10, also rfkripovv jtdvta, (comprehendere impe- 
 rio,) Ephes. i. 23, iii. 19; Col. i. 18. They 
 taught that the whole visible disclosure of the 
 majesty of Christ, and his return to the earth, 
 would not take place before the end of the pre- 
 sent constitution of the world. Thus they pre- 
 served the ancient expressions and phrases 
 respecting the Messiah and his royal office, 
 which had been common among the Israelites, 
 but so defined and modified the meaning of them, 
 a's to give them an entirely different aspect a 
 different and far more elevated sense than was 
 common a sense, too, which entirely agreed 
 with the real meaning of the Old-Testament 
 predictions. 
 
 Kings are the sons of God ,- and the most illus- 
 trious kings are the first-born. And so the Mes- 
 siah ; but he, in a far higher sense than all 
 earthly kings, is Ttoj sov, rtf>u>T?6i?oxo$, fio- 
 voyevris, John, i. ; Heb. i. 6 ; Romans, viii. 29 ; 
 Col. i. 15, coll. ver. 18. The sons of kings. 
 
 i 
 
 especially the first-born, are the heirs and pos- 
 sessors of the kingdom ; and, among the Israel- 
 ites, themselves ruled as representatives and 
 deputies of the father over particular provinces 
 of his kingdom. Vide Anmerkung zu Ps. xlv. 
 17. So, too, the Messiah rules over the most 
 important parts of the paternal or divine king- 
 dom. Hence he is called xx^povo^oj, Lord, 
 possessor of the kingdom, Heb. i. 2. Kings de- 
 cree justice and hold judgment in the name of 
 God, as his ambassadors and deputies, Psalm 
 Ixxii. 1. So, too, the Messiah; but he will 
 hold judgment over the living and the dead, in 
 the name of the Father, at the end of the world. 
 In the same way, the other forms and expres- 
 sions may be easily solved. 
 
 (6) This kind of representation and mode of 
 instruction is in a high degree intelligible at all 
 times ; it possesses internal truth and reality. 
 But it was particularly adapted to all the con- 
 ceptions of the Jews, and even of the heathen 
 at that age. It conveyed to them, when it was 
 properly understood, the most exalted and proper 
 ideas respecting God, and his designs in the 
 establishment of the Christian institute and 
 church. At the time of Christ and the apostles, 
 the belief universally prevailed among the Jews, 
 and indeed appears to have been entertained 
 even by the prophets, that God governed the 
 world by means of angels, as the servants and 
 instruments of his providence. Vide s. 58, 60. 
 The belief, too, of many subordinate deities, 
 through whose instrumentality the supreme 
 God governed the world, prevailed among hea- 
 then nations. Cf. 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. The apos- 
 tles, therefore, shewed that God had now en- 
 trusted the government of the world and the 
 care of our spiritual welfare directly to the man 
 Christ ; and that these ministers of Divine pro- 
 vidence, as well as all the other instruments 
 which it employed, were now subjected to him, 
 that all might trust in him alone, as the author 
 of salvation. Vide 1 Cor. ut supra. And so 
 Paul, Heb. L, ii., proves that Christ is far ex- 
 alted above all the servants and ministers of 
 God (angels), who are now indeed made sub- 
 ject and obedient to him. This reference of the 
 apostolical doctrine is very clear from Hebrews, 
 ii. 5, ovx dyyttotj vjtt-ta%t tv\v oixovptvqv fi\v \ni^- 
 hovaav, (i. e., the times of the New Testament,) 
 but to Christ only, although he lived in humi- 
 liation upon the earth, (vide the verse follow- 
 ing,) which was always revolting to the Jews. 
 
 Note. To say the whole briefly : the phrase 
 kingdom of God, or, of Christ, in the sense in 
 which John the Baptist, Jesus, and his apostles, 
 understood it, signifies, the whole work of Christ 
 for the good of men, and everything which is ef- 
 fected by this work. Hence the phrase denotes 
 (a) all the benefits, rights, privileges, and 
 ewards which his followers receive in this and 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 355 
 
 the future life; comprising the doctrine re- 
 specting Christ, forgiveness of sin, and all the 
 blessedness which we owe to him; and some- 
 times comprising, too, the followers of Christ 
 themselves (cives), who enjoy these blessings; 
 (6) all the duties and the worship which we 
 owe to Cod and Christ ; and so the conditions 
 on which we obtain the blessings above enume- 
 rated. Thus are the comprehensive phrases, to 
 enter into the kingdom of God, to see it, &c., to 
 be understood. Vide especially Morus, p. 184, 
 185, n. 3. Cf. Storr, " De notione regni cceles- 
 tis in N. T." Opusc. Acad. t. i. n. v. 
 
 II. Signification of the phrase, " to sit on the right 
 hand of God," as applied to Christ.* 
 
 (1) The phrase is borrowed from Psalm ex. 
 1, which the Jewish teachers at the time of 
 Christ must have considered to be a Messianic 
 psalm, as appears from Matt. xxii. 44, seq. 
 [Vide, for the explanation of this psalm, the 
 note to the author's German translation, 3rd 
 ed.] The origin of this expression, too, is to 
 be sought in a comparison of God with earthly 
 kings. We conceive of kings, rulers, judges, 
 as sitting on thrones, when they exercise rule, 
 pronounce judgment, or display all their splen- 
 dour and majesty. Hence the verba sedendi (as 
 2t T) signify a l so t rule, to reign. God has his 
 throne in the heavens, and there Christ, after 
 his ascension, seated himself with God; 1 
 Peter, iii. 22; Ephes. i. 20; Heb. i. 13. Now 
 for any one to be appointed a place with a king, 
 to be seated with him, or at his right hand, is 
 frequently 
 
 (a) A mere external mark of honour, shew- 
 ing that such a person is highly respected, es- 
 teemed, and loved by the king. So 1 Kings, ii. 
 19, seq. ; 1 Sam. xx. 25; 1 Mace. x. 62 65. 
 Standing at the right hand is the same thing, 
 Psalm xiv. 10. The Grecian and Roman writers 
 furnish abundant examples of the same usage. 
 But it denotes 
 
 (6) Participation in the. government and asso- 
 ciated rule, though not full equality in rank and 
 dignity. Sitting with the king is plainly used 
 in this sense, Matt. xx. 21, and frequently in 
 Grecian and Roman writers, and in Grecian 
 mythology. Minerva is represented by Homer 
 as sitting beside Jupiter, and by Pindar as sit- 
 ting at his right hand, and as giving charges 
 and commands. Apollo is represented by Cal- 
 limachus as sitting at the right hand of Jupiter, 
 and as rewarding singers and poets. In all 
 these cases, participation in the government and 
 associated rule are indicated, though not full 
 equality. 
 
 * Vide the Prograratn cited in the preceding Sec- 
 tions, in which the various explanations which have 
 been given to this phrase are enumerated and exa- 
 mined. Cf. Morus, p. 185, n. 6. 
 
 (2) Now when this phrase is applied to 
 Christ, we easily see from this analogy what it 
 must mean, and how it must have been under- 
 stood by ancient readers and hearers. The 
 phrase is never applied to Christ except when 
 his humanity is spoken of, or when he is men- 
 tioned as Messiah, as fct^pwTtoj. It is not 
 spoken of his divine character, though Michaelis 
 so explains it, referring it to the seat of Cod 
 upon the ark of the covenant. The language, 
 "Christ left his seat at the right hand of the 
 Father in order to become man," was first used 
 by the fathers who lived after the fourth century. 
 Such language never occurs in the New Testa- 
 ment. Silting at the right hand of God is always 
 there represented as the reward which the Mes- 
 siah obtained from God, after his death and as- 
 cension, for the faithful accomplishment, when 
 upon earth, of all his work for the salvation of 
 man. It is the promised reward (tftfouotft?, j3pa- 
 |3ftov,) which the victor receives after a long con- 
 test. Vide Acts, ii. 3136 ; Heb. xii. 2. Hence 
 the Father is said to have placed Jesus at his right 
 hand, Ephes. i. 20. This phrase, therefore, 
 beyond doubt, implies everything which belongs 
 to the glory of Christ considered as a man, 
 and to the dominion over the entire universe, 
 over the human race, and especially over the 
 church and its members, which belongs to him 
 as a king. Vide s. 98. This is the reward 
 which he receives from the Father ; he takes 
 this place, as a man, for the first time, imme- 
 diately after his ascension to heaven, 1 Peter, 
 iii. 22; Mark, xvi. 19; Acts, ii. 32, seq. &c. 
 W T ith this his reign in heaven commences. 
 Paul himself explains the phrase by jSatftteiW, 
 1 Cor. xv. 25, and opposes foitovpyilv (which 
 is applied to angels, vide Heb. i. 3, 4) to xa$%iv 
 tx of^tMv tov, Heb. i. 13, 14. One of the most 
 decisive texts is Ephes. i. 20 22, " God raised 
 him from the dead, and set him at his own right 
 hand," ver. 20. The exaltation and dominion 
 of Jesus, which extends over everything in all 
 the universe, is described ver. 21 ; and finally 
 his reign over the church is particularly men- 
 tioned, xa,i ainfbv touxe x<pa&r}v trti rtdvta. (su- 
 preme ruler) ry BxxhrjGM, ver. 22. Cf. 1 Pet. 
 iii. 22. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
 
 SECTION C. 
 
 OF THE HIGHER NATURE IN CHRIST, AND HOW IT 
 IS PROVED. 
 
 WE have before shewn (s. 93) that Christ was 
 a true man, both as to soul and body; but have 
 
356 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 now to shew that, according 1 to the representa- 
 tion of the New Testament, he was not a mere 
 man, but that he possessed at the same time 
 such exalted perfections as cannot be ascribed 
 to any mere man, or, indeed, to any created be- 
 ing ; or, to speak in the language of the schools, 
 that he possessed a divine nature. Caution is 
 necessary in the selection of the texts by which 
 this doctrine is proved. 
 
 (1) This doctrine cannot be proved, 
 
 (a) By every text in which Christ is called 
 Ttoj iov, for this is frequently a name by which 
 his work and office, and not his nature, are de- 
 noted. There are passages, however, in which 
 Tl6$ sot) and ^ovoytp^j clearly indicate the 
 higher nature of Christ. Vide s. 73, 6, b. Such 
 texts only must be chosen as are determined by 
 the context and predicates to have this reference 
 e. g., John, v. 10; and the appellation, /iovo- 
 yEVTJf, John, i. ; also the texts in which Christ 
 calls God his Father, in a sense in which this 
 name is never used by any created being; those, 
 too, in which he ascribes attributes to himself, 
 as Son, which never were or could be predicated 
 of a mortal or created spirit ; the texts, e. g., in 
 which he says that he works in common with 
 his Father. It deserves, however, to be re- 
 marked, that many theologians ever since the 
 earliest ages have considered the appellation 
 Son of God, as denoting simply the divine nature 
 of Christ. These remarks apply equally to the 
 appellation Aoyoj, in itse/f considered. 
 
 (6) By those expressions, when taken by 
 themselves, which ascribe to Christ resemblance 
 to God in some high degree e. g., slxwv fov 
 dopai'ov, Col. i. 15, and artavyaapa Sdf^j and 
 rtoffr'acffcoj a/ufov, Heb. i. 3. 'Artav- 
 66|>7J signifies th, radiance of the divine 
 splendour or majesty ; ^apaxr^p vrtoatdatcos 
 avtov a visible image (imago expressa) of the 
 divine substance. The sense, then, of these re- 
 presentations is this, "The Son is he through 
 whom God hath clearly revealed, or visibly 
 made known himself to men." So Paul him- 
 self explains it, 2 Cor. iv. 4, " As God, at the 
 creation, gave light to the obscure earth, so 
 Christ by his religion gave light to men, and 
 led them to a clear knowledge of God." Vide 
 John, i. 14, coll. ver. 18. But other expressions 
 in the passages just cited, clearly ascribing di- 
 vine attributes to Christ, are proof of this doc- 
 trine, as may be seen below. 
 
 (c) Nor is this doctrine proved by those pas- 
 sages which treat of Christ's state of exaltation, 
 and of the eminent privileges which were con- 
 ferred upon him as a man, when he entered upon 
 that condition e. g., a large portion of the pas- 
 sages, Phil, ii., and Heb. i. 6, seq., which are 
 often improperly adduced as proof-texts of his 
 divine nature. 
 
 One great evil of an incautious selection of 
 
 , 
 
 proof-texts is this, that when one particular pas- 
 sage is found not to prove the point for which 
 it was adduced, the conclusion is readily made 
 that the whole doctrine is incapable of scriptural 
 support. 
 
 (2) This doctrine may be proved, 
 
 (a) By the texts in which Christ is described 
 as far exalted over all the creatures of God, over 
 men, angels, and everything in the universe 
 besides God himself, and indeed as the creator 
 and preserver of all things. Such texts are Col. 
 i. 15, 16, and others already explained, s. 38. 
 The proof in point is not derived so much from 
 the term, sixuv sov, as from what is there pre- 
 dicated of Christ. UpcoT'oT'oxo^ lio.^ x-tlatus, 
 does not mean, the greatest or first of all crea- 
 tures; for we find immediately after, that he 
 himself created all things ,- and we must there- 
 fore conclude that he is not the first of all crea- 
 tures, since he is himself the Creator, npcor'o- 
 roxoj must be rendered either king, ruler, Heb. 
 i. 6, and Rev. iii. 14, where we read dp^ (i. e., 
 ap#cov) xtiGfu$ eov ; or, he who existed prior to 
 all creatures, in which sense the Jews called 
 God primogenitum mundi. 
 
 (6) By the texts in which attributes are as- 
 cribed to Christ which can be predicated of no 
 mortal, and which are never ascribed to angels, 
 or to the prophets, or other inspired teachers 
 whom God has employed for the accomplish- 
 ment of his purposes upon the earth. Such 
 texts are found most frequently in John. Among 
 them are those which contain the phrase so often 
 occurring, " he descended from heaven," John, 
 iii. 31 ; vi. 31, seq., ver. 62; viii. 23; xiii. 3; 
 xvi. 28. This phrase denotes superhuman, hea- 
 venly, or, divine origin and nature,- and is 
 spoken of manna, John, vi. 31 ; and ofwisdorn, 
 James, i. 17; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 47. This language 
 is never used with respect to any mere prophet 
 or inspired teacher. Even John, whose bap- 
 tism was l| ovpavov (of divine origin), distin- 
 guishes himself from Christ, who came from 
 heaven, (John, iii. 31 ;) and speaking of Christ's 
 return to heaven, he says, " he returned thither 
 oTtov >j'v tfo Ttpoffpov, John, vi. 62, and xvii. The 
 text is so clear, that Socinus and others, who 
 denied the superhuman nature of Christ, invent- 
 ed a rapture of Christ into the heavens, (raptum 
 in coelum ;) or considered the text as referring 
 to the pre-existence of the human soul; although 
 not a trace of such an opinion appears in the 
 Bible. 
 
 Here it might indeed be objected, "that 
 Christ is described as an exalted, heavenly spirit, 
 but not as God,- he might still have been created." 
 So the Arians. The objection, however, is not 
 valid ; because, in these passages and elsewhere, 
 he is said to exist before any created things, 
 (i. e., ab aeterno,) John, i. 1, and xvii. Vide 
 s. 37, in prin. Before the creation of the world 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 357 
 
 nothing existed besides God ; so that whatever 
 had existence then was God himself, belonging 
 to his being and his attributes. This is the di- 
 rect and incontrovertible conclusion of John in 
 the passage cited. Indeed, Christ is distinctly 
 affirmed to have enjoyed supreme divine glory 
 in heaven. " Restore to me (by exultation) the 
 glory f;v sl%ov rtpo T'OV T'OV xoapov flvat, rtapa 
 <7oc" i. e., in heaven, (referring to his divine 
 nature,) John, xvii. 5. Such language is never 
 used in respect to any prophet, angel, or any 
 created intelligence. A6|a, in the last case, 
 cannot refer to the office of Christ, or to his do- 
 minion, for he had none "before the creation of 
 the world." Hence he is called by way of 
 eminence, o Ttoj tov, (John, v. 10 ;) 6 povo- 
 ytvr t $, (John, i. 14;) because, among all who 
 are elsewhere called the sons or children of God, 
 he is alone in his kind, and bears this name in 
 an exalted sense, in which no man, no angel, 
 no created being, can appropriate it, John, v. 
 Vide s. 37. 
 
 Christ also frequently alludes in his dis- 
 courses to his divine nature in another way 
 e. g., by the word n/u, John, vii. 29, 34, 36; 
 " before Abraham was, I AM," John, viii. 58. 
 This is the very language in which the immu- 
 table God speak of himself in the present time. 
 So the Jews understood it; and regarded it as 
 blasphemy for Christ to apply it to himself, and 
 on this account began to stone him, ver. 59. 
 For never had a prophet or any created being 
 spoken thus of himself. 
 
 Christ also frequently ascribed the miracles 
 which he wrought to himself. He professed 
 that he worked, or acted, in common with God, 
 John, v. 17; x. 31. This, again, was never 
 said of any of the prophets. In the miracles of 
 which they were the instruments, nothing, in- 
 deed, was done by them, but everything by God. 
 Accordingly, the Jews affirmed that by this 
 claim Christ made himself equal with God, iaov, 
 9, John, v. 18; x. 31, seq. They perceived 
 that he used the term filius Dei in a sense in 
 which no mere man could use it with respect 
 to himself; and that he made himself equal with 
 God, by ascribing to himself what can belong to 
 God only. And Christ does not disapprove, 
 but rather authorizes their conclusion, John, v. 
 and x. 
 
 There are many other expressions in the last 
 discourses of Jesus to his disciples (John, xiii., 
 seq.) which never are used in the Bible, and 
 never can be used, in respect to any created be- 
 ing : as John, xiv. 6 9 ; also ver. 13, 14, where 
 Christ ascribes to himself the hearing of prayer 
 &c. 
 
 These classes of texts prove clearly against 
 Photinus and the Socinians, that the writers of 
 the New Testament did not understand Christ 
 to be a mere man, but that they supposed him 
 
 to possess a higher nature, far exalted above that 
 of men and angels. This the Arians concede. 
 But they affirm that these texts are not sufficient 
 ;o prove his equality with the Father. Even 
 these texts, however, go far towards proving this 
 loint. But it is proved more directly, 
 
 (c) From the third class of texts, which shew 
 that Christ is represented by the writers of the 
 New Testament as partaking of the divine na- 
 ture as fully as the Father, and being as truly 
 God (toroj rtar'pt) as the Father; and from texts 
 n which he is called God. All the necessary 
 considerations respecting these texts are found 
 s. 37, 38. 
 
 SECTION CI. 
 
 OF THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE DEITY AND 
 HUMANITY OF CHRIST, ACCORDING TO WHAT 
 THE BIBLE DIRECTLY TEACHES, AND THE CON- 
 SEQUENCES WHICH MAY BE DEDUCED FROM ITS 
 INSTRUCTIONS. 
 
 I. What the Bible directly teaches respecting the 
 Union of the two Natures in Christ. 
 
 (1) WHEN we compare, without preposses- 
 sion or prejudice, the various passages which 
 treat of Christ, we clearly perceive that two 
 parts, as it were, or two aspects, are distin- 
 guished in the same subject or person. This 
 subject, called Christ, is considered as God, and 
 as man ; divine and human attributes are equally 
 ascribed to him in one and the same context ; 
 as in his own prayer, John, xvii. 5. It was for 
 this reason that, even as early as the third cen- 
 tury, the appellation fav^pcoTtoj, or savSpof, was 
 given him. Vide s. 102. The clearest passages 
 in point are found in John; especially i. 3, coll. 
 ver. 16, which clearly teach, (a) that the same 
 Aoyoj, who created all things, and existed from 
 eternity with the Father, as his Son and confi- 
 dant the same Aoyoj (6) became man, (crapfi 
 and lived among men. Hence the 
 of the fathers. The passage of Paul, 
 Gal. iv. 4, agrees with the one last mentioned ; 
 but, taken by itself, is not so clear. So the text, 
 John, xvi. 28, " He who came down from hea- 
 ven, the same returns again to heaven." The 
 same person who, as man, lived among men, 
 came down from heaven, and existed previously 
 in heaven; John, iii. 13; vi. 62; xvii. 5 ; also, 
 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; John, viii. 40, 57, 58 ; and chap, 
 xiv. 
 
 From these texts it follows, (a) that the 
 Logos, who was from eternity with the Father, 
 is the same person who afterwards appeared 
 upon the earth under the name of Jesus Christ; 
 (6) that this Logos became a real man, (crapi 
 sysWo,) or received a human nature, and not 
 merely assumed an apparent human form. 
 Now, except we deviate arbitrarily from the 
 
358 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 words of the Bible, we can explain these facts 
 only on the supposition that in Christ daily and 
 humanity are distinguished, and yet connected. 
 
 (2) This connexion between the Son of God 
 and the man Jesus commenced when Christ was 
 conceived ; vide s. 93. For the supposition of 
 the Gnostic sects, and of Cerinthus, that the 
 higher nature was united with the man Jesus at 
 some later period, as at his baptism, is wholly 
 unscriptural. John plainly declares, i. 14, that 
 the Aoyoj (the same to whom divine predicates 
 had been ascribed, ver. 1) ffopl eyaWo. From 
 this passage we are compelled to conclude that 
 the divine nature connected itself with the hu- 
 man, when the latter was conceived. Theolo- 
 gians illustrate this by the human soul, which 
 in conception is united with the human body, 
 and thenceforward animates and governs it. In 
 the same way was the divine nature united with 
 the human, thenceforward composing with it 
 one person, Christ; as our soul and body united 
 constitute one individual man, consisting of two 
 very dissimilar natures. 
 
 (3) Sopt must here be taken, in its common 
 scriptural sense, to denote not merely a man, but 
 one infirm like others, only without sin. The 
 theologians of the earliest ages, even of the se- 
 cond century, took occasion from this term to 
 call Christ's becoming man ivadpxa>at>$ and evav- 
 pu>rt>7<ji.j, Lat. incarnatio. In after times they 
 denominated the same event rtpo^^tj, assumtio, 
 the assuming of human nature ; since we must 
 suppose that the superior nature condescended 
 to the human and became united with it, and not 
 the reverse. This mode of speech, although 
 in itself unobjectionable, is not scriptural. For 
 the phrase, ff7tp/*aroj 'Aj3paa/t frtiAa/tjSavstat, 
 Heb. ii. 16, means, that he assisted, took care of 
 the children of Abraham. How could 
 'A3paaju, denote human nature ? ' 
 
 and avtiha+ipdviaSai tivo$ literally mean, to take 
 hold of any one, Acts, xxiii. 19 ; then, to assist, 
 to take care of any one, Sir. iv. 12; Luke, i. 54. 
 
 II. Conclusions from these Scriptural Statements , 
 and a more precise explanation of them. 
 
 The connexion of deity and humanity in Christ 
 was, 
 
 (1) Not of such a nature as that either the 
 deity or humanity was deprived of any essential 
 and peculiar attributes, or in any essential re- 
 spect changed. For, 
 
 (a) The divine nature connot be supposed to 
 have changed. Such a supposition would con- 
 tradict our very first ideas respecting God. It is 
 not therefore just and proper to say, as some of 
 the fathers did, The eternal SON OF GOD (i. e., 
 the Deity) LEFT heaven, SURRENDERED or RE- 
 NOUNCED his glory, and condescended to suffering, 
 indigence, &c., on the earth. Such language is 
 never used in the Bible ; and the idea implied 
 
 by it is inconsistent with the divine glory. But 
 for the Deity to unite itself with frail humanity 
 is no more unsuitable, derogatory, or dishonour- 
 able, than for God to give proofs of his glory in 
 the meanest of his works, to connect himself 
 with them, and in and through them to exert his 
 power and agency. 
 
 (6) Nor could the human nature be altered in 
 any essential respect by this its connexion with 
 the divine; for Christ would then have ceased 
 to be a true man. If one should say therefore 
 that Christ as a man had, from the beginning of 
 his existence, the possession and use of all divine 
 attributes that as a man he was almighty, om- 
 niscient, omnipresent and that, as many theolo- 
 gians suppose, he merely forbore the exercise 
 of these attributes as a man, he would thus, in 
 reality, deify the human nature of Christ. Vide 
 s. 92, III. 2. Besides, the passages of the 
 Bible which speak of the increase of his know- 
 ledge, Luke, ii. 52 of his not knowing, Mark, 
 xiii. 32, &c., clearly teach the contrary. For 
 these representations do not bear the explanation 
 which some have given them, that he merely 
 pretended that he did not know,) simulabat se 
 nescire, as Augustine said,) that he pretended to 
 increase in wisdom, &c. In short, those who 
 form such hypotheses confess with the mouth 
 the true humanity of Christ, while in fact they 
 deny it, and allow to Christ only the veil of a 
 human body and the external appearance of 
 humanity. 
 
 (2) The connexion of the two natures must 
 rather be placed in the two following points 
 viz., (a) in a close and constant connexion of the 
 deity of Christ with his humanity from the com- 
 mencement of his existence ; (6) in a co-opera- 
 tion of the two natures in action, where it was 
 requisite and necessary, and as far as the nature 
 and attributes of each admitted. The scriptural 
 doctrine is this : " the glory (6d|a) which Christ, 
 in his superior nature, had with the Father from 
 eternity (jtpo xatddohr-g *6s ( uoi)), was imparted 
 to his human nature, and shared with it when 
 he became man, so far as this human nature was 
 susceptible of his glory; and was manifested 
 whenever and wherever it was necessary upon 
 earth," John, xvii. 5, 22, 24 ; chap, xiv., coll. 
 Phil. ii. 911. 
 
 By the following remarks something may be 
 done to elucidate this subject, and to render it as 
 intelligible as the limitation of our conceptions 
 will permit. 
 
 (a) The agency of God is not always exhibited 
 with equal clearness in his creatures. His in- 
 fluence at certain times and in certain circum- 
 stances appears more strikingly and visibly than 
 at others. The nature of God, however, remains 
 unchanged, amidst all these changes of things 
 which are extrinsic to himself. He is indeed 
 equally connected and united with all nature, at 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 359 
 
 all times, and under all circumstances, from its 
 first origin. In a similar way must we conceive 
 of the relation of the divine to the human in 
 Christ. In the state of humiliation, the divine in 
 Christ supported his humanity, wherever and 
 whenever there was any necessity for it; espe- 
 cially whenever his Messianic offices required. 
 The divine nature, however, did not impart to 
 the human any attributes of which the latter, 
 especially in its earthly state and condition, was 
 incapable, or of which it did not stand in need. 
 Nor did the divine nature in itself suffer any 
 alteration by the fate of Jesus while he was upon 
 earth, his sufferings, death, &c. But in the 
 state of exaltation the sphere of the agency of 
 Jesus was infinitely ennobled and enlarged. 
 There the influences and the effects of his divi- 
 nity could appear more visibly. There, in hea- 
 ven, he is far more susceptible of its co-opera- 
 tion and support, in the government of the world 
 and of the church, than in his humble life upon 
 the earth, John, xvii. 5, 22, 24. Christ, as a 
 man, could not have been raised to such a de- 
 gree of dignity and glory as to receive supreme 
 dominion over the spiritual and material world, 
 if his nature had not been so united with that 
 of the Lord of the universe, that the boundless 
 perfections of the latter became also the perfec- 
 tions of his nature. The Bible always regards 
 the subject in this point of view ; as John, i., 
 xvii. ; Phil. ii. 9, seq. ; Heb. i. ; Ephes. i. 20, 
 seq. 
 
 (6) Writers who proceed with caution upon 
 this subject describe the manner of the con- 
 nexion of the divine and human natures in 
 Christ rather negatively than positively. Many, 
 however, endeavour to explain the subject by 
 supposing a praesentiam arctiorem, or a peculiar 
 rem praesentisR grodum, and remark that a prse- 
 seniia locclis, or approximation cannot be under- 
 stood. The subject has been frequently illus- 
 trated, ever since the fifth century, by a compa- 
 rison of the union between soul and body, and 
 from this comparison the ideas and phraseology 
 relative to this subject have been derived. Ac- 
 cording to this comparison, the human nature 
 of Christ was the instrument and organ of the 
 divine nature, as the body is the organ of the 
 human soul, with and through which it acts and 
 operates npon things extrinsic to itself. The 
 body could not act without the co-operation of 
 the soul. The soul has a deep concern in every- 
 thing which affects the body, and the reverse. 
 And yet each of the two parts remains, as to its 
 essential nature, unaltered. Vide Ernesti, Progr. 
 Dignitas et veritas incarnationis Opusc. Theol. 
 p. 395, seq. 
 
 This comparison casts some light npon the 
 subject, but is not entirely applicable, and must 
 not be extended too far. In the union of soul 
 and body, the question regards the state and ac- 
 
 tions of a spirit in a body. But in Christ, as a 
 man, his deity does not act upon his body <m/y, 
 (as Apollinaris supposed,) but upon the human 
 body and soul both ; and indeed upon the human 
 body principally through the human soul. Here, 
 then, the question regards the union and co-ope- 
 ration of one spirit with another. 
 
 But here we are destitute of clear conceptions 
 and definite knowledge ; as we know not even 
 how the human soul acts upon the body, and is 
 united with it. And here we see the reason at 
 once, why this subject is so obscure to us in our 
 present condition, and why we are so little able 
 to explain the modus. When we hear of the pre- 
 sence of a spirit, if we avoid considering it as ma- 
 terial, we shall obtain only this definite idea, that 
 the spirit is present with us and acts upon us by 
 thought. So we are present in spirit with an 
 absent person when we think of him. Further 
 than this, we know nothing. Vide s. 23, 1. on 
 the omnipresence of God. 
 
 After these observations, we can form this 
 general conclusion : that the deity of Christ, as 
 deity, is indeed everywhere present i. e., acts 
 in everything; but that it is present with the hu- 
 manity of Jesus in a peculiar manner, in which 
 it is not present with any other man, or any 
 other created being that is, that his divinity 
 acts in and through his humanity, so far as the 
 latter is susceptible of this co-operation, in such 
 a way that this deity and humanity united in 
 Christ must be considered as one person. This , 
 union is represented in a similar manner by 
 Origen, Ilfpt 'Apzwv, 1. 2. This union or con- 
 nexion of the humanity of Jesus with God is 
 not limited and temporary, as in other spirits 
 with whom God is connected, John, v. 26. 
 That here there is something peculiar, which 
 does not take place with respect to others, is 
 shewn by the very peculiar expressions which 
 are used in the Bible with respect to this union, 
 and which are never used with respect to the 
 union of God with his creatures in general. 
 
 (c) These thoughts may afford us some con- 
 ception of the union of the two natures ; but they 
 are very insufficient to render the subject entirely 
 intelligible, or to explain the manner of this 
 nnion in a satisfactory way. Morus gives the 
 right view of this subject, p. 138, s. 10. The- 
 ologians call it, mysterium incarnationis, and 
 the more judicious fathers are unwilling to give 
 any further distinctions respecting the modus 
 (to *wj) than the holy scriptures warrant. But 
 nothing more can be determined with certainty 
 from the New Testament than what has just 
 been remarked. From the limitation of all hu- 
 man conceptions we cannot believe that even 
 the apostles or first Christians understood the 
 subject better than we do. But they did not 
 pretend to insist upon an explanation of things 
 beyond the reach of their senses, and the sphere 
 
360 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 of human knowledge and science. They did not 
 doubt or deny these things because they could 
 not be satisfactorily explained. Cf. 1 Cor. ii., 
 iii. Such was the fact, only after men adopted 
 the oracular decisions of an arbitrary metaphy- 
 sical philosophy, as pronounced first by the Pla- 
 tonists, then by the Aristotelians, and in modern 
 times by other philosophical schools. They now 
 began to insist upon having everything demon- 
 strated ; by a natural consequence they refused 
 to believe anything which could not be demon- 
 strated ; and the direct consequence of this was 
 scepticism. 
 
 The union of soul and body in one person is 
 as inexplicable to philosophy as the union now 
 under consideration. Indeed, if we were mere 
 spirits, and did not know from experience that a 
 spirit, which is immortal, and which belongs en- 
 tirely to the moral and spiritual world, is, as a 
 matter of fact, united with an animal body, which 
 is dust and earth, into one personal /, we should 
 consider it as highly improbable, and indeed con- 
 tradictory ; and our metaphysicians would per- 
 haps make bold to demonstrate a priori its impos- 
 sibility from principles of reason. 
 
 Note. Some have questioned, whether the 
 ideas entertained upon this point might not be 
 illustrated by a comparison of the religious opi- 
 nions of other nations. We find that many na- 
 tions not only worshipped deities who had been 
 men, and had lived upon the earth, but believed 
 that certain deities had assumed bodies, and be- 
 come incarnate. This is true especially of those 
 nations which believed in the transmigration of 
 the soul, and were extravagant in their venera- 
 tion for tine founders of their religions e. g., the 
 Indians, Mongoli, Tartars, Druses, and Persians. 
 But these nations exhibit a rudeness and coarse- 
 ness of conception, and a gross anthropomorph- 
 ism, from which Christ is far removed, and 
 which never appear among the first Christians, 
 nor indeed in the whole age in which they lived. 
 Whatever distinct conceptions they had upon 
 this subject were evidently more refined and 
 suitable to the nature of God than those of 
 other nations. The idea held by the Greeks of 
 an attendant demon or genius, who constantly 
 abode in men, is also entirely different from the 
 Christian view. 
 
 (d) Considering, then, how much there is in 
 this subject which is obscure and inexplicable, 
 we ought neither to prescribe any universal for- 
 mulae respecting all the more minute distinctions 
 of this doctrine, further than they are clearly 
 founded in the scriptures; nor, after the exam- 
 ple of Cyril and Leo the Great in the fifth cen- 
 tury, to condemn those who are unwilling to 
 assent to these human formulae. One particular 
 view may be very important to us, and contri- 
 bute greatly to our satisfaction and conviction ; 
 but we ought not for this reason to force it upon 
 
 all other Christians, or to consider them as less 
 pious and devoted to Christ, because they dif- 
 fer, on some points of this doctrine, from our 
 creed and our phraseology. In fact, the subject 
 lies too much beyond and above our sphere. The 
 opinions of men, therefore, respecting the modus 
 of this truth, and their formulae of this doctrine, 
 will always continue divided and various ; and 
 and the hypotheses of the learned will always 
 be differently modified, according to the differ- 
 ent systems of philosophy and different modes 
 of thinking which may prevail. 
 
 During the first ages of the church nothing 
 was decided upon this subject; the simple doc- 
 trine of the Bible was adopted ; and the more 
 learned Christians were left at liberty, from the 
 second century, to philosophize upon this sub- 
 ject at pleasure. So it continued till the end of 
 the fourth century. The creeds only decided, 
 Jesum esse Dei filium e Maria nntum. Even 
 during the violent controversies which began to 
 rage in the fifth century, many of the more mo- 
 derate concurred with the views just expressed. 
 Melancthon remarked, justly and excellently, 
 in his " Loci Theologici," that it is not worth 
 while to bestow much laborious diligence on the 
 minute, development of this subject; that to 
 know Christ is to know the salvation which he 
 has procured for us ; and not studiously to in- 
 vestigate his nature, and the manner of his in- 
 carnation : " Christum oportet alioquodam modo 
 cognoscamus, quam exhibent scholastici." To 
 scholars, indeed, the historical knowledge of 
 these investigations is useful and necessary. 
 But all these subtile inquiries and distinctions 
 are not proper for the instruction of the common 
 people and of the young. This wise counsel 
 of Melancthon was very much disregarded in 
 the Lutheran church at the very period in which 
 it was given; in the Formula of Concord, the 
 theologians prescribed definite forms of doctrine, 
 upon which the greatest stress was laid. Vide 
 s. 102. 
 
 (e} The instructions of the holy scriptures 
 upon this subject, (I) are intended to shew that 
 this exalted dignity of the person of Christ con- 
 fers a very high value upon all that he taught, 
 performed, and suffered for men ; that we are 
 thus bound, according to his precepts, to believe 
 his whole doctrine and work, and to apply these 
 to our own benefit; and that his doctrines are 
 the doctrines of God, his works the works of 
 God, his guidance and assistance, those of God. 
 Morus gives some fine views to enable religious 
 teachers to present this subject in a truly practi- 
 cal manner, p. 139, seq., s. 12, 13. 
 
 (2) But there is one more principal circum- 
 stance, to which the scriptures often direct the 
 attention, and by which the importance of this 
 doctrine in a practical respect is still more illus- 
 trated. Almost all men feel the necessity of 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 301 
 
 laving a human God It is difficult to love and 
 heartily confide in that immeasurable, invisible, 
 naccessible God, whom we learn from philo- 
 sophy. But Jesus Christ (the Logos become 
 nan) is not merely the immeasurable, the invi- 
 ible, the inaccessible God ; he is a true man 
 f our own race, and we are his brethren. It is 
 herefore easy to love him, and heartily to con- 
 ide in him ; especially considering how much, 
 s a man, he deserves of the human race, by suf- 
 fering and dying for us. Thus our love to him 
 and our dependence upon him rest mostly upon 
 the fact that he is man, and indeed, a man 
 united with God, in such sense as no other man 
 ever was. Vide 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; Heb. ii. 1418 ; 
 iv. 15; (John, xiv. 1 ;) John, v. 27. 
 
 (/) There have been some theologians who 
 have maintained that the interposition of a di- 
 vine person was necessary for the recovery of 
 men ; that men could not have been delivered in 
 any other way. Some have carried this so far 
 as to seem to set limits to the divine freedom, 
 and to force from God, by presumptuous demon- 
 stration, what was merely a free gift. Vide s. 
 88, ad finern. It were enough to shew the 
 suitableness of this means, without attempting to 
 prove its absolute necessity. This plan of God 
 is wise, and fully suited to the wants of men; 
 and therefore God has chosen it. The Bible 
 always labours to exhibit this fact as the great- 
 est proof of the free and unmerited love of God, 
 John, iii. 16. How opposite to this is the at- 
 tempt to demonstrate this truth a priori! So 
 thought Athanasius; and Augustine calls those 
 stultos, who undertake to demonstrate metaphy- 
 sically that God could not have saved men in 
 another way. Still we find this mistaken wish 
 to have every thing demonstrated even among 
 the fathers. Tertullian said, " God must have 
 become man in order to unite God with men and 
 men with God." Anselmus of the eleventh cen- 
 tury argues thus : " Without satisfaction, men 
 could not be saved. To give this satisfaction 
 to God was the duty of men, but the duty was 
 too hard for them. None but God was able to 
 give it. But to him, as the Judge of men, it 
 must be given. Therefore the Son of God must 
 become man, in order, as God-man, to afford this 
 satisfaction to God." Vide s. 114,2. Some 
 theologians, even in modern times, especially 
 from the school of Wolf, have pretended to de- 
 monstrate that this was the only means of res- 
 cuing man, and was absolutely necessary for 
 this purpose. 
 
 Such demonstrations are entirely unsuitable 
 for promiscuous popular instruction. Christ 
 commissioned his disciples not to demonstrate 
 this truth philosophically, but to exhibit it (1 
 Cor. i. iii.); to teach it, from their own con- 
 viction and experience, with plainness and sim- 
 plicity, but still with sincere interest, and then 
 46 
 
 quietly to leave the consequences with God. 
 This was surely very wise; and this is the 
 course which we should pursue. Besides, in 
 this constant vicissitude of philosophical opi- 
 nions and schools, there is this evident disad- 
 vantage, that the truth itself, which is demon- 
 strated by the help of the philosophy of the 
 schools, is either doubted or rejected as soon as 
 the school goes down. 
 
 SECTION CII. 
 
 HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS EXPLANATORY OF THE 
 ORIGIN AND PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 
 ECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM, RESPECTING THE PER- 
 SON AND THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST, UNTIL 
 THE EIGHTH CENTURY. 
 
 I. Earliest Opinions, from the Second to the Fourth 
 Century. 
 
 As early as the third century many points had 
 been established by the catholic councils respect- 
 ing both the divine and human nature of Christ, 
 separately considered, in opposition (a) to those 
 who denied that Christ had a real human body 
 (the Docetae), or (6) to those who either main- 
 tained that he was a mere man, or, allowing his 
 higher nature, yet denied his essential divinity 
 and equality with the Father. From that pe- 
 riod the catholic fathers introduced into their 
 authorized symbols such distinctions and for- 
 mulas as were calculated to oppose the above- 
 named errors. 
 
 But it was not until the fifth century that 
 anything definite was established respecting THE 
 UNION of these two natures in Christ , and on this 
 subject the most various modes of thinking and 
 speaking prevailed, even among the catholic 
 fathers themselves. Those difficult points in 
 this doctrine, respecting which so much contro- 
 versy existed after the fourth century, do not 
 seem to have occasioned much trouble to the 
 earlier Christians, who had not as yet learned 
 to apply the metaphysics of the schools to the 
 doctrines of religion. And it is found to be pre- 
 cisely so with common unlearned Chrislians at 
 the present day, who have not their heads filled 
 with those metaphysical systems, in conformity 
 with which, as their models, others adjust and 
 square all their opinions. Hence it does not 
 appear that any Christian teacher of the first two 
 centuries made any attempt to elucidate the 
 mysteries of this subject, and even the heretics 
 of this period passed them by without taking 
 offence. All which was distinctly conceived 
 of during this early period respecting the manner 
 in which God became man, was simply this, 
 that God, or the divine nature of Christ became 
 visible in a true human body, and assumed real 
 human flesh. Hence the earliest fathers and 
 symbols are satisfied with the term, 
 2H 
 
CHRISTIAN 
 
 362 
 
 without going into further explanations : 
 ttj Ttoj/ fov aapxu&vta. So Justin the Mar- 
 tyr, Irenzeus, Tertullian, (Adv. Prax. c. 2,) and 
 even Origeo, (rttpt 'Apywf.) 
 
 [The general truth of the above statement of 
 our author, that the early fathers supposed that 
 the Logos assumed only a human body, is con- 
 firmed by the testimony of Muenscher, Dogma- 
 tic History (Translation), p. 63 ; of Hahn, Lehr- 
 buch, s. 456; of Neander, Al. Kirchengesch, b. 
 i. Ab. iii. s. 1063. But there is one exception 
 to this statement in the opinions of Justin, which 
 were formed under the influence of the Platonic 
 philosophy. Adopting the threefold division of 
 man into body, soul, and spirit, which was so 
 common with the Platonic fathers, and of which 
 a fuller account has been given in the first vo- 
 lume, (s. 51, 1. 1, note,) he supposed that Christ 
 consisted, like other men, of these three parts, 
 except that, in place of the erring human reason, 
 (Germ. Vtrnunft, in opposition to Perstand, or 
 Gr. jtvtvpa as opposed to 40^17,) which is only 
 a ray of the divine Logos, he had this Logos 
 himself, as the higher controlling principle of 
 his being. In these speculations with regard to 
 the manner of the connexion between the divine 
 and human in Christ, Justin went before the age 
 in which he lived, and furnished the germ of the 
 system which was afterwards further developed 
 by Apollinaris, whose doctrinal predecessor 
 Justin may therefore rightly be considered. Cf. 
 Neander, Allg. Gesch. der chr. Rel. und Kir., 
 b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1063. TR.] 
 
 The systems of religion from which many of 
 the earlier Christians were converted, appear to 
 have contributed something towards enabling 
 them to receive without difficulty the doctrine 
 of the incarnation of the Son of God. They 
 were familiarized from their youth, in the midst 
 of heathenism, with the idea of the visible ap- 
 pearance of the Deity in human forms ; and al- 
 though when they afterwards became Christians, 
 they considered the accounts of the incarnations 
 of the heathen gods as fabulous, still, by having 
 been familiar with such accounts, they were 
 prepared to receive more easily the fact of the 
 incarnation announced in Christianity; they 
 now had a seeming analogy for it. But on this 
 very account, many of them conceived of the in- 
 carnation as a degradation of the Deity. Vide 
 s. 93. The converts from Judaism to Christian- 
 ity had also some analogy for this doctrine in 
 their previous system of belief, which very much 
 facilitated their reception of it, since they were 
 taught by their ancient books, even by those of 
 Moses, to believe in the appearance of angels 
 and of God himself in human form. The stu- 
 dent may find many interesting views, illustrat- 
 ing the relation of the various systems of hea- 
 thenism to Christianity, in SchlegePs "Philos. 
 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 der Geschichte ;" also in Kreutzer's " Symbo- 
 lik." TR.] 
 
 But while, in opposition to the Docetae, the 
 early fathers contended zealously for the real- 
 ity of the human body of Christ; none in either 
 of the contending parties, before the end of the 
 second century, thought it necessary to prove 
 particularly that he had also a true human soul. 
 This was not indeed directly denied, [except 
 by Justin, as just mentioned TR.,] still the 
 necessity of proving its existence was not at 
 that time felt; nor indeed was the essential dis- 
 tinction between the nature of the soul and body 
 at all so obvious at that time, certainly it was 
 not used in common practice, as it has since 
 been. 
 
 [Tertullian was the first who distinctly taught 
 the doctrine of a proper human soul in Christ. 
 In his anthropology he rejected the common 
 division of man into body, soul, and spirit, and 
 admitted only two distinct principles in all ani- 
 mated existences viz., body and soul,- the lat- 
 ter of which, however, in man he supposed en- 
 dowed with higher properties than in the infe- 
 rior orders. He had not therefore the convenient 
 resort of the Platonic theologians, of interposing 
 an animal 4^77 between the Logos and the body 
 in Christ; but must either connect the Logos 
 immediately and without intervention with the 
 body, (which would be to attribute at once to 
 the divine Logos the pain and sorrow, the pro- 
 gress in knowledge, the ignorance, and all the 
 other indications of an imperfect human soul, 
 which appear in the life of Christ;) or he must 
 ascribe to Christ a proper and entire human 
 soul. With this necessity in view, he chose 
 the latter part of the alternative, preferring the 
 mystery and complexity attending the connexion 
 between the divine and human to the absurdities 
 resulting from the former theory, though com- 
 mended by its simplicity to the speculative rea- 
 son. Cf. Neander Geschichte, b. i. Abth. iii. 
 s. 1064. TR.] 
 
 After the third century, Origen first [?] gave 
 importance to this doctrine of the human soul 
 of Christ in his Theology, and brought it dis- 
 tinctly into light, though not on the same grounds 
 by which the doctrine is now supported. [Al- 
 though Origen agreed with Tertullian in main- 
 taining an entire human soul in Christ, his 
 views respecting the mode of union between 
 the two natures, differed widely from those of 
 Tertullian, and took their colouring from his 
 peculiar philosophical system. The union of 
 believers with Christ furnished him with an 
 analogy for the connexion between the Logos 
 and the human nature in Christ. If believers, 
 he argued, are one spirit with their Lord, as Paul 
 affirms, much more must this be true of that 
 soul which the Logos had taken into insepara- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 363 
 
 ble union with himself. As the jtvevfta in be- 
 lievers is the actuating principle from which all 
 their feelings and actions spring, much more is 
 it in Christ, the forerunner of believers, the ac- 
 tuating, controlling, and pervading principle, by 
 which his entire humanity is guided and filled. 
 By urging this analogy he drew upon himself 
 the objection which has often been repeated 
 against the same view, that he made Christ a 
 mere man, distinguished from other believers 
 only by a higher degree of the same participa- 
 tion in the divine nature which they enjoyed. 
 Whether this objection fairly lies against the 
 views of Origen this is not the proper place to 
 inquire. TR,] 
 
 [But the theory respecting the person of 
 Christ advanced by Tertullian, and developed 
 and supported by Origen, was particularly of- 
 fensive to Arius and Eunomius, and to all who 
 contended for the subordination of the Logos to 
 the Father. According to the earlier doctrine 
 of the church, which they adopted, and which 
 connected the Logos immediately with the body 
 of Christ, they had been able to allege all the 
 appearances of limitation and natural imperfec- 
 tion which he exhibited as proofs against the 
 doctrine of the absolute divinity of the Logos, 
 and in favour of their own views of his subordi- 
 nation. But of this argument they were de- 
 prived when a human soul, of which all these 
 imperfections could be predicated, was ascribed 
 to Christ, and his higher nature was allowed in 
 no sense to infringe upon his full and proper 
 humanity. On the theory of Origen, it was no 
 longer possible for them to invalidate the proofs 
 of the absolute divinity of Christ by opposing 
 the numerous evidences of subordination ap- 
 pearing in his life and words, since all these 
 must of course be understood of his humanity, 
 leaving his divine nature, though intimately 
 connected with the human, unimpaired by the 
 limitations of the latter. Hence Arius and his 
 followers strenuously opposed the doctrine of 
 the proper humanity of Christ, and insisted 
 upon the older, indistinct, and undeveloped 
 form of belief, by which the Logos merely ani- 
 mated the body of Christ. Cf. Neander, Ges- 
 chichte, u. s. w., b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 904, ff. 
 TR.] 
 
 [While, on one side, the Arians at this pe- 
 riod infringed upon the human nature of Christ, 
 on the other side, Marcellus and Photinus, of 
 whom we have before spoken, (s. 43,) infringed 
 upon the divine nature and its personal union 
 with the human. Marcellus, inclining, as he 
 did, to Sabellianism, supposed there was a 
 merely outward and temporary operation of the 
 Logos upon Christ, though still, it must be al- 
 lowed, in such a way as to secure the being of 
 God in him. Photinus went further, and giv 
 ing great prominence to the human in Christ, 
 
 made nothing more of the divine in him than the 
 general illuminating influence which he enjoyed 
 in common with the prophets and other ambas- 
 sadors of God, though in a higher degree. This 
 doctrine is properly called Photinianism. TR.] 
 
 [Between these diverging tendencies of opi- 
 nion, Arianism and Photinianism, the catholic 
 fathers (e. g., Gregory of Nazianz, Gregory of 
 Nyssa, and others) endeavoured to reconcile the 
 personal union of two natures in Christ with the 
 completeness of the human nature. We have 
 thus all the elements of that violent controversy 
 respecting the person of Christ which shortly 
 followed. TR.] 
 
 Now, after the middle of. the fourth century, 
 Apollinaris arose, and denied the existence of a 
 human soul in Christ, or at least of the higher 
 power of the soul. Vide s. 93, II. [His theory 
 was in general the same as that of Justin, before 
 mentioned, only more systematically developed. 
 It seems to have resulted in a great measure from 
 the speculative interest which endeavoured to 
 conceive clearly and to explain what had before 
 been indistinct. And it has certainly the ad- 
 vantage in many respects, and especially in 
 point of distinctness and consistency, over the 
 older indefinite belief, and over the Arian theory 
 respecting the person of Christ, with which in 
 general it agreed. It also sprung from the 
 Christian interest to see in Christ the full, im- 
 mediate, undisturbed manifestation of the Deity, 
 which, as it seemed to Apollinaris, could not be 
 on the theory of Origen, where a human soul 
 was made the organ of the divine operations. 
 The controversy against Apollinaris brought 
 distinctly into view the necessity, in order to 
 the purposes of man's redemption, of the entire- 
 ness of the human nature of our Redeemer. 
 TR.] 
 
 After this period, the investigation of this 
 point took a new turn, the first ground of which 
 was laid in the Arian controversies of the same 
 century. The endeavour now became to make 
 everything clear and determinate; and since the 
 metaphysics of the schools were becoming more 
 and more common, the ancient simplicity was 
 thought to be no longer sufficient. 
 
 II. The two opposing systems, having their origin 
 in the Fourth Century, and appearing in con- 
 flict in the Fifth. 
 
 The foundation of both of these was laid by 
 the Arian and Apollinarian controversies. 
 
 (1) Some of the Christians of the East 
 e. g., those of Syria, [and in general the disci- 
 ples of the school at Antioch,] always made the 
 most accurate distinction between the two na- 
 tures in Christ, and in all their discourses used 
 terms which indicated this distinction between 
 the divine and human in his person, in the most 
 definite and discriminating manner. This had 
 
364 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 been before done by some of the earlier teach- 
 ers e. g., Tertullian, (Adv. Prax. c. 27,) still 
 more frequently by Origen, and by some of the 
 earlier councils. But after the middle of the 
 fourth century, when the Apollinarian contro- 
 versies commenced, the orthodox teachers in 
 Syria and the other Oriental provinces became 
 still more accurate in making these distinctions, 
 and especially were more decidedly opposed to 
 every theory which took from the humanity of 
 Christ its peculiar properties. These were the 
 precursors of the Nestorians. 
 
 (2) Others observed no such accuracy, and 
 often employed phraseology which appeared to 
 indicate an entire mixture of the two natures, 
 and a deification of the human nature. This 
 was occasioned by the Arian controversies ; for 
 many, in order to exalt Christ in opposition to 
 the Arians, seemed almost to forget that he was 
 also a true man.* This tendency exhibited it- 
 self more particularly in Egypt and in the 
 Western church, and was carried out into fur- 
 ther development at the end of the fourth and 
 commencement of the fifth century. Those who 
 opposed this tendency were of opinion that by 
 phraseology of the kind which the Alexandrine 
 theologians used the doctrine of Apollinaris was 
 countenanced ; for his followers often used terms 
 like the following viz., God is man, is born, 
 suffered, died, &c. ; Mary is the mother of God, 
 (0^0x05.) But the Alexandrine teachers could 
 plead in their justification the example of many 
 
 * There is reason to doubt the correctness of the 
 reason here assigned by Dr. Knapp for this tendency 
 of the Alexandrine school, (for it was this school 
 which objected to the distinction of natures contend- 
 ed for by the school of Antioch.) The Arians 
 wholly agreed with the followers of Apollinaris, and 
 with the theologians of Alexandria, in objecting to 
 the distinction of natures in Christ, and in contend- 
 ing for their mixture and oneness, and the transfer 
 of the attributes belonging to each. And it is easy 
 to see how this want of distinction should be pro- 
 motive of their belief; since it enabled them to trans- 
 fer to the higher nature of Christ the appearances 
 of limitation in his life, and thus to obtain a proof 
 of the subordination of the Logos, of which they 
 would be deprived were an accurate distinction of 
 natures introduced, and the application to the one 
 of the predicates belonging to the other forbidden. 
 It is a fact deserving of particular notice, that those 
 who have contended most strenuously for the abso- 
 lute divinity of Christ, have been also those who 
 have insisted most upon the rights of his humanity, 
 and for a careful distinction between the predicates 
 of the two natures ; while those who have held that 
 the Logos is the most perfect among all created be- 
 ings, but not God in the proper sense, have equally 
 infringed upon the humanity of Christ, and have 
 always opposed the distinction of natures. It was 
 not, then, in opposition to the Arian, but rather to 
 the Photinian form of doctrine with regard to the 
 person of Christ that the Alexandrine tendency 
 found the occasion for its further development. 
 Ta.1 
 
 \ 
 
 of the older fathers who had used similar phrase- 
 ology. Even Athanasius had spoken of a deifi- 
 cation of the body of Christ after the resurrec- 
 tion. Eusebius of Csesarea, and Gregory of 
 Nyssa, had said that the human nature of Christ 
 was swallowed up by the divine, &c. Some- 
 times even Origen had used similar expressions. 
 These were the precursors of the Monnphysites. 
 In reality, however, these parties were more 
 agreed than they believed themselves to be, or 
 than they seemed to be, judging from their dif- 
 ferent terminologies. Everything was now 
 ready and prepared for the controversy, which 
 finally broke out in the fifth century. 
 
 [Neander, in his Church-History, (b. ii. 
 Abth. iii. s. 946, ff.,) traces back these diverg- 
 ing tendencies to the fundamental difference be- 
 tween the Alexandrine school and that at Anti- 
 och, as to the relation between reason and 
 revelation. The Alexandrine school, in follow- 
 ing its more contemplative and mystical direc- 
 tion of mind, was disposed to assert the unin- 
 telligibleness of the union of the two natures, 
 and to magnify the mystery of this union, and 
 to resist all attempts at definite conception and 
 explanation. The school at Antioch, on the 
 contrary, in conformity with its more free and 
 speculative bias, while it did not assume fully 
 to explain the vrtep x6yoi> of this union of na- 
 tures, still undertook to discover how much in 
 it was xcrta X,oyoj>. TR.] 
 
 III. Theory of Nestorius, and the Controversy 
 relating to it. 
 
 Nestorius, Patriarch at Constantinople, being 
 born and educated in Syria, adopted the Syrian 
 form of doctrine with regard to the person of 
 Christ, and endeavoured to employ terms which 
 would accurately distinguish between his divine 
 and human natures. This, however, had never 
 before been done in Constantinople. After the 
 Arian controversies, the term ^EOT'OXOJ had been 
 used very frequently in application to Mary, the 
 mother of Christ, which was also a favourite 
 term with the followers of Apollinaris in Syria. 
 But when, in the year 428, Nestorius became 
 patriarch at Constantinople, he was much sur- 
 prised by this language. He objected to the 
 term ^OT'OXOJ, on the ground that it could not be 
 said that God was born or died ; and instead of 
 this term he proposed to substitute 'Xpustotoxos. 
 With this the controversy commenced. 
 
 His doctrine, as appears from his homilies, 
 was this : " Christ had two vrtoatdasts, a divine 
 and human, (meaning by vito^a^, as many of 
 the ancients did, natura, ^vcrtj, or as Tertullian 
 himself employed it, substantial and only rfpo- 
 ccortov fAovabixov, one person. These two natures 
 stood in the closest connexion (eri>va<j>ia), which 
 he considered as consisting principally in the 
 agreement of will and action, but were not 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 3G5 
 
 mixed or transformed. Each nature still re- 
 tained its peculiar attributes, as is the case in 
 man, who consists of two vrtoatdaeis, soul and 
 body. All these attributes and actions were 
 predicable of one person, (rtpotfcortov,) but not 
 of both the natures; the inferior were predica- 
 ble only of the human nature ; the superior only 
 of the divine nature. Accordingly, the terms, 
 Deus natus, mortuus est, Mater Dei, f 6j * vcrapxoj, 
 were very unsuitable and unscriptural. These 
 could be properly predicated only of Christ, (the 
 name of the person.)" 
 
 Hereupon Nestorius was openly attacked, at 
 first in Egypt. His chief opponent was Cyril, 
 the patriarch of Alexandria, who maintained his 
 own theory in opposition, and accused Nestorius 
 of dividing Christ into two persons; because 
 $rfli was the word used at Alexandria for what 
 Nestorius called vrtoorratfi?, and rTtocftfacnj for 
 what he called rtpotfwrtov. They disagreed, 
 therefore, more in words than in reality. At 
 length, in the year 431, the followers of Nesto- 
 rius were condemned as heretics by the council 
 at Ephesus. The whole party separated from 
 the catholic church, and continues in the East to 
 the present day. [For a more full account of 
 the doctrines of Nestorius, with the original pas- 
 sages, cf. Gieseler, Lehrb. d. k. Gesch. b. i. s. 
 85, ff. Neander, Gesch. b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 951. 
 As to the separate community of the Nestorians, 
 cf. Neander in his Appendix to the History of 
 this Doctrine, b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 1171. Also 
 Mosheim (Murdock's Trans.), vol. i. p. 431, 
 note. Whether the whole dispute between Nes- 
 torius and Cyril was mere logomachy is a matter 
 of dispute. Tr.] 
 
 IV. The Doctrine of Eutyches, and the Controversy 
 
 respecting it in the Fifth Century. 
 Eutyches, an abbot, and presbyter in cloister 
 at Constantinople, was one of the most zealous 
 opponents of Nestorius. In order to oppose his 
 doctrine more successfully, he affirmed, after the 
 year 448, that Christ had only one nature (,iua 
 fyvois} after his deity and humanity were united. 
 He called this nature, $vcuj stsapx^fievrj, the na- 
 ture made human. In this way he supposed he 
 could express the most intimate connexion be- 
 tween the two natures, which, in his opinion, 
 were too widely separated by Nestorius, so as to 
 make two persons in Christ. He meant, in fact, 
 to say nothing more nor less than that there was 
 only one Christ. The whole obscurity consisted 
 in the word ^votj, which he understood to mean 
 person,- as Athanasius himself did in the fifth 
 century, and also Ephraem the Syrian. This 
 controversy, therefore, like the former, was, in 
 fact, mere logomachy.* Eutyches appealed, and 
 
 * [The doctrine of Eutyches respecting the person 
 of Christ has been more definitely stated by other 
 
 with truth, to Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, 
 and other ancient, and especially Egyptian, 
 teachers, who appeared to abolish the distinction 
 of the two natures. Eutychianism may therefore 
 be truly said to have existed before Eutyches ; 
 to prove which Salig published a treatise at 
 Wolfenbutel, 1724, 4to. 
 
 Hence arose another unhappy division in the 
 church. The patriarch of Constantinople joined 
 with Pope Leo the Great in opposing Eutyches, 
 and accused the latter of reviving the heresy of 
 Apollinaris, and of denying the true humanity 
 of Christ. He protested against this conclusion ; 
 but they would not allow that his words admitted 
 any other sense, and he was too obstinate to alter 
 his terminology. At the Council at Chalcedon in 
 the year 451, his doctrine was condemned as he- 
 retical. Here arose the sect of the Monophy sites, 
 which continues in the East to the present day. 
 
 In order to render the difference between them- 
 selves and the catholics and Nestorians clearly 
 discernible, some of these Monophysites em- 
 ployed paradoxical statements and phrases, like 
 the following : viz., one of the Trinity suffered 
 and was crucified ; the deity of Christ so pene- 
 trated his humanity as to render his body incor- 
 ruptible, (a^op-i'ov.) This, however, was denied 
 by others, because it favoured the Docetse. Some 
 also, even of the Monophysites, believed that 
 the divine nature was omniscient, but not the 
 human nature connected with it, (Mark, xiii, 
 32.) These were called Agnoetae. 
 
 [Note. As Photinianism and Apollinarianism 
 were the opposite extremes of this doctrine in 
 the former period, so now were Nestorianism 
 and Eutychianism. Between these the catholic 
 fathers took a middle course, and condemned, on 
 the one hand, the ewdtysia, of Nestorius, as indi- 
 cating a mere external and moral connexion be- 
 tween the two natures in Christ, and, on the 
 other, the ovy^txJt? or ^ust'a.So^ of Eutyches, as 
 indicating such an entire interpenetration of the 
 two natures as must destroy the peculiarities of 
 each. The catholic doctrine in opposition to 
 these extremes is expressed in the following 
 symbol, established at the Council at Chalcedon, 
 451, under Marcian. 
 
 writers on doctrinal history. The principal peculi- 
 arity of it is placed in this point : while Eutyches 
 admitted that before the incarnation (or, which was 
 doubtless his meaning, according to conception, and 
 not in reality} there were two natures in Christ, yet 
 after this they did not remain distinct, but consti- 
 tuted one nature, not merely by a owa<peia, as Nesto- 
 rius held, but by a real ovyxts or /^ra.tfoA)?, so that 
 his human nature could no longer be said to be con- 
 substantial with that of other men. Briefly, it is 
 Eutychianism to say that Christ is constituted of or 
 from two natures, but does not exist in two natures, 
 (ix tvo Qioeuv, not iv fao </>W<TI.) Cf. Neander, Gesch. 
 b. ii. Ab. iii. s. 1078. Also Murdock's Mosheim, 
 vol. i. p. 433, Note. TR.] 
 
 2H2 
 
366 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 fovvv tfotj ytotj rtafporn', sva xac 
 fov av-gbv (tytoX,oytv vlbv "fbv xvpt<ov rjpuv 'IqGovv 
 "Xpwtbv (3v l u.<|)u)i'Wj artavti $ ex8(,8daxo/AEv, 7* X i< o v 
 r'oi' avtbv ev Ssbtyti xal tshsiov -tov avtbv 
 EV dv^ptortoT'^T't, ebv dx^wj xat w$fMMM 
 d7,>7^u> few avtbv EX i^v^^^Xoytx^s xat tfto- 
 jua-foj, o/j,oov0iov tfqj rtaf pt xatfd tfijv ^EOT^-TO,, xac 
 o^oovcftoj/ T-OV avtbv r^lv xata tqv dr^pcortot^-r'a, 
 xard rtavfa o^totov ^jiuv #wptj d/tapr'taj' rtpo cucoi/cov 
 /tEv ex tfov Tta^poj ywwjdlnMl xatfd r 1 
 
 T'WV j^ufpwv T'OV avT'oi', 6t" s^itd 
 
 6td z'Jjv qps'tepafV tfcoT^ptav, EX Maptas T'T)? rtap^f 
 
 xar t 
 
 , vlbv, xvpioi/, 
 
 , sva xa 
 sx Svo 
 
 8vo 
 
 cop ctf r 1 co 
 
 vov ovSa^tou T 1 ^ T'WV $t>ffcov 
 s 
 
 f'v rt p o <?co 7t o v, xat 
 ovx tj 6vo rfpd- 
 ', aM," cva xat T'OV 
 
 ar-r'ov vtoj/ xat (jLOVoysvy, gtsv T^oyor, xvpiw ' 
 XptcfT'ov xa^drtp dvco^fv ol Ttpo^^r'at Ttspt 
 xat avtfoj ^dj o xvptoj 'l^ffovj Xptcf-foj E 
 xat 1*6 -fuiv Ttcvr'fpcoi/ ^|tttv TtapaSfScoxs 
 
 There can be no reasonable doubt which of 
 the two readings, EX Svo $vtfcoi>, or sv 8vo (j>v<jfcft, 
 ought to be preferred. The whole force of the 
 symbol, as far as it is directed against Euty- 
 chianism, lies in the latter reading, since Euty- 
 ches would allow that Christ was constituted 
 x 8vo $>vffcov. The reading tV 8vo fyvasat, is sup- 
 ported by good authority, probably from the 
 whole course of events at the Council of Chal- 
 cedon, and more consistent than the other with 
 the context, as the word yvcopt^o^fvov is of diffi- 
 cult construction with EX, and, on the contrary, 
 reads naturally with sv. Cf. Neander, b. ii. 
 Abth. iii. s. 1110. TR.] 
 
 V. The Theory and Sect of the Monothelttes. 
 
 This sect arose in the seventh century, from 
 the attempt of some, who were rather inclined 
 to the side of the Monophysites, to unite the 
 Nestorians and Monophysites with the catholic 
 church. They persuaded the emperor Heraclius 
 to enact, that Christ, after the union of his two 
 natures, had only one will and one action of the 
 will. To this it was thought all parties might 
 assent, and thus become united. At first, many 
 were inclined to adopt this opinion, and among 
 others, the patriarchs at Constantinople and 
 Rome. But a number of councils were held 
 upon the subject, and the catholics at last came 
 to the conclusion that this opinion would intro- 
 duce only a different form of the doctrine of 
 Eutyches. They therefore maintained a twofold 
 will in Christ i. e., one for his divine, and one 
 for his human nature; but at the same time that 
 these were never opposed and always agreed. 
 The other party maintained that there was but 
 
 one will ; since the human will of Christ did not 
 act separately, but was subject to the divine will, 
 and governed by it. Both parties were Tight in 
 opinion, and only misunderstood each other. 
 The latter, however, was outvoted, and at the 
 third Council at Constantinople, in the year G80, 
 was condemned as heretical ; and thus the sect 
 of the Monothelites arose in the East. [Cf. 
 Hahn, s. 464. Gieseler, s. 162.] 
 
 Note. Another controverted point was the 
 relation of Christ to the Father, in the union of 
 his two natures. The ancient fathers had com- 
 monly used the appellation Son of God, as a name 
 of the divine nature of Christ, and not as a name 
 of his person and office. They found some texts 
 of scripture, however, in which the human nature 
 of Christ is also plainly designated by this name ; 
 as Luke, i. 35. In order to relieve themselves 
 from this difficulty, without relinquishing their 
 position, they said, " Christ, as God, was the 
 natural Son of God, (i. e., he was, in a literal 
 sense, eternally generated by the Father, he re- 
 ceived his deity communicated to him from eter- 
 nity, Ps. ii.,) but as man he was the Son of 
 God by adoption i. e., by the communication 
 of the divine nature at the time of his concep- 
 tion, he was raised as a man to this dignity. 
 And in this there is no heresy. But as these 
 terms and representations respecting adoption 
 were frequently employed by the Nestorians, 
 they were gradually omitted by the catholics. 
 This doctrine was, however, revived in Spain in 
 the eighth century, 783, et seq., by Felix, Bi- 
 shop of Urgel (Urgelitanus), and was approved 
 by many in the West. Others regarded it as a 
 revival of Nestorianism ; councils were held 
 upon the subject in Italy and Germany ; and at 
 length the opinion of the Adoptionists was con- 
 demned as heretical. 
 
 Respecting all these controversies, vide. 
 Walch, Ketzergeschichte. 
 
 These unhappy dissensions should serve as a 
 warning to every Christian who loves peace, not 
 to take upon himself to define and decide respect- 
 ing subjects which the holy scriptures have left 
 undecided; as Morus truly observes, p. 138, s. 
 10, coll. s. 101. 
 
 SECTION CIII. 
 
 HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS CONTINUED ; THE AN- 
 CIENT ECCLESIASTICAL TERMINOLOGY RESPECT- 
 ING THIS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED. 
 
 I. Terminology of the Fathers. 
 
 THE ecclesiastical terminology on this subject 
 came gradually into use, and originated partly 
 before the controversies of the fifth century, 
 partly at the time of these controversies, and in 
 consequence of them. Many ancient terms were 
 differently defined and understood after that 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 367 
 
 period. This indefmiteness of phraseology, and 
 the various use of terms, were the principal occa- 
 sion of these controversies. The terms em ployed 
 ought, first of all, to have been explained and 
 understood. 
 
 (1) Some ANCIENT general terms respecting the 
 person of Christ, and the relations and actions of 
 his deity and humanity. 
 
 (a) The ancient fathers were in the habit of 
 calling the mutual relation of the deity and hu- 
 manity united in Christ, oixovoplo,, which signi- 
 fies arrangement, institution, regulation; also, 
 the fashion and manner in which anything is 
 done or arranged. So it is used by Polybius, 
 and Cicero, in his letters to Atticus, and by 
 Paul, Ephes. i. 10. In the same way, Tertul- 
 lian (Adv. Prax. 2) used the word ceconomia, 
 and rendered it dispensatio. 
 
 (V) They endeavoured to find some term 
 which should appropriately designate the whole 
 person of Christ, as composed of deity and hu- 
 manity. As the New Testament contains no sin- 
 gle word of this kind, they at last decided upon 
 the word &avSpo$ or ^ecij&pwrtoj, God-man; as 
 Tertullian had been accustomed to say, Deus et 
 homo, and Origen tb$ xai ai^pwTtoj. 
 
 (c) They called the power which the deity 
 and humanity of Christ had of working in com- 
 mon, fvtpyFia ^-sowSptxTj, vis, sive operatio deovi- 
 rilis. This phrase first occurs in the Pseudo- 
 Dionysius Areopagitus, Epist. 4. Theologians, 
 therefore, afterwards called the particular actions 
 of Christ, as God and man, or his mediatorial 
 works, operationes deoviriles ; also, ajto-fs^afiata. 
 Vide s. 105. 
 
 (2) Various terms were originally used to de- 
 note the two subjects (rtpdypa-ta, res, as Cyril 
 of Alexandria calls them) connected in Christ. 
 In the Latin church the oldest term was substan- 
 .tia. So Tertullian, "substantiae duse, CARO et 
 SPIRITUS," Adv. Prax. 27. They had previous- 
 ly been contented with the simple formula : 
 " Christum esse Deum et hominem verum." 
 The word substantia was still used in this sense 
 by the Latin church in the fourth century, and 
 sometimes evep by Leo the Great in the fifth 
 century. It signified, as they used it, ens sin- 
 gulare, or individuum. It was, however, re- 
 garded as ambiguous, since it also signified ex- 
 istence itself and that which really is. The word 
 natura was gradually found to be more appro- 
 priate and definite. It had been early used by 
 Ambrosius ; but after the Council at Chalcedon, 
 in the fifth century, it became, by means of Leo 
 the Great, the usual and characteristic term of 
 the catholic fathers. 
 
 In the Greek church, also, many terms were 
 originally in use. (a) 'TTtoataai?. This word 
 answers exactly to the Latin substantia. It was 
 used by Nestorius, and before him by many 
 whose orthodoxy was never doubted. (6) <i>v<jij. 
 
 This word was used at the same time in Egypt, 
 and was one cause of the controversy between 
 Cyril and Nestorius. Vide s. 102, iii. (c) Ovcaa. 
 This Word was early in frequent use ; but through 
 the efforts of Cyril and the Roman bishop, in the 
 fifth century, the word $v<si$ became current as 
 orthodox. 
 
 (3) The terms used to denote the whole Christ, 
 as consisting of two natures. 
 
 The Latin church used the word persona for 
 this purpose ; and this, being very definite and 
 unambiguous, has been retained. Respecting 
 its definition, &c., vide s. 104. But the Greek 
 church had a great variety of terms to express 
 the same thing, which occasioned the greatest 
 confusion. 
 
 (a) npootorfov. This word was, in fact, the 
 least ambiguous, and answered exactly to the 
 Latin persona, (a suppositum intelligent, which 
 has its own proper subsistence.) In many 
 churches this was originally the most common 
 word. It was so even among the Syrians, who 
 derived their word parsopa from it. Accordingly, 
 Nestorius said, rtpoauttov sv xai Svo vrtoo- 
 (natures) lv Xptaty. But the word 
 was uncommon in Constantinople, Egypt, and 
 elsewhere. In these places they used instead 
 the word 
 
 (6) 'Trtoat aoftj. Among the Greeks this word 
 means the actual existence (vrtopfjis) of a thing, 
 the existing thing ; also, an individual. It was 
 therefore a far more ambiguous word than the 
 other. Cyril used it to denote the whole Christ; 
 but Nestorius, his separate natures. Vide s. 102, 
 III. Cyril and the Roman bishop said : d? 
 ta I'Ttotf-ratftj, 8vo fyv 3 e i$ tv Xpttf- 
 This party prevailed, and introduced vitoa- 
 tfacus as the common word by which the orthodox 
 were distinguished. Even they, however, some- 
 times still used the word rtpocwtoj/. The word 
 may also have been regarded as more 
 scriptural, from Hebrews, i. 2, ^apaxr'jjp vnovtd- 
 fffco$; but here the person is not the subject of 
 discourse. Vide s. 100. The Nestorians still 
 adhered to their rtpoatojtov and parsopa. 
 
 (c) &vai$. This word was applied to the per- 
 son of Christ by many teachers of the fourth 
 century, long before Eutyches. Athanasius and 
 Ephraem the Syrian had affirmed, without being 
 pronounced heretics, that there was jwt'a <j>v<n$ 
 in Christ. Eutyches, then, in the fifth century, 
 thought that this word, already authorized by 
 the catholic fathers, was the best adapted to 
 express the most intimate connexion between 
 the deity and humanity, in opposition to Nesto- 
 rius. Vide s. 102, iv. His opponents, how- 
 ever, understood the word differently, and so 
 made heresy out of it. 
 
 (4) The words, comparisons, and established 
 distinctions employed to illustrate the manner of 
 the union of the two natures. 
 
3G8 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 (a) The most ancient words used by the 
 fathers to denote the union of the two natures 
 convey the idea of a mixture of these natures. 
 Among others was the word <n>yxpa<ji$, commixtio, 
 and misceri, which is used by Tertullian (adv. 
 Prax.) and by Cyprian, and even in the fourth 
 and fifth centuries by Gregory of Nyssa and 
 Ephraem the Syrian. This word occasionally 
 escaped even from Leo the Great, the zealous 
 opponent of Eutyches. Of the same kind were 
 the words which frequently occur in the writings 
 of the Grecian, and more especially the Egyp- 
 tian, teachers of the third and fourth centuries 
 viz., ^u.T'a / 8o?ijj, jU-ET'aTtotjjKjtj, jitsra/idp^coffts. But 
 the word awdfyfia was preferred by Nestorius 
 and some others. But for this very reason it 
 was rarely employed by his opponents. The 
 other words uvyxpa^tj, x. *. A,., which denote a 
 mixture of natures, were rejected at the Council 
 at Chalcedon, because they were used by Euty- 
 ches, and the word f'nocrts, unio, was there esta- 
 blished in their place. 
 
 (6) The illustrations of the manner of this 
 union employed by the ancients. 
 
 (a) Comparisons and images. Some of these 
 are very gross, and exhibit very imperfect con- 
 ceptions. Tertullian said, (Adv. Prax. 27,) 
 "The deity and humanity in Christ were mix- 
 tara qusedam.) ut eledrum ex auro et argento" 
 Origen and Basilius the Great compared this 
 union to iron heated in the fire, (penetrated 
 through and through by the fire ;) Ephraem the 
 Syrian, to a compounded medicine ; Origen, in 
 another passage, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 
 to the marriage connexion (two, one flesh} a 
 comparison of a more moral cast ; Cyril of Alex- 
 andria and Leo the Great, to the union of soul 
 and body, which comparison they particularly 
 advocated. 
 
 (j3) Many new terminologies were invented 
 after the controversies commenced, in order to 
 distinguish one sect from another, and to obviate 
 various unscriptural representations. Thus, the 
 natures in Christ were said to be connected 
 d^copwfwj, dSwupET'cof, and dStaXu-rcof i. e., in- 
 dissolubly and permanently, and not merely for 
 a season; for the Gnostics taught that the Mon 
 Christ was separated from the man Jesus at the 
 time of the death of the latter; and Marcellus 
 taught that the Logos would at some future time 
 return to the Father. In opposition to these 
 and similar errors, the above determinations 
 were therefore adopted by the Council at Chal- 
 cedon. Thus, too, in opposition to Eutyches, 
 this union was said to be dtfvy^-r'cdj, (such that 
 a third nature had not arisen from the union of 
 the two natures, as when material things are min- 
 gled ;) each nature existed by itself, unaltered in 
 its kind, afpfrtrcoj. Christ, it was said, should 
 be one, sv rtpoffwrtov, pia, vrtoataais ^ai^pwrtou. 
 This svu><ji$ was said to be ovtftwS^s, (not appa- 
 
 rent, but real ;) vrtoatatLxr;, (such that the tw 
 natures remained unchanged as to their kinc 
 although they were essentially united a ten 
 used by Cyril ;) vjtsp^wstx^ (supernatural,) &( 
 After the eleventh and twelfth centuries, th< 
 schoolmen of the West adopted these termino- 
 logies into their systems. The orthodox Greeks 
 also constantly preserved them, in opposition to 
 the Monophvsites, Nestorians, and other here- 
 tics. 
 
 II. Later Distinctions. 
 
 Daring the sixteenth century, after the death 
 of Luther and Melancthon, not only were the 
 old subtilties in the doctrine respecting the na- 
 ture and person of Christ revived by many Lu- 
 theran theologians, but many new ones were in- 
 troduced. The occasion of this was, the contro- 
 versy respecting the Lord's Supper between tho 
 zealous adherents of Luther and the Reformed 
 theologians. The Reformed doctrine was at that 
 time approved by many Lutheran theologians. 
 The opposing party, therefore, and especially 
 James Andrea, Chancellor at Tubingen, and 
 Mart. Chemnitz, endeavoured, by new distinc- 
 tions in the doctrine respecting the person of 
 Christ, to draw the line of distinction between 
 the two systems as finely as possible. Eccle- 
 siastical authority was given to these distinc- 
 tions by the "Form of Concord." Such sub- 
 tilties as these do not appear in the " Loci Tne- 
 ologici" of Melancthon. On this subject the 
 following particulars should be known viz., 
 
 (1) Luther affirmed the true and substantial 
 presence of the body and blood of Christ in the 
 Lord's Supper. But in the sixteenth century 
 many of his disciples and zealous followers went 
 beyond their teacher in this matter. Some of 
 them advocated in fact, if not in words, a physical 
 presence of the body of Christ. Beza, on the 
 other hand, and other Reformed theologians, 
 shewed, as Zwingli had done before, that this 
 could not be supposed ; considering that the 
 human body of Christ is now in heaven, and 
 could not, as a real human body, be present in 
 more than one place at the same time. 
 
 (2) Against these objections the Lutherans 
 maintained, either the actual constant omnipre- 
 sence of the body of Christ, as Andrea appears 
 to have done, or, that it could be present every 
 where (ubique), whenever and wherever he 
 would, and the case required. This was the 
 view of Luther, Chemnitz, Hulsemann, and 
 many others. Hence they were called by their 
 opponents Ubiquitarians, and there was much 
 controversy respecting the omnipresence of the 
 body of Christ. 
 
 (3) In order to render this presence of the 
 body of Christ more intelligible, assistance was 
 sought from the doctrine de communicatione idio- 
 matum intcrna et reali. Here Chemnitz was 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 3G9 
 
 the most active. They proceeded on the ground 
 that the human nature of Christ was united in 
 the most intimate manner with the divine nature, 
 'that it was penetrated, as it were, hy the divine 
 nature, and received all divine attributes by com 
 munication. They invented for this purpose 
 the "genus communicationis idiomatum majes- 
 taticum." At length they displayed this fine 
 web of subtilty and terminology in the " Form 
 i of Concord." 
 
 1(4) Hereupon new dissensions and schisms 
 arose in the Lutheran church in the sixteenth 
 i and seventeenth centuries. For the theologians 
 of Brandenburg rejected the " Form of Concord" 
 altogether, and the theologians of Helmstadt dis- 
 approved and rejected particular doctrines con- 
 tained in it, such as the doctrine of the omni- 
 presence of the human nature of Christ. The 
 controversy which thus arose did great injury 
 i to the Lutheran church. 
 
 SECTION CIV. 
 
 A BRIEF EXHIBITION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL SYS- 
 TEM RESPECTING THE PERSON AND THE TWO 
 NATURES OF CHRIST; AN EXPLANATION OF THE 
 ECCLESIASTICAL PHRASEOLOGY NOW IN USE IN 
 THE DOCTRINE " DE COMMUNICATIONE IDIOMA- 
 TUM ;" AND A CRITICAL JUDGMENT UPON THE 
 SAME. 
 
 FROM s. 102, 103, the gradual origin and in- 
 crease of the learned ecclesiastical distinctions 
 and terminologies is clearly seen. The most 
 important of these only are still retained. How 
 many of them are plainly founded in the holy 
 scriptures may be determined by s. 100, 101. 
 
 I. Established Form of Doctrine respecting the Person 
 of Christ, and the Union of his Two Natures. 
 
 There are two natures in Christ, the divine 
 and human. The Son of God (i. e., the divine 
 nature) united himself so closely and intimately 
 with the human nature, that one person is made 
 from these two united natures. Person, in philo- 
 sophical language, is a rational existence, (beasts 
 then are not persons,) which has its being and 
 subsistence in itself, (subjectum intelligens, vo- 
 lens, libere agens.) Thus Boethius in his book, 
 "de persona et natura," cap. 2. The abstract 
 of person, or the existence of such a being, is 
 called personalitas. This union, therefore, in 
 being personal, (unio personalis,) is distin- 
 guished from the other kinds of union of God 
 with his creatures, and even from that of God 
 (the Father) with the man Jesus; vide s. 101. 
 We may say that the triune God is in some 
 sense united with Jesus. But neither the Fa- 
 ther nor the Holy Spirit have so connected 
 themselves with the human nature of Christ, 
 that we can say that the Father or the Holy 
 Spirit became man. This can be said, on the 
 47 
 
 authority of the Bible, only of the Son of God. 
 The condition which arises from this union is 
 called unio (n/wffij) ; the beginning of this 
 union, or the act of uniting, unitio, which is 
 therefore synonymous with incarnatio, (tvadpxu- 
 tftj.) This personal union is a real, not simply 
 a moral, mystical, or figurative union ; still it is 
 a supernatural union, such that one nature is, as 
 it were, penetrated by the other (permeata ,) al- 
 though the manner, the internal modus, of this 
 is to us inexplicable, and such that the most in- 
 timate connexion subsists between the two in 
 their mutual actions. Theologians call this 
 union of one nature with the other, and their 
 mutual relations, Ttfpt^copjyotj, observing, how- 
 ever, that no mixture (avy^ucas) of the two na- 
 tures takes place, and also that this union is in- 
 separable and indissoluble, (d^QptWcoj.) Other 
 distinctions and terminologies, which had their 
 rise in the controversies relating to this subject, 
 may be seen in s. 103. 
 
 II. Effects of this Personal Union of the Two Natures,- 
 and the Consequences deduced from it. 
 
 (1) The impersonality, avvrto(rta,ai,a, imperso- 
 nalitas, of the man Jesus, or of the human nature 
 of Christ. Theologians maintain that the hu- 
 man nature of Christ does not subsist in itself, 
 but in the person of the Son of God, or that in 
 itself it is aw'toa'tato*;, and that it has tvurtooffa- 
 caav in him. For, if personality is ascribed to 
 the human nature of Christ, he must be con- 
 ceived as composed of two distinct persons. 
 This distinction was directed principally against 
 the opinions ascribed to the Nestorians, and 
 also against the opinions of the Apollinarians, 
 Monotheletae and Agnoetae. If we would form 
 any clear idea from this distinction, we must 
 understand it, not in a physical, but in a moral 
 sense, as Ernesti remarks in his programm "De 
 incarnatione." All that is intended by it is this, 
 that the man Jesus never was a mere man, and 
 never acted from simple human power (<x<|>' av- 
 
 ), in any such way as to be separated from 
 the Son of God, and, as it were, independent of 
 him. And this is the representation of the New 
 Testament. When, therefore, Christ says, /do, 
 / teach, &c., he speaks of the whole Christ, in 
 which the divine is the superior and reigning 
 nature, by which the inferior or human nature is 
 governed and used as an instrument, just as we, 
 when we speak of ourselves, our persons, mean 
 soul and body together. 
 
 Note. In this way, and in this way only, can 
 we explain the fact that Christ should speak of 
 himself in the very same discourse, and indeed 
 in the very same sentence, as man, and again in 
 such terms as the eternal and immutable God 
 alone uses of himself e. g., John, xvii. 5, 
 "Glorify me with the glory which I had with 
 thee before the world was ;" in the same man- 
 
370 
 
 C IT HISTI AN TH EO LO G Y. 
 
 ner as, when we speak of ourselves, we some- 
 times employ terms which are applicable only 
 to a spiritual nature, and, at other times, terms 
 which are applicable only to a corporeal nature; 
 the former in relation to the soul, the latter in 
 relation to the body ; because these two natures 
 are united in us in one person. 
 
 (2) Another consequence deduced from this 
 community of the two natures is, that one nature 
 communicates its own attributes to the oilier, (com- 
 muni care idiomata.} 
 
 (a) If by this statement it is meant that the 
 properties of each of the two natures are regarded 
 as belonging to the whole person, it is unobjec- 
 tionable. For in the very same way we ascribe 
 to man the attributes of soul and body, though 
 exceedingly diverse. Accordingly, the New 
 Testament and the discourses of Christ himself 
 represent that the glory which Christ, as to his 
 divine nature, had with the Father from eternity, 
 belonged also to his human nature, and, so far as 
 this nature was susceptible of this glory, was 
 communicated to it, and became particularly 
 visible from the commencement of his state of 
 exaltation. Vide John, xvii. 5 ; Phil. ii. 9 11. 
 Cf. s. 101. 
 
 (A) There is great objection, however, to the 
 opinion, that all the attributes of one nature are 
 really (interne et realiter} communicated to the 
 other. But the strict Lutheran theologians of the 
 sixteenth century, and especially Chemnitz, were 
 led by their views respecting the Lord's supper 
 to insist strongly upon this opinion. Vide s. 
 103, II. To meet the objections which would 
 be brought against it, they made the following 
 limitations viz., 
 
 (a) Because the Deity is incapable of change, 
 the attributes of the human were not eommu- 
 nicated to the divine nature, but only the attri- 
 butes of the divine to the human. This com- 
 munica'io idiomalum was not, then, mutual or 
 reciprocal. 
 
 (|3) Jill the attributes of the divine nature can- 
 not*be communicated to the human, but only the 
 attributa operativa, (those which imply action 
 and activity,) e. g., omnipotence, goodness, jus- 
 tice, &c. The attributa quiescent ia, (those which 
 imply rest and inaction,) e. g., infinity, eternity, 
 &c., are incommunicable. Vide s. 18, III. 2. 
 
 But this opinion, after all these fine distinc- 
 tions, is not founded in the scriptures, and the 
 texts cited in its behalf do not prove it. Vide 
 infra, de propositionibus idiomafieis. Moreover, 
 it is liable to many objections. 
 
 (x) Nothing more was necessary in order to 
 the action of the human nature of Christ, than 
 for it to be determined and impelled by the di- 
 vine nature in something the same way as the 
 human body is impelled by the soul; in which 
 case each part retains its own attributes, and 
 there is no necessity for the attributes of the 
 
 soul to be communicated to the body. This was 
 the view of many of the most ancient and or- 
 thodox fathers of the church. 
 
 (2) The attributes of the Deity are insepara- 
 ble. Where there is one, there are all. And no 
 conception, certainly no clear conception, can be 
 formed of such a division. The divine nature 
 is altogether incapable of change. And if the 
 human nature were changed in any essential 
 respect, Christ could not continue a true man. 
 
 (j) Christ himself said, that as a man he was 
 unacquainted with many things. He changed 
 his place as a man. He learned, and increased 
 in wisdom. How, then, can I say, that as a 
 man he was omniscient, omnipresent, and all- 
 wise 1 ? 
 
 It is far better to be content with the more 
 simple and more scriptural opinion, that each 
 nature retained its peculiar attributes, and that 
 the human nature was supported, guided, and 
 endowed with strength and wisdom by the di- 
 vine nature, whenever there was occasion. Vide 
 s. 100, 101. And many good Lutheran theolo- 
 gians, even of the sixteenth century, acknow- 
 ledged that this was sufficient. 
 
 (3) Still another consequence deduced from 
 the personal union of the two natures is the 
 communio operationum i. e., all the actions 
 done by either of the two natures must be con- 
 sidered as the actions of the whole person. So 
 Whether Christ acts from the impulse of the di- 
 vine nature, or as man, in either case the whole 
 person acts. In the same way the actions of 
 a man, whether of his soul or his body, are 
 ascribed, without hesitation, to the whole per- 
 son. The most rational and intelligible opinion 
 on this subject, however, is this, that the hu- 
 manity of Christ is the instrument by which his 
 deity acts; though in such a manner that the 
 peculiar attributes and properties of his humani- 
 ty are not set aside. In all those actions, there- 
 fore, where the humanity of Christ had occasion 
 for instruction, support, and guidance, it re- 
 ceived the same from his divinity. Such actions 
 (and all which belong to his mediatorial work 
 are such) are called by theologians, operationts 
 deoviriles. Vide s. 103, I. 1. 
 
 The ancients expressed the same thing by 
 saying that there was one will in Christ, arid 
 that his humanity assented to the will of his di- 
 vinity, and acted according to it. So Nestorius, 
 and even the orthodox of that age. But after 
 the controversy of the catholics with the Mono- 
 theletse, the former advocated two wills in 
 Christ, the latter only one. Vide s. 102, V. 
 
 (4) From the theory of the personal union, 
 and the communication of attributes, various for- 
 mulae and modes of speech have been derived. 
 Only a part of them occur in the scriptures. 
 The rest, which should have been omitted, were 
 occasioned by theological controversies. They 
 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 371 
 
 are called propositions, and are divided into two 
 principal classes. Respecting all the minutiae 
 of this subject, vide Baumgarten, Glaubens- 
 lehre, where they are treated at length. [Of. 
 also Hahn, s. 94, s. 445.] 
 
 I. " Propositiones Personates sive Hypontaticse'* i. 
 e., such as are derived from the notion of the Per- 
 sonal Union itself of the Two Natures in Christ. 
 These are again divided into two classes. 
 
 (1) Propositions in which the peculiar proper- 
 ties of either of the two natures are ascribed to 
 the whole person, or in which the concrete of the 
 person is connected with the concrete of cither of 
 the. two natures e. g., Christ is man, the son of 
 man, the son of David, where the concrete of the 
 person is connected with the concrete of the 
 human nature; or, Christ is God, the only begot- 
 ten Son of God (in the theological sense), where 
 the concrete of the person is connected with the 
 concrete of the divine nature. Such propositions 
 occur in the Bible and occasion no mistake. 
 
 (2) Propositions in which the concrete of one 
 nature is predicated of the other nature (concreta 
 naturarum de se inviccm jiricdicantur) e. g., 
 God is man, ihe man Jesus is God, the son of 
 Mary, or of David, is God. Theologians observe 
 here, that the case is not the same with the ab- 
 stracta naturarum. Thus it would be improper 
 to say, the humanity (of Christ) is the deity (of 
 Christ.) Anciently, in the fourth and fifth cen- 
 turies, such propositions were frequently em- 
 ployed, vide s. 102; but they were objected to 
 by Nestorius. They are indeed capable of a 
 proper explanation, but they easily occasion 
 mistake. Besides, they have no analogy ; as 
 nobody says, animus est corpus, corpus est ani- 
 mus, &c. The texts which are appealed to 
 (Rom. i. 3; Luke, i. 35; Matt. xvi. 13, 16) are 
 not in point. For the appellation, Son of God, 
 in these texts, may be the name of person and 
 of office, and is not necessarily the name of na- 
 ture. In the text, 1 Cor. xv. 47, "the second 
 Adam is the Lord from heaven," xvptoj also is 
 the name of person, and not of nature. 
 
 II. " Propositiones Idiomaticse, sive de Communica- 
 tione Idiomatum ,-" such as denote the Communi- 
 cation of Attributes, (" Idiomata, Proprietates, 
 AJfectiones") These, again, are divided into two 
 principal classes. 
 
 (1) Propositions in which the attributes of one 
 nature are ascribed to the whole person (named 
 from one of the two natures), or in which the 
 subject is either a concrete of person or a con- 
 crete of nature, but ihe predicate is an idioma of 
 the divine or human nature. These are divided 
 into three classes viz., 
 
 (A) Propositions in which the attributes and 
 actions of one nature or the other are ascribed 
 to the whole person; or, where the subject is a 
 
 concrctum personx, but the predicate an idiomu 
 alterutrius naturae. A proposition of this kind 
 is called idiomatica, or, u.vti&oTixr t , (ovf i8ortfn 
 retributio.) This has analogy in its favour 
 e. g., man (the sou/) thinks , -man (tht body^) cats. 
 In this case, both of these actions are predicated 
 of the whole person. Such propositions fre- 
 quently occur in the scriptures e. g., Christ 
 suffered, rose from the dead, wrought miracles by 
 his own poiuer, is mortal, is omnipotent. Thus 
 in John, xvi. 51, " I (the whole person speaks) 
 came from heaven, (the divine nature;") John, 
 x. 12, " I lay down my life (the human nature) 
 for the sheep f" and in many other texts. Vide 
 Morns, p. 143, s. 4. 
 
 (B) Propositions in which the attributes pecu- 
 liar to each nature are predicated of the same, or 
 in which the subject is a concrete of one nature, 
 and the predicate an idioma of the same nature; 
 as when we say, the soul is immortal, the body is 
 mortal. Thus Matt. ii. 1, Jesus was born ; Acts, 
 ii. 22, 23, Jesus was crucified; or, making the 
 subject a concrete of the divine nature, the only 
 begotten Son of God, (if this name is given to the 
 divine nature,) was from the beginning, created 
 the world, is omnipotent, &c. This language is 
 very common in the Bible; and the nature 
 which is the subject of discourse is often ex- 
 pressly mentioned e. g., Christ xata aupxa. 
 Vide Morus, p. 142, s. 1, n. 1. 
 
 (C) Propositions in which the peculiar attri- 
 butes of one nature are predicated of the other. 
 These propositions are divided into two classes, 
 corresponding to the two natures in Christ. 
 
 (a) Propositions in which the attributes of 
 the human nature are predicated of the divine 
 nature, or where the subject is a concretum di- 
 vinx naturae, but the predicate an idioma nature 
 humanse. This is called tStorto/^tft?, because 
 the divine nature appropriates to itself what be- 
 longs to the human nature. The texts cited as 
 examples are the following: viz., Gal. iv. 4, 
 " God sent his Son, born of a woman;" Rom. 
 v. 10, "We are reconciled with God, through 
 the death of his Son ;" Acts, iii. 15, " The prince 
 (auctor) of life was slain;" 1 Cor. ii. 8, "Ye 
 have crucified the Lord of glory ;" but especially 
 Acts, xx. 28, " God bought the church with his 
 blood." But the reading in the last passage is 
 very uncertain. Vide s. 37. And though some 
 of these and other texts may possibly be exam- 
 ples in point, they are not distinctly so. For 
 the appellation Son, Son of God, in these pas- 
 sages, may be the name of the whole person of 
 the God-man (Messiah), and is not necessarily 
 the name of the divine nature. 
 
 (6) Propositions in which the attributes of 
 the divine nature are predicated of the human 
 nature; or in which the subject is a concrete of 
 the human nature, but the predicate an attribute 
 of the divine nature. This is called, XGI, 
 
372 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 j, genus a,v%t}i*,artix6v, sive majcstaticitm, 
 because divine attributes are communicated to 
 the man Jesus e. g., Jesus, or the Son of man, 
 is almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, &c. The 
 most probable texts are John, iii. 13; vi. 62, 
 *' The Son of man will return to heaven, where 
 he was before." But these do not teach that 
 divine attributes are communicated to the human 
 nature of Christ; and, in truth, the phrase Tioj 
 di/^piortov here denotes the whole person, the 
 Messiah, although the appellation is taken from 
 his humanity. The texts, Matt, xxviii. 18, 20, 
 "All power is given to me in heaven and in 
 earth," and " I am with you," &c., (from which 
 the communication of omnipotence and omnipre- 
 sence to the humanity of Christ has been con- 
 cluded,) are irrelevant to this point; for they 
 treat of the state of exaltation, and the whole 
 Christ speaks of himself, and not merely his 
 humanity. For .other texts, vide Morus, p. 
 144, n. 3. 
 
 Note. This whole third class of propositions 
 was disapproved even by many of the ancient 
 fathers, who were of the opinion that it should 
 be entirely discarded, because it has no clear 
 authority from scripture. So Origen and many 
 others. But Cyril and Leo the Great, in the 
 fifth century, advocated these propositions in 
 opposition to Nestorius. And in the seven- 
 teenth century, Chemnitz and the "Form of 
 Concord" brought them again into vogue; and 
 especially the genus propos. auchematicum, on 
 account of their bearing on the doctrine of the 
 Lord's supper, Morus, 1, 1. n. 2. 
 
 They ought to be discarded for the following 
 reasons viz., (1) They have no clear support 
 from scripture ; vide supra. (2) They are con- 
 tradictory to all the analogies to which we can 
 appeal in other cases. Who would say, the 
 soul dies ; the mind eats, digests ; the body 
 thinks, philosophizes ? although, indeed, the 
 concretum naturse, man, is used in such cases. 
 They give rise to propositions which, though 
 capable of a reasonable explanation, are very 
 offensive in their form, and the occasion of ridi- 
 cule from the thoughtless. Such are the fol- 
 lowing: God died, and was buried,- the man 
 Jesus is eternal,- Mary was the mother of God ,- 
 one of the Trinity was crucified, &c. All the 
 otfensiveness of these propositions is removed 
 by using the name of the person, Christ. (3) 
 Such expressions lead the great mass of men 
 into gross and material conceptions of God, and 
 confirm them in such conceptions, which they 
 are always inclined to form. For this reason 
 they were discarded by Nestorius, though even 
 he admitted that they might be explained in 
 such a way as to give a true sense. Cf. Morus, 
 p. 145, n. 2. 
 
 (2) The second class of propositiones idioma- 
 
 ticse, comprises those propositions in which the 
 works belonging to the mediatorial office of 
 Christ are ascribed to the person, named from 
 either of the two natures, or from both united. 
 This class is called genus propositionum drto- 
 Of*.atixov, from arto-r^^ara, effectus sive 
 opus, sc. mediatorium. This is thus described 
 in the language of the schools : " rfpotelesmata, 
 sive actiones ad opus mediatorium pertinentes 
 tribuuntur subjecto, vel ab humana, vel a divina, 
 vel ab utraque natura denominate." This cor- 
 responds with analogy; because these actions 
 were performed through the union of the two 
 natures. Such propositions frequently occur in 
 the scriptures, and are founded upon the com- 
 munio operationum utriusque naturas. Thus I 
 can say, CHRIST raises the dead, redeems and 
 judges men. But I can also say, either that the 
 Son of God, (in the theological sense,) or that 
 Jesus, the Son of man, does the same things; 
 Luke, ix. 56; Gal. iii. 13; 1 John, iii. 8; Heb 
 i. 3 ; vi. 20. 
 
 This genus apotelesmaticum is made very pro- 
 minent in the "Form of Concord," on accoun) 
 of the controversy in the sixteenth century be- 
 tween Osiander and Stancarus, theologians of 
 Konigsberg. Osiander taught that Christ atoned 
 for the sins of men only as God, and not as man. 
 Stancarus, on the other hand, taught that the 
 human nature only, and not the divine, was 
 concerned in the mediatorial work. The other 
 theologians decided justly that both natures 
 were here concerned. These two theologians, 
 indeed, expressed themselves inaptly, but ap- 
 pear not to have been so unscriptural in their 
 opinions as many supposed them to be. Osian- 
 der only designed by his declarations to exhibit, 
 in a clear light, the high worth of the merits of 
 Christ; and Stancarus only wished to obviate 
 the mistake that Christ endured sufferings and 
 death as God. As for the rest, vide Morus, p. 
 146, last note. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE WORK OF CHRIST, AND WHAT HAS BEEN 
 EFFECTED BY IT. 
 
 SECTION CV. 
 
 SCRIPTURAL NAMES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE 
 WORKS OF CHRIST, AND THEIR SALUTARY EF- 
 FECTS J ALSO, THE NAMES OF CHRIST AS THE 
 SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. 
 
 I. General Names of the Works of Christ for the 
 
 good of Men. 
 
 (1) "Epyov is frequently used in the New Tes- 
 tament in the discourses of C hrist himsel f, Joh n, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 373 
 
 / iv. 34 ; xvii. 4. It signifies the business, works, 
 / which he had undertaken. In the passages 
 cited, his business is called cpyov tov rtatpoj, or 
 tfov ii t/A-^avto j ; because it is considered as a 
 commission given him by the Father. It is 
 also called fofofaft mandatum, commission, John, 
 x. 18; xii. 49. 
 
 (2) Many ecclesiastical terms were afterwards 
 adopted in addition to these scriptural terms. 
 Among these is the word munus, which is very 
 appropriate, as it means business, work; and 
 thus answers to Ipyov. The word qfficium was 
 used in the same sense, and became the most 
 common name for the work of Christ in the 
 Latin church. Tertullian says (con. Marc. iii. 
 16), respecting Christ, " Officium prophetae, 
 nuntiantis divinam voluntatem." Hilarius, of 
 Poictiers, in the fourth century, says, " Officium 
 Christi proprium cognitionem Dei afferre," and 
 " Officium Christi prenale." These terms were 
 retained in the protestant church, and officium 
 and offieia were the most common terms with 
 Melaricthon, Chemnitz, and others. But be- 
 cause, in Germany, munus and qfficium were 
 commonly rendered by words which denoted 
 offices, posts of honour, (Germ. Jlmt, Ehrenamt,~) 
 they were so rendered here, and in this way 
 occasion was given to associate several incor- 
 rect ideas with this subject. So they spoke of 
 the mediatorial office of Christ, instead of his 
 mediatorial work ; and of the three offices of 
 Christ, instead of his threefold work, or the 
 three parts of his mediatorial work. On ac- 
 count of this ambiguity of the words officium 
 and munus, Ernesti preferred to say, " De opere 
 Christi salutari." 
 
 II. General Description of the Objects of the Mission 
 of Christ, and of the Benefits flowing to Men 
 through him. 
 
 (1) In some passages the object of his advent 
 to the earth is stated in general terms to be to 
 rescue men from their unhappy condition, and 
 to transfer them into a more happy situation 
 e. g., John, iii. 16, "Those who believe in him 
 shall not be miserable, (p,rj drtoM/uo&cu,,) but 
 shall become happy, (coijv #i>.)" Also, Heb. 
 ix. 15, where drto^vT'pcocrtj means liberalio ab in- 
 fortunio, and jejuypcwyua, possessio beatitatis. 
 Cf. Luke, xix. 10; 1 Tim. i. 15. Christ is 
 said to have come, 1 John, iii. 5, 8, d/*apfiac 
 cupfn/ and hvstv f'pya tov SiajSotou, peccata. The 
 word 0wW which occurs frequently in these 
 passages, like the Hebrew jprin, involves the 
 two ideas of freeing from misery and translat- 
 ing into a happy condition. The same is true 
 of the word ccoT^pta. 
 
 (2) In other passages the benefits which 
 Christ has bestowed, and his desert of the hu- 
 man race, are comprised in a shorter descrip- 
 tion, and only particular parts of his work are 
 
 mentioned e. g., John, i. 17, which treats of 
 the great advantages which Christianity has 
 over the Mosaic doctrine and institute, (j/o^oj.) 
 Christianity bestows the greatest blessings, 
 #a'pij xai ahfasia assurance of the most sincere 
 love of God, or of his free, unmerited grace, and 
 of his truth. John, xiv. 6, " I am the way, the 
 truth, and the life" i. e., I am he through 
 whom you come to God, who qualifies you to 
 enter the abodes of the blessed ; and this my 
 promise is true ; you may safely confide in it ; 
 I am the author and giver of life i. e., of hap- 
 piness. Heb. ii. 14, " By his death he deprived 
 the devil, the author of all injury and wretched- 
 ness, of his power to harm ; he freed us from the 
 fear of death, and procured us the pardon of our 
 sins." The passage, 1 Cor. i. 30, should be 
 cited in this connexion: "Through him God 
 has bestowed upon us true wisdom has esta- 
 blished a dispensation which truly deserves the 
 name of a wise dispensation, (in opposition to 
 the pretended wisdom of men, ver. 21 ;) he is 
 the cause of OUT forgiveness God pardons us 
 on his account; he sanctifies us through him, 
 (after forgiveness has been bestowed ;) to him 
 we owe deliverance from the power, dominion, 
 and punishment of sin." 
 
 III. Scriptural Titles which are given to Christ as 
 the Saviour of the World. 
 
 The names, Messiah, Christ, King, Lord, 
 which denote the elevation and dignity of 
 Christ, have also a reference to the benefits 
 which he bestowed upon us, and to the works 
 which he performed for the good of men. For 
 he is Messiah, King, Lord, for the very purpose 
 of delivering us from misery, and of bestowing 
 blessings upon us. These titles have been con- 
 sidered, s. 89", 98. Their doctrinal meaning, 
 then, as applied to this subject, is Swtfjp, (xoo- 
 pnj,) Saviour, Benefactor of men. The follow- 
 ing titles imply more directly the idea of his 
 being the Benefactor of our race. 
 
 (1) 'Ir;aoi>$. This is indeed the name by 
 which he is more properly distinguished as 
 man ; but at the same time it may have been 
 given to him as a significant name, denoting his 
 future works and destination, according to the 
 custom in giving names, common in the East. 
 Indeed, the New Testament expressly declares 
 that he received this name by divine appoint- 
 ment, on the command of the angel : Stocrft Xa6i> 
 ojviov arto a^uaptfitov, Matt. i. 21 ; Luke, i. 31 ; 
 ii. 21. This name was common among the 
 Jews at the time of Christ, and is the name of 
 the Jewish leader, Joshua, which is accordingly 
 rendered 'Iqaovs by the LXX., and Heb. iv. 8. 
 The Hebrew name j?v^ or pmv is derived from 
 jxS Hiph. ^rm, which answers to o^fiv, (as 
 tfcoT^pta does to re??,) and signifies, according to 
 Hebrew and Greek usage, not merely a del-;- 
 21 
 
374 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 verer, but in general, a benefactor, one who be- 
 stows blessings. 
 
 (2) Swr^p. This word agrees in signification 
 with 'I^oCj, and answers to the old German 
 word, Heilund, (Saviour.) For <j<orjp denotes 
 one who has not only saved a person from ex- 
 tremity and wretchedness, but translated him 
 into a happy condition. Cicero says, (in Verr. 
 ii. 63,) " Is est Soter, qui salutem dedit," and 
 remarks that it is " ita magnum, ut latino uno 
 verbo exprimi non possit. Vide Ernesti, Cl. Cic. 
 in h. v. In this sense the Greeks applied it to 
 their gods e. g., to Jupiter, (so also it is applied 
 to God, Luke, i. 47 ;) also to their rulers e. g., 
 Antiochus, Ptolemy Soter. So Philo names the 
 emperor. The LXX. give this name to Moses 
 and other Jewish leaders. Christ now is called 
 in the New Testament, by way of eminence, 
 2wrjp -rov xoifjiov, the Saviour of the world, the 
 Benefactor of the human race, Luke, ii. 11 ; John 
 iv. 42. So when the word a^fiv is spoken of 
 Christ, it signifies to bless,- and cfco^o^tfj/ot, the 
 blessed, is a name given to pious Christians, 2 
 Cor. ii. 15 ; and tfcor^pta signifies all the bless- 
 edness which Christians receive from Christ, not 
 only in the life which is to come, but in that 
 which now is, 1 Pet. i. 10, seq. 
 
 (3) MfottV^j. This word was used in various 
 senses by the ancients. Among the Greeks it 
 meant conciliator, (a negotiator, or peace-maker 
 between contending parties,) sponsor, arbiter. 
 When this term is applied to Christ in the New 
 Testament, it is taken from Moses, and implies 
 a comparison of Moses with Christ. Moses is 
 called hy Philo (de v. Mos.), and by Paul ; Gal. 
 iii. 19, n<st,tr]S, in the sense of mediator, ambas- 
 sador, negotiator (inter nuntius, interpretes'), as 
 mediator between God and the Israelites ; because 
 lie spoke and acted in the name of the Israelites 
 with God, and in the name of God with the 
 Israelites. The passage, Deut. v. 5, where 
 Moses describes himself as standing ava psaov 
 Kupiou xai TUXOP, affords the origin of this appel- 
 lation. With this the works of Christ were com- 
 pared ; he was called, 1 Timothy, ii. 5, ptaltrj 
 &fov xai aipwrtov, partly inasmuch as he treats 
 with God in the name of men, and does with 
 God everything which is possible for our good ; 
 and partly because he treats with men in the 
 name of God, and, as his ambassador, founds a 
 new institute, and assures to men the compla- 
 cency and favour of God. In this respect he is 
 called, Heb. viii. 6, peai-tys xpsi-rtovos 8ia%rj- 
 xyr ix. 14, xaivqs &t,a&r t xr t s, the founder of a 
 new and more excellent dispensation than the 
 ancient Mosaic dispensation. Cf. xii. 24. 
 
 (4) 'O Tfpoc^T'^, N-OJ, the prophet, an ancient 
 Jewish appellation of the Messiah, since he was 
 conceived to be the greatest of all the messen- 
 gers and teachers sent from God. This term is 
 derived principally from the passage, Deut. 
 
 xviii. 15, which is referred to Jesus by Peter 
 Acts, iii. 22, seq. ; and by Stephen, Acts, vii 
 37. Vide s. 91. 
 
 (5) 'O ttrtosT'ctf.oj. This appellation occurs 
 Heb. v. 1, &rtoatfyo$ tr^ o^uoXoytos r^^v i. e. 
 the messenger, ambassador of God, whom wt 
 (Christians) profess. Christ frequently, espe 
 cially in John, applies to himself the phrase 6; 
 urtttf-mtoi/ o EOJ, John, xvii. 
 
 The various other titles which were given t< 
 Christ, from the particular benefits which hi 
 conferred upon men, including the figurativi 
 names, dpgccpcvft oyii/oj, aprt&os, vpa, will bi 
 noticed in their proper places. 
 
 SECTION CVI. 
 
 WHAT IS CONSIDERED IN THE SCRIPTURES AS PRO 
 PERLY BELONGING TO THE WORK WHICH CHRIS' 
 PERFORMED FOR THE GOOD OF MEN? EXPLANA 
 TION OF THE WORD " REDEMPTION," AS USED I! 
 THE BIBLE ; AND WHAT IS THE MOST CONVE 
 NIENT AND NATURAL ORDER AND CONNEXIOI 
 FOR EXHIBITING THE DOCTRINE OF THE ENTIR] 
 MERITS OF CHRIST. 
 
 I. What belongs to the Work of Christ, or to 
 Redemption. 
 
 (1) THE declaration of his doctrine, and in 
 struction respecting it. To this many of tin 
 titles applied to him refer : as o Ttpo^tjjj, o artoa 
 10^0$, (s. 105,) diSuaxu-hos, x. T. 7.. Kespectinj 
 the discharge of his office as teacher, vide s. 94 
 It needs only to be remarked here, that instruc 
 tion in this divine doctrine is by no means men 
 tioned in the New Testament as the only objec 
 of the advent of Christ ; still it is represented ai 
 a great object, and as an essential part of his worl 
 upon the earth, or of the work of redemption 
 So he himself represents it. In John, xvii. 3, 4 
 he expressly mentions instruction in the trui 
 religion (" that they should acknowledge thei 
 as the true God") as belonging to the tpyo 
 which was given him by the Father to do; ant 
 in John, xviii. 37, he says, that he was bori 
 and had come into the world in order to propa 
 gate the true religion, (UT^HOU-.) He every 
 where taught that he was lawgiver and kin< 
 so far as he was a true, an infallible teacher 
 that he reigned over the minds of men, not bi 
 external power and constraint, (like the king; 
 of the earth,) but by the internal power of tin 
 truth which he preached. Cf. John, iii. 34 
 xii. 49, 50. 
 
 (2) The sufferings and death which he enduret 
 for the good of men. This, too, Christ hirnselt 
 always mentions as an essential part of this, wort 
 e. g., John, iii. 14, seq. In the allegory 
 John, vi. 51, where he compares himself wit! 
 the manna, he means by the bread of heaven the 
 doctrine respecting his person, and especially re- 
 specting the sacrifice of his body for the good 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 375 
 
 'of men, (rrfep w>jj tov x6a/.iov ;) which he incul- 
 cates as a doctrine of the first importance. In 
 John, xii. 27, he says, "For this purpose (to 
 die for the good of men, vide ver. 24) God had 
 brought him into such distress, and therefore he 
 would r.eadily and cheerfully endure it." Cf. 
 John, xiv. 31. The institution of the Lord's 
 Supper was designated to commemorate "his 
 blood shed for the remission of sins;" Matt. 
 xxvi. 28. That Christ died for the good of all 
 men is the universal doctrine of all the apostles; 
 Heb. ii. 9. Paul calls this suffering of Jesus 
 {TtaxoTj; Rom. v. 19, coll. Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 
 8; because he endured it- in obedience to the 
 will of God. He contrasts it with the jtapaxor- 
 of Adam, and says that by it we have obtained 
 forgiveness and the remission of sins. If, then, 
 we would adhere to the declarations of the 
 scriptures, we shall not separate this part from 
 the other ; but consider them both, one as much 
 as the other, as belonging to the work of Christ. 
 
 Many indeed maintain that the annunciation 
 and diffusion of his doctrine was the only object 
 of the life of Christ upon earth, and that his 
 death is to be considered merely as a martyr- 
 dom^ by which he gave an example and pattern 
 of steadfastness and devotion to the will of God, 
 and a confirmation of the truth of his doctrine. 
 But, 
 
 () The assertion that this was the only object 
 of his life is inconsistent with the declarations 
 of scripture. We do not find that the scriptures 
 particularly mention his death as an example of 
 steadfastness; at least, they do not dwell upon 
 this view, or regard it as the principal point. 
 Remission of sins and eternal life are mentioned 
 by Christ himself as the principal object which 
 he had in view, John, iii. 16; Matt. xxvi. 
 
 (6) As to the other assertion, that his doctrine 
 was proved and confirmed by his death, we find 
 not a single passage among all that speak of his 
 death and the object of it which give us to un- 
 derstand that the truth and divinity of his reli- 
 gion was proved and confirmed by this means, 
 although they were so by his resurrection and 
 ascemion. The passage, Heb. ii. 10, cannot be 
 appealed to in proof of this assertion; for Sia 
 rta^rpoituv means, after sufferings and death had 
 been endured, and refers to Christ. Nor can the 
 passage, John, xvii. 19, be appealed to, " I have 
 sanctified (according to some, sacrificed) myself, 
 that they also might be sanctified by the truth." 
 The meaning of this passage is : " I have entirely 
 consecrated (as ver. 17) myself to this service, in 
 order to give them an example which they should 
 follow in the proclamation of the true religion; 
 that they also may deny themselves, take up 
 my cross, renounce all worldly prospects, and 
 live solely for me and my cause." Thus we 
 see that on this subject the opinions of Christ 
 and of the first Christians were entirely differ- 
 
 ent from those above mentioned ; and we ought 
 not to ascribe to those times and writers the 
 ideas which are now current among so many. 
 But, in not considering the death of Christ as 
 designed to confirm the truth of his doctrines, 
 the scriptures are entirely right. And if they 
 had so considered it, they would plainly have 
 been wrong. It is strange that those who ad- 
 vocate this point should have overlooked this. 
 For, 
 
 (c) The steadfast death of a martyr can never 
 prove the troth of the doctrine for which he dios ; 
 for almost all religions can point to their heroic 
 martyrs. His own firm belief of the truth for 
 which he. died is all that can be concluded from 
 the death of a martyr. The religion of Jesus, 
 therefore, would have a very uncertain ground 
 if it rested upon this fact, and depended foi 
 proof upon this argument. Besides, although 
 Jesus died with great firmness and magnani- 
 mity, it is still certain that he did not endure 
 death with that tranquillity and joy which have 
 been admired in so many martyrs of the Chris- 
 tian and the other religions. Consider his 
 agony in Gethsemane, Luke, xxii., and previ- 
 ously, John, xii. 27. If this, then, were all, 
 Jesus has been surpassed by many martyrs. 
 Vide s. 95, II. 
 
 (rf) During the short continuance of his office 
 as teacher, Jesus did not exhibit the whole com- 
 pass of the doctrines of his religion, even to his 
 apostles, because he was with them but a short 
 time, and the truths to be taught were many, and 
 the di?ciples were as yet incapable of receiving 
 most of them; John, xvi. 12. It was not till 
 after his death that these doctrines, in all their 
 extent, were exhibited, developed, and applied 
 by the apostles, and were at the same time in- 
 creased by the addition of many others about 
 which Jesus had said nothing clearly. He de- 
 signed to prepare the ground, and to begin to 
 sow. but they were to enter into the full harvest ; 
 John, iv. If, then, as is frequently said, he de- 
 signed to seal or confirm his doctrine by his 
 death, he could only confirm so much of it as he 
 himself had already taught, leaving us in uncer- 
 tainty respecting the rest, and respecting its 
 whole later development. 
 
 (e) If the writers of the New Testament be- 
 lieved that Jesus lived upon the earth merely for 
 the purpose of teaching^ it is hard to see why 
 they should ascribe such distinguished excel- 
 lences to his person ; and why the Deity should 
 be united with him in a manner in which it never 
 was with any other man, or any other created 
 being. As a mere man, he might have been 
 taught by God, and have preached a doctrine 
 revealed to him by God, and have founded a 
 new religion and religious institutions, as Moses 
 and the prophets did, and afterwards the apos- 
 tles themselves. He himself delivered only the 
 
376 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 smallest part of his doctrines ; nor did he widely 
 disseminate even these. He taught only three 
 years, in a few provinces, within the small cir- 
 cuit of Judea and Galilee ; and he saw but little 
 fruit of his labours. The apostles, on the other 
 hand, li ved through a long course of years, added 
 to the number of the doctrines of the Christian 
 religion, and widened their scope, disseminated 
 them through many countries, and saw the hap- 
 piest results of their labours. In short, they did, 
 as Christ himself predicted, greater things than 
 he himself accomplished ; John, xiv. 12. Were 
 Christ, then, a mere teacher, he must in many 
 respects give place to his apostles, and rank as 
 inferior to them. On this supposition, he would 
 only have the preference of originating, founding, 
 and giving the tone to his religion; while, on 
 the contrary, according to the representations of 
 the apostles, and before them of John the Bap- 
 tist, he had an infinite superiority over them, 
 and over all the teachers who had preceded or 
 would follow them. These had done and could 
 do nothing which could bear any comparison 
 with what he had done for the human race ; for 
 to him alone are men indebted for their entire 
 happiness here and hereafter. Even John the 
 Baptist, whom Christ described as the greatest 
 of all prophets, esteemed himself unworthy to 
 offer him the most menial service; John, i. and 
 iii. 28 36. "Whosoever believes in him has 
 eternal life." Where was this ever said of a 
 prophet or apostle] Where is it said that who- 
 ever believes on Moses or Paul has eternal life? 
 The writers of the New Testament, then, must 
 have supposed, if they do not speak and judge 
 quite inconsistently, that the design of God, in 
 the mission and death of Christ, extended to 
 something more than mere instruction and ex- 
 ample. They must have believed that he was 
 a far more exalted person than any human 
 teacher who preceded or would follow him. 
 
 (/) Where is it said, respecting James, Ste- 
 phen, or any other martyr, that he died for men ? 
 But this would have been said of them if this 
 language had meant nothing more than giving 
 an example and furnishing confirmation to a 
 doctrine. Paul himself protests against this 
 idea, as derogatory to Christ, and abhorrent to 
 the feelings of Christians, 1 Cor. i. 13. 
 
 II. Explanation of the word diro\vrpuvis or 
 
 (Redemption,) and a development of the idea 
 contained in it. 
 
 (1) The primary and literal signification of 
 5u>rpoco is, to redeem by the payment of a ransom 
 of money or something else. For hv-tpov is pre- 
 lium redemptions, and is used by the LXX. to 
 translate the Hebrew noa, Exodus, xxx. 12, 
 seq. Thus it is used, e. g., when speaking of 
 redemption from captivity or slavery, which is 
 effected by the payment of a ransom, or when 
 
 speaking of a person's property which is in th 
 hands of another, and which he then redeem, 
 In this sense tofpow frequently corresponds 1 
 the Hebrew words Sxa and rn2, and jiv* peatus t 
 the substantives derived from them e. g., Lei 
 xxv. 25, 30, 48, 49. But, 
 
 (2) Av-fpovv and Xv^pco^j frequently conve 
 the general idea of any rescue and deliveram 
 from an unhappy situation, as from slavery , c 
 deliverance from any other, even moral evi 
 without either the literal payment of a ranson 
 or anything like it; precisely like rns and SN 
 Slavery and captivity so often befel the Hebrew 
 that they were in the habit of comparing ever 
 species of wretchedness with this severe cab 
 mity. Captivity stood with them for great c< 
 lamity ; as Job, xlii. 10, God freed Job fror 
 captivity when he restored him to health an 
 prosperity. Captured people, Ps. liii. 7, sign 
 fies unhappy people. Every deliverance fror 
 misfortune, even where no ransom, in the liten 
 sense, was paid, was with them jtvi-pwcrij ; th 
 deliverer, tai'pwT'jj's; the means of deliveranct 
 hvtpov, as Morus properly translates it. It i 
 not said merely of deliverance from bodily evi 
 but is transferred to spiritual evil. According 
 ly, the LXX. frequently translate rnp and hx* b 
 cru>W, Job, xxxiii. 28 ; and by jj-wo^at, Is. 1. 2 
 which are then synonymous with hvtpovv. 
 
 (3) The writers of the New Testament follo\ 
 this Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek usage, and era 
 ploy these words to denote any preservation an 
 deliverance, even in cases where no ransom, i 
 the proper sense, is paid e. g., ^f'pa aTtohvtp^ 
 fffwj, Eph. iv. 30 ; iyyt ctTtoXiii'pcotjtj, Luke 
 xxi. 28 ; and artohv-tptdais T'OU #w j tiaT'oj, Rom 
 viii. 23 ; and Moses is called, Acts, vii. 35, th 
 tan'pwT'jyj of the Israelites, although he paid n 
 ransom for them. In this sense is drto^vr'pcorfi 
 applied by Jews and Christians to the Messiah 
 and denotes, when spoken of him, the rescue am 
 deliverance which he has procured for us. 
 
 In all the variety of their opinions respectinj 
 the Messiah and his designs, the Jews differei 
 also in opinion respecting this deliverance whicl 
 they were expecting from him. 
 
 (a) Many Jews, who supposed the Messial 
 would be a temporal ruler, placed this fa&rpwcrt 
 xao-u, principally, at least, in a temporal deliver 
 ance of their nation from its enemies and op 
 pressors. Cf. hv-tpovv 'lapafo spoken of th< 
 Messiah, Luke, xxiv. 21 ; which is expresset 
 by o.itoxa&KS'fdv at jScwi^stctv T'Q 'Itfpa?^, Acts, i. 6 
 
 (6) But those of the Jews who were bette 
 instructed understood this artoTwr'pcofjtj whicl 
 was ascribed to the Messiah in a spiritual am 
 moral sense only. In this sense Christ himseli 
 and his apostles always understood it. Now i 
 was common to conceive of Sin as having c 
 power and dominion which it exercised ovei 
 sinners, (vide s. 85, I.,) and to conceive of the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 377 
 
 author of sin (the deceiver of our first parents) 
 in the same way ; and so. of Death, (the conse- 
 quence and punishment of sin,) which is de- 
 scribed as a tyrant, who has men in his power. 
 One who perishes, or becomes miserable, is his 
 captive and slave. But, according to the repre- 
 sentations of the New Testament, Christ frees us 
 (a) from the power and dominion of sin by means 
 of instruction and counsel received by us in faith. 
 
 x. ?. Jt., John, viii. 32 36. He accomplishes 
 this deliverance by means of his doctrine and 
 example. But (j3) he frees us also from the pu- 
 nishment of sin, or procures us forgiveness, by 
 his death, (atonement.) We cannot experience 
 the good resulting from the first part of this 
 redemption, and have no true capacity for it, 
 before we are made sure of the second. 
 
 This twofold deliverance is expressed by va- 
 rious phrases, which sometimes denote the one 
 kind, sometimes the other, and sometimes the 
 two together. Among these phrases are the fol- 
 lowing: GG&IV drto a/iopi'frwv, Matthew, i. 21 ; 
 xo&ap^fi'V drto d^uapT'taj, John, i. 7, 9, &c. So 
 also hvtpou and Xvfpwcrts are used sometimes to 
 express the one kind of deliverance or the other, 
 and sometimes both together, Heb. ix. 12; 1 
 Pet. i. 18 ; Rom. hi. 24. What is expressed 
 by the phrase hvtpovv drto dSwctaj, Titus, ii. 14, 
 is expressed by tfcwpftv, Gal. i. 4; and Christ 
 himself says he gave his life jivrpov avti Tto/K- 
 ^uv i. e., he died for the delivery and rescue 
 of men, Matt. xx. 28. In the same way, the 
 other words of buying and redeeming are used 
 mostly for every kind of rescue and deliverance, 
 and in this sense are transferred to Christ ; as, 
 ayopd^siv, gfayopa^ftj/, 1 Cor. vii. 23. "The 
 Lord that bought them," 2 Bet. ii. 1 ; Gal. iii. 
 13; Rev. v. 9. 
 
 III. The Order and Connexion in which the parti- 
 cular topics belonging to the Article respecting the 
 Merits of Christ may be most conveniently and 
 naturally treated. 
 
 It is most natural here to have respect to the 
 twofold object of the mission of Christ; (a) to 
 free men from the unhappy condition into which 
 they are brought by sin, "that they may not 
 perish," John, iii. 16; and (6) to procure for 
 them true happiness in the present and the fu- 
 ture world, "that they should have eternal 
 life," John, ubi supra. Hence appears the pro- 
 priety, in the systematic treatment of theology, 
 of separating the doctrine respecting the work 
 (opus) of Christ, from the doctrine respecting 
 the good, or the benefits themselves, which Christ 
 has procured for us by his work, (beneficia 
 Christi.') The first part exhibits the means 
 which God employs to recover the human race 
 through Christ; the second part, the results of 
 what Christ did. This same distinction is made 
 48 
 
 in the holy scriptures in ether places besides 
 John, iii. ; as Rom. v. 9, 10, dvato$ is the opus 
 Chrisli ,- xa.'ta.M.a/yr i is the result, or the blessing 
 which Christ bestows; 2 Tim. i. 10, "through 
 the gospel (opus Christi} he has brought life and 
 immortality to light, (beneficia.y According to 
 the example of the Bible, therefore, the whole 
 subject may be arranged in the following man- 
 ner viz., 
 
 I. Of the work of Christ, or the redemption 
 which he has effected, his mediatorial work, 
 (redemptio.) This comprises, 
 
 (1) Deliverance or redemption from the pu- 
 nishment of sin, which is effected by his death 
 or his blood, together with the doctrine of the 
 justification or forgiveness of men, the fruit of 
 this redemption. S. 108 115, incl. 
 
 (2) Deliverance from the power and dominion 
 of sin, which is effected, through divine assist- 
 ance, by the instruction which Christ gives by 
 his doctrine and example. S. 116, 117. 
 
 Each of these kinds of deliverance belongs 
 equally to this drfoTukpcotfcj, or redemption. Only 
 we must have the forgiveness of our past sins, 
 and assurance of the same, before we can avail 
 ourselves of what is contained in the second 
 part. Hence we have adopted this order. And 
 so the Bible teaches; we are first pardoned, 
 then sanctified. The first is effected by the death 
 of Christ, the second, with divine assistance, y 
 the instructions of Christ, when received and 
 obeyed in faith. 
 
 II. On the result of all these works under- 
 taken for the good of men, or the blessedness to 
 which men attain in this life and the life to 
 come, in consequence of these works, (benefi- 
 cia Christi.) S. 118120, incl. 
 
 But before we enter upon this plan, we must 
 say a few words respecting the method com- 
 monly pursued, especially in former times, in 
 discussing the doctrine of the mediatorial work 
 of Christ ; s. 107. 
 
 SECTION CVII. 
 
 OF THE METHOD FORMERLY ADOPTED OF CONSI- 
 DERING THE WORK OF CHRIST, AS CONSISTING 
 OF THE PROPHETIC, PRIESTLY, AND KINGLY 
 OFFICES. 
 
 IT has been for a long time the custom in the 
 protestant, and especially in the Lutheran 
 church, to consider the mediatorial work of 
 Christ as consisting of three offices, (munera, 
 qfficia, Germ. JEmtern} viz., the prophetic, 
 priestly, and kingly. This method was not 
 universal among the Lutheran theologians, 
 though it was the most general from the se- 
 venteenth century down to the time of Ernesti. 
 In 1768 69 he wrote two Programma, "De 
 officio Christi triplici," which are found in his 
 " Opusc. Theolog.," p. 411, seq., and in which 
 2i2 
 
373 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 he objects to this method, for many reasons. 
 Most of his reasons (for they are not all of 
 equal validity) have so much weight, that 
 Zacharia, Doderlein, and many other protest- 
 ant theologians since his time, have pursued an 
 entirely different method. Seiler, Less, in his 
 "Prakt. Dogmat." and others, adhered to the 
 old method, and endeavoured to defend it. Also 
 Dresde, whose " Obss. in tripartitam divisionem 
 muneris mediatorii;" Vitel. 1778, 4to ; contain 
 many excellent historical remarks. We shall 
 speak first of the origin and history of this me- 
 thod, and then of the reasons why it does not 
 appear to be proper in the systematic treatment 
 of theology. 
 
 I. Origin and History of this Division. 
 
 The title twp, Xpistd?, Unctus, gave rise to 
 this division. In its common use, it properly 
 signifies a king. But it was considered accord- 
 ing to its etymology, and thus new significa- 
 tions were formed. The question was, " Who, 
 in the Old Testament, was anointed, or conse- 
 crated to office, by unction?" This was found 
 to have been the custom most frequently with 
 respect to kings and priests. Accordingly, 
 Arnbrosius, Ruffinus, and other ecclesiastical 
 fathers, declared that rwn denoted the kingly 
 and priestly office. But it was found that pro- 
 pJtcts also were sometimes anointed. And so 
 Clement of Alexandria and others declared that 
 Christ was called rpcto because he was a pro- 
 phet.- Vide Dresde, s. 5. Now when they saw 
 that Christ was actually called king, priest, and 
 prophet in the scriptures, they put these two 
 things together, and declared that the whole 
 mediatorial work of Jesus consisted in these 
 three kinds of works. Eusebius, in the fourth 
 century, in his Church History, and also in his 
 "Demonstratio Evangelica," (iv. 15,) is the 
 first who appears to have distinctly connected 
 these three parts, and to have considered them 
 as belonging to the mediatorial work. 
 
 This division, then, is not so modern as Er- 
 nesti appears to suppose. Indeed, it may have 
 been originally derived by the Christians from 
 the Jews. For the Rabbins and Cabalists as- 
 cribe to the Messiah a threefold dignity (crown) 
 viz., the crown of the law, of the priesthood, 
 and of the kingdom. Vide Schoettgen, in his 
 work on the Messiah, s. 107, 298. At least both 
 of them formed the division in the same way. 
 But among Christians it was never the general 
 rule of faith, but only employed as a figurative 
 mode of representing the doctrine. Anciently it 
 was most common in the Greek church. Chry- 
 sostom, Theodoret, and others, shew traces of it. 
 It was therefore seen in the Confession of Faith 
 of the modern Greek church in the seventeenth 
 century, and it is still common in the Russian 
 church. Anciently in the Latin church it was 
 
 sometimes, though seldom used- But the school- 
 men never used it in their acroamatical instruc- 
 tions; for which reason the theologians of the 
 Romish church in after times used it but seldom, 
 although Bellarmin and many others do not dis- 
 card it. For the same reason, Luther and Me- 
 lancthon, and other early Lutheran theologians 
 who separated from the Romish church, do not 
 make use of this method in treating of the doctrine 
 of the mediatorial work of Christ. But after the 
 seventeenth century it was gradually introduced 
 into the systems. It appears to have been first 
 introduced by Job. Gerhard, in his "Loci Theo- 
 logici." At least it is not found in Chemnitz. 
 It was afterwards employed in popular religious 
 instruction, and was admitted by Spener into hia 
 Catechism; until at last it became universal to 
 treat of the doctrine respecting the mediatorial 
 work of Christ according to this division and 
 under these heads. In the reformed church it 
 was adopted by Calvin, who was followed by 
 many others. It is also adopted by many Ar- 
 minian and Socinian writers. 
 
 II. A Critical Judgment respecting this Method. 
 
 Morus, indeed, acknowledges that nothing 
 depends upon exhibiting the doctrine in this 
 particular form, and that the truths themselves 
 may be expressed in other words, and with- 
 out this figurative phraseology. At the same 
 time he undertakes to defend it, though not in 
 a very satisfactory manner. The following rea- 
 sons seem to render it unadvisable for theolo- 
 gians to make use of this form in the scientific 
 treatment of this doctrine. 
 
 (1) It appears from No. I. that this manner 
 of presenting the subject arose entirely from an 
 etymological explanation of the word rvp'p, and 
 from an allegorical sense of this title founded 
 upon its etymology. For, according to the true 
 use of the word in the Bible, Messiah signifies 
 only king. Many were anointed, but kings 
 were called, by way of eminence, the anointed. 
 
 (2) All these words, when applied to Christ, 
 are figurative. Such figurative expressions are, 
 indeed, very good and instructive in themselves, 
 and must be suitably explained in the acroama- 
 tical and popular treatment of theology. But it is 
 more convenient to express the ideas themselves 
 in the first instance by literal language, and not 
 to make figurative expressions, although they 
 may be scriptural, the ground of our divisions. 
 And so indeed we proceed with respect to the 
 other figurative terms applied to Christ in the 
 Bible, as lamb, physician, shepherd, door, vine. 
 And why should we proceed differently here ? 
 Thus we can consider Christ as king, and as 
 a divinely authorized teacher (prophet), in both 
 his states; and especially as making atonement 
 (High Priest); and then we can explain the 
 figurative terms, and shew the meaning of the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 379 
 
 words sacrifice, intercede, and bleas, when spoken j 
 of Christ. 
 
 (3) When theologians attempt to determine 
 definitely which of the works of Christ are de- 
 noted by each of these titles, they themselves 
 differ widely from one another; because these 
 titles are figurative, and so admit of various sig- 
 nifications, according as they are understood in 
 a more limited or a wider sense. On this ac- 
 count, it is inconvenient to make this division 
 the basis of our treatment of this subject. It 
 may easily occasion confusion of ideas. Some 
 (No. I.) admit only two offices, the royal and 
 priestly, and comprise the prophetic office in the 
 priestly, because the priests were employed in 
 teaching. But even those who admit three of- 
 fices are not united. The opinion which Baier 
 formerly held, and which Seller follows, is one 
 of the most current in the Lutheran church 
 viz., the prophetic office comprehends the works 
 of Christ as divine teacher, in order to free men 
 from ignorance and to point out to them the way 
 to happiness (oblatio amissae salutis) ; the priest- 
 ly office comprehends the whole work of atone- 
 ment, or deliverance from guilt and the punish- 
 ment of sin (acquisitio amissae salutis); the 
 kingly office comprehends the labours of Christ 
 for the good of his followers and of his church, 
 and for the more general diffusion of truth over 
 the earth, (collatio amissae salutis.) But others 
 again define and divide differently. 
 
 (4) The advocates of this division appeal to 
 the Bible, where these figurative titles, king, 
 prophet, high priest, frequently occur in appli- 
 cation to Christ. But the sacred writers do not 
 mean to designate by these titles the very works 
 of Christ, as Redeemer, which theologians un- 
 derstand by them. The sacred writers mean 
 frequently to describe by these titles the whole 
 object of the mission of Christ and his whole 
 work. These titles were derived from the an- 
 cient Jewish constitution, and were used by the 
 apostles, for the most part, in their instructions 
 to Jews and converts from Judaism, to whom 
 the sense concealed under these figures was at 
 once intelligible. At first the Jewish institute 
 was administered by prophets and priests only, 
 and if this state of things had continued, and 
 the Israelites had never been governed by kings, 
 Christ would not have received the name of 
 king, and would not have been compared to a 
 king. But since the royal dignity was the 
 highest among the Israelites, the dignity of 
 Christ was compared with it, and so he was 
 called a king. 
 
 The following remarks may shew the idea 
 which is attached to these names in the scrip- 
 tures, and the manner in which they are there 
 used. 
 
 (a) Prophet. This name was given to Christ 
 not merely because he was a teacher, but also 
 
 because he was a messenger or ambassador of 
 God, according to the original signification of 
 the word. He performed all his works, suffer- 
 ing and dying, as well as teaching, as pro- 
 phet i. e., as the messenger of God. He is 
 called a prophet especially in comparison with 
 Moses, according to the text, Deut. xviii. 15, 
 coll. Acts, iii. 22. Vide s. 91, I. But Moses, 
 besides being a teacher and the founder of the 
 Jewish religion, performed also the works of a 
 ruler and priest, and did not transfer, till after- 
 wards, one part of his duties, the priesthood, to 
 Aaron. Moses, therefore, enacted laws, instruct- 
 ed, ruled, sacrificed all as prophet i. e., as 
 commissioned by God. 
 
 (6) King. Here the case is the same as 
 above. This name is given to Christ, not merely 
 because he rules, guides, and protects his fol- 
 lowers and church, but also because he is a 
 teacher of the truth; as he himself declares, 
 John, xviii. 37, that his kingdom consists in 
 announcing, promoting, and diffusing the truth. 
 Vide s. 106, I. 1. Now according to the com- 
 mon explanation, and the minute distinction 
 which is here introduced, this would intrude 
 upon the prophetic office. 
 
 (c) Priest. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 from the fifth chapter and onward, Christ is 
 often compared with priests, and especially with 
 the Jewish high priest. But this comparison is 
 derived from the text, Ps. ex. 4, which Christ 
 refers to himself, and to which Paul appeals in 
 the abovenamed epistle. The reason why such 
 frequent use was made of this comparison in this 
 epistle is, that it was written principally to 
 converted Jews, who, however, were inclined to 
 apostatize from Christianity, and who looked 
 upon the origin of the Mosaic religion and the 
 whole Jewish ritual as far more elevated, splen- 
 did, and magnificent, than the Christian. In 
 comparison with this, the origin and rites of 
 Christianity appeared poor and insignificant. 
 On this account, Paul compares Christ, in the 
 first place, with Moses ; and then, from the fifth 
 chapter and onward, with the Israelitish priests. 
 He shews his resemblance to them, and at the 
 same time, his great superiority over them. 
 These figures and comparisons are not, there- 
 fore, so intelligible to Christians, who are unac- 
 quainted with the Levitical ritual and priesthood. 
 To such, then, all this must be explained before 
 they can properly understand these comparisons. 
 Is it not, therefore, more suitable and judicious, 
 first to exhibit the truth itself in plain and literal 
 language, as Christ and the apostles so frequent- 
 ly do on this subject; and then, to shew by 
 what figures and comparisons this truth is re- 
 presented in the scriptures, and to explain the 
 meaning of these figures and comparisons'? 
 We do not mean to imply that these figurative 
 terms are in themselves objectionable, and 
 
380 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 should not be used in the more popular Chris- 
 tian instruction. We only mean, that in the 
 first place the truth should be taught without 
 figures ; that then the figurative terms contained 
 in the Bible should be explained ; and that after- 
 wards literal and figurative language should be 
 used alternately. And for this we have the ex- 
 ample of the scriptures themselves. These figu- 
 rative terms are by no means in themselves ob- 
 jectionable; for, according to the principles of 
 the human mind, they exert a more powerful 
 influence, illustrate truth more clearly, and im- 
 press it more deeply upon the heart, than can be 
 done by literal terms. Only they must be pro- 
 perly explained. 
 
 [The ancient method of considering the work 
 of Christ under the form of a threefold office has 
 been revived of late, and is adopted in the sys- 
 tems of De Wette, Schleiermacher, and Tho- 
 luck. TR.] 
 
 We now enter upon the plan marked out at 
 the close of s. 106. 
 
 PART I. OF CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ON REDEMPTION FROM THE PUNISHMENT OF 
 SIN; OR, ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST, 
 AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF MEN BEFORE GOD 
 THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 S. 108115. 
 
 SECTION CVIII. 
 
 OF THE VARIOUS OPINIONS RESPECTING THE FOR- 
 GIVENESS OF SIN BY GOD, AND THE CONDITIONS 
 ON WHICH FORGIVENESS MAY BE GRANTED; AND 
 AN APPLICATION OF THIS TO THE SCRIPTURAL 
 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 I. The "Forgiveness of Sin ," Various Opinions re- 
 specting it, especially in regard to the Conditions 
 of it. 
 
 IT is the uniform doctrine of all religions, that 
 transgression of the divine law incurs inevitable 
 punishment; but that no sins are altogether ir- 
 remissible; that, on the contrary, God is in- 
 clined to remit the punishment of sin, on certain 
 conditions. For the object of religion is not 
 only to point out to men their destination, but 
 also to impart to them peace and composure of 
 mind with regard to their destiny here and be- 
 yond the grave. The opinions of men respect- 
 ing the conditions on which the pardon of sin 
 depends, may be divided into several classes. 
 Some have united / many of these conditions to- 
 gether, as requisite to pardon; others have de- 
 pended wholly on some particular one. 
 
 (I) Sacrifice, and other religious rites and ce- 
 remonies. 
 
 (a) We observe that sacrifice is universal 
 among all nations as soon as they rise above 
 the first brutal condition. The Bible places it 
 in the very first period of the world ; Gen. iv , 
 viii. 20, 21. Many ancient and modern philo- 
 sophers have greatly wondered how an idea in 
 itself, as it seemed to them, so unworthy of God, 
 could have occurred to men, or could have pre- 
 vailed so universally among them. But there 
 is a feeling lying deep in our nature which com- 
 pels men to look around for some means of con- 
 ciliating the favour of the Deity, and of averting 
 the deserved punishment of sin. Vide infra, 
 No. II., and s. 88, I. 2. Why sacrifice was the 
 means selected for this purpose, and why ac- 
 cordingly it was sanctioned by divine appoint- 
 ment among the Israelites and their ancestors, 
 may appear from the following considerations. 
 
 Men conceived of the Deity as corporeal and 
 like themselves. Vide s. 19. Hence arose the 
 idea of sacrifice. They hoped to conciliate the 
 favour of God by the same means by which 
 they endeavoured to gain the favour of men, 
 supposing that what was pleasing to men would 
 be so to God. The thought that internal good- 
 ness and integrity of heart are alone pleasing to 
 God, however plain this may appear to us, was 
 entirely beyond the comprehension of rude and 
 uncultivated man. But even allowing him to 
 have some idea of this, he would still feel, as 
 we must, that his holiness was very imperfect, 
 and afforded a very doubtful pretension to the 
 approbation of God. Besides, he would be dis- 
 quieted by the fear that his past transgressions 
 might not be cancelled, or be undone, by any 
 succeeding holiness, and that punishment there- 
 fore was still to be apprehended. He accord- 
 ingly brought gifts and presents to his gods, to 
 render himself acceptable to them. And so, in 
 the ancient languages, the words which mean 
 gifts, presents, also signify sacrifice. It was 
 supposed in the earliest times that the gods 
 were personally, though invisibly, present at the 
 offering of these gifts, and when the offerings 
 consisted of food, as was commonly the case, 
 that they themselves partook, and enjoyed the 
 sweet savour, (the sweet smell of the flesh of the 
 offerings, xviaaa, Horn. II. iv. 49 ; xxiv. 68, 
 seq.) Hence offerings were called the food and 
 drink of the gods. Homer describes Jupiter 
 and the rest of the gods as going from Olympus 
 to a festal sacrifice which the Ethiopians pre- 
 sented to him, and which lasted twelve days; 
 II. i. 423, seq.; xxiii. 206, 207. It was the 
 object of these gifts to express gratitude to the 
 gods for blessings received, to obtain future 
 benefits, and to avert the evils which they wero 
 supposed to ordain or to inflict in anger. 
 
 The opinion of Ernesti, Doederlien, and 
 many others, that sacrifices were originally only 
 thank-offerings, and that the expiatory sacrifice 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 381 
 
 as first introduced by Moses, is without proof. 
 The three kinds of sacrifice above named are 
 found to exist together in all nations. Even the 
 sacrifices of Abel and Noah, Gen. iv. and viii., 
 were designed to obtain good from God, and 
 to avert evil, (the anger of God.) Homer 
 gives, II. ix. 495, the great principle on which 
 all nations who have sacrificed have uniform- 
 ly proceeded, "that meat and drink offerings 
 conciliate the gods with men when they err 
 and sin." Even men were sacrificed to the 
 gods when it was thought that the common 
 flesh of beasts was insufficient to appease their 
 anger, or to avert their displeasure. This was 
 the case principally in the ages of the greatest 
 rudeness and barbarity, when men imagined 
 their gods to be as wild, revengeful, and blood- 
 thirsty as themselves. But such sacrifices were 
 resorted to even by the cultivated Greeks and 
 Romans, in case of plague or any great calami- 
 ty; and, notwithstanding the strictness with 
 which they were forbidden by the laws of 
 Moses, they were frequently practised even by 
 the Jews. 
 
 Respecting the origin of sacrifices, vide 
 Sykes, Vom Ursprunge der Opfer, with Notes 
 by Semler; Halle, 1778, 8vo; and Wolf, Vom 
 Ursprunge o^er Opfer, in his Vermischten 
 Schriften. 
 
 (6) As some of these nations became gradu- 
 ally more civilized, many among them perceived 
 that such a use of sacrifices was inconsistent 
 with just ideas respecting God and hi% attri- 
 butes, and that men could never obtain from the 
 Deity by sacrifices even those things which they 
 hoped to obtain by them. The use of them, 
 however, could not be done away immediately 
 by legislators and the institutors of religion, be- 
 cause nothing could be substituted for them; 
 they were thus, of necessity, continued as a part 
 of the external worship of God. All that the 
 more enlightened could do was to prevent them 
 from becoming injurious, and, if possible, ren- 
 der them promotive of higher objects. To the 
 ancient usage they must affix nobler ends, and 
 employ sacrifices as sensible representations for 
 teaching virtue, and improving the moral con- 
 dition of the people. Such attempts were made 
 in many cultivated nations. The ancient forms 
 were preserved, while a more elevated and bet- 
 ter sense was affixed to them. But the results 
 of this course were not equally happy in every 
 case. The ordinances which Moses was re- 
 quired to make by divine commandment are 
 distinguished in this respect above all that we 
 find among the ancient heathen nations. Moses 
 was fully convinced that offerings in themselves 
 could never secure the actual forgiveness of sin 
 from God. He did not therefore ordain them 
 for this purpose. He proceeded on the princi- 
 ple which Paul declares, Heb. x. 1. All the 
 
 prophets who succeeded Moses held the same 
 views, Ps. 1. 8 ; li. ; Is. i. 1 1 ; Jer. vi. 20 ; Amos, 
 v. 22, &c. But it was necessary that sacrifices 
 should be preserved ; otherwise, that gross and 
 uncultivated people would soon have deserted 
 the worship of God. Moses therefore ordained 
 sacrifices, as Paul justly says, Heb. ix. 13, for 
 external purification simply. For this reason 
 no sacrifices were appointed by God in the Mo- 
 saic institute for such offences as murder, adul- 
 tery, &c. ; not because such offences could not 
 be forgiven by God, but because the civil wel- 
 fare required that the punishment of them should 
 not be remitted. For it was the object of God 
 in appointing these sacrifices, 
 
 (a) That they should release from the civil 
 punishment of certain crimes. The commission 
 of a crime rendered one unworthy of the com- 
 munity of the holy people, and excluded him 
 from it. The offering of sacrifice was the means 
 by which he was external'y readmitted to the 
 Jewish community, and rendered externally 
 pure; although he did not, on this account, ob- 
 tain the pardon of his sin from God. It was 
 designed that all who offered sacrifice should, 
 by this act, both make a public confession of 
 their sins, and at the same time see before them, 
 in the sacrifice, the punishment which they had 
 deserved, and to which they acknowledged 
 themselves exposed. Hence sins were said to 
 be laid upon the victim, and borne away by it 
 when it was sacrificed. This transaction mani- 
 festly had its ground in the idea of substitution. 
 "What thou deservedst to suffer, (death, pu- 
 nishment,) this beast now suffers." Therefore 
 the design of the sacrificial code of Moses was 
 not to provide atonement for sins, but to repre- 
 sent sin as great and deserving of punishment; 
 in a word, "to lead to the knowledge of sin ;" 
 Gal. iii. 19. 
 
 ()3) Another end of the sacrifices appointed 
 by Moses was, as we are taught in the New 
 Testament, to point the Israelites to the future, 
 and to prefigure by types the greater divine pro- 
 vision for the recovery of the human race, and 
 to excite in the Israelites a feeling of their need 
 of such a provision. Vide Gal. iii. and iv., also 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews. On this subject, 
 cf. s. 90, III. 9. 
 
 Old and cultivated nations, like the present 
 nations of Europe, now for a long time unaccus- 
 tomed to sacrifices, would not be so favourably 
 affected by seeing death inflicted as a punish- 
 ment upon a victim, as by having the truth re- 
 presented by this rite stated simply and impres- 
 sively. But a gross people, still in the infancy 
 of its improvement, would be more moved and 
 influenced by such a transaction. They have 
 more sympathy with beasts than we have; as 
 is shewn by the great influence of the fables of 
 jEsop. And hence many heathen nations began 
 
3S2 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 to neglect, and sometimes even to despise sa- 
 crifices, as they gradually advanced in cultiva- 
 tion. The case was the same with the Jews, 
 and especially with the more cultivated Grecian 
 Jews. But at the time of Christ there were still 
 some Jews zealously devoted to the service of 
 the altar, who committed the frequent and very 
 general mistake, that God would forgive their 
 sins on account of their sacrifices, notwithstand- 
 ing the decided testimony which their ancient 
 prophets had borne against this opinion. Paul, 
 therefore, argues against it in some of his epis- 
 tles. 
 
 Note. Many suppose that sacrifices were ap- 
 pointed in the very earliest times by an express 
 command from God himself. This supposition 
 is rendered probable by the consideration that 
 the Bible always regards sacrifices as rites well- 
 pleasing in the sight of God. They are repre- 
 sented as acceptable to him, and approved by 
 him from the time of the flood, and even before ; 
 Gen. iv. and viii. If sacrifices were actually 
 commanded by God, we must suppose that God 
 instructed the first race of men on this subject, 
 after the manner above described; but that his 
 instructions were gradually forgotten and passed 
 out of mind. The fact, however, of the original 
 divine appointment of sacrifices is not clear from 
 the Mosaic records. And as the results of the 
 investigation are the same, whether the suppo- 
 sition be true or false, we have had no reference 
 to it in the previous remarks upon sacrifices. 
 
 (2) Self-inflicted penances, and arbitrary suf- 
 ferings which the sinner lays upon himself, 
 in order to obtain from God the remission of 
 punishment. 
 
 This is a foolish error. We should think a 
 human legislator very irrational who should 
 permit the criminal to select a punishment at 
 pleasure, in place of the one threatened in the 
 law. This error, however, is very widely 
 spread, especially among the Indians, and na- 
 tions who inhabit southern climates, whose re- 
 ligious require of them self-inflictions which 
 are incredibly severe. They frequently go so 
 far as to believe that an innocent man may un- 
 dertake such sufferings for others; and thus ob- 
 tain for them forgiveness from God. This error 
 is founded upon the mistaken opinion that God, j 
 like man, will be touched with compassion at I 
 the sight of these self-inflicted sufferings, and j 
 thus be inclined to remit those which are due. ' 
 Fasting was also regarded in the light of a self- 
 infliction, by which the forgiveness of sin might 
 be procured. The great mass even of the Jews 
 practised all these penances, with the grossest 
 conceptions of their nature and efficacy. Vide 
 1 Kings, xviii. 28. The prophets, therefore, 
 frequently reprove them for this erroneous opi- 
 nion, and teach them the truth ; Is. Iviii. seq. 
 Cultivated nations frequently entertain the same 
 
 false religious views, which are extremely inju- 
 rious to morality. Even Christians are not en- 
 tirely freed from them, after all that the New 
 Testament contains to the contrary. 
 
 (3) Good works, so called, on condition and 
 account of which God is supposed to remit sin. 
 
 It was supposed (a) that one who had re- 
 formed might atone and make satisfaction for 
 his past sins by some works of distinguished 
 virtue; or (&) that even one who had not re- 
 formed entirely, but was still addicted to certain 
 sins, might be pardoned by God for these sins, 
 on account of some great, difficult, and useful 
 labours which he might perform suppositions, 
 to be sure, both false and unphilosophical ! 
 They have their ground, however, in the fact 
 that good works are sometimes the means and 
 motives with men, in bestowing pardon. An 
 injured man sometimes forgives the offender on 
 account of some favour which he may have re- 
 ceived from him. A government sometimes 
 forgives one offence in a person, who in other 
 respects has deserved well of the rulers as in- 
 dividuals, or of the state; on account, there- 
 fore, of their own interest, which he has pro- 
 moted. This circumstance, that in these cases 
 men forgive offences on account of their own ad- 
 vantage, which has been promoted by important 
 services, is overlooked when they are compared 
 with the conduct of God. We are not able to 
 confer any good or benefit upon God by our 
 best works. By these works we serve and be- 
 nefit only ourselves, and we cannot demand or 
 deserve a reward from God for actions for the 
 very performance of which we are indebted to 
 him, Luke, xvii. 10. It would be as foolish for 
 us to require recompence from God for these 
 services as for one who has been rescued from 
 danger to demand reward from his deliverer in- 
 stead of giving him his thanks, or for a patient 
 to demand reward from his physician instead 
 of paying him his fee, on the ground that by fol- 
 lowing his directions he had escaped from dan- 
 ger or sickness. 
 
 This opinion has taken such deep root in the 
 minds of men of all classes, and has spread so 
 widely, that it cannot be entirely eradicated 
 even from the minds of Christians. It prevail- 
 ed among the ancient heathen, and especially 
 among the Jews. The latter held the foolish 
 opinion (which has been revived in another form 
 among Christians) that the worth and merits 
 of their pious ancestors, particularly of Abra- 
 ham, would be imputed to them, and that thus, 
 through their substituted righteousness, they 
 themselves might be freed from the strict observ- 
 ance of the law. Against this mistake, John the 
 Baptist, Christ, and the apostles, zealously la- 
 boured. Vide Matt. iii. 9 ; Rom. iii. 5. The Jews 
 believed that God was bound injustice to for- 
 give and save thorn, on account of the promise 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN TS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 383 
 
 /which he had made to Abraham. Vide Rom. 
 /ix. xi., coll. s. 125. 
 
 (4) Repentance and reformation. 
 
 This condition of forgiveness has always 
 appeared the best and most rational to the more 
 improved and reflecting part of mankind, to 
 whom the former conditions must have appeared 
 unsatisfactory. Even the Old and New Testa- 
 ments are full of passages which assure us that 
 God forgives sins after deep repentance, and 
 the moral reformation consequent upon it; Ps. 
 xxxii. 3 5; li. 8, 12, 17; Luke, xviii. 13, seq. 
 The writings of the Grecian and Roman philo- 
 sophers also are full of passages which mention 
 this as the only acceptable condition. Seneca 
 says, " Quern p&nitet peccasse, est innocens." 
 But even after recognising this condition, very 
 disquieting doubts must remain, respecting 
 which, vide No. II. A satisfactory assurance 
 respecting the forgiveness of past sins would 
 still be wanting. This leads us to the second 
 part. 
 
 II. Application of these Remarks to the Scriptural 
 Doctrine concerning the Atonement of Christ, 
 
 (1) The condition mentioned No. I. 4, how- 
 ever reasonable and obvious it may be in itself, 
 appears from experience and the history of all 
 times, to be unsatisfactory to the great body of 
 men. They never have received nor can receive 
 from it a quieting assurance of the forgiveness 
 of sins, and especially of those committed before 
 their reformation. All nations hope, indeed, that 
 God is disposed to forgive sins when they are for- 
 saken ; but men need something more than this. 
 They must have something external and sensible, 
 to give them assurance and conviction that their 
 sins have actually been forgiven. This assurance 
 they endeavoured to obtain by sacrifices. Vide 
 No. I. They believed universally that besides 
 the moral improvement of the heart, some addi- 
 tional means were necessary to conciliate the 
 favour of God, and to avert the punishment of 
 sin. Cf. Horn. II. ix. 493508. This opinion 
 is so deeply wrought into the human soul, and 
 arises from such an universal sense of necessity, 
 that any attempt to obliterate it or to reason it 
 away would be in vain. To deprive men of this 
 opinion, that the favour of God may be concili- 
 ated and the positive assurance of pardon ob- 
 tained, would be to tear away the props upon 
 which their composure and confidence rest, with- 
 out being able to substitute for them anything so 
 clear and satisfactory ; and thus would be an act 
 of injury and cruelty. 
 
 (2) But what is the origin or ground of the 
 feeling that reformation alone is insufficient, and 
 that something else is necessary to avert the 
 judgments of God from the sinner, and to in- 
 spire him with confidence that they are or will 
 be averted ? This feeling is founded in the mo- 
 
 ral nature of man, or in the voice of conscience. 
 Vide s. 88, I. 2. For, 
 
 (a) However far a man may advance in holi- 
 ness, his conscience still declares to him that his 
 holiness is very defective, and that he frequently 
 commits sin, and that his sin deserves punish- 
 ment. And the more upright and virtuous the 
 man is, the more tender and strong will this 
 feeling be. How, then, can he hope by a holi- 
 ness so imperfect, polluted, and stained with 
 sin, to secure the favour and approbation of 
 God, and to escape unpunished 1 To one who 
 feels thus, how desirable and welcome must be 
 the assurance that, notwithstanding his imper- 
 fect holiness, God will still be gracious to him 
 on certain conditions ! the more desirable and 
 welcome, the more he sees that he can never at- 
 tain this assurance on any of the conditions 
 above mentioned, No. I., 1, 2, 3. This assur- 
 ance it is the object of the Christian doctrine 
 of atonement to impart. 
 
 (6) Although a man were thoroughly reformed, 
 and should commit no more intentional sins, he 
 would still remain in an anxious uncertainty with 
 respect to his past sins ; for there is no ground to 
 believe that on account of one's improvement God 
 will remit the punishment of sins committed 
 before this improvement commenced. Indeed, 
 without an express assurance from God to the 
 contrary, there are many reasons to fear that he 
 will punish the former sins even of the penitent. 
 This assurance to the contrary can be found 
 alone in the Christian doctrine of the atonement 
 of Christ. 
 
 This feeling of necessity, therefore, this appre- 
 hension and belief that besides improvement we 
 need and must find some other means of obtain- 
 ing assurance from God that the punishment of 
 sin will be averted from us; this feeling lies 
 deep in the soul of man, and is founded in his 
 moral nature, in the voice of conscience. Let 
 no one say that all men do not have this feeling, 
 and that he himself neither has it now nor ever 
 has had it. This feeling may be suppressed for 
 a time by levity, or the tumult of passion, or by 
 cold and heartless speculation, or by both of 
 these causes united ; but it commonly revives 
 in due time, especially in the hour of affliction, 
 on the approach of death, or on other occasions 
 which compel men to serious reflection. It then 
 demands from them, as it were, its rights, and 
 frequently to their great confusion ; it excites 
 anxious doubt and solicitude, and spreads out a 
 dark futurity to view. This is a situation of 
 frequent occurrence, but one in which no person 
 would wish to be. Kant therefore, refers to this 
 feeling in his philosophical theory of religion. 
 On occasions like these such disquieting doubts 
 and fearful apprehensions will often rise irre- 
 sistibly, even in the minds of those who are 
 above superstitious weakness, and, indeed, of 
 
3S4 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 speculative philosophers themselves, whose 
 feelings had been the most suppressed and 
 deadened. From these feelings no one is se- 
 cure, however firmly established in his theory ; 
 for the philosophy of the death-bed is a different 
 thing from the philosophy of the study and of 
 the school. 
 
 A religion, therefore, coming with credentials 
 from Heaven, which, on divine authority, gives 
 to man satisfaction upon this subject ,- which 
 shews him a means, elsewhere sought in vain, 
 by which he can obtain composure and assur- 
 ance against anxious doubts, and which teaches 
 him to look forward with joy into the future 
 world ; such a religion rnay well claim to be 
 considered a religion of high and universal utili- 
 ty. Those who rob the Christian religion of 
 this doctrine rob it of that which more than any- 
 thing else makes it a blessing to man. 
 
 (3) There is still another view of this subject. 
 The great mass of mankind in all ages have no 
 correct ideas respecting virtue and vice, or re- 
 specting God and divine things. It is not strange 
 therefore that they should have always and al- 
 most universally believed that God might be 
 conciliated by the most insignificant actions 
 which they might perform without sincere re- 
 formation, and which, indeed, they sometimes 
 supposed might take the place of reformation. 
 This was their idea of sacrifices, ceremonies, 
 penances, fasts, &c. They made but little ac- 
 count of moral purity and holiness of life. To 
 relieve themselves of the trouble of caring for 
 their own virtue they supposed that the virtue 
 of others might be imputed to them. Vide No. 
 I. and Meiners, Geschichte der Relicdonem, s. 
 125, f. 
 
 At the time of Christ and the apostles these 
 common mistakes prevailed, though in different 
 forms^ throughout the Jewish and heathen world. 
 Now in the establishment of a universal religion, 
 such as the Christian was intended to be, this 
 fact demanded special attention ; (and not merely 
 on account of that particular age, but on account 
 of all following ages ; because these same mis- 
 takes prevail among men in different forms at 
 all times ;) for the moral improvement of men, 
 and the sincere and pure worship of God must 
 be the great objects of this religion. But while 
 it has these high and spiritual objects in view, 
 and should make it possible for men to attain 
 them, it must also be universal, designed for 
 every individual. It must regard the necessities 
 of all men, and not merely of the few who ac- 
 count themselves wise, and esteem themselves 
 philosophers. Sacrifices, on account of their 
 imperfections and perversion, were to be for 
 ever abolished. The other conditions of for- 
 giveness were no longer to be tolerated, being 
 false and injurious to morality. Sincere reforma- 
 tion was the only condition left, and this was 
 
 accompanied with the anxious solicitude before 
 mentioned. This internal reformation and holi- 
 ness was made by Jesus the indispensable con- 
 dition of forgiveness, though not the procuring- 
 cause of it; since, owing to the imperfection of 
 our holiness, we could then never have obtained 
 forgiveness. Now, in order to relieve the mind 
 from the solicitude still accompanying this con- 
 dition, and to satisfy this feeling of need, some- 
 thing external must be added, which should 
 powerfully affect the senses, not only of the 
 Jews of that age, but of the heathen and of men 
 in general. This must be something which 
 would be obvious to every one, and not merely 
 to a few; something, too, which would not 
 hinder or weaken the personal exercise of vir- 
 tue and holiness of life, but rather promote and 
 strengthen them. 
 
 Such is the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. 
 This can never lead to security in sin or indif- 
 ference with regard to it, (as it has often been 
 supposed to do,) because personal reformation 
 and holiness (pftdvoia, aytactytos) are connected 
 with it as an indispensable duty, as conditiosine 
 qua non. Christ died for men once for all, and 
 suffered the punishment which they would have 
 endured for their sins, and which their con- 
 sciences tell them they could not have escaped, 
 even after their reformation. And thus the ne- 
 cessity of continuing to sacrifice was removed, 
 and the injurious consequences which attended 
 sacrifices were obviated. "By Christ, and his 
 sacrifice, men obtain from God (as Paul declares, 
 Acts, xiii. 38) the forgiveness of all their sins ; 
 and consequently, even of those ivhich, according 
 to the law of Moses, were unpardonable i. e., 
 would be irremediably punished," (for which 
 reason sacrifices were now no longer necessary. 
 No. I.) 
 
 On one side, the infliction upon Christ of the 
 penalty which we deserved places the authority 
 and sanctity of the divine law in the clearest 
 light, and shews the certainty of the execution 
 of the divine punishment upon sin in a manner 
 at once striking and in the highest degree alarm- 
 ing. Cf. Romans, iii. 26, Etrat, avtov (0oj>) 
 SixaLov. This doctrine thus guards against in- 
 difference to sin, and, as experience teaches, ex- 
 erts a powerful influence in reforming and en- 
 nobling the moral character of every one who 
 believes it from the heart. 
 
 On the other side, this doctrine awakens in 
 those who heartily receive it, love to God, who 
 has made use of so great and extraordinary 
 means for their forgiveness. It also excites gra- 
 titude to God and to Christ. Vide the passages 
 of the New Testament cited by Moms, p. 153, 
 s. 6. One who really believes this doctrine, and 
 does not feel the most lively love and gratitude 
 to God and to Christ, and does not sympathize 
 with all which the New Testament says upon 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 385 
 
 this subject, (I John, iv. 10, 11 ; John, iii. 16; 
 Rom. v. 8; viii. 32,) must be destitute of every 
 ^tender sensibility and of every human feeling. 
 The proof that this doctrine does actually excite 
 this feeling and is adapted to the necessity of 
 man, may be seen not only in the joyful recep- 
 tion with which it met from the better part of 
 the Jews at the time of the apostles, but also in 
 the approbation of it in succeeding ages, which 
 has been, and is still, expressed by so many men 
 of all nations ; and also in the astonishing effects 
 which it has produced. 
 
 God, therefore, as the scriptures represent, 
 (Rom. iii. 25,) has set forth Jesus as a Propi- 
 tiator, to assure men of his gracious disposition 
 towards them; in order, by this means, both to 
 lead them from a merely external service of him 
 to a spiritual worship, and also to convince them 
 in an affecting manner, as well of his holiness 
 and justice as of his compassionate goodness 
 and grace; and so, by the alarming apprehen- 
 sions and thankful feelings which flow from such 
 considerations, to influence them to exercise pure 
 virtue, sincere piety, arid devotion to God, to 
 cherish and exhibit love to him who first loved 
 them. This representation, which is founded 
 on the holy scriptures, contains nothing irra- 
 tional, and is entirely suited to the moral nature 
 of mar. 
 
 SECTION CIX. 
 
 SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE NECES- 
 SITY OF THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN; WHAT IS 
 MEANT BY FORGIVENESS, PARDON, JUSTIFICA- 
 TION ; AND THE SCRIPTURAL TERMS BY WHICH 
 THEY ARE DESIGNATED. 
 
 The Necessity and Indispensableness of Forgiveness. 
 
 As sin is justly represented in the holy scrip- 
 tures as a very great evil, from which no one is 
 free, so, on the other hand, the forgiveness of 
 sins is described as one of the greatest benefits, 
 which no one can do without. It is very im- 
 portant for the religious teacher to lead those 
 committed to his charge to consider this subject 
 as it is exhibited in the scriptures ; for almost 
 innumerable mistakes are made respecting it by 
 men in every rank and of every character, the 
 high and the low, the enlightened and the igno- 
 rant. Many make but little account of sin, 
 and, through levity or erroneous speculation, 
 overlook its consequences, and of course make 
 light of forgiveness. Others believe that they 
 can easily obtain forgiveness, and rely on the 
 mercy of God, or on the merits of Christ, with- 
 out on their part performing the conditions upon 
 which their trust in these merits and their ex- 
 perience of them must depend. 
 
 These injurious mistakes are opposed in 
 many passages of the Bible. 
 49 
 
 (1) In such as describe the ruinous conse- 
 quences of sin, and which present the judg- 
 ments of God in a fearful and terrific light, as 
 severe and intolerable e. g., Heb. x. 31 ; Ps. 
 xc. 11; cxxx. 3. To the same purpose are 
 many of the examples given in the scriptures, 
 especially in the history of the Israelites. 
 
 ^2) In such as describe the judgments of hea- 
 ven upon those who do not fulfil the conditions 
 prescribed, and are destitute of faith in Jesus 
 Christ, as certain and inevitable e. g., Heb. iii. 
 12, 13; Rom. ii. 13, coll. i. 32. 
 
 (3) In such as shew that no one can enjoy 
 tranquillity and happiness who has no assur- 
 ance that his sins are forgiven e. g., Heb. x. 
 26, 27. The example of David and other saints, 
 who have been deeply troubled on account of 
 their sins, and anxious for the consequences of 
 them, contain much instruction upon this sub- 
 ject, Psalm li., cxxx., &c. 
 
 II. Scriptural Terms and Phrases denoting For- 
 giveness. 
 
 The pardon or forgiveness of sin which men 
 obtain from God is expressly mentioned in the 
 New Testament as the effect and consequence 
 of the atonement or redemption 
 of Christ. In Eph. i. 7, the a 
 t<*v is represented as belonging to the 
 r'pcoots 5td afytaT'os XptcWor, and as a consequence 
 of it. Cf. Col. i. 14; Heb. ix. 15; "Christ 
 died 1$ drtcavT'pcocjM/ rW trti tvj rtpwr-j? Sto^xif 
 TtapajSacrswv." Romans, iii. 24, " We are par- 
 doned, SixcuovfifJ'ot 8ta OTtoXDT'pwfffws T'TJJ 6v 
 XptcW9," &c. The principal terms are the fol- 
 lowing viz., 
 
 (1) KatfaXXa-yiy, reconciliation, (Germ. Ver- 
 sohnung,} and xafaMjoisoo^ai. Cf. Morus, pages 
 113 leg, s . 9 11. This phraseology was 
 primarily used with respect to enemies who 
 were reconciled, or who became friends again ; 
 1 Cor. vii. 11 ; Matt. v. 24. Then it was trans- 
 ferred to God. The first origin of this phraseo- 
 logy with respect to him is to be found in the 
 fact that men had gross conceptions of the sub- 
 ject, and supposed the manner of the divine 
 conduct to be like that of men. Whoever trans- 
 gressed the law of God provoked him to anger 
 i. e., to displeasure and to a strong expression 
 of it. (Hence the judgments of God are called 
 6pyj, txSLxyOis ov.) God must now be ap- 
 peased, and the transgressor must endeavour to 
 make God again his friend. Such was the 
 common and popular language on this subject 
 language which was universally intelligible, 
 and which is always used in the holy scriptures 
 in a sense worthy of God. Vide s. 86. Thus 
 when it is said in the New Testament, eoj 
 v^jilv xaioMMTtttiaL, the meaning is, that through 
 Christ he withholds the expression of his dis- 
 pleasure, the punishment of sin. Thus Paul 
 2K 
 
386 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 uses this phraseology, 2 Cor. v. 19, and ex- 
 plains it by the addition py xoyt^o'^avo? jtaparct w- 
 jtcvra* like the Hebrew py atfn, Psalm xxxii. 1, 
 2. In Rom. v. 11, he uses the phrase xatco,- 
 XoyTp iTM^op-fv, in the same sense i. e., we ob- 
 tain from God the forgiveness of sin. The lat- 
 ter passage shews clearly that xaraM.ay7j does 
 not denote the moral improvement of men, as 
 Eberhard, Gruner, and others explain it. On 
 the contrary, the term always implies the idea 
 of the mutual reconciliation of two parties, by 
 which two or more who were not previously on 
 good terms become friends again. KataMui/pj, 
 then, as Morus remarks, (p. 165, ad finem,) 
 means, the restoration of friendship, and the 
 means of effecting this, through Christ , and xa- 
 faTtXacfijftv is, to bring about, or restore harmony 
 and friendship. This harmony does not sub- 
 sist between God and men as long as men are 
 considered as transgressors, and God is com- 
 pelled to punish them as such. They do not 
 love God as their father, and he cannot love 
 them as his children. That they learn how to 
 love him, and that he is able to love them, they 
 owe to Christ. He therefore is the peace-maker, 
 the restorer of friendship, o xataMaaw. 
 
 (2) *A$f<5is a/jLop-tiwv, atyuvat, and the similar 
 phrases xa&api&Wi ^apt^sij^at a^apr'tcij, rtapftfij, 
 x. t. ?u 
 
 (a) Explanation of these terms and of the sen- 
 timent contained in them. "Afytsis and d^t'svca 
 are used literally to denote release, as from cap- 
 tivity, Luke, iv. 18 ; also remission of debt (de- 
 biti), Matt. vi. 12. Now sin was very fre- 
 quently compared both with captivity and with 
 debt; and hence, probably, this term was first 
 used by the LXX. as correspondent with py_ xir:. 
 This phrase was always opposed to the inflicting 
 of punishment, or the wrath of God, and denotes 
 remission, forbearing to inflict pnnishment , Ex. 
 xxxiv. 7. In Mark, iii. 29, t%scv afytatv is con- 
 trasted with ivo^oj eatw jept'fltecdj. To take away 
 sin, and take away punishment, were thus one 
 and the same thing with the Hebrews, Is. liii. 
 And so it comes to pass that the words which 
 stand for sin also stand for punishment. Thus 
 to forgive sin, and to heal sickness (jpcena peccati), 
 were frequently the same, Matt. ix. 2, 5, 6, 
 coll. Ps. ciii. 3. 
 
 Similar to these are the other popular terms : 
 as, Ttapscrtj, which is, the act of overlooking, Rom. 
 iii. 25. God does not look upon sins, he forgets 
 them, does not think of them ; in opposition to 
 thinking of them, placing them before his counte- 
 nance (Psalm xc. 8) i. e., punishing them, &c. 
 Also, #optfff^cu TtapaTtT'to/tar'a, Col. ii. 13, 
 spoken of the remission of guilt; l|a,?i?i<j>ftv 
 a/iap-r'taj, Acts, iii. 19, answering to the Hebrew 
 irra, Is. xliii. 25 ; used also by Lysias. The 
 figure in this cage is taken from an account book, 
 in which the name of the debtor is obliterated 
 
 when he has paid his debt, or when it is remit- 
 ted to him. 
 
 The phrases, xaapisG$<u, d<j>' a^uoprtuiv, pcw- 
 fl&OcHJu,, x. 1. ?u, to be purified, washed, to purify 
 oneself, occur very frequently. They were de- 
 rived from the very common comparison of sin 
 with stains and impurities. Hence Moses or- 
 dained purifications and washings as significant 
 or symbolical rites. These phrases were used, 
 first, in respect to men, and denoted self-purifi- 
 cation (xa^t tavtov,) i. e., moral reformation, 
 | I John, iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii. I ; Heb. x. 22 ; which 
 > however could not be done independently of 
 God, but by his assistance; secondly, in respect 
 to God. He is said to purify men from sin i. 
 e., to consider them as pure, innocent not to 
 punish them. So Ps. li. 4, "Wash me from 
 mine iniquities ," I John, i. 9 ; 2 Pet. i. 9, 
 
 v rtaXat ajuapttwv. 
 
 Some are not content with making the 
 forgiveness of sins to consist in the removal of 
 the punishment of sin, but would have it extend 
 to the removal both of the guilt (culpa} and pu- 
 nishment of sin, since both belong to the impu- 
 tation of sin. This statement, understood in a 
 popular sense, is not objectionable ; but strictly 
 understood, it is. The established theory re- 
 specting the remission of sin has been transmit- 
 ted from the time of Anselrnus (s. I0l, ad fin.), 
 who brought the whole doctrine of justification 
 into a judicial form, and arranged it like a legal 
 process. Thus, when a thief has stolen, he 
 must both restore the property stolen and suffer 
 punishment. The guilt, in this case, is not re- 
 moved by the punishment. The advocates of 
 this opinion, therefore, comprehended under 
 justification a special acquittal of guilt, different 
 from the acquittal of punishment. This acquit- 
 tal of guilt they considered as the imputation of 
 the righteousness of Christ imputed to men by 
 God, in the same way as if it had been wrought 
 by them. In this way, as they thought, was 
 the guilt of sin removed. Vide s. 1 15. But, 
 
 First. This distinction between the guilt and 
 punishment of sin is never distinctly made in 
 the Bible when the forgiveness of sins is spoken 
 of. Some have considered this distinction as 
 implied in the passages which speak of the pu- 
 rification or washing away of sins, or in which 
 sins are compared with debts ; but without suf- 
 ficient reason. The Bible makes justification 
 the mere forgiveness of sins i. e., removal of 
 the punishment oflhem ; without any special 
 acquittal of guilt connected with it; as Rom. vi. 
 7, seq. Vide s. 110, "De obedientia Christi 
 activa," from which the doctrine " De obedien- 
 tia Christi passiva" must not be separated. 
 The obedience of Christ shewn in acting and 
 suffering is one and the same. The fruits of 
 this obedience we enjoy, as will be seen from 
 the texts cited below. The Bible does not se- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 387 
 
 parate one kind of obedience from the other; 
 neither should we. Vide s. 115. 
 
 Secondly. The remission of the guilt of sin is 
 not essential, and does not contribute to the real 
 tranquillity of the sinner. The guilt of a sin 
 once committed cannot be effaced. The con- 
 science of the transgressor can never be made to 
 pronounce him innocent, hut will always regard 
 him as having sinned. It is enongh to compose 
 his mind, to know and be convinced that the 
 punishment of sin has been remitted. But how 
 can he be made to believe, and be happy in be- 
 lieving, that he is innocent, when, according to 
 the testimony of his own conscience, he is 
 guilty. 
 
 Thirdly. The theory which teaches that the 
 guilt of sin is removed is founded upon a com- 
 parison of the conduct of God towards men with 
 the conduct of men among themselves, which is 
 here entirely inapplicable. A criminal (e. g., a 
 thief) who sins against his fellow men does 
 them an injury. He must therefore make good 
 their loss, besides suffering punishment. But 
 men, by sinning, do not injure or rob God. 
 They wrong only themselves. Now if men fulfil 
 the prescribed conditions of obtaining pardon, 
 God remits the punishment of sin; but God 
 himself cannot remove the guilt of sin, in its 
 proper sense. For God cannot err, and consi- 
 der an action which is actually wrong, and con- 
 sequently involves guilt, as right in itself. He, 
 however, can forgive us, or remit the punish- 
 ment which we deserve. He can regard and 
 treat us, on certain conditions, as if we were in- 
 nocent. 
 
 (3) Atxauotftj, Sixaioavvr] and Stxato-ucj^at, ko- 
 yt^fo^ai ftj Sixawavvrjv, x. t. X. 
 
 These terms of the Grecian Jews can be ex- 
 plained only from the Hebrew usage, pnx, in 
 Hebrew and Arabic, in its primary arid physical 
 sense, means, rectus,firmus, rigidusfuit; then, 
 in a moral sense, rectusfuit, in various modifi- 
 cations, degrees, and relations e. g., verus et 
 verax fuit, bonus, sc. benignus fuit ; severus, 
 tequiia, JUSTUS, iNNOCENS/wzV, right, such as one 
 should be; Ps. cxliii. 2, "No man is right in 
 the sight of God." Hence we can explain the 
 significations of p^xn, SLXCUOVV, facere justum ,- 
 and of SixaiovG'&a.L, fieri justum. A man may be 
 justified in two ways viz., 
 
 (a) By perfect holiness, virtue, or uprightness 
 of conduct; by being actually just, or such as 
 one should be. Hence the phrase to justify, or 
 to consider, pronounce, treat, reward one, as right, 
 according to the above-mentioned sense. In 
 this sense it is used by the LXX., Ps. cxliii. 2, 
 o-O oixaiu&riactai iv&rtiov aov rtaj wv, and Ezek. 
 xvi. 51, 52. This is called justificatio interna. 
 In this sense it is understood, in the important 
 passage respecting justification, Rom. v., both 
 by Socinians, who reject the doctrine of satis- 
 
 faction, and by those of the Romish church who 
 advocate good works as the procuring cause of 
 salvation. But this interpretation does the 
 greatest violence to the words in this passage. 
 
 In connexion with this meaning, Sixaiovv 
 sometimes signifies emendare, probum redder e, 
 Psalm Ixxiii. 13 (in the Septuagint), and Rev. 
 xxii. 11, seq. Some of the schoolmen call this 
 justificatio physica. 
 
 (6) One who is guilty is said to be justified 
 when he is declared and treated as exempt from 
 punishment, or innocent, or when the punishment 
 of his sins is remitted to him. This is called 
 justificatio externa. The terms justification, 
 pardon, accounting righteous, occur in the Bible 
 much more frequently in this sense than in any 
 other, and so are synonymous \vh\\forgivenes8 
 of sin. This sense is founded on the judicial 
 meaning of the word pn?n, to pardon, acquit, pro- 
 nounce innocent, spoken of the Judge (pnx inno- 
 cens) ; and of the opposite, jrEhn, damnere, pro 
 reo declarere (yvy, reus) e. g., Ex. xxiii. 7; 
 Prov. xvii. 15, seq. This is transferred to God, 
 who is conceived as the judge of the actions of 
 men. Here, however, we must be careful not 
 to carry the comparison too far, and must ab- 
 stract from our conceptions all the imperfections 
 which belong to human conduct. He condemns, 
 or judges, i. e., he punishes,- anlecedens (the 
 part of human judges) -pro consequente. The 
 opposite of this, to acquit, pardon (6txcw.ovi>), is 
 then to remove punishment. This is done, how- 
 ever, as the Bible everywhere teaches, not prop- 
 ter justitiam internam hominis, as at human tri- 
 bunals; for no one is innocent and pure from 
 sin; Rom. iii. 19, seq. According to the gos- 
 pel, God bestows favour upon men gratuitously, 
 on account of faith in Christ, on condition of 
 holiness and of persevering in Christian confi- 
 dence. 
 
 The principal texts which support this doc- 
 trine, and in which Sixauoutj and Sixaioavvtj 
 stand in this sense, are Rom. iii., iv., v., in op- 
 position to the Jewish doctrine of the desert of 
 works. These passages will be examined in 
 the following sections. In Romans, iv., the 
 term Sixatovv is used ver. 5; toy^to^ai bixaw- 
 (to pardon, the opposite of koyt'^o^ot 
 iav , to punish,^ ver. 6 ; and d$ii/ot o/tap- 
 tiav, ver. 7. In Rom. v. 9, 11, Sixcuovrs&u and 
 aT'tsaSat, are interchanged in the same 
 way ; and ^ixtuoavvvj is explained by i 
 artb a/tc^pi'taj xai, ^avdtov. The 
 bixatoavvq, are also opposed to opy^ iov, Rom. 
 i. 17, 18; to xoraxpujif, Rom. v. 16, 18; to 
 syxateiv, Rom. viii. 33. Cf. Storr, De signi- 
 ficatione vocis 81x0.16$ in Nov. Test." Opusc. 
 Academica, t. i. 
 
 Note. The writings of theologians present 
 great diversity and difficulty in determining the 
 idea of Sixcuwstj and Sixaiovv. Most of the an- 
 
388 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 cient Lutheran theologians, with whom Doder- 
 lein and Seiler agree, consider justification as 
 being merely the removal of punishment ; while 
 Koppe, Zacharia, Less, Danov, and others, com- 
 prise in this idea the whole purpose of God to 
 bless and save men, of which the removal of 
 punishment is only the commencement. These 
 theologians maintain that justification is the 
 same as predestination, only that justification is 
 the less definite word of the two. Vide Zacha- 
 ria, Bibl. Theol. iv. s. 548, seq., and especially 
 Danov, Drey Abhandlungen von der Rechtfer- 
 tigung; Jena, 1777; in answer to which Seiler 
 wrote, " Ueber den Unterschied der Rechtfer- 
 tigung und Pradestination ;" Erlangen, 1777, 
 8vo. 
 
 Those who hold the former opinion consider 
 the conferring of good as a consequence of jus- 
 tification, and appeal to the obvious texts, Rom. 
 v. 1, 18, 21 ; Gal. iii. 11. They remark, that 
 exemption from punishment and bestowment of 
 blessing are not one and the same thing, since 
 one who is acquitted in court is not, of course, 
 promoted and rewarded. Those who hold the 
 latter opinion mention the fact that p-ix fre- 
 quently means, benefit, blessing, recompence, and 
 construe the phrase n,-nsS IJETI, Xoy/^c&at j 
 Sixat-oavvyv, which is first spoken of the faith 
 of Abraham, Gen. xv. 6, to mean, to reckon as a 
 merit, to reward,- in the same way, Psalm cvi. 
 31, and Romans, iv. 4, where Paul himself ex- 
 plains |rjx by fjua$6$. The declaring Abraham 
 righteous did not consist in the simple forgive- 
 ness of his sins, but in the bestowment of bless- 
 ing and reward. Cf. James, ii. 21. 
 
 The following considerations may help to set- 
 tle the controversy : 
 
 (1) The purposes of God to forgive the trans- 
 gressor his sins, and to make him happy, are 
 one and the same ; but they may be distinguish- 
 ed in our conceptions of them, and then his be- 
 stowing reward is the immediate consequence 
 of his granting forgiveness. For when God 
 forgives one his sins, the bestowment of the 
 promised good immediately succeeds. And 
 when God sees one incapable of this good, he 
 does not forgive his sins. 
 
 (2) The sacred writers do not, in their terms, 
 so carefully distinguish and so logically divide 
 these two ideas, which are so nearly related, as 
 we do in scientific discussion. This is the less 
 strange, as the words SLXOUOVV and Sixalums have 
 very many and various senses, one of which fre- 
 quently runs into the other. The words are 
 sometimes used in the Bible exclusive, beyond a 
 doubt, of the idea of blessing, and sometimes 
 also inclusive of it. 
 
 (3) But this should not hinder us from dis- 
 tinguishing these ideas, and considering them 
 separately, for the sake of clearness in scientific 
 discussion. Here, however, as in respect to all 
 
 ! the divine purposes, we must guard against the 
 idea of succession ; and also against mistake from 
 a comparison with human tribunals, where one 
 I may be entirely acquitted, without, however, 
 j receiving reward; or any further provision for 
 his welfare. The accused is absolved, and then 
 left to seek his fortune where he pleases. But 
 this is not the manner of God. Upon every one 
 whom he forgives, or whom he counts right- 
 | eous, God immediately bestows, on the ground 
 I of faith in Jesus Christ, all the good and bless- 
 ing which the subject of his grace is capable of 
 ! enjoying. This is the reason why the sacred 
 1 writers frequently connect these two ideas in 
 the same word. Cf. Noesselt, Pfingstprogramm, 
 De eo quid sit, Deum condonnare hominibus joeo 
 cata, poenasque remittere? Halae, 1792, (in his 
 Exercitt.) 
 
 Morus (p. 151, s. 5) has therefore well de- 
 fined and explained the scriptural idea of the 
 forgiveness of sins in the wide sense in which it 
 frequently occurs in the Bible, as including 
 (1) exemption by God from the fatal conse- 
 quences of sin i. e., from fear of the suffering 
 or punishment consequent upon sin, and from 
 this suffering and punishment itself, (^ drtdteo- 
 cu, John, iii. ;) (2) the bestowment of bless- 
 ings, (coj}v x stv i) instead of this deserved pu- 
 nishment. For both we are indebted to Christ. 
 The ground and motive, however, of the forgive- 
 ness of sin on the part of God is his unmerited 
 goodness and benevolence. This is the uniform 
 representation of the holy scriptures, John, iii. 
 16, seq. Morus, p. 152, s. 6. 
 
 SECTION CX. 
 
 ILLUSTRATION OF THE SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT 
 THAT MEN OWE IT TO CHRIST ALONE THAT GOD 
 JUSTIFIES THEM, OR FORGIVES THEIR SINS. 
 
 SINCE sin consists in transgression of the 
 divine law, it is the prerogative of God alone to 
 forgive sin. So the Bible everywhere teaches ; 
 Ps. li.; James, iv. 12, coll. Luke, v. 21. The 
 gospel teaches that we are indebted for this for- 
 giveness to Christ alone, that God forgives on 
 account of Christ. It everywhere magnifies this 
 as one of the greatest divine favours, and as the 
 foundation of all our blessedness; John, iii. 16; 
 vi. ; Heb. ix. 15; Rom. v. 1. Accordingly, the 
 doctrine of forgiveness through Christ is always 
 enumerated by the apostles among the principal 
 doctrines and elementary principles of Chris- 
 tianity, which were never to be withheld in reli- 
 gious instruction. Vide 1 Thess. i. 10, 'I^crovj 
 6 (juOjitfvoj ^uctf drto frfi opy^j Ip^OjWaj^j, et alibi. 
 The Acts of the apostles and their epistles shew 
 that they always commenced with this doctrine, 
 and referred everything to it, both with Jews 
 and Gentiles, enlightened and ignorant; because 
 it is equally essential to all. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 389 
 
 The following classes comprise the principal 
 proof-texts relating to this point: 
 
 (1) The texts which declare that Christ has 
 atoned for us ; and that to procure the remission 
 of sins was the great object of his advent to the 
 world; and that he accomplished this object; 
 1 John, ii. 1,2; Heb. i. 3, At' tavtov xa^apiafiov 
 rtot,r]Gd/ji,svo$ H^v cytopT'iwt' T^MV. Heb. ix. 26, 
 " He has appeared before God (rtf^ctvt'pwT'at, ver. 
 24) with his offering, (5ta ^i;ota$ av-rov,) to take 
 away sin, (tl$ o&ttqaiv a^opttaj,)" i. e., he 
 sacrificed himself for us, he died for us, to free 
 us from the punishment of sin, (vide ver. 14.) 
 
 (2) The texts which require from us an un- 
 limited confidence (rttWtj) in Christ, for the rea- 
 son that we are indebted to him and to his per- 
 son for our spiritual welfare and our acceptance 
 with God. Acts, xxvi. 18, JiajSttV atytaiv a^uap- 
 ttMv it b'at't* ? y ij ^e. ii. 38 ; Rom. v. 1, 
 &ixa,ut$ivff$ EX TaWfiof, ttp^v^v f%ojjLev rtpoj 
 f6v (the favour of God,and peace of mind) 6ta 
 
 V, (which we owe to Christ.) Eph. i. 7, 
 
 avtov 1. e., "tr^v atyeau 
 
 (3) The texts which teach that there is no 
 other way besides this in which the forgiveness 
 of sin can be obtained. Heb. x. 26, " For those 
 who apostatize, contrary to their better convic- 
 tions respecting Christ (Ixoixj/wj ap-aptotvovruv, 
 ver. 23; iii. 12, 13), there remains no atoning 
 sacrifice (^vot'a rfspt a/tapfcwy)" i. e., there is 
 no way for them to obtain the forgiveness of 
 their sins, since this is the only way, and this 
 way they despise. Cf. Heb. vi. 4, seq. The 
 discourse of Peter, Acts, iv. 12, Ovx Itrtw tv 
 a'h.'h.fp aurtqpia,, x. t. X. Sco-r^pta, in this pas- 
 sage, is good, happiness, here and hereafter. 
 This happiness can be obtained through no other 
 person. The name (person) of no other man 
 under heaven is given to us for this object. 
 ^Qvopo, here is connected tv dt&pc^Ttotj, no name 
 among men. The meaning is, " We are direct- 
 ed by God to no other man, however holy, 
 through whom to obtain safety and happiness, 
 besides Jesus Christ." 
 
 (4) The texts which teach clearly and ex- 
 pressly that God forgives men their sins, or jus- 
 tifies them, and frees them from the punishment 
 of sin, solely on account of Christ. Acts, x. 
 43, "To him gave all the prophets witness, 
 that whoever believes in him should through 
 him (6ia 6v6pato$ av-tov) receive remission of 
 sins." (Cf. Ps. xxii., xl., ex. ; Is. liii.) Acts, 
 xiii. 38, " At>a> Tovfov v/jnv a^ifftj a.jUttpT'twv 
 5carayyM.trcu,, even of those from which you 
 could not be justified according to the law of 
 Moses." 1 John, ii. 12, 'Atyswtat, v^-lv at 
 a/jiap'tZai 8ta -to ovop.0, avtov, propter Christum. 
 Rom. v. 10, Kon'^TAay^iU.fi' tq> 9 Sta T?OV $avd- 
 fov tov Tiov av'tov, coll. ver. 18, and 1 Thess. 
 i. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21, " God treated him, who had 
 
 never sinned, as a sinner, in our stead, that we 
 might be forgiven by God ; yevupt^a Sixaioovvrj 
 
 &SOV (i. e., OlXtUOi tVUTllOV fOv) IV CM>T9," 071 
 
 his account, ver. 19. 
 
 But the passage which exhibits the mind of 
 Christ and the apostles most fully and clearly 
 is Romans, iii. 2128. Cf. Noesselt, Abhand- 
 lung, Opusc. t. ii. Paul here opposes the pre- 
 vailing mistake respecting the merit of good 
 works, and of the observance of the law, and 
 the opinion that God loved the Jews alone, and 
 comparatively disregarded every other people. 
 Paul shews that, on the contrary, God feels a 
 paternal interest in all men, and is willing to 
 forgive all, since all, as sinners, need forgive- 
 ness ; but that men can never obtain a title to 
 | this forgiveness by their own imperfect obedi- 
 i ence to the law, but only by faith in Christ, to 
 whom they are indebted for this favour, and in 
 a way exclusive of all personal desert. "Now 
 (in the times of the New Testament) we are 
 made acquainted, by the Christian doctrine, 
 with the purpose of God to forgive us (fiixcuo- 
 avvrj eov, ver. 22, 24,) without respect to the 
 observance of the law as anything meritorious, 
 (zupiS voftov ;) of which purpose frequent indi- 
 cations appear even in the Old Testament. 
 This is God's purpose to forgive men, on ac- 
 count of their faith in Jesus Christ, without 
 their own desert. This forgiveness is extended 
 to all (Jews and Gentiles) who believe in 
 Christ. All are sinners, unworthy of the di- 
 vine favour, and deserving of punishment. But 
 God, in the exercise of his impartial, paternal 
 love, desires to make all men happy, and ac- 
 cordingly intends this to be the means of the 
 happiness of all. But this forgiveness is be- 
 stowed upon them without their deserving it, 
 (Scopsav,) from the mere mercy (^aptj) of God, 
 through the atonement of Christ. God hath 
 appointed Christ to be an atoning sacrifice, 
 (tXaor^ptov,) or a propitiator through faith in 
 his blood, (i. e., God forgives us on his account, 
 if we place our whole reliance upon his death, 
 endured for our good.) He now indulgently 
 forgives us our past sins, (committed before our 
 conversion to Christ; cf. Heb. ix. 15.) He now 
 shews (in these times of the New Testament) 
 how merciful he is to all men, by forgiving 
 (gtxatovvr'a) every one (Jew or Gentile) who 
 believes in Jesus Christ, (tov ix TttWfwj.)" 
 
 The question arises, how and by what means 
 has Christ procured for us pardon from God, or 
 the forgiveness of sins? 
 
 We find many clear declarations upon this 
 point in the discourses of Jesus himself, espe- 
 cially in the Gospel of John, where he frequent- 
 ly speaks of his death, and of the worth and ad- 
 vantages of it; John, iii. 14; Matt. xxvi. We 
 find passages of the same kind even in the dis- 
 courses of John the Baptist, John, i. 29 ; and in 
 2x2 
 
390 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the prophecies to which Christ appeals as re- 
 ferring to himself; Ps. xxii., xl. ; Is. liii. But 
 this doctrine is more clearly explained, deve- 
 loped, and applied in the instructions of the 
 apostles. While Christ was visibly upon the 
 earth, he laid the foundation for this doctrine, 
 but left it for his disciples to make a more full 
 development and application of this, as well as 
 of many other doctrines, after his sufferings and 
 death should have become facts which had al- 
 ready taken place. That the views which they 
 give upon this subject did not originate merely 
 in the conceptions then prevalent among the 
 Jews and heathen, but are exactly suited to the 
 universal necessities of man, is clear from s. 
 108. 
 
 But there have always been some in the 
 Christian church, and many in modern times, to 
 whom this doctrine, so clearly taught in the 
 New Testament, has been offensive, as it was 
 formerly to many Jews and heathen; 1 Cor. i. 
 2. And so they endeavour to give a different 
 view from that given in the New Testament of 
 the nature of the benefits which Christ has con- 
 ferred upon the human race, confining them to 
 his doctrine, and the results of it. So Socinus, 
 and many of the same opinion in other parties. 
 Sometimes they endeavour to deduce their opi- 
 nions by a forced interpretation from the Bible. 
 Sometimes they hold that the subject should 
 not be definitely stated, at least in popular dis- 
 course, that it is sufficient to say, in general, 
 we obtain forgiveness of sin through Christ, or 
 through faith in Christ, leaving every one to un- 
 derstand this statement in his own way. But 
 the meaning of this indefinite phraseology must 
 certainly be explained in theological instruction. 
 Should it, then, be withheld from the people 1 and 
 is it honest to refer the common people and the 
 young to the holy scriptures by the language 
 employed, and at the same time to teach them 
 something widely different from what is con- 
 tained in the Bible 1 If the conscience of any 
 one does not pronounce such conduct inexcusa- 
 ble, he should renounce the idea of being a 
 Christian teacher. The question here is not, 
 how the doctrine may be understood by learned 
 men, judging independently of the authority of 
 Revelation, but how the doctrine is taught in 
 the New Testament 1 Since this book lies at 
 the foundation of religious knowledge, the doc- 
 trines and ideas which it contains should be ex- 
 plained, and in a way which will be intelligi- 
 ble to those who hear. And considering how 
 adapted to the wants of man the scriptural doc- 
 trine of forgiveness is, what a powerful influ- 
 ence it exerts, how much it does to tranquillize 
 the mind, to purify and elevate the character, it 
 would be an act of rashness and cruelty to de- 
 stroy the faith of men in it, and to rob them of 
 a belief in place of which nothing can be sub- 
 
 stituted at once so plain to the reason, so bene- 
 ficial to the character, and so consoling to the 
 heart. , 
 
 The Bible ascribes the forgiveness which is 
 procured for us by Christ principally to the fol- 
 lowing points viz., (1) his sufferings and vio- 
 lent death; which is often called, according to the 
 Hebrew idiom, al^ta Xpio-T'ov and cftcwpos. This 
 is the principal thing. In connexion with this it 
 places (2) his resurrection, and (3) his interces- 
 sion. On these grounds God justifies or for- 
 gives men. These three parts will therefore be 
 separately considered. S. Ill, 112. 
 
 Note. We should not stop with one of these 
 particulars, and overlook the rest. The resur- 
 rection of Christ, according to the New Testa- 
 ment, assures us of the validity of his atone- 
 ment; and his intercession imparts a deep con- 
 viction that, although he has ascended into the 
 heavens, he is still mindful of us, and cares for 
 our welfare. These three points together com- 
 pose the entire meritum Christi. Persons are said 
 mereri, or, bene mereri de aliquo, when they as- 
 sist another to obtain possession of any advan- 
 tage. Sometimes these advantages themselves, 
 which are obtained by the assistance of a bene- 
 factor, are called merita. But the custom of the 
 schools, ever since the time of the schoolmen, 
 has been, to call the death of Christ, so far as 
 we are indebted to it for pardon and eternal hap- 
 piness, the meritum Christi, by way of emi- 
 nence ; meaning that we owe these spiritual 
 blessings to the death of Christ, without deny- 
 ing that he has deserved well of the human race 
 in other ways. Considering that this phraseo- 
 logy has now become established in systema- 
 tic theology, Morus (p. 171, 172, s. 5) justly 
 thinks that it should be preserved, as a devia- 
 tion from it might produce confusion. 
 
 SECTION CXI. 
 
 OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF CHRIST? HOW 
 FAR WE ARE INDEBTED TO THEM FOR OUR JUS- 
 TIFICATION OR PARDON ; TOGETHER WITH OB- 
 SERVATIONS ON SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL AT- 
 TRIBUTES (AFFECTIONES) OF THE DEATH OF 
 
 CHRIST. 
 
 WE shall adhere, in this place, simply to the 
 doctrine and representations of the New Testa- 
 ment, and hereafter (s. 114) treat of the various 
 explanations which have been given in later 
 times of this doctrine, and of the various eccle- 
 siastical opinions DE SATISFACTIONS. 
 
 I. The Sufferings and Death of Christ ; and how 
 far men are indebted to them for their Justifica- 
 tion or Forgiveness. 
 
 By the sufferings and death of Christ, accord- 
 ing to the scriptures, many objects and ends 
 which God had in view were attained, and they 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 391 
 
 may therefore be considered in various lights, 
 all of which are important and full of instruc- 
 tion. Thus the death of Christ furnishes a proof 
 of the great love of God and of Christ to us. It 
 is an example of the greatest steadfastness, con- 
 fidence in God, and patience, &c. And these 
 views of it are often presented in the New Tes- 
 tament, but by no means the most frequently. 
 The sufferings and death of Christ are mainly 
 considered as the ground or procuring-cause of 
 our forgiveness and of our spiritual welfare. 
 " All men are sinners, and consequently deserv- 
 ing of punishment. The ground on which God 
 pardons them, or forgives their sin, is the suf- 
 ferings and death of Christ, or his blood shed 
 for them. He endured the misery which we 
 should have endured as the penalty of sin, in 
 order that we might be saved from deserved 
 punishment." Such is the uniform doctrine of 
 the Bible, the reason and object of it are plain 
 from what was remarked in s. 108. Without 
 this doctrine the Bible is not consistent. Our 
 forgiveness, then, does not depend upon our re- 
 formation and holiness, by which we deserve no- 
 thing from God, (Gal. ii. 21 ;) but upon the 
 death of Christ, of which our holiness is the re- 
 sult. The death of Chris], is the antecedent, our 
 holiness the consequent. 
 
 This doctrine is briefly and summarily taught 
 in the following passages, part of which have 
 been already explained, and the remainder of 
 which will be hereafter ; viz., Matt. xxvi. 28 ; 
 Rom. iii. 25; v. 8, 9; Eph. i. 7; Heb. ix. 12, 
 15, 2$; 1 John, i. 7. 
 
 The death of Christ, however, is not here 
 mentioned, exclusively of his other sufferings. 
 Vide s. 95. All together constitute that which 
 Paul calls the vrtaxori of Christ, Rom. v. 19, 
 because he endured them from obedience to God, 
 Phil. ii. 8. Theologians call them all obedientia 
 passiva. But death, especially a violent death, 
 most deeply moves our sensibilities, and com- 
 prises, as we regard it, the sum and substance 
 of all other sufferings and punishments. For 
 this reason the New Testament makes more fre- 
 quent mention of the death, blood, and cross of 
 Christ. 
 
 The following passages clearly and distinctly 
 teach that Christ has effected the deliverance 
 of man from the deserved punishment of sin, by 
 means of his sufferings and violent death viz., 
 
 (1) The texts which teach that Christ suf- 
 fered or died for all sinners, or for all the sins 
 of men ; 8 i d (popart I'wjuai'a), rt s p i (rtoM,wv), 
 but more commonly v it s p (d ; aapT'w>.u>v or rtav- 
 tfwv or d^uapT'ttov ^wv), Hebrew, Sy. E. g., 
 Matt. xxvi. 28, "The blood shed for many, for 
 the remission of sins." Rom. iv. 25 ; v. 6; 1 
 Cor. xv. 3 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18 ; Is. 
 liii. 5, seq. 
 
 It has been objected against this proof, that 
 
 to do a thing vrcsp rt'voj, sometimes means sim- 
 ply to do it fur the good of any one, to instruct 
 him, improve him, or to give him an example. 
 So Col. i. 24, where Paul speaks of his sufferings 
 for the good of (rrttp) the Colossians and of the 
 whole Christian church, because he was perse- 
 cuted by his enemies, and then imprisoned at 
 Rome. But the sense even here is, "he con- 
 gratulates himself that he can undergo in his 
 own person what would otherwise have befallen 
 the whole church ; while the general hatred 
 lights upon him, others escaped." When now 
 this phraseology is used in the New Testament 
 with reference to Christ, it never means that he 
 died to teach men, &c. ; but always, instead, in 
 the place of men, to deliver them. He suffered 
 what we should have suffered ; endured the 
 penalty of the law, which we should have en- 
 dured. This is confirmed by the passage Is. 
 liii., from which these terms are so frequently 
 borrowed in the New Testament. And this is 
 decisively proved by the passage Rom. v. 6, 
 where it is said that Christ died for (vrtlp) sin- 
 ners. This cannot mean that by his death he 
 gave men an example of firmness, or sought to 
 reform them. For in ver. 7, we read, "There 
 are but few instances among men (like that of 
 Damon and Pythias) of one dying for an inno- 
 cent friend; and indeed the examples are rare 
 of one dying (as Peter was willing to do vrttp 
 v, John, xiii. 37) even for a benefactor, 
 But there is no example of one dying 
 for rebels and criminals, to rescue them from 
 the death which they deserved, and yet so did 
 Christ die for us." Paul could not have ex- 
 pressed his meaning more clearly. According- 
 ly, he says, 2 Cor. v. 14, " Did one (Christ) 
 die for all, then were all dead." 
 
 Further ; if this phraseology meant nothing 
 more than is contended for by the objector, it 
 might be used with reference to the death of the 
 apostles and other martyrs. But this is never 
 the case in the New Testament. No one of 
 them is ever said to have died for the world, 
 for sinners, or sin. It is said respecting Christ 
 exclusively, ofi tlj vrtep rtdvtuv drtl^avs, 2 
 Cor. v. 14, 15, coll. 1 Cor. i. 13, "Was Paul 
 crucified for (vrtsp) you?" 
 
 The meaning, then, of the phraseology, 
 " Christ suffered for us, or in our place," is this : 
 " Since Christ suffered for our sins, we ourselves 
 are freed from the necessity of enduring the pu- 
 nishment which they deserved. It is the same as 
 if we had ourselves endured this punishment; 
 and therefore it need no longer be feared." The 
 epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, 
 and Hebrews, are full of texts of this import. 
 Cf. Morus, p. 151, and Storr, Doctrina Christ, 
 p. 254. 
 
 (2) The texts which teach that Christ was 
 treated as a sinner ; and this in our stead, that 
 
392 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 we might be considered as forgiven by God. 
 2 Cor. v. 21, where apaptia or cyiopT'wT.ov rtotEtv, 
 is, to treat one as a sinner, to punish him ; as the 
 opposite 8ixaiov rtowtv or Sixatovv is to treat as 
 innocent, to forgive. Jesus was treated in this 
 way vrtsp iy/twv, which is explained by what 
 follows, "that we, on Christ's account, might 
 be treated by God as just or innocent" i. e., 
 might be saved from deserved punishment; 
 yti/(dju.c&a Stxaioavvr] tov 1. e., Sixaiot, evurtcov 
 (ov. So also Gal. iii. 13, "Christ hath re- 
 deemed us (who as sinners must fear the threat- 
 enings of the law) from the threatened punish- 
 ment of the law (xa-r'apa vofjLov), yevofisvos 
 vjtep YI\I,Z>V xatfap a," forlTttxar'apaT'oj, (asin 
 ver. 10;) i. e., by enduring for us a cruel capi- 
 tal punishment, (to which, according to the 
 law of Moses, only the grossest offenders were 
 liable.) Cf. Isaiah, liii. 4 6, from which the 
 apostles frequently borrow these and similar 
 expressions. 
 
 (3) With the passages already cited belong 
 those which teach that Christ took upon himself 
 and bore the sins of men i. e., endured the pu- 
 nishment which men would have endured for 
 their sins. In Hebrew the phrase is \\y Nfeu, or 
 Sap ; in the Septuagint and the New Testament, 
 tyspeiv or (upeiv apupfids. It occurs in the text, 
 Is. liii. 4, which is always referred by the New 
 Testament to Christ. Also John, i. 29 ; 1 Pet.ii. 
 24 ; Heb. ix. 28, &c. Some would render fepew 
 or oi'petv apaptCav by auferre peccatum, to make 
 men virtuous, to reform them in a moral respect. 
 The only passage in the New Testament in 
 in which the phrase will bear this interpretation 
 is 1 John, iii. 5, where it is equally capable of 
 the other rendering. The phrase commonly 
 has the meaning first given, and a different in- 
 terpretation does the greatest violence to the 
 passages in which it occurs; the comparison 
 being so clearly derived from sacrifices. 
 
 But what is the origin of this signification of 
 the term? In the Old Testament, sin is fre- 
 quently compared with a burden which oppresses 
 any one, and which he is compelled to carry, 
 when he feels the unpleasant consequences of 
 sin, or is punished. So in Arabic, to bear one's 
 own or another's burden. Hence the phrase was 
 used in reference (a) to the victim, which was 
 sacrificed for the atonement of sin. The victim 
 was supposed to have the sin or punishment 
 laid upon it; Lev. xvi. 21, 22. (6) In reference 
 to men,- and first, to such as were punished for 
 their own sins, Lev. xx. 19; xxiv. 15; and, se- 
 condly, to such as were punished on account of 
 the sens of others, Lam. v. 7, " We must bear 
 the sins of our fathers." Ezek. xviii. 20 ; also, 
 Is. liii., " The punishment lies on him ; he bears 
 our sins." This sense holds in the passages 
 cited from the New Testament. John, i. 29, 
 *' Behold the (sacrificial) lamb acceptable to 
 
 God, which bears the sins of the world !" a 
 comparison drawn from sacrifices. This com- 
 parison is inapplicable, according to the other 
 interpretation the Lamb which makes us pious 
 and virtuous. In Heb. ix., the figure implied 
 in Ttpoatvfx&ls is taken from sacrifices. In 1 
 Pet. ii. 24, the two ideas are distinguished ; 
 first, "he bore our sins on the cross," (i. e., 
 suffered on the cross the punishment of our 
 sins;) then, "that we might die to sin (spiritu- 
 ally), and live wholly to holiness, (Sixatotfvw?.)" 
 
 (4) The passages which teach that the death 
 of Christ was a ransom for us, (xvrpov, avtC- 
 a/urpoj/,) 1 Tim. ii. 6, and even in the discourse 
 of Christ, Matt. xx. 28. The term hvtpov de- 
 notes anything by which one is freed, delivered, 
 Vide s. IOG, II. The meaning of the proposition, 
 then, is this : The death of Christ was the means 
 of delivering and rescuing us from the greatest 
 misery, from the punishment of sin; or, accord- 
 ing to Heb. ix. 12, " Christ, atcoi/t'av hvtpuatv 
 evpdptvos, effected our eternal liberation from 
 misery and punishment;" Is. xliii. 3, 4. 
 
 (5) All the texts which compare the death of 
 Christ with the sacrifices and Levitical ordi- 
 nances of the Old Testament; also the texts 
 which teach that the death of Christ obtained, 
 once for all, and in a far more perfect manner, 
 the advantages which men had hoped to obtain 
 from their sacrifices and expiatory rites. This 
 doctrine was indeed founded in the ideas preva- 
 lent at that period, and was particularly evident 
 and convincing to the Jews then living, and to 
 such of the heathen nations as were accustomed 
 to the rites of sacrifice. But it was by no means 
 intended for such exclusively; since it is also 
 founded in a feeling which is universal among 
 men, that some means of atonement are neces- 
 sary ; s. 108. The apostles, therefore, in their 
 instructions to Jews, heathen, and Christians, de- 
 rive their expressions and comparisons from sa- 
 crifices, and only in their instructions to Jews, 
 from the particular services of the Mosaic ritual. 
 
 The idea which lies at the foundation of this 
 comparison is this : " Christ by his death liberated 
 us from death" (punishment of sin), which we 
 should have suffered ; and we should see in him 
 (a) what dreadful consequences our sins incur, 
 and (Z>) how gracious God is, in forgiving us for 
 the sake of Christ." Ephes. v. 2, 
 tawtbv vrtep qpuv 0?ci rtpotifyopav, 
 6afjiriv vu>6t'aj. Romans, iii. 25, 
 Heb. ix. 7, 11 28; x. 114; Acts, xiii. 38, &c, 
 Hence the term a!/*a (csedes cruenta), which so 
 frequently stands for the death of Christ, is to be 
 understood in its full sense. It frequently stands 
 in such a connexion as shews that the figure is 
 derived from the blood of the sacrificial victim, 
 and from the qualities ascribed to it e. g., Heb. 
 ix. 13, 14, al/.ia -favpcov xai tpdy&v, in opposition 
 to alfia XpwJf ov xa&apisi. 1 John, i. 7, " The 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 393 
 
 blood of Christ cleanses," &c. 1 Pet. i. 19, 
 "The blood of Christ, a lamb without spot or 
 blemish:'' 
 
 Taking all these texts together, there is no 
 room to doubt that the apostles entertained the 
 opinions respecting the death of Christ, and its 
 effect, which were ascribed to them at the com- 
 mencement of this section. These opinions have 
 been shewn (s. 108), not only to correspond with 
 the particular circle of ideas with which they 
 were familiar at that period, but to meet a uni- 
 versal necessity of man. This is a necessity, 
 indeed, which is but little felt by the learned, 
 and least of all by the merely speculative scho- 
 lar. Vide 1 Cor. i. iii. 
 
 II. Universality, and Perfect and Perpetual Validity 
 of the Atonement. 
 
 (1) Its universality. Two points must here 
 be noticed. 
 
 First. According to the clear testimony of 
 the Bible, Christ endured death for the whole 
 human race ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, vrtsp ttdvfuv arts- 
 Sdvy. Ver. 19, "God reconciled the world to 
 himself through Christ." 1 Tim. ii. 6, Sovs 
 savtbv a>vT?favtpov vrtfp rcavtuv. 1 John, ii. 2, 
 " He is the propitiator, not only for our sins, (i. 
 e., those of Christians,) but also for the sins 
 6xov tov XOG/JLOV," &c. But the passages which 
 are most explicit upon this subject are found in 
 the epistle to the Romans, where Paul contro- 
 verts the mistaken opinion of the Jews that the 
 blessings of the Messiah's kingdom belong ex- 
 clusively to the posterity of Abraham. He 
 shews, Romans, v. 12 19, that as one man was 
 the author of sin in the world, and of the conse- 
 quent punishment which all now endure, so one 
 man is the author of salvation and forgiveness 
 for all. In Romans, iii. 9, 22, he shews that as 
 the moral disease is universal among men, the 
 remedy must needs be universal; and, in ver. 
 29, that the benevolence of God is not confined 
 to a small portion, but embraces the whole fa- 
 mily of man. 
 
 In such passages of the New Testament, the 
 term rfotoob or oi jtoXtoi frequently stands for 
 rtavT'fj. E. g., Rom. v. 19, ol TtokW stands for 
 all men who are obnoxious to punishment and 
 need forgiveness; as it reads ver. 12, 18. The 
 same in ver. 15. Cf. Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28 ; 
 1 Cor. x. 33, &c. The Hebrews used the word 
 oo? in the same way, Is. liii. 12. Ml involves 
 the idea of many, and hence in the ancient lan- 
 guages the words which signify many are often 
 used to denote universality so many! such a 
 multitude! This was the case especially where 
 only one was pointed out in contrast to the many ; 
 one for so many ! 
 
 Note. The question has been asked, whether 
 Christ died for the ungodly. The strict particu- 
 larists and predestinarians answered this ques- 
 50 
 
 tion in the negative, on the ground that the 
 death of Christ does not actually secure the sal- 
 vation of the wicked, and is of no advantage to 
 them. But because some, by their own fault, 
 derive no advantage from the death of Christ, 
 we cannot say that the death of Christ does not 
 concern them, and that Christ did not die for 
 them, any more than we can say that divine in- 
 struction has no power in itself to reform man- 
 kind, because many will not allow themselves 
 to be reformed by it. Moreover, this opinion is 
 inconsistent with the New Testament. In 2 Pet. 
 ii. 1, the false teachers and deceivers, whom a 
 dreadful destruction awaited, are said expressly 
 to deny the Lord who bought (redeemed) them. 
 Misunderstanding and logomachy may be obvi- 
 ated by attending to the just remark of the 
 schoolmen, that the design of the death of Christ, 
 and the adua/results of it, should be distinguish- 
 ed. Aciu primo, Christ died for all men; but 
 actu secundo, not for all men, but only for be- 
 lievers i. e., according to the purpose of God, 
 all might be exempted from punishment and 
 rendered happy by the death of Christ; but all 
 do not suffer this purpose actually to take effect 
 with regard to themselves ; and only believers 
 actually attain to this blessedness. 
 
 Secondly. Christ removed the whole punish- 
 ment of sin ; his death atoned for all sins. So 
 the apostles declare. 1 John, i. 7, "The blood 
 of Christ cleanses from all sin." Romans, v. 
 16 ; viii. 1, ovSev xafdxfup.a, T'otj iv XpttfT'cp, Acts, 
 xiii. 38, &c. But an apparent difficulty is here 
 suggested, which must be answered from the 
 discussion respecting punishments, (s. 86, 87,) 
 and can therefore only be touched here. 
 
 Now there are two kinds of punishments 
 viz., natural, such as flow from the nature and 
 character of the moral action itself, (e. g., debi- 
 lity and disease from luxurious excess;) and 
 positive, such as do not result directly from the 
 nature and character of the moral action, but are 
 connected with it by the free will of the law- 
 giver. God actually threatens to inflict such 
 positive punishments upon the wicked, espe- 
 cially in the future world ; just as he promises, 
 on the other hand, to bestow positive rewards in 
 the future world upon the righteous, s. 87. 
 Again ; the natural punishments of sin are of 
 two kinds viz., (a) physical, as sickness in 
 consequence of immoderation; and (fc) moral 
 (by far the worst !), such as disquiet of mind, 
 remorse of conscience, and dread of God ; s. 86, 
 II. 2. 
 
 Now, has Christ redeemed us from all these 
 punishments ? Those who mean to speak strictly 
 and logically reply, no! Christ has redeemed 
 us, properly speaking, only from positive divine 
 punishments in the future world, and from that 
 kind of natural punishments which may be called 
 moral, or the evil results of sin in a moral respect. 
 
394 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Even the man who is reformed still retains the 
 consciousness of the sins which he has commit- 
 ted, and reflects upon them with sorrow, shame, 
 and regret. But the pardoned sinner knows 
 that God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven his 
 sins; and so is no longer subject to that disquiet 
 of mind, pain of conscience, dread of God and 
 despair the pcena moralis of sin, which render 
 the wicked miserable. 
 
 The physical part of natural punishment in- 
 deed remains, even after the transgressor is re- J 
 formed. If any one, by his extravagance, has ! 
 made himself sick and poor, he will not, in con- j 
 sequence of being pardoned and renewed, become : 
 well and prosperous. The physical conse- ; 
 quences of sin continue, not only through the 
 present life, but probably through the life to 
 come. They can be obviated only by a miracu- 
 lous interference of God, which is nowhere pro- 
 mised. But these very physical consequences \ 
 of sin, whose evil is so lasting, are like a bitter ! 
 medicine ; they have a good effect, and secure 
 us from turning again from the right path. Al- 
 though one who is pardoned has therefore no 
 right to expect that the physical evils resulting ! 
 from his transgression will be counteracted by i 
 his being subsequently forgiven, yet he may 
 hope, both from what has now been said and ! 
 from common experience, that these evils will 
 be very much diminished, will lose the terror 
 of punishment, and contribute to his good. Such 
 is the case exactly with bodily death. 
 
 The same truth is taught in the Bible, not 
 indeed in a scientific manner, which would be 
 unintelligible to men at large, but in the popular 
 manner, in which it should always be taught. 
 (1) The Bible never says that Christ has entirely 
 removed the physical evils which naturally re- 
 sult from sin. (2) When the sacred writers say 
 that Christ suffered punishment for us, they mean 
 principally the positive punishment, from which 
 he has liberated us by his sufferings and death. 
 Vide s. 87, No. 2. They also teach, (3) That 
 one who trusts in Christ can take courage, can 
 love God and confide in him without dreading 
 his anger, and without distressing himself in 
 view of his past guilt, which is now forgiven 
 him for the sake of Christ. The remission of 
 the moral punishments which naturally flow 
 from sin is thus set forth in a manner which 
 ought to be followed by the public teacher. 
 Vide s. 109, ad finem. (4) But the terms par- 
 don and forgiveness of sin are frequently used in 
 the New Testament in a wider sense, compre- 
 hending all the divine favours which the par- 
 doned receive from God ; they denote the whole 
 amount of the blessedness the salvation which 
 the pardoned enjoy. Vide s. 109, Note. If, 
 therefore, (5) the natural physical consequences 
 of past sins are not removed, they still lose their 
 beverity; they are rendered mild and in many 
 
 respects beneficial ; they are vastly overbalanced 
 by the various blessings bestowed, and thus 
 cease, in their actual effects, to be punishments. 
 The holy scriptures, therefore, declare with 
 truth, that the blood of Christ atones for all sins. 
 Cf. the programm of Noesselt, above cited. 
 
 Note. Theologians have been divided on the 
 question, whether the apostles held that the sins 
 committed before Christ, or during the Old-Tes- 
 tament dispensation, were forgiven by God on 
 account of the atonement to be afterwards made. 
 Doederlein and others take the negative side. 
 They say that the atysais jtpoyfyovor'wv auapT'^ / ua- 
 t'coj/, Rom. iii. 25, may denote the remission of 
 the sins which- the Jews and Gentiles of that 
 age had committed before their conversion to 
 Christianity. The 7tapa,3a(j6tj sjti tr[ rtpwr 1 ^ 
 Sta^-yjx^, Heb. ix. 15, may be understood in the 
 same way, or may denote the sins which were 
 irremissible during the Old-Testament dispensa- 
 tion. Vide ver. 9. But the context of this pas- 
 sage is more favourable to the common interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 Besides, the affirmative of this question is 
 supported, (1) By the whole analogy of scrip- 
 ture. The Jews of that age agree with Christ 
 and the apostles in teaching that men of the 
 earliest times hoped for the Messiah that the 
 divine ordinances of the former dispensation re- 
 ferred to him, and pointed him out and that all 
 the pious of antiquity confided in him. Vide 
 John, viii. 56; Luke, x. 24; 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. 
 Cf. s. 90. (2) By the passage, Heb. ix. 26, 
 where this doctrine is plainly implied. " God 
 appointed that Christ should suffer and die for 
 all sins, and once for all. Otherwise, it would 
 i have been necessary that he should suffer more 
 than once (rtoM-axtj) from the beginning of the 
 world ; since there were always sinners in the 
 world." This plainly involves the sentiment 
 that Christ died for the men who lived before 
 him. The opinion of Lreffler and other modern 
 writers, that pardon through the death of Christ 
 related only to the new converts from Judaism 
 and heathenism is entirely false and contradic- 
 tory to the New Testament. Vide Gal. iii. 21, 
 seq.; Romans, i. 18, seq., coll. 1 Thess. i. 10; 
 John, iii. 13 16; Romans, v. 18, 19; and 
 especially 1 John, ii. 1, 2. 
 
 (2) The other attribute of the atoning death 
 of Christ is, its permanent and perfect validity, 
 ( perennitas, perennis valor meriti Christi.) 
 
 This doctrine is held in opposition to those 
 who believe that the expiatory sacrifice of 
 Christ is not valid and sufficient for the atone- 
 ment of some particular sins, and who therefore 
 seek for other means of obtaining pardon, such 
 as penances and satisfactions. This opinion 
 has not only prevailed in modern times, espe- 
 cially since the middle ages, throughout the 
 whole body of the Romish church, but former- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 395 
 
 ly, though in different forms, even in the times 
 of the apostles, among Jews and Gentiles. Vide 
 s. 108, No. I. Paul therefore shews, especially 
 in his epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ had 
 sacrificed himself once for a//(a7to|) for all sins, 
 and that now no more sacrifices, penances, and 
 expiations are necessary for men. Heb. vii. 
 27, Tovto iitoirfitv s^artaf, tavtbv avsvtyxas. 
 Heb. ix. 25, 26 28, " He appeared at the close 
 of this age, artot tl$ a^st^atv apaptias' and then 
 aTtot ftfX)<JfV(%&sl$ i$ to 7toM.&>v avevfyxtiiV d/itap- 
 tft'aj. So also, x. 14, fiia rtpoff^opa tsttteitaxsv 
 tov$ ayiaofj,vov$. Accord- 
 
 ingly, Christ is said, ix. 11, by his once enter- 
 ing into the heavens, to have procured eternal 
 redemption 
 
 SECTION CXII 
 
 OF THE INFLUENCE WHICH THE RESURRECTION OF 
 CHRIST, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT EXALTATION AND 
 INTERCESSION, HAVE UPON OUR FORGIVENESS OR 
 JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 IT was observed (s. 110, ad finem) that the 
 New Testament points to three particulars in 
 the justification procured for us by Christ. The 
 first of these, the death of Christ, was consider- 
 ed, s. 111. We come now to treat of the two 
 remaining particulars. 
 
 I. T/ie Influence of the Resurrection and Exaltation 
 of Christ upon our Justification. 
 
 We have before examined (s. 37) what is 
 uniformly taught in the Bible respecting the re- 
 surrection of Christ, and the great importance 
 of this event, and all this is here presupposed. 
 The resurrection of Christ is mentioned, in con- 
 nexion with our justification, with the most dis- 
 tinctness in the two following texts viz., 2 Cor. 
 v. 15, " Christians should not live for their own 
 pleasure (lavro *?v), but for the honour of 
 Christ, and according to his will, rci vrtsp avtuv 
 arto&avovti xai fysp^avi't" (sc. vrtsp avt<l>v) ; and 
 Rom. iv. 25, "He died (according to the divine 
 purpose) 6ia ta xapartttopata i^uwj/, ^ycp^jf 
 6 ta t q v 8 i x a Loavvrj v ^^GJV." 
 
 What is meant by his being raised for our 
 justification must be gathered from other pas- 
 sages. 1 Pet. i. 3, "God has made us, by 
 means of Christianity, reformed men (born 
 again"), that we might cherish a firm hope (n'$ 
 ihrti8a ^wtfav, sc. of future happiness, ver. 4), 
 through the' resurrection of Christ. 1 Pet. i. 21, 
 *' God has raised Christ and rewarded him with 
 glory (the state of exaltation in the heavens), 
 that he the risen and glorified Christ might 
 be your confidence and hope in God" i. e., that 
 you should consider him as the person to whom 
 alone you are indebted for the confidence which 
 you now are enabled to repose in God. 1 Cor. 
 xv. 17, "If Christ were not risen, then the con- 
 
 fidence (rtt'tfT'ij) which you feel in him would 
 be vain ; tVt sate iv aftaptiais -fytwv" i. e., you 
 could not be certain of that forgiveness which 
 you now hope to obtain from God through 
 Christ. Cf. Rom. viii. 34. 
 
 From these passages taken together we can 
 easily gather the relation and connexion in 
 which the resurrection and exaltation of Christ 
 stand to our justification and forgiveness. The 
 resurrection of Christ, then, cannot be consider- 
 ed to have any desert in itself alone, nor can it 
 be supposed, separately considered, to have freed 
 us from the punishment of sin. But, according 
 to the Bible, the resurrection of Christ and his 
 subsequent reward in heaven give attestation 
 and confirmation to all that he taught and suf- 
 fered. For since God raised and rewarded 
 Christ, we must conclude that lie fully ap- 
 proved of everything which Jesus taught and 
 performed and that Christ must have accom- 
 plished His designs. Did Christ suffer and 
 die with the intention of liberating us from the 
 punishment of sin, we may be sure, since his 
 resurrection and exaltation, that he fully attain- 
 ed this object, and that we can now through him 
 lay claim to reward and eternal happiness. This 
 is what Peter means by *.lon.$ xai &jti$ r^v. 
 In the passage cited from 1 Cor., Paul means to 
 say, that if Christ were not risen, we might be 
 led to suspect that he had not performed what 
 he promised and undertook to perform. 
 
 We are now prepared to understand the mean- 
 ing of the declaration in the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, jjysp^ e tj &Lxaioavviv ^uwv viz., in order 
 to afford us certainty of our forgiveness, of which 
 we could have no certainty if Christ had re- 
 ! mained in the grave. Vide Acts, xiii. 37, 38. 
 I Accordingly, the resurrection and exaltation 
 i (8oa, as Peter has it), of Christ are the con- 
 | Jirmation and assurance of our justification, 
 while the sufferings and death of Christ are pro- 
 perly the procuring cause of it. 
 
 II. The Influence of the Intercession of Christ upon 
 our Justification. 
 
 (1) Sketch of the history of this doctrine. 
 Many theologians, and some of the ecclesias- 
 tical fathers, represent intercession as a conti- 
 
 | nued external action of Christ, different from 
 his atonement, by which blessings are not only 
 imparted to us, but likewise procured for us. 
 Among the fathers who held this opinion were 
 Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory the Great, 
 
 | Paulus of Aquilia, and others; among modern 
 theologians, Calvin, and of the Lutheran church, 
 Chemnitz, Baumgarten, and others. These 
 writers regard the intercession of Christ as a 
 distinct'work performed by him in his state of 
 exaltation in heaven. They have very different 
 conceptions, however, respecting the manner of 
 this work, some of which are very gross. Many 
 
39G 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 of them contended for an intercessio verbalis 
 e. g., Cyprian and Augustine; and their opi- 
 nion was adopted in the Romish church. Ac- 
 cordingly, Luther renders ivtvyzdvsi, Heb. vii. 
 25, " Er bittetfur sie," (he prays for them.} So 
 Petavius, Hollaz, Quenstedt, and many others, 
 among the Lutherans. They also differ widely 
 from one another respecting the nature, object, 
 and continuance of this intercession. Some 
 consider it as belonging to the sacerdotal office, 
 in which case the comparison is drawn from 
 the Jewish high priest in the Epistle to the He- 
 brews. Nothing definite upon the subject ap- 
 pears in the symbols, except in the Augsburg 
 Confession; and even there no distinct expla- 
 nation is given. 
 
 Another theory, which entirely divests the 
 subject of its material dress, and which has 
 therefore been more generally approved in mo- 
 dern times, was first distinctly stated by Philip 
 Limborch, the Arminian theologian, and by 
 Musaeus in the seventeenth century. They 
 consider the intercession of Christ to be merely 
 the relation in which he, in his state of exalta- 
 tion, stands to sinners, as their Redeemer, and 
 not as a continued action, by which he still pro- 
 motes the welfare of men, and by which salva- 
 tion is still procured for them. The same opi- 
 nion is found in Ballhorn's dissertation, De in- 
 tercessione Christi sacerdotali, (among Walch's 
 Vorsitze;) Gottingen, 1774. This opinion, 
 however, does not exactly correspond with the 
 doctrine of the Bible. 
 
 (2) Explanation of the texts relating to this 
 subject, and an elucidation of the ideas contained 
 in them. These texts are 
 
 (a) 1 John, ii. 1. "When a Christian has 
 committed sin, (let him not despair of pardon, 
 but encourage himself with the thought, that) 
 we have rtapdxhrjtov rtpoj tbv jta-ttpa, in 
 Jesus, the righteous." Here Ttapcix^roj is, pa- 
 tronus, advocate, defender, (Fiirsprecher, Luther.) 
 This name is given by Philo to the ministers 
 and favourites at court, who promise to any one 
 the favour of the king; and also to the high 
 priest, the expiator of the people. Vide Pro- 
 gram m, De Christo et Spiritu Sancto paracletis, 
 in " Scripta varii argument!," Num. iv. In 
 this respect it is that Christ is called 
 7*05. He is our expiator, l%.a,G/j.b$ Ttspt) 
 ver. 2. Accordingly, the meaning of this pas- 
 sage is, that since Christ is exalted to heaven, 
 and while he continues there, we may be firmly 
 convinced that God will be gracious to us, and 
 for Christ's sake will remit the punishment of 
 our sins; and that Christ, in his state of exalta- 
 tion, continues without intermission his cares 
 fur the welfare of men. 
 
 (&) Rom, viii. 34, Here Paul says, "No one 
 can condemn (xytaxpivsiv) the friends of God, 
 (Christians.) They are exempt from punish- 
 
 ment. Christ died for them ; and indeed, (what 
 might add to their comfort,) had risen again, 
 was seated on the right hand of God, oj xai ev- 
 vrtsp npuv, (vertritt uns, Luther.) 'Ef- 
 , joined with the dative, means occur- 
 rere alicui ; then, adire, convenire aliquem, Acts, 
 xxv. 24; joined with xata (tivo$), accusare, 
 Rom. xi. 2 ; with vrtfp (ftVoj), medium se alte- 
 rius causa interponere, to interpose in behalf of 
 one, to intercede for him ; as here, intercedere 
 pro aliquo, deprecari, causam alicujus agere. 
 From this text it does not appear that this in- 
 tercession was performed by words. The prin- 
 cipal idea is, " Christ is now, as it were, our 
 patron with God ; his being with God in hea- 
 ven gives us the consoling assurance that 
 through him we are for ever reconciled with 
 God and freed from the punishment of sin; and 
 that, as the advocate and patron of the pious, 
 Christ still prosecutes in heaven his labours for 
 their welfare." 
 
 (c) Heb. vii. 25, seq. Here the case is the 
 same. "Christ (being an eternal high priest) 
 can for ever bless (ow^tv t$ -to rtavtttei) all 
 those who seek the favour of God through his 
 mediation, since he ever lives d$ to htvyzd- 
 vstv" i. e., since Christ ever lives with God 
 in heaven we can always be sure of forgiveness 
 and of every divine blessing; for he is not in 
 heaven in vain, but even there continues to be 
 engaged for our welfare. The phrase intercessio 
 sacerdotalis is taken from this passage ; for the 
 figure here, as in the whole chapter, is borrowed 
 from the Jewish high priest, who on the great 
 day of atonement entered into the most holy 
 place and made expiation for the sins of the 
 people, (pro populo intercedebat apud Deum.) 
 He did not do this, however, by words (he spake 
 no word, vide Ex. xxviii. and Lev. xvii.), but 
 by action namely, by offering the blood of the 
 victim. The object of this comparison, then, 
 is to shew that Christ performs with God in 
 the heavenly world what the Jewish high priest 
 did yearly for the people upon the earth. It re- 
 fers, then, both to the permanent validity of the 
 atonement of Christ, and to his continued la- 
 bours in heaven for the salvation of men. Re- 
 specting this figure, cf. Morus, p. 155, seq. 
 
 Heb. ix. 24 a parallel passage, which 
 confirms the above explanation. " Christ did 
 not enter into an earthly temple, like the Jewish 
 high priest, but into heaven itself, vvv e /t $ a f t cr- 
 po'jiJTt^ fov vrtzp ^uwv" the very 
 phrase applied to the high priest when he pre- 
 sented to God, in the temple, the blood of atone- 
 ment for the people. It means, therefore, "in 
 order to procure for us a firm assurance of being 
 expiated, or of forgiveness of our sins, and of 
 the enjoyment of all the spiritual blessings con- 
 nected with forgiveness." 
 
 The intercession of Christ before God in the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 397 
 
 /heavenly world denotes, then, both the lasting 
 ^and perfect validity and efficacy of his atone- 
 ment, of which we obtain consoling assurance by 
 his abiding with God in his state of exaltation, 
 and also the continued wakeful care which Jesus 
 Christ exercises in heaven over his followers on 
 the earth. In short, the intercession of Christ 
 is one of the chief employments which Christ 
 prosecutes in heaven in his state of exaltation, 
 as the King and Patron of men, and especially 
 of the Christian church, and its individual mem- 
 bers ; s. 98. He is our Paracletus and Patron, 
 therefore, not merely in respect to what he for- 
 merly did for men while upon the earth, but also 
 in respect to the efforts which he still continues 
 to make for our welfare. 
 
 The Bible nowhere teaches that this interces- 
 sion consists in words. But considering that 
 Christ must still be regarded as a man, though 
 in heaven, there is no objection to representing 
 the thing under the figure of actual intercession. 
 In brief, Christ does for us all and more than 
 could be done among men through verbal inter- 
 cession, or other kinds of interposition, by a 
 powerful human advocate. The passage, Heb. 
 xii. 24, may here be compared : " The blood of 
 Christ speaks better (for us) than the blood of 
 Abel." The blood of Abel cried to God for 
 vengeance upon Cain. The death of Christ 
 moves God, not to punish, but to bless and for- 
 give. 
 
 SECTION CXIII. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF PARDON OR JUSTIFI- 
 CATION THROUGH CHRIST, AS AN UNIVERSAL AND 
 UNMERITED FAVOUR OF GOD. 
 
 I. The Universality of this Benefit. 
 
 IT is universal as the atonement itself. Vide 
 s. Ill, II. If the atonement extends to the 
 whole human race, justification must also be 
 universal i. e., all must be able to obtain the 
 actual forgiveness of their sins and blessedness 
 on account of the atonement of Christ. But in 
 order to obviate mistakes, some points may re- 
 quire explanation. Justification, then, is uni- 
 versal^ 
 
 (I) In respect to the persons to be pardoned. 
 
 Jill men, according to the Bible, may partake 
 of this benefit. It was designed for all. Vide 
 especially Rom. iii. 23; v. 15; s. Ill, in oppo- 
 sition to Jewish exclusiveness. It is bestowed, 
 however, conditionally ,- certain conditions are 
 prescribed which are indispensable. Those who 
 <lo not comply with these conditions are excluded 
 from the enjoyment of the benefit. Justification 
 and forgiveness are not, therefore, universal in 
 effect (actu), and this solely through the fault of 
 men.* 
 
 {This is very conveniently expressed by the 
 
 Another conclusion from the universality of 
 justification is, that every one may be sure of 
 his forgiveness. This certainty, however, must 
 not be founded upon inward feelings, which are 
 frequently deceptive, but upon an actual com- 
 pliance with the conditions on which God will 
 forgive sins. If any one finds in himself the 
 signs of true faith, of sincere love to God ana 
 Christ, of a renewed heart, and of a virtuous, 
 Christian disposition, he is justified. Romans, 
 viii. 16, "The holy, Christian temper (rtvtvpa.) 
 wrought in us by God gives us the clearest and 
 surest proof that we are the children of God." 
 1 John, iii. 7 ; 2 Peter, i. 9, 10. This certainty 
 is in the highest degree necessary to our tran- 
 quillity and happiness; 1 Tim. i. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 
 11; 1 John, v. 1820. 
 
 (2) In respect to sins and the punishment of 
 sin. 
 
 (a) As to sins , the position that all sins with- 
 out exception are forgiven for Christ's sake is 
 proved partly from the power and efficacy of 
 the atonement of Christ, which is extended to 
 all sins, (vide s. Ill, and the texts there cited ;) 
 and partly from the texts which promise forgive- 
 ness of all sins, even the greatest and blackest, 
 to those who comply with the prescribed condi- 
 tions of pardon; Ezekiel, xviii. 21, 22; Psalm, 
 ciii. 3; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; Ephes. ii. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 
 15. The sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be 
 regarded as an exception. Vide s. 84. 
 
 (6) As to the punishment of sin, the answer 
 to the question, whether the pardoned are 
 exempt from all the punishments of sin, whe- 
 ther, therefore, justification is plena et perfecta, 
 may be learned from s. 1 1 1, II. The natural and 
 physical evils which result from past sins, in- 
 deed, remain, but they are mitigated and render- 
 ed more tolerable, and are divested of the terror 
 of punishment by the cessation of the moral 
 evils which result from sin, which takes place 
 in consequence of the entirely different relation 
 in which men stand to God after they are once 
 pardoned. The positive punishments of sin are 
 entirely removed, and man receives even here 
 the expectation of positive divine rewards, and 
 of the full enjoyment of them in the life to come. 
 
 (c) In respect to time and lasting continuance. 
 
 First. The scriptures uniformly teach that 
 forgiveness extends through the whole life of 
 man. He may receive pardon at any time, 
 while life continues, so soon as he fulfils the re- 
 quisite conditions of forgiveness. This last 
 clause should be carefully and expressly annex- 
 ed, in order to preserve men from security and 
 
 terms objective and subjective justification. Objec- 
 tive justification is the act of God, by which he prof- 
 fers pardon to all through Christ ; subjective is the 
 act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely 
 offered in the gospel. The former is universal, the 
 latter not. Tn.l 
 
 2L 
 
398 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 carelessness in sin. Formerly many teachers, 
 especially in the Lutheran church, were incau- 
 tious in the use of language on this subject. 
 They used the general phrases, the door of mercy 
 stands ever open; man can obtain avour (for- 
 giveness] in the last moment of life, without suit- 
 able explanation and cautious limitation. But 
 while it is important, on the one hand, to shew 
 that God is indeed ever ready to forgive, it 
 ought, on the other hand, to be observed, that 
 man is not always capable of forgiveness ; that 
 forgiveness is necessarily connected with repent- 
 ance, as an indispensable condition, (not imply- 
 ing, by any means, that repentance is the pro- 
 curing-cause of forgiveness ;) that repentance 
 and holiness are important things, which cannot 
 be accomplished in a few moments, and that 
 therefore it is extremely dangerous to delay 
 them to the end of life, especially considering 
 that we do not know that we shall then have 
 our reason, or that we shall not die suddenly. 
 The sincere Christian teacher will render such 
 considerations as impressive as possible, in 
 order to disturb security in sin. He should 
 guard, however, with equal caution, against the 
 mistake of those who represent repentance and 
 holiness as the meritorious ground of forgiveness. 
 
 The frequent perversion of the doctrine of 
 justification gave rise, at the end of the seven- 
 teenth and commencement of the eighteenth 
 century, to the terministic controversy. Joh. 
 Ge. Bose, a deacon at Sorau, in endeavouring 
 to avoid one extreme fell into another. He held 
 that God did not continue to forgive, even to 
 the last, such persons as he foresaw would 
 harden themselves in impenitence, but that he 
 established a limit of grace, (terminum gratise 
 sive salutis peremptorium,} to which, and no fur- 
 ther, he would afford them grace for repentance. 
 He appealed to the texts which speak of God 
 as hardening or rejecting men, some of which 
 have no reference to conversion and forgiveness, 
 and some of which are erroneously explained by 
 him. Vide s. 85. Ad Rechenberg, at Leipsic, 
 and others, assented to this opinion, though 
 with the best intentions. But Ittig, Fecht, 
 Neumann, and many others, opposed this opi- 
 nion, and wrote against the work of Bose, 
 *' Terminus peremptorius salutis humanae," and 
 against Rechenberg. They were in the right. 
 This opinion is not taught in the holy scriptures, 
 and is calculated to lead the doubting and anx- 
 ious to despair, and to place them, as many sor- 
 rowful examples teach, in the most perilous 
 condition, both as to soul and body, especially 
 on the bed of death. 
 
 The doctrine that repentance and holiness are 
 the meritorious ground of salvation would have 
 equally terrible consequences. According to 
 this doctrine, we should be compelled to deny 
 all hope of salvation to one who had lived an 
 
 impenitent sinner till the last part of his life; 
 which the Bible never does, and which is in 
 itself cruel. The conscience even of the good 
 man must say to him on his death-bed, that his 
 imperfect virtues are insufficient to merit heaven. 
 In neither of these instances, then, would there 
 be any consolation ; but despair would be the re- 
 sult of this doctrine in both. 
 
 Secondly. If one who has obtained the forgive- 
 ness of his sins is guilty of new transgressions, 
 he forfeits the blessing of forgiveness, and all 
 its salutary consequences; and by new offences 
 incurs new punishments, which, after his fall, 
 are justly more severe and intolerable than be- 
 fore. Still it cannot be said, as it has been said 
 by some, that in case of apostasy God considers 
 the sins once forgiven at the time of repent- 
 ance as not forgiven, and that he still imputes 
 them to the transgressor. There is no reason for 
 this supposition ; and such is not the case in hu- 
 man courts. The Bible uses the terms, sins are 
 blotted out, no more remembered, Ezekiel, xviii. 
 22; xxxiii. 16; Psalm ciii. 11, 12. So Paul 
 says, (Rom. xi. 29,) that God will never recal 
 or take back the gifts which he has promised 
 and bestowed, (apctafithrfta, ^apt's^uar'a.) Vide 
 Wernsdorf 's Dissertation on this subject in Coll. 
 Dissertat. t. i. p. 607, seq. 
 
 Thirdly. Even those who after their reforma- 
 tion and the bestowment of forgiveness fall away 
 and transgress anew, may again obtain the for- 
 giveness of their sins as soon as they repent 
 and believe in Christ. So the Bible everywhere 
 teaches, both in the Old and New Testament; 
 Ezek. xxxiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 9. Christ com- 
 mands us to be forgiving to our neighbour who 
 has wronged us, since in this we shall resemble 
 God, who is easily reconciled, and who willingly 
 forgives sin. Therefore the precept, Matthew, 
 xviii. 21, 22, is applicable to God. This posi- 
 tion is confirmed by the examples of many 
 apostates in the Bible, who, after the commis- 
 sion of great offences, were again received into 
 favour e. g., David, 2 Samuel, xii. ; Peter, 
 Matt, xxvi., &c. .The condition of repentance 
 and faith, however, is indispensable. Vide Ps. 
 li. ; Morus, p. 211, seq. 
 
 But from the earliest ages Christians have en- 
 tertained various erroneous opinions upon this 
 subject. The opinion prevailed, even during the 
 earliest ages, that great sins committed after bap- 
 tism (by which ordinance the Christian was sup- 
 posed to receive the remission of sin) could not 
 be pardoned without great difficulty, if indeed at 
 all, on which account many delayed baptism till 
 the end of life. 
 
 The excommunication of great offenders had 
 been common among Christians from the time of 
 the apostles, (as it was among the Jews, which 
 indeed at that time was necessary.) But now, 
 in the second and third centuries, Montanus, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 399 
 
 Novatian, and many others, began to exercise 
 ^.his prerogative very severely, and in order to 
 invest it with more terror, insisted that the ex- 
 communicated should never be restored, in op- 
 position to those who were too lenient in re-ad- 
 mitting them. Montanus, however, declared 
 expressly that they might still obtain forgiveness 
 from God, (Tertullian,) and even Novatian was 
 willing to leave it undetermined how God would 
 deal with them. 
 
 But afterwards, some particular teachers and 
 some whole sects maintained that one who is 
 excluded from the Christian church is excluded 
 from the favour of God and placed beyond the 
 reach of pardon. This opinion prevailed exten- 
 sively in the Romish church. It was based on 
 the principle, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In op- 
 position to this error, the ancient creeds pre- 
 scribed the declaration Credo remissionem pecca- 
 torum. This same error is controverted in the 
 Augsburg Confession, Art. 13. The ancient 
 apostolic church was far removed from such an 
 opinion. In the second epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, Paul advises that the incestuous person 
 whom he had required to be excommunicated 
 in his first epistle should now be restored, since 
 he had repented of his crime, and had put away 
 his offence. And even there, where he advises 
 his excommunication, and even undertakes to 
 punish him, 1 Cor. v. 5, he will by no means 
 have him excluded on this account from the fa- 
 vour of God, but declares, on the contrary, that 
 he inflicts punishment with the very intention 
 of saving his soul, L'va rtvsv/Aa tfco^ ev ^pa 
 
 JCUptOU. 
 
 II. Justification or Forgiveness is an unmerited 
 Divine Favour. 
 
 That man can merit the divine favour and 
 forgiveness by good works or virtues is an old 
 mistake, which continues to be widely preva- 
 lent, and is ever appearing again in some new 
 form. Against this mistake, which prevailed 
 among the Jews and the Christian converts 
 from Judaism, the apostles laboured incessantly, 
 in entire accordance with that reasonable decla- 
 ration of Jesus, Luke, xvii. 10, " When we have 
 done everything which we are bound to do, (al- 
 though no one can ever pretend that he has,) we 
 are still servants who have deserved nothing, 
 (d^pEtot,,) for we have done only our duty." All 
 our good works do not confer favour upon God, 
 or lay him under obligation. The observance 
 of his laws is our duty, and tends to our own 
 good merely. 
 
 In Rom. iii. Paul particularly illustrates this 
 doctrine. Ver. 24, he says, "through Christ 
 we are justified, Scoptav, *y %dprti fov" i. e., 
 from mere free grace, which we have not de- 
 served, and which we cannot repay. Vide 
 Matt. x. 8. Paul therefore calls justification, 
 
 5<I>pov 0fov, Ephes. ii. 8. But the Jews and the 
 Christian converts from Judaism in that age 
 were particularly inclined to the opinion that 
 the external observance of the divine law, espe- 
 cially of the Mosaic ceremonial law, the most 
 perfect of any, was meritorious, and more than 
 anything else procured forgiveness from God. 
 This mistake is controverted by Paul in his 
 Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. He 
 shews that man is justified by God, oiix i| J'pyuv 
 vo^ov, or #<opij t'pywi/ vojitou, (not because he ob- 
 serves the law, Tit. iii. 5; 2 Tim. i. 9;) Rom. 
 iii. 20, 21, 28, ch. vi.; Gal. ii. 1621, seq. 
 NOJUOJ has frequently indeed in these chapters a 
 special reference to the divine law given by 
 Moses, because this was regarded by the Jews 
 as the most perfect. But it is by no means to 
 be limited to this sense. Paul affirms the same 
 in respect to obedience to all the divine precepts, 
 since this obedience is always imperfect, Rom. 
 iii. 28, vi. 14; Gal. iii. 17, 29, 23; and oi fab 
 vopov are not merely the Jews, but all who sub- 
 ject themselves to the divine laws, thinking to 
 merit the favour of God by obedience. The 
 Jews considered their observance of the law as 
 meritorious, and many Christians hoped to bo 
 justified on the same ground. Paul opposes 
 this opinion, and proves that Christians cannot 
 consider obedience as the meritorious ground 
 of justification, for which they are indebted to 
 Christ alone. But what Paul says respecting 
 works, applies equally, in his opinion, to obe- 
 dience to all laws, to works in general, even to 
 Christian works. He does not speak exclusive- 
 ly of the law given by Moses; his positions are 
 general, applying equally to all the laws of 
 God, whether given by Moses, by Christ, or in 
 any other manner. Vide Progr. ad Rom. viL 
 21, in Scripta Varii argument!, No. xii. Our 
 obedience to the divine law is not, and cannot 
 be, in itself meritorious. That this is a general 
 doctrine is perfectly clear from Rom. iv. e. g., 
 ver. 4, " He that works for hire (lpyafo$(u, 1 
 Thess. ii. 9, seq.) receives his wages, not 
 through the grace of him for whom he labours, 
 (as we all receive pardon from God,) but from 
 the obligation of his employer to recompense 
 him." Now if we receive the reward through 
 grace, our works contribute nothing to this end, 
 they are not the meritorious ground of our 
 pardon. 
 
 Paul also employs the argument, that if we- 
 by our obedience to the law could merit pardon,, 
 the atonement of Christ would be entirely in 
 vain. The fact that we do not obtain forgive- 
 ness in this way renders the atonement neces- 
 sary, Gal. ii. 21. 
 
 But why is this doctrine taught in the holy 
 scriptures? If God made our works of legal 
 obedience the measure by which he bestowed 
 pardon and reward, we should have but a poor 
 
400 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 prospect. For how imperfect is our obedience, 
 especially during the early stages of the Chris- 
 tian life ! How defective is it, even in the best 
 and most advanced Christians! The greater 
 advances a man makes in holiness and in Chris- 
 tianity, the more he sees and feels his imperfec- 
 tion. What feeble hope would the good man 
 then have, if his own works (which his con- 
 science pronounces very imperfect) should be 
 the procuring cause of his pardon ! The Chris- 
 tian teacher who inculcates such an opinion 
 knows not what he does. Melancthon ex- 
 pressed this very well in the Augsburg Con- 
 fession, Art. 4. 
 
 For a further consideration of this subject, 
 and an account of the controversies respecting 
 it with the Romish church, vide infra, s. 124, 
 125. 
 
 SECTION CXIV. 
 
 GF THE VARIOUS THEORIES RESPECTING THE NA- 
 TURE AND MANNER OF THE ATONEMENT OF 
 CHRIST ; AND A NOTICE OF SOME OF THE MOST 
 IMPORTANT WORKS ON ATONEMENT AND JUSTI- 
 FICATION. 
 
 THE common word authorized by ecclesiasti- 
 cal usage for denoting the atonement is satisfac- 
 tio (Germ. Genugthuung.) This word is not 
 indeed found in the Bible, but is in itself unob- 
 jectionable, taken in the large sense in which 
 it was formerly understood in the church, and 
 freed from the false opinions sometimes con- 
 nected with it in later times. This word was 
 originally a judicial term, and was applied for 
 the first time (with many more of a similar na- 
 ture) by Tertullian, who was himself a jurist, 
 to the atonement of Christ. " Christus peccata 
 hominum, onuii SATISFACTIONS habitu expiavit" 
 De patientia, c. 10. It has since been retained 
 in the Latin church, though it occurs but seldom 
 in the Latin fathers, and did not become gene- 
 ral until the time of the schoolmen, and espe- 
 cially of Anselmus. 
 
 The words satisfacere and satisfactio relate 
 originally to matters of debt, the payment of 
 debt, debiti solutio. They are then applied figu- 
 ratively to other things, which have, or are sup- 
 posed to have, some resemblance to debt. Hence 
 we find them used in the following senses 
 viz., to discharge a debt for any one (satisfacere 
 pro aliquo debitore], to make him content, to com- 
 ply with his wishes, to fulfil his desire, to do what 
 he was bound to perform, to beg him off and ob- 
 tain his pardon. Hence the phrases satisfacere 
 ojficio, muneri, expectationi, promissis ; satisfacere 
 populo (to comply with its wishes), ixavbv 
 ftoitiv, Mark, xv. 15; accipere satisfactionem, 
 (to accept the payment or apology offered, or 
 the request for pardon.) Satisfacere often de- 
 notes not merely payment with money, (though 
 
 this is the ground of this usage,) but every other 
 mode of discharging debt or obligation. 
 
 Now when Tertullian and other ancient 
 writers found the words Xvrpov and avtihvtpov 
 applied in the Bible to the atonement of Christ, 
 (s. 106,) they were very naturally led to adopt 
 the word satisfactio. The two former words 
 properly denote a ransom, pretium redemptionis. 
 These writers retained the figure, and compared 
 the unhappy, sinful condition of man, sometimes 
 with captivity, sometimes with debt, both of 
 which comparisons are scriptural. Sins are fre- 
 quently called in the Bible o^T^ara. From 
 these Christ freed men by his death. This death 
 of Christ was therefore compared with the sum 
 which is paid as ransom for captives or debtors, 
 to liberate them from captivity or release them 
 from debt. At first this was considered only 
 as a figurative mode of speech, denoting that 
 God was by this means satisfied or appeased. 
 But afterwards this phraseology came to be un- 
 derstood literally, and many hypotheses disho- 
 nourable to God were suggested in explanation 
 of this idea. 
 
 But, as Morus has justly observed, there is 
 no injury to be apprehended from retaining this 
 word, which is now authorized by ecclesiastical 
 usage, if it is only so explained as to convey the 
 same meaning as hvtpov, drtokv-r'pcocrts, and simi- 
 lar scriptural terms. The phrase, Christ has 
 made satisfaction for us, should therefore be ex- 
 plained to mean, that Christ by his death has 
 procured for us from God perfect forgiveness 
 and the remission of sins ; so that now we have 
 no punishment to fear, but rather blessings to 
 expect. 
 
 The following are some of the principal me- 
 thods of explaining this subject, and the eccle- 
 siastical theories respecting it. 
 
 (1) During the first two centuries most of the 
 ecclesiastical fathers adhered, in a great mea- 
 sure, to the simplicity of the scriptural repre- 
 sentation of this subject, and attempted no defi- 
 nite explanation of the manner of the atonement 
 beyond what is given in the scriptures, and in 
 doing this, made use for the most part of scrip- 
 tural phraseology. They represented the death 
 of Jesus as a sacrifice. 
 
 But a theory, some traces of which had ap- 
 peared even during the second century, became 
 prominent during the third and fourth centuries, 
 and continued a long time the prevailing theory 
 among the learned in the Greek and Latin 
 churches. The advocates of this theory took 
 the word Tuirpow in its primary and literal sense, 
 denoting release from captivity or slavery by 
 the payment of a ransom, (hvtpov, s. 106.) 
 With this they associated the idea of the power 
 and dominion of Satan over the whole human 
 race, in a sense not warranted by the Bible. 
 They referred to the texts affirming that Christ 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 401 
 
 freed us from the power of the d^vil. Thus 
 originated the following theory : Ever after the 
 fall (he devil had the whole human race in his 
 power ; he ruled over men like a tyrant over his 
 vassals, and employed them for his own purposes. 
 Thus far they had the support of the Bible. But 
 here they began to philosophize beyond what 
 is written. From this captivity God might in- 
 deed have rescued men by the exercise of his om- 
 nipotence , but he was restrained by his justice 
 from doing this with violence. He therefore 
 offered Satan a ransom, in consideration of which 
 he should release mankind. This ransom was 
 the death of CHRIST, (as a divine being.) In 
 accordance with this theory, Origen interpreted 
 the text, Matt. xx. 28, " He gave his life a ransom 
 for men," as denoting the ransom paid to the 
 devil, not to God. Satan had consented to the 
 compact , but he wished fraudulently to retain 
 Jesus, whom he considered only as the best and 
 most pious man under his own power, and so slew 
 this innocent being. He was now, therefore, 
 justly COMPELLED to liberate the human race. 
 
 This theory was first adopted by the Grecian 
 church, and especially by Origen, (Comm. in 
 Matt. xx. et alibi,) through whose influence it 
 became prevalent, and was adopted at length 
 by Basilius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of 
 Nazianzen, Nestorius, and others. From the 
 Greeks it was communicated to the Latins, 
 among whom it was first distinctly held by Am- 
 brosius, and afterwards by Augustine, through 
 whose influence it was rendered almost univer- 
 sal in the Latin church. In this church they 
 endeavoured to perfect the theory. Satan, they 
 added, was deceived in the transaction; for 
 taking Jesus to be a mere man, and not know- 
 ing that he was also the Son of God, he was not 
 able to retain even him, after he had slain him. 
 And it was necessary for Christ to assume a 
 human body in order to deceive the devil, as 
 fishes are caught by baits. This view occurs 
 frequently in the writings of Leo the Great, in 
 the fifth century. Cf. Semler, Geschichte der 
 Glaubenslehre, prefixed to Baumgarten's "Po- 
 lemik ;" Doederlein, Diss. de redemptione a po- 
 testate diaboli, in his "Opuscula;" and Cotta, 
 Hist, doctrinae de redemptione sanguine Christi 
 facta, in his edition of Gerhard's "Loci Theo- 
 logici," prefixed to th. 4. 
 
 So prevalent was this theory in the Latin 
 church before the twelfth century, that Abelard 
 declares, " Omnes doctores nostri post apostolos, 
 in hoc conveniunt;" and Bernhard of Clairvaux 
 was so firmly persuaded of its truth as to de- 
 clare that Abelard, who held that the devil never 
 possessed, in a literal sense, such power as was 
 ascribed to him, ought rather to be chastised 
 with rods than reasoned with. 
 
 But after the twelfth century this theory gra- 
 dually lost ground, through the influence, prin- 
 51 
 
 cipally, of the schoolmen who lived after the age 
 of Anselmus and Abelard ; and another theory 
 was substituted in its place. Vide No. 2. 
 Peter of Lombardy, however, still continued 
 more inclined to the ancient theory. In the 
 Greek church, too, this hypothesis was gradu- 
 ally abandoned, and was opposed even earlier 
 than in the Latin church. John of Damascus 
 attacked it as early as the eighth century, and 
 maintained (De fid. Orthod. 1. 3) that Christ 
 brought his blood, which was shed as a ransom, 
 not to the devil, but to God, in order to deliver 
 men from the divine punishments. So the scrip- 
 tures, * He offered himself to God for us, a spot- 
 less victim." This is implied in the whole 
 scriptural idea of sacrifices, which were offered 
 only to God. 
 
 (2) The other theory, of which also some 
 traces appear in the early ages, is the following. 
 Proceeding on the idea of debt, the authors of 
 this theory maintained that the relation of all 
 sinful men to God is the same as that of a debtor 
 to his creditors. We find it distinctly said, as 
 early as the fourth century, that Christ paid 
 what we should have paid, or what we owed. 
 The idea of sacrifice and of his offering up him- 
 self was still associated with this. The learned 
 now began to carry out the former idea, at first, 
 indeed, in a manner not inconsistent with the 
 scriptures. The debt was sin, and could not be 
 cancelled, or the punishment remitted, unless 
 satisfaction or payment were made. Since men 
 were unable to do this of themselves, Christ 
 did it for them ; and God accepted the ransom, 
 (the death of Christ,) and forgave men, as if 
 they themselves had made satisfaction. 
 
 We find very clear traces of this theory as 
 early as the fourth century in the writings of 
 Athanasius, of the Grecian church; and still 
 more clear, in the writings of John of Damas- 
 cus, who expressly rejected the theory stated in 
 No. 1. At the same period, in the Latin church, 
 we find indications of the same theory in the 
 writings of Hilarius of Poictiers, (Com. in Ps. 
 liii.) But the schoolmen of the eleventh and 
 twelfth centuries gave this theory a greater cur- 
 rency than it had had before, and spun it out to 
 a finer subtilty. They attempted to determine 
 the idea of atonement with philosophical and 
 dialectical accuracy. But they could not do 
 this if they confined themselves to the plain and 
 popular phraseology of the Bible; they there- 
 fore selected the judicial word satisfactio, which 
 had been already used by the older writers. 
 The idea on which they began, in this case as 
 in others, was itself scriptural ; but by philoso- 
 phizing upon it they gradually declined from 
 the simple doctrine of the Bible. This was the 
 case particularly with Anselmus, whose system 
 has been generally adopted, even by Lutheran 
 theologians. He defined satisfactio to be debiti 
 2L2 
 
402 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 solutio. His system is exhibited most fully in 
 his work, Cur Deus Homo? He maintained the 
 absolute necessity of satisfaction, in the meta- 
 physical sense. His whole theory is derived 
 from the civil process respecting debt among men, 
 transferred to the tribunal of God. But such is 
 not the representation of the Bible, where the 
 compassion and undeserved love of God is made 
 the ground of this transaction, and not any ju- 
 dicial notions of this nature. God is compared 
 with a ruler who forgives from his forbearance 
 and his compassionate love, and does not pro- 
 ceed according to stern justice ; Matt, xviii. 
 26, 27. 
 
 The following is the system of Anselmus : 
 Man owes reverence to the character of God, 
 and obedience to his laws. Whoever withholds 
 this reverence and obedience due to God, robs 
 God of what belongs to him, and must not only 
 restore that which he withheld, but pay an ad- 
 ditional amount, as amends for the dishonour 
 brought upon God. Thus it stands with sin- 
 ners. The payment of this debt is the satisfac- 
 tion which every sinner must make to God, ac- 
 cording to the nature of his offence. For God 
 cannot in justice remit the debt (or punishment) 
 unless satisfaction is made. This man could 
 never do, nor indeed any other than God him- 
 self. And yet to him, as judge, must this sa- 
 tisfaction be made. The expedient was then 
 devised for the Son of God, as God-man, by his 
 death to make this satisfaction. He was able 
 to make this satisfaction only as God ; but as 
 man, he was also able to be surety for men, and 
 then himself actually to pay the debt, or make 
 satisfaction for them. Cf. s. 101, ad finem. 
 
 This fine-spun juridico-philosophical theory 
 was exactly in the spirit of that age, and was 
 almost universally adopted by the schoolmen, 
 though with various modifications e. g., by 
 Alexander of Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Duns 
 Scotus, Gabr. Biel, and others. Among these, 
 however, a controversy arose respecting the 
 value, of the blood of Christ in cancelling the 
 debt of the human race. Thomas Aquinas 
 maintained that the value and worth (valor} of 
 the blood of Christ were in themselves infinite, 
 on account of the infinite dignity of the person 
 of Christ; and that this ransom not only ba- 
 lanced but outweighed all the sins of all men. 
 He was followed by the Dominicans. This 
 appears, too, to have been the opinion of Ansel- 
 mus. Duns Scotus, on the other hand, main- 
 tained that God was satisfied with this ransom, 
 although it had not in itself any infinite value 
 or worth. God, however, accepted it as suffi- 
 cient and equivalent. He thus endeavoured to 
 approximate to the doctrine of the Bible, which 
 always represents justification as a free gift, and 
 a proof of the entirely unmerited love of God. 
 He was followed by the Franciscans. But even 
 
 this statement was founded upon the judicial 
 doctrine of acceptilatio, when anything insuffi- 
 cient is accepted as valid and equivalent. Cf. 
 Ziegler's Essay, Historia dogmatis de redemp- 
 tione inde ab ecclesise primordiis usque ad Lu- 
 theri tempora; Gottingen, 1791, 4to. 
 
 (3) On the theories and explanations of this 
 doctrine which have prevailed since the six- 
 teenth century. 
 
 (a) The system of Anselmus had been ex- 
 tending through the Romish church ever since 
 the twelfth century, through the influence of the 
 schoolmen, who added to it various new subtle- 
 ties, distinctions, and terminologies. This same 
 system was adopted, in main, though with the 
 slight alteration of some terms and representa- 
 tions, by a considerable number of protestant 
 theologians. Luther, Melancthon, and the other 
 early reformers, adhered to the simplicity of the 
 Bible, and avoided these subtleties. But after 
 the death of Luther, the theologians of the Lu- 
 theran church took sides in great numbers with 
 Anselmus and Thomas Aquinas. They now 
 introduced many of the unscriptural hypotheses 
 and distinctions established by the schoolmen, 
 and thus deformed the doctrine and rendered its 
 truth doubtful in the minds of many. Their 
 great error consisted in representing this subject 
 too much after the manner of men, and, of 
 course, unworthily of God. The symbolical 
 books of the protestants have, in the meantime, 
 adhered to the simple Biblical representation; 
 and these exaggerated opinions have been held 
 rather by particular teachers and schools than 
 by the protestant church generally. 
 
 The following are examples of these faulty 
 representations and expressions : God, it is 
 said, was actually INJURED by the sins of men ; 
 he was ANGERED and ENRAGED! in the strict 
 sense ; it was necessary that he should be PROPITI- 
 ATED, and that his ROBBED honour should be re- 
 stored ; that he could not be moved to compassion 
 till he saw blood Jlow. These figurative expres- 
 sions ought either to be wholly avoided in the 
 scientific statement of the theory, or to be justly 
 and scripturally explained. God cannot be in- 
 jured in the literal sense; his honour cannot be 
 destroyed or diminished. But those who used 
 these inconvenient expressions did not mean by 
 them what they really imply. The proper idea 
 which lies at the foundation of such phraseology 
 is this : that the laws of God must be kept holy 
 and inviolate; that God does and must strongly 
 express his displeasure at the transgression of 
 his wholesome laws ; and that therefore punish- 
 ments are necessary for their maintenance. 
 
 Again ; many held that the guilt of sin is in- 
 finite, (infinitum debitum, s. 81, ad finem,) and 
 that, consequently, Christ endured infinite pu- 
 nishments, the pains of hell itself, (Morus, p. 1 69, 
 No. 4,) to the same amount as all sinners taken 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 403 
 
 together would have been compelled to suffer; 
 that the satisfaction of Christ was absolutely 
 necessary, and the only possible way for the 
 restoration of the human race; that some parti- 
 cular sins were atoned for by each part of the 
 sufferings of Christ; that the blood of Christ 
 had a physical efficacy, &c. &c. 
 
 (6) These false representations, and others 
 like them, which are so dishonourable to God, 
 gave rise to various controversies. Reflecting 
 persons rejected much of this phraseology and 
 this mode of representation as contrary to rea- 
 son and scripture. Many also disapproved of 
 the harmless term satisfaction and of all the figu- 
 rative expressions relative to debt and the judi- 
 cial processes respecting it which had been intro- 
 duced by Anselrnus, because they were so often 
 perverted. At the same time, they did not deny 
 any essential part of the doctrine itself, but only 
 wished to simplify the subject, and to adhere 
 closely both to the principles and words of the 
 Bible. This scholastic system and this tech- 
 nical phraseology were, on the contrary, de- 
 fended with great zeal. 
 
 (c) But since the sixteenth century there have 
 not been wanting persons who not only disliked 
 and rejected the ecclesiastical form and phrase- 
 ology of this doctrine, but who opposed the 
 doctrine itself on philosophical and theological 
 grounds. Among these were Lalius Socinus 
 and Faustus Socinus in the sixteenth century, 
 and their numerous avowed or secret adherents 
 in the same and the following centuries. They 
 made the desert of Christ to consist merely in 
 his doctrine and instruction. By his death he 
 only confirmed his doctrine, and gave an exam- 
 ple of patience, firmness in suffering, and obe- 
 dience to God. The followers of Socinus en- 
 deavoured to shew that there are no positive di- 
 vine punishments; since if this were true, the 
 atonement, which principally relates to the re- 
 moval of these, would fall away of itself, (s. 
 Ill, II.) These views were embraced by many 
 of the Arminian and English theologians and 
 philosophers, who were followed, in the eigh- 
 teenth century, by great numbers of German 
 protestants. Vide the Essays on this subject 
 in Eberhard, Apologie des Socrates; and Stein- 
 bart, System der Gliickseligkeitslehre, &c. 
 
 Philosophers are at liberty to speculate upon 
 this subject, according to their own views and 
 their favourite theories, variable and transient 
 as they are. If they please, they may investi- 
 gate the subject independently of the Bible, and 
 propose the results of their investigation for the 
 examination of the learned. They ought, how- 
 ever, to avoid the error, so frequently committed 
 ever since the time of Socinus, of thinking that 
 the Bible must necessarily contain the doctrines 
 approved as true on the philosophical principles 
 of their own particular schools the fault of in- 
 
 terpreting the Bible, not according to its own 
 spirit, and the spirit of the age in which it was 
 written, but according to the views of particular 
 sects of philosophers in their own times a fault 
 which has been often repeated of late by the 
 adherents of Kant and his successors. Let any 
 one consider the various and contradictory the- 
 ories of the different philosophical schools in 
 our own age. Now each of these schools at- 
 tempts to support its own theory by the author- 
 ity of the holy scriptures. But all of these the- 
 ories cannot possibly be founded in the Bible; 
 and who can say which of them all is so? 
 
 What is essentialin the common ecclesiastical 
 system respecting the atonement is clearly re- 
 vealed in the scriptures, and is entirely adapted 
 to the spirit of the sacred writers and their 
 whole mode of thinking, to the wants of the 
 age in which they wrote, and to the wants of 
 mankind at large. Vide s. 108, seq. Morus 
 has briefly exhibited the essentials of this doc- 
 trine, p. 150155, s. 46. 
 
 (4) Many protestant theologians began as 
 early as the seventeenth century to depart by 
 degrees from the theory of Anselmus, which 
 presents so many difficulties, and is liable to so 
 many weighty objections, and to bring back 
 this doctrine to the simplicity of the Bible. The 
 book of Grotius, "De satisfactione Christi," 
 (Leiden, 1617; Halae, 1730, ed. Joach. Lange,) 
 was the first thing done towards undermining 
 the system of Anselmus. Grotius indeed made 
 the ecclesiastical system the ground of his 
 work, but he deduced the necessity of satisfac- 
 tion, not so much from the injury done to God 
 as from the holiness and inviolableness of the 
 divine laws, which render punishments neces- 
 sary for the good of men. In this he exactly 
 accorded with the Bible. He shewed that there 
 was no internal and absolute necessity for this 
 satisfaction, but that the necessity was only 
 moral or relative. These and other views of this 
 scholar became gradually more current among 
 theologians, who sought both to bring them into 
 a still nearer agreement with the Bible and also 
 to reconcile them with the established system 
 of the church. 
 
 Some protestant theologians have made use 
 of the new systems of philosophy which have 
 become successively prevalent in modern times, 
 to illustrate and defend the doctrine of the Bible 
 and of the church. Thus Carpzoy, Baumgarten, 
 and others, made use of the Leibnitz-Wolfian 
 philosophy. Vide also Reinbeck, Tract. Theol. 
 de redemptione per lytron; Halle, 1710, 8vo; 
 Theod. le Blanc, Erweis der Genugthuung Jesu 
 Christi, with the preface of Rambach; Giessen, 
 1733, 8vo; one of the best of the older works. 
 Staudlin and others have made the same use of 
 the philosophy of Kant, as Kant himself has 
 done in his "Religion innerhalb der Grenzen 
 
404 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 der blossen Vernunft." But others, with equal 
 zeal, have employed these very same philoso- 
 phical systems in opposition to this doctrine of 
 the Bible. One of the most zealous opponents 
 of the doctrine of the atonement in modern times 
 is Dr. Loffler, in his work, " Ueber die kirch- 
 licheGenugthuungslehre; Zullichau, 1796, 8vo. 
 
 (5) The frequent attacks made in our own 
 age both upon the ancient ecclesiastical system 
 and upon the doctrine of the Bible itself have 
 made it necessary to state this doctrine more 
 accurately than was formerly done. Many mo- 
 derate theologians have endeavoured so to ex- 
 hibit this doctrine that it should agree both with 
 the decisions of Revelation and with the ac- 
 knowledged principles of sound reason, thus 
 rendering it intelligible, and obviating the most 
 important objections against it. Since the mid- 
 dle of the eighteenth century many have laboured 
 to effect this object, though not with equal suc- 
 cess. Among these are Ernesti, Tollner, Danov, 
 Noesselt, (Vom Werth der Moral,) Less, Gries- 
 bach, (Praktische Dogmatik,) Doderlein, (Dog- 
 matik,) Michaelis, (Gedanken von der Siinde 
 und Genugthuung; Gottingen, 1779, 8vo,) and 
 Seiler, (Ueber den Versohnungstod Jesu, with 
 some essays, &c., 2nd ed. ; Erlangen, 1732, gr. 
 8vo; in connexion with which the doctrine of 
 justification is treated.) The lastmentioned 
 writer endeavours to refute the objections of 
 Eberhard and Steinbart. Among the latest 
 writers on this subject is Dr. Gottlob Christ. 
 Storr, (Pauli Brief an die Hebraer erlJiutert; 
 Tubingen, 1789, 8vo; 2nd Ausg. Tubingen, 
 1809. Second part, Ueber den eigentlichenZ week 
 des Todes Jesu, s. 363692.) He holds that 
 the object of the death of Christ is not directly 
 the reformation of men, and that their exemption 
 from punishment is not the effect of their re- 
 formation; but that the direct and immediate 
 object of his death is, to procure the forgiveness 
 of sin, and to make atonement. Another writer 
 is Sehwarze, (in Gorlitz,) "Ueber den Tod 
 Jesu, als ein wesentliches Stuck seines Wohlt- 
 hatigen Plans zur Begliickung der Menschen; 
 Leipzig, 1795, 8vo. The discourse delivered 
 by Dr. Reinhard, at the Rtformatiomfeste, on 
 the text, Rom. iii. 23, seq., containing a brief 
 and practical statement of the scripture doctrine 
 of the atonement, excited much attention, espe- 
 cially from the unusual manner of its publica- 
 tion, and led to many writings for and against 
 the doctrine of the Bible. Among these the 
 following work is in many respects favourably 
 distinguished : " Der Widerstreit der Vernunft 
 mit sieh selbst in der Versohnungslehre, darge- 
 stellt und aufgelost, von Krug;" ZuUichau, 
 1802, 8vo. 
 
 The essential points in the theory adopted by 
 the moderate theologians of the protestant church 
 may b ths stated : God had a twofold object 
 
 in view viz., (a) to preserve inviolate the au- 
 thority of his law given for the good of man. 
 How could this be effected otherwise than by 
 the punishment of transgression, threatened ami 
 actually inflicted 1 ? (6) But as a slavish fear of 
 God is utterly inconsistent with pure religion, 
 (<J>oj3oj fxjSaXtat tqv osydrtyv, 1 John, iv. 18,) 
 some means must be chosen to free men from 
 their reasonable fear of punishment, and to give 
 them a certain assurance that God would forgive 
 them, be gracious to them, and count them 
 worthy of his favour, in such a way, however, 
 as not to occasion indifference with regard to 
 sin. Both of these objects were attained by the 
 sufferings and death of Christ; ihe first by the 
 proof given, through the sufferings of Jesus, that 
 God abhors sin and will not leave it unpunished ; 
 the second, by the declaration of God that Christ 
 had suffered these punishments for our good, in 
 our stead, and on our behalf. Death is the con- 
 sequence of sin, and is in itself a great evil. We 
 must regard it as the sum of all evils and terror?. 
 (Hence in the Bible death stands for every kind 
 of misery.} Especially is this the case with a 
 violent and excruciating death, which is the pu- 
 nishment of the greatest criminals. Such a 
 death did God himself inflict upon Christ, who 
 was himself entirely guiltless, (aytoj xal ^'xato$.) 
 God, however, could not be so unjust and cruel 
 as to inflict such a punishment upon an innocent 
 person without object or design. Hence we may 
 conclude that Christ endured his sufferings and 
 death for men who should properly have endured 
 these punishments, in order to inspire them with 
 confidence in God, with gratitude and love to 
 him, and to banish all fear of the divine punish- 
 ments from their hearts. It all comes back, 
 therefore, at last, to this, that God chose this 
 extraordinary means from the impulse of his 
 own sincere love and benevolence to men. Thus 
 the scriptures always represent it, and on this 
 view we should always proceed in our religious 
 instructions. Vide Morus, p. 152, seq., s. 6. 
 But if men would be certain that they have in 
 this way obtained the forgiveness of their sins, 
 they must place their entire dependence on 
 Christ; they must repent of their sins ; by the 
 help of God lead a holy life, and punctually ob- 
 serve all the divine laws. This is an indispen- 
 sable duty and an essential condition of salva- 
 tion through Christ; and to one who has sincere 
 love to God and to Christ, this will not be diffi- 
 cult. Obedience to God, being prompted by love 
 and gratitude, will be yielded with cheerfulness. 
 No one, however, must consider his repentance 
 or holiness as the meritorious ground of forgive- 
 ness. For forgiveness is not the effect and con- 
 sequence of our holiness, but flows from the 
 death of Christ. 
 
 This doctrine thus exhibited cannot be injuri- 
 ous to morality ; on the contrary, it produces the 
 
i 
 
 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 405 
 
 ost beneficial effects upon those who helieve 
 it from the heart, (s. 108, II.) So experience 
 teaches. We see the most convincing 1 proofs of 
 the beneficial tendencies of this doctrine in those 
 Christian communities, both of ancient and mo- 
 dern times, where it has been faithfully taught 
 and cordially believed. [Cf. Tholuck, Lehre 
 von der Siinde und vom Versohner, s. 104, ff. 
 Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 475500. Bretschneider, 
 Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 245 355. Neander, b. i. 
 Abth. ii. s. 70 78. Flatt's Magazine, b. i. s. 
 1_67, Ueber die Moglichkeit der Sunden-Ver- 
 gebung. TR.] 
 
 SECTION CXV. 
 
 OF THE ACTIVE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 
 
 I. 
 
 What is meant by Active Obedience / and a His- 
 tory of this Doctrine. 
 
 CHRIST'S cheerful discharge of the commis- 
 sion given him by God is called his obedience 
 (vjt&xori) ; according to the example of the 
 Bible e. g., Phil. hi. 9 ; Rom. v. 19 ; Morus, p. 
 161, s. 7. Morus justly defines the obedience 
 of Christ to be, peractio eorum, qux peragere de- 
 buit, et in peragendo summa virtus. Christ ex- 
 hibited this obedience in two ways viz., (a) 
 by acting (agenda} i. e., by keeping and ob- 
 serving the divine laws; (6) by suffering, (pa- 
 ticndo] i. e., by cheerfully undertaking and 
 enduring suffering for the good of men, in ac- 
 cordance with the divine determination. Cf. s. 
 93, III., and s. 95, ad finem. The former way 
 is called obedientia activa, (not active in the 
 sense of busy, which would be actuosa, but in 
 the sense of acting, Germ, thuender ,) the latter, 
 obedientia passiva. These two ways may be 
 thus distinguished in abstracto. But they ought 
 not to have been separated from each other. 
 Christ's active obedience is not properly differ- 
 ent from his passive obedience. His obedience 
 is one and the same in all cases. Suffering, in 
 itself considered, so far as it consists in unplea- 
 sant sensations, is not obedience. A person may 
 suffer and not be obedient, but impatient, dis- 
 obedient, and refractory. But for one to suffer 
 obediently, or to shew obedience in suffering, 
 this is an acting, a fulfilment of duty, or that vir- 
 tue which is called patience, one of the greatest 
 and most difficult of virtues! But how can a 
 virtue, which consists entirely in acting, be called 
 passive ? In truth, then, the obedience of Christ 
 is one and the same thing, consisting always in 
 acting. It is that virtue by which Christ ful- 
 filled not only the moral laws of Gad, but also 
 the positive divine commands which were laid 
 upon him, to suffer, to die, &c. Obedience is 
 never wholly passive, and what is simply passive 
 is not obedience. But a person shews obedience 
 by acting in suffering. 
 
 Theologians commonly hold that the active 
 obedience of Christ was as much a part of his 
 atonement or satisfaction as his passive obe- 
 dience. This opinion might be more clearly and 
 definitively expressed as follows : The satisfac- 
 tion which Christ has made consists both in his 
 enduring the punishments incurred by men and 
 in his yielding a perfect obedience to the divine 
 laws. This is what is meant by theologians. 
 This opinion is derived from the twofold obliga- 
 tion of men () to keep the divine laws, and (6) 
 when they have failed, to suffer punishment for 
 their sin. In this way the satisfaction of Christ 
 came to be considered as consisting of two parts, 
 active and passive. This view was then con- 
 nected with the theory of Anselmus, respecting 
 he removal of the guilt and penalty of sin. The 
 suffering of Christ removes the penalty, and his 
 active obedience the guilt of sin; and the per- 
 fect righteousness of Christ, or his fulfilment of 
 the law, is imputed to us, in the same way as 
 if we ourselves had fulfilled the law, and thus 
 our defective obedience is made good. Respect- 
 ing this doctrine de remissione culpac et pcenae. 
 Vide s. 109, II. 2. This is in brief the common 
 theory, which will be more particularly exa- 
 mined, No. II. 
 
 We subjoin a brief history of this doctrine. 
 Good materials for this history may be found in 
 Walch's Inaugural Disputation, de obedientia 
 Christi activa; Gottingen, 1754, 4to. 
 
 Passages are found even among the ancient 
 fathers, which teach that the fulfilment of the 
 divine law by Christ is to be considered as if 
 done by us. Vide the passages cited by Walch. 
 Many of these passages, however, appear very 
 doubtful and indefinite, and this doctrine was 
 by no means universally established in the early 
 church. Even Anselmus, who built up such an 
 artificial system, did not make this application 
 of the twofold obedience of Christ. This, how- 
 ever, was the tendency of his theory, especially 
 of the doctrine, de remissione culpx et pcense. 
 But after his time, this explanation of the satis- 
 faction made by Christ by means of his twofold 
 obedience was adopted by several schoolmen, 
 who now looked up texts for its support. But 
 it was never very generally adopted by theolo- 
 gians of the Romish church. In the protestant 
 church, on the contrary, it has been almost uni- 
 versally taught by our theologians since the six- 
 teenth century, and even introduced into the 
 "Form of Concord," (Morus, p. 169, n. 5,) 
 which, however, never received an universal 
 symbolical authority in the Lutheran church. 
 This explanation is not found in the other sym- 
 bols. One reason, perhaps, of the reception of 
 this explanation in the protestant church, is the 
 supposition that the theory de obedientia adi\ya 
 could be used to advantage against the catholic 
 tenet of the value of one's own good works. 
 
406 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Another reason is, that the imputation of the 
 active obedience of Christ was denied by the 
 Socinians and Arminians. For these reasons, 
 most of the Lutheran and Reformed theologians 
 accounted this doctrine essential to sound ortho- 
 doxy. But doubting 1 whether the active obe- 
 dience of Christ constitutes a part of his satis- 
 faction, has no influence upon the plan of salva- 
 tion through repentance, faith, and godliness. 
 Baumgarten and Ernesti have therefore justly 
 enumerated this dispute among those of second- 
 ary importance. And, in fact, the difference 
 among theologians upon this subject has often 
 been more apparent than real. There were, in- 
 deed, some protestant theologians, even in the 
 former century, who denied the desert of the 
 active obedience of Christ e. g., the Lutheran 
 theologian Karg, or Parsimonius , also the Re- 
 formed theologian John Piscator, who had many 
 followers ; more lately, Jo. la Placette, and 
 others. The same was done by many of the 
 English theologians, who in general adopted 
 the Arminian views. But from the end of the 
 sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury the opinion was by far the most prevalent 
 in the Lutheran church that the active obedience 
 of Christ is of the nature of satisfaction, or vi- 
 carious. This opinion is defended even by 
 Walch in the place just referred to. 
 
 But since the time of Tollner the subject has 
 been presented in a different light. He pub- 
 lished a work entitled, "Der thatige Gehorsam 
 Christi;" Breslau, 1768, 8vo. In this he de- 
 nied that the active obedience of Christ is of the 
 nature of satisfaction. Upon this a violent con- 
 troversy commenced. Schubert, Wichmann, 
 and others, wrote against him, and he, in reply, 
 published his "Zusatze;" Berlin, 1770. The 
 best critique of this matter is that of Ernesti, 
 Theol. Bibl. b. ix. s. 914, f. For the history 
 of the whole controversy vide Walch, Neeuste 
 Religionsgeschichte, th. iii. s. 311, f. The sub- 
 ject is considered also in Eberhard, Apologie 
 des Socrates, th. ii. s. 310, f. Of late years, a 
 great number of protestant theologians have de- 
 clared themselves in behalf of the opinion that 
 the active obedience of Christ is properly no 
 part of his satisfaction, which is the effect solely 
 of his passive obedience. Among these are 
 Zacharia, Griesbach, Doderlein. 
 
 II. The worth and uses of the Active Obedience of 
 
 Christ. 
 
 That Christ did render this perfect obedience 
 is clear, both from the fact of his being sinless, 
 (s. 93, iii.) and from the express declarations 
 of the Bible, Matt. v. 17 ; John, iv. 34, viii. 29 ; 
 Phil. ii. 8. Cf. likewise the texts Ps. xl. 7, 
 cited by Paul, Heb. x. 5. This perfect obedi- 
 ence is useful to us in the following respects : 
 (1) This obedience of Christ stands in the 
 
 most close and intimate connexion with his 
 whole work for the good of mankind. His suf- 
 ferings and death could not possibly have the 
 worth and the salutary consequences ascribed to 
 them in the scriptures, if Christ had endured 
 them otherwise than as innocent and perfectly 
 holy. His innocence and perfect virtue are there- 
 fore frequently mentioned by the apostles, when 
 they speak of the worth of his sufferings and 
 death, Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. i. 19; iii. 18. In 
 Heb. vii. 27, Paul shews that the death of Christ 
 was so infinitely superior to all Jewish sacri- 
 fices, because Christ was sinless, and was not 
 compelled, like the Jewish priests, first to purify 
 himself by offering sacrifice for his own sins. 
 
 (2) Christ's obedience to the divine laws is 
 useful and instructive to us, in furnishing us 
 with a perfect example of holiness and spotless 
 virtue. Christ explained the divine laws not 
 merely by instruction, but by action. His 
 whole conduct was a living recommendation of 
 the purest and most perfect morality, and power- 
 fully plead in behalf of virtue. To this the New 
 Testament frequently alludes, 1 John, iii. 3 ; 
 1 Pet. ii. 21 ; Heb. xii. 2. 
 
 (3) But besides this, the active obedience of 
 Christ, taken by itself, is considered by many 
 a separate part of his satisfaction, as well as his 
 passive obedience. Vide No. 1. They sup- 
 pose it to be vicarious, in itself considered, or 
 that it will be imputed to us i. e., that merely 
 on account of the perfect obedience yielded by 
 Christ to the divine law we shall be regarded 
 and treated by God as if we ourselves had per- 
 fectly obeyed. Accordingly, they suppose that 
 Christ, in our stead, has supplied or made good 
 our imperfect obedience to the divine law. To 
 this view there are the following objections 
 viz., 
 
 (a) Christ never spoke of an imputation of 
 his obedience and virtue, as he frequently did 
 of his sufferings and death. The same is true 
 of the apostles. Christ frequently speaks in 
 general of his doing the will of his Father for 
 the good of men, and teaches that this obedi- 
 ence will be for the good of those who believe 
 on him. He does so very frequently in the 
 Gospel of John, iii. iv., vi., xiii., seq. 17. But 
 here he refers to his whole obedience both in 
 acting and suffering, and does not separate one 
 from the other. Indeed, there are passages 
 where the apostles must necessarily have spoken 
 of the active obedience of Christ as vicarious, 
 if they had held any such doctrine. E. g., 
 Rom. vii., viii., where Paul laments the weak- 
 ness and imperfection of human nature, by 
 which man is unable, even with the best inten- 
 tions, perfectly to fulfil the divine commands. 
 In this connexion, nothing would have been 
 more consoling than the mention of the vicari- 
 ous obedience of Christ, by which our imper- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 407 
 
 ;t obedience is made good. But nothing of I 
 ill this! For the consolation of the pious, he | 
 lentions only the death, resurrection, and inttr- 
 ssion of Christ, Rom. viii. 33, 34. 
 The active obedience of Christ, however, is 
 not excluded. In Rom. v. 19, the apostle makes 
 
 (mention of it. In this passage, which is cited 
 
 las one of the most important proof-texts, we 
 read, "As through the disobedience of Adam 
 
 'many became sinners, so through the obedience 
 of Christ many are made righteous," or are par- 
 doned. In ver. 18, the rtapa'rtrw/wa 'A6a/i and 
 jua Xpttrrov are contrasted. Now, accord- 
 ing to the uniform scriptural usage, this obe- 
 
 [dience of Christ does not refer simply and ex- 
 clusively to his active obedience, but principally 
 to his obedience to the divine command to suffer 
 
 land die for us, Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8, 9. But 
 in the passage cited, the apostle clearly com- 
 prises under the word vrtaxorj the whole obedi- 
 dience of Christ, and teaches that this, especial- 
 ly as shewn in suffering for us, is for our good. 
 Cf. Rom. x. 4. On the whole, then, our position, 
 that the perfect obedience of Christ to the divine 
 commands, separately considered, (i. e., discon- 
 nected from his death,) is never mentioned in the 
 Bible as meritorious, is confirmed. The scrip- 
 tures declare that the whole obedience of Christ, 
 exhibited both in acting and suffering, is for our 
 good. But they never divide this obedience, as 
 theologians have frequently done. The whole 
 obedience of Christ is useful to us principally 
 on account of his obedience shewn in suffering. 
 (6) The perfect obedience of Christ, it is as- 
 serted, must needs be imputed to us, in order to 
 make good our defective obedience to the law, 
 since the justice of God demands perfect obe- 
 dience. But to this it may be answered, (a) 
 That it is difficult to see how this is necessary ; 
 for our imperfect obedience to the divine law is 
 either guiltless on our part, in which case there 
 is no imputation of guilt, and consequently no 
 reason why another's righteousness should be 
 imputed to us, or it is guilty and deserving of 
 punishment. But this punishment is already 
 removed by the sufferings and death (the pas- 
 sive obedience) of Christ. But that the guilt 
 as well as punishment of sin is and must be 
 removed by Christ, cannot be proved. Vide s. 
 109, II. 2. (j3) It is inconsistent with many 
 other principles and declarations of the Bible 
 e. g., with the principle that man will be re- 
 warded or punished, xa-tatatpya, a v tov, Rom. 
 ii. 6. Here the imputation of the merit of an- 
 other's works is entirely excluded. The ancient 
 prophets, and all the teachers of the New Tes- 
 tament from the time of John the Baptist, con- 
 tended strenuously against the opinion of the 
 Jews respecting the imputation of the vicarious 
 righteousness of Abraham. Vide s. 108, I. 3. 
 We should not therefore expect such a doctrine 
 
 as this from them ; but the scripture doctrine of 
 the merit of the whole obedience of Christ is 
 fully secured against perversion by the frequent 
 inculcation of diligence in holiness. Vide s. 
 114, ad fin. It has as little resemblance to the 
 Jewish doctrine of the merit of the good works 
 of Abraham, as it has to that of the Romish 
 church, respecting the desert of the good works 
 of the saints. 
 
 (c) Many questionable conclusions may be 
 deduced from this doctrine, which would indeed 
 be rejected by its advocates, but which cannot 
 be easily avoided. 
 
 (a) We might conclude from the doctrine 
 that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us, 
 and that on account of it we are rewarded by 
 God, that the long-continued and high virtue of 
 a confirmed Christian is of no greater value in 
 the sight of God, and will receive no greater 
 reward, than the imperfect virtue of a beginner ; 
 for the deficiencies of the latter in personal ho- 
 liness will, according to this doctrine, be made 
 up by the perfect obedience of Christ imputed 
 to him i. e., considered as his own obedience. 
 But this is contrary to the fundamental princi- 
 ples both of reason and revelation. 
 
 (/3) However much this doctrine may be 
 guarded against perversion by saying that the 
 personal virtue of the Christian is not excluded 
 or dispensed with, it must doubtless weaken the 
 motive to holiness of life, and thus prove inju- 
 rious to the interests of morality. Why was it 
 necessary for Christianity to point out so many 
 means of holiness, in order that we might attain 
 perfect happiness, if in this way it could be at 
 once attained with so little difficulty and labour. 
 
 Note. It may help to settle the controversy 
 on this subject to consider that it has originated 
 solely in mistake. Two things have been sepa- 
 rated which never can be put asunder, and 
 which never are in the Bible, but, on the con- 
 trary, are always connected. All that Christ 
 did and suffered for our good receives its pecu- 
 liar worth from the fact that he did it from obe- 
 dience to the divine will. This is the virtue 
 or obedience of Christ. If we would partake 
 of the salutary consequences of his sufferings,, 
 we must, under divine guidance and assistance, 
 follow his example. This is an indispensable 
 condition. The two things are always connect- 
 ed in the Bible, and should be in our instruc- 
 tions; and then this doctrine cannot be abused. 
 The remarks made by Morus, p. 170, 171, are 
 directed to this point. 
 
 The Bible indeed justifies us in saying, (1) 
 that everything which Christ actively performed 
 during his whole life, in obedience to God, is 
 salutary to us, was done on our account, and 
 for our good. But (2) we therefore truly af- 
 firm, that our whole happiness ((jw-fiypta) is the 
 fruit in a special manner of his obedience to th& 
 
408 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 divine command, both in his suffering and in all 
 the actions of his life. Had he not shewn this 
 obedience, we should not have attained to this 
 happiness. So the scriptures everywhere teach. 
 The obedience of Christ in suffering- is therefore 
 the foundation, and imparts to us the assurance, 
 that all his other obedience, in respect to all the 
 divine commands, will be for our benefit; John, 
 vi. 51; iii. 1416; xii. 24; 1 John, iv. 9; 1 
 Thess. v. 9, seq. No injury to morals need be 
 apprehended if the scripture doctrine is follow- 
 ed, and things which belong together are not 
 Vide s. 114, ad finem. 
 
 PART II. OF CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ON REDEMPTION FROM THE POWER OR DOMI- 
 NION OF SIN. 
 
 SECTION CXVI. 
 
 OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE ; ITS CON- 
 FORMITY WITH SCRIPTURE J AND THE MANNER 
 IN WHICH WE ARE FREED FROM SIN THROUGH 
 CHRIST. 
 
 I. Importance of this Doctrine. 
 
 IN treating of the work of redemption, writers 
 have commonly considered only the first part 
 the atonement^ or freedom from the punish- 
 ment of sin. But deliverance from sin belongs 
 as really to the redemption of Christ as deliver- 
 ance from punishment, which indeed Ernesti 
 and others have before remarked. By the death 
 of Christ we are indeed, as the scriptures teach, 
 delivered from the punishment of sin. But since 
 the disposition to sin is so strong and universal 
 among men, (and this is the whole cause of 
 their degeneracy and unhappiness,) some means 
 must needs be pointed out, in the proper use of 
 which they may, under divine assistance, over- 
 come this bias and propensity to sin, and may 
 attain to true holiness and the practice of virtue, 
 acceptable in the sight of God. If Christ had 
 not shewn us such means, his work of redemp- 
 tion would have been incomplete, and his atone- 
 ment in vain. For we can participate in the 
 blessings of redemption, even after we have ob- 
 tained forgiveness, only by avoiding sin and 
 living righteously. And had not Christ fur- 
 nished us with means to do this, his atonement 
 would be of no avail. 
 
 The reason why this has not been commonly 
 considered in the systems of theology as making 
 a part of the work of redemption, is, that the 
 Socinians have regarded it as constituting the 
 whole of this work, exclusive of the atonement 
 of Christ by his sufferings and death. Evange- 
 lical writers, therefore, though they did not en- 
 
 tirely omit this important part of Christ's work, 
 passed it by in this connexion, in order to avoid 
 all fellowship with such an opinion, and to af- 
 ford no appearance of diminishing in the least 
 from the influence of the atonement or satisfac- 
 tion of Christ. But in conformity with the 
 Bible, even the ancient fathers considered both 
 of these things as belonging to the work of re- 
 demption e. g., Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the 
 Great, and Gregory the Great. The latter says, 
 " Christ became man, not only to atone for us 
 by his sufferings and death ; but also to instruct 
 us, and to give us an example." This is the 
 full scriptural idea of drtoXv-r'pwfjtj. Cf. s. 106, 
 II. Therefore redemption (drtox-uT'pwfjtj) com- 
 prises the two following parts viz., (1) Deli- 
 verance from the punishment of sin (&acr/<,o$, 
 atonement, xaraTaayjj) ; (2) from the power and 
 dominion of sin. The former is effected by his 
 sufferings and death, and is confirmed by his 
 resurrection and intercession. The latter is ef- 
 fected by his doctrine, accompanied by divine 
 power (the assistance of the Holy Spirit,) and 
 by his example. 
 
 The connexion of these two-parts, as we learn 
 it from scripture and experience, is this: 
 When an individual is assured of his forgive- 
 ness through Christ, he is filled with the most 
 sincere love and gratitude to God and to Christ. 
 " He to whom much is forgiven, loves much ;" 
 Luke, vii. 47. These feelings render him dis- 
 posed and desirous to obey the commands of 
 God and Christ. This obedience, flowing from 
 love, is not burdensome, but easy and joyful ; 
 1 John, v. 3, seq. The actual participation 
 in the benefits of this second part of Christ's 
 work, belongs, therefore, in all its extent, to 
 those only who have experienced the benefits 
 of the former part. A Christian teacher, there- 
 fore, proceeds preposterously, and contrary to 
 the example of the holy scriptures, when he ex- 
 hibits and inculcates only the second part, either 
 passing the first in silence, or exciting doubts 
 with regard to it, or casting contempt upon it. 
 He ought to connect the two parts, and to exhi- 
 bit them clearly and scripturally, as the apostles 
 have done. The method of the apostles has 
 been proved the best by experience. Whenever 
 the atonement of Christ, or the first part of the 
 work of redemption, has been omitted, little 
 has been effected by preaching morality, and 
 holding up the example of Jesus. Men may 
 be taught in this way what they should be, but 
 are left ignorant of the means of becoming so. 
 
 II. This Doctrine True and Scriptural. 
 It is the doctrine of the Bible, that Christ be- 
 came man, not only to free us from the punish- 
 ment of sin, but from sin itself. Jesus himself 
 says this, John, viii. 32, 36, seq. Cf. John, vi. 
 The writings of the apostles contain passages 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 409 
 
 of the same import e. g., Titus, ii. 11 14. 
 Here Paul shews Titus what he ought to teach. 
 He says (ver. 11, 12), that Christianity makes 
 men pious and virtuous, and gives them the 
 most cheerful anticipations of the future. Now 
 (ver. 14) he mentions the redemption of Christ, 
 implying (a) that he died for us (t8uxsv tavtbv 
 6) that he designed to deliver us 
 from all unrighteousness (d?t6 
 , and make us the friends of God, 
 and ready for all good works, (Christian vir- 
 tues.) Here plainly drtoTotfpwfft? implies both 
 the particulars above mentioned. So 1 Pet. i. 
 18, Christ delivered us (kurpow) tx pata-ias 
 dvaaT'po<J>>j?, t /V0m a sinful, heathenish, vicious life. 
 Ephes. ii. 9, 10, " We are xtke&vtes tv Xpisr^ 
 t spyoi? dycots" i. e., renewed, placed in a 
 situation in which we can act virtuously. Gal. 
 i. 4, * Christ gave himself rtspt a^ap-r'cwv i^uwi/ 
 (to deliver us from sin), and to rescue us from 
 our former condition in the service of sin, (brtwj 
 fijsT.^i'ac. tx ifov cuwvoj rtoi/^pov.)" The two 
 things are connected still more clearly, 1 Pet. 
 ii. 24, " Christ suffered on the cross the punish- 
 ment of our sins; we ought therefore to die to 
 sin, and live entirely for holiness. For to his 
 sufferings are we indebted for all our blessed- 
 ness (this twofold good) ; by his stripes we are 
 healed." 
 
 In order deeply to impress the mind with the 
 close connexion and the practical use of both of 
 these parts, the apostles frequently transfer the 
 terms relating to the death of Christ to the, 
 moral improvement or holiness of men, effected 
 by him. E. g., We ought to die spiritually to 
 sin, as he died for it bodily ; to rise, &c. Vide 
 the texts already cited ; also Rom. vi. 4 ; viii. 
 10, &c. 
 
 More important still are the passages which 
 teach that Christ delivered us from the power 
 and dominion of Satan, as Ephes. ii. 2; that he 
 has destroyed the power of the devil, &c. ; John, 
 xii. 31, seq. This phraseology is best explained 
 by the passage, 1 John, iii. 8, o rtotwv a^ap-nav 
 tx StajSdkoi; iatw (diaboli films, or diabolo simi- 
 lis, ver. 12; John, viii. 44); for he sinned of 
 old (art' dp??$). Again, Et$ -tovto Ifvirtpuijaj o 
 Ttoj fov, ivo> hvGy tpya 5taj36^ou. The latter 
 clause, tpya 6ta,8dxou, is clearly synonymous 
 with ajuaptfuu. Sins are thus described, because 
 the devil is regarded as the author of them, and 
 because by committing sin we resemble him, 
 and are instruments in his hand ; as, on the con- 
 trary, t pya ov, are virtuous and pious actions 
 such as flow from likeness to God, or love to 
 him. 
 
 III. The manner in which Christ delivers us from 
 Sin. 
 
 If we would obtain definite conceptions upon 
 this subject, we must come down to the simplest 
 52 
 
 possible ideas, and avoid the vague and obscure 
 expressions with which mystics are wont to 
 darken their own views. In representing the 
 matter briefly, writers are often content with 
 saying that new power and ability to do good is 
 afforded us by Christ. This representation ac- 
 cords perfectly with the holy scriptures, with 
 the promise of Christ, and with Christian expe- 
 rience. From this language, however, we are 
 not to understand that any miraculous assistance 
 is furnished by Christ. This power is usually 
 afforded in a natural manner, and the scriptures 
 themselves clearly point out the means by which 
 it is obtained. That Christ frequently and dis- 
 tinctly promised his aid and support at all times 
 to all his followers, if they on their part per- 
 formed the requisite conditions, is made certain 
 from the scriptures; Matt, xxviii. 20. The 
 term 8vvo/uj Xpitftfoi; occurs frequently in John 
 and in the epistles. Vide John, xv. 1, seq. ; 2 
 Cor. xii. 9; 2 Pet. i. 3, 4. 
 
 This assistance of God and Christ which is 
 promised to Christians in connexion with their 
 use of the Christian doctrine, does not act in a 
 manner inconsistent with the powers and con- 
 stitution of human nature, but wholly in accord- 
 ance with them. According to the wise consti- 
 tution of our nature, all our actions are princi- 
 pally dependent upon the fixed determination 
 of the will, which is again dependent upon the 
 strength and clearness of the motives present to 
 the understanding. Now we are frequently 
 hindered by external circumstances which are 
 beyond our control from the practice of virtue. 
 In this case we are without guilt, and the omis- 
 sion cannot be imputed to us. (Here, however, 
 we are liable to deception by thinking we are 
 without fault, when this is not true.) But often 
 the fault is in ourselves. W T e allow sense to 
 rule our reason. We refuse properly to consider 
 the motives placed before us, or we neglect op- 
 portunity of instructing ourselves respecting 
 duty ; or are chargeable, perhaps, with both of 
 these faults. If now, in this case, we disobey 
 the law of God, we are apt to bemoan our weak- 
 ness and want of power for doing good. Such 
 faults and weakness of the understandingand will 
 cannot be corrected by any miraculous power 
 afforded by Christ; and the virtue which should 
 be effected by such a miraculous power would 
 cease to be a personal virtue of the one in whom 
 it was wrought, and consequently could not be 
 imputed to him. There is no other way but for 
 man to learn the motives to piety and the avoid- 
 ing of sin which are presented in the Christian 
 doctrine, and to form the fixed resolve that, 
 under divine guidance and assistance, he will 
 govern his own will by what he knows to be 
 the will of God and Christ. Only then, when 
 he has done everything on his part, can he count 
 upon the divine assistance. Until man ha3 
 2 M 
 
410 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 done his part, he. is incapable of that assistance 
 which God and Christ have promised to afford. 
 If we are wanting in this thankful love to God 
 and Christ, which has been before insisted upon, 
 we must also be wanting in the disposition either 
 to learn or obey his will ; and in this condition, 
 we are of course disqualified for his assistance. 
 These remarks lead directly to the answer of 
 the question, How are we delivered by Christ 
 from the power and dominion of sin] When 
 we derive the motives for obedience to the di- 
 vine precepts from the instructions and example 
 of Christ, and suffer these to control our affec- 
 tions, and when we do this from grateful love to 
 God and to Christ, we then fulfil the conditions 
 which are essential on our part, in order that we 
 may rely upon this promised guidance and as- 
 sistance. We shall shew, in the following sec- 
 tion, what is taught in the Bible respecting the 
 efficacy of the instruction and example of Christ, 
 in overcoming the power of sin. By the in- 
 struction of Christ we obtain exact and distinct 
 information respecting the nature of sin and its 
 consequences, &c. His instruction and example 
 shew the means and motives for avoiding sin, 
 and leading upright and pious lives, 
 
 SECTION CXVII. 
 
 OF THE DELIVERANCE FROM THE POWER AND DO- 
 MINION OF SIN, FOR WHICH WE ARE INDEBTED, 
 UNDER DIVINE ASSISTANCE, TO THE INSTRUC- 
 TION AND EXAMPLE OF CHRIST. 
 
 I. Scriptural Doctrine respecting the Efficacy of 
 Christ's Instructions in subduing Sin. 
 
 (1) THE doctrine of Christ informs us dis- 
 tinctly what are the requisitions of the divine 
 law, and how we should order our life in con- 
 formity with them ; it teaches us to notice every 
 deviation from this law, and the dreadful conse- 
 quences of disobedience; and it gives these in- 
 structions in a manner which is plain and intel- 
 ligible to every mind. This comprehensive and 
 complete instruction as to the whole extent of 
 Christian duty gives the Christian doctrine a 
 great advantage above other moral codes, in 
 which only the more violent outbreakings of sin 
 are at all noticed. The apostles everywhere 
 exhibit, with great earnestness, this advantage 
 of the Christian doctrine, and Christ himself 
 declares it to have been one great object of his 
 coming into the world, to give this instruction. 
 Accordingly, Matt. v. 21, seq., he gives exam- 
 ples of this more complete instruction about the 
 duties of man, as drawn from the divine com- 
 mands. 
 
 Those religious teachers, therefore, mistake 
 very much who make the doctrines of faith the 
 only subjects of discourse, entirely omitting 
 
 Christian ethics, and perhaps speaking con- 
 temptuously of them. These moral instruc- 
 tions constitute a most valuable portion of the 
 Christian system. Even the enemies of Chris- 
 tianity, both in ancient and modern times, have 
 done justice to the morality of the gospel. But 
 our own age does not need to be warned so 
 much against this fault as against the opposite 
 one of inculcating the mere morality of the 
 Bible, and of speaking disrespectfully of the 
 evangelical doctrines. The teachers of religion 
 should connect the two together, as the sacred 
 writers do, and should draw the motives to ho- 
 liness, virtue, and moral purity from the doc- 
 trines of the Christian religion. Vide s. 116, 
 I. ad finem. It was not the manner of Christ 
 to teach the duties without the doctrines of reli- 
 gion. Neither he nor his apostles separated the 
 one from the other. The gospel contains both. 
 The doctrine respecting Christ, and the other 
 great doctrines of faith, afford a powerful support 
 to moral lessons, and so they are uniformly em- 
 ployed by the apostles. This method, however 
 much disregarded at present, deserves to be seri- 
 ously recommended to every teacher of religion 
 who is desirous of promoting the true and lasting 
 interest of his hearers. Christian ethics teach 
 us our duty; and Christian doctrines open the 
 sources from which we must draw strength to 
 perform it. In popular discourse, then, instruc- 
 tion in morals should always be connected with 
 and derived from evangelical doctrines. 
 
 (2) The Christian doctrine gives full instruc- 
 tion respecting the manner of suppressing our 
 sinful inclinations, and the means we should 
 use to overcome temptation to siri, to weaken 
 the power of sense, and to make constant ad- 
 vances in holiness. Tit. ii. 11, seq., "The sa- 
 lutary system of Christianity is designed by 
 God for all men. It teaches us (rtcwfovovaa) to 
 renounce all irreligion (dfftjSfia), and all the 
 sinful passions that prevail among men (xoopi- 
 xai 7tiiyucu) ; and, on the contrary, to live 
 wisely, piously, and virtuously on the earth." 
 2 Pet. i. 3, 4, seq. This passage contains the 
 following truths: "God gives us power to 
 lead a virtuous life (co; xai, tvatfiua,), and shews 
 us the means of doing this by the knowledge 
 of God," (i. e., the Christian scheme, whose 
 author is God.) Ver. 4, " By this knowledge 
 we attain to pious and godlike dispositions, 
 (ft'aj xoivuvoi ijwrtcoj, as children resembling 
 our Father,) and distinguish ourselves from the 
 great mass of mankind, who live in immorali- 
 ty." "Thus we are placed in a situation to 
 practise all the Christian virtues, (ver. 5 7,) 
 and are not dpyoi ov8s dxaprto/," (i. e., are al- 
 ways employed in works of Virtue, and dis- 
 posed to whatever is good.) 
 
 Christianity therefore justly requires of its 
 friends, to whom it gives such perfect instruc- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 411 
 
 tion as to the observance of the divine precepts, 
 to maintain the most unsullied purity of charac- 
 ter. John is fully justified in declaring (1 John, 
 ii. 4,) that he is a liar who professes to be a 
 friend and follower of Christ, and does not keep 
 his commandments. The same writer justly 
 remarks that the Christian who is in earnest in 
 overcoming his sins, and who acts out of pure 
 love to God and to Christ, will not find it diffi- 
 cult to fulfil the commands of God, al evfoTuu 
 a/v-tov j3aptKM ovx eiffiv ; 1 John, v. 3, coll. Matt. 
 xi. 30. He therefore assures us, in entire con- 
 formity with experience, that a true Christian, 
 by his obedience to Christian rules, and by con- 
 stant exercise, can advance so far, that virtue 
 will become his confirmed habit, and the pre- 
 ponderating disposition to sin will become sub- 
 ordinate, ov 8vvata* apap'tdvetv, 1 John, iii. 
 8, 9. 
 
 Note. Paul and the other apostles were ac- 
 customed to connect the history of the person of 
 Jesus Christ, in his humiliation and exaltation, 
 with his doctrine. From this history they de- 
 duce some of the advantages which we enjoy as 
 Christians, and also some of our duties and the 
 motives to the discharge of them; or they refer 
 to this history in inculcating these duties, in 
 order to render them more impressive. Thus 
 they frequently ascribe to the sufferings and 
 death of Christ a power to subdue sin, and to 
 excite pious affections. An example of this is 
 Heb. ix. 14, seq., "If even the blood of beasts 
 took away external impurity, and rendered those 
 who were expiated ^externally clean, according 
 to the law of Moses, how much more must the 
 blood of Christ purify us from sm" (dead 
 works) i. e., render us holy ; " that we may 
 be placed in a situation to worship God in a 
 manner acceptable to him." Still more clear 
 is the passage 2 Cor. v. 15, "He died for all, 
 that they should not live according to their own 
 choice (laur^), but according to the will and 
 commands of Christ, who died for them." The 
 love of Christ in offering up himself for them, 
 should incite them to grateful love, and to will- 
 ing obedience to his commands ; 1 Peter, i. 18, 
 19, "Christ delivered us by his blood from an 
 idolatrous and sinful course of life." There are 
 many more passages of the same nature. 
 
 From a comparison of these texts it is easy to 
 see that no direct or miraculous physical agency 
 is here ascribed to the death of Christ, nor any 
 power derived from it which is peculiar and 
 distinct from the influence of the doctrine re- 
 specting Christ. The influence of the death of 
 Christ in promoting a reformed and holy life, 
 takes place in the following way : The consi- 
 deration of the death of Christ promotes (a) ab- 
 horrence and dread of sin, and regard for the 
 divine law, while we see so severe a punish- 
 ment inflicted upon Christ. In the death of 
 
 Christ, then, we see sin, in all its dreadful con- 
 sequences, and the inviolable sanctity of the 
 divine law. (>) Love, gratitude, obedience to 
 God and Christ, and zeal in obeying his com- 
 mandments, are also effects of contemplating 
 Christ's death. Thus 2 Cor. v. 15, coll. Gal. 
 ii. 20; 1 John, v. 3; Rom. viii. 3, 4, "Because 
 Christ was punished for our sins, we ought, 
 from gratitude, the more carefully to obey the 
 precepts of the law," (foxcu'w^a fo^uov.) Here, 
 then, the effect is produced upon our affections 
 through our understanding. 
 
 The apostles ascribe a similar influence in 
 promoting reformation and holiness to thercswr- 
 rection of Christ and his exaltation in the hea- 
 vens, 2 Cor. v. 15; Col. iii. 1 ; Heb. xii. 2. By 
 the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, his 
 whole doctrine, and all which he did for us, re- 
 ceive new importance, and are rendered clear 
 and certain; and if we confide in him, and obey 
 his precepts, we may now look forward with 
 cheerful anticipations to a reward in heaven. 
 For (1) he has gone before to the place whither 
 we shall follow him if we love him, and seek 
 to resemble him, (John, xiv. 2, 3;) and (2) 
 while we continue upon the earth he still cares 
 for us, and is active in promoting our welfare. 
 Christ himself frequently connects these two 
 things, John, xv., xvi., xvii. Vide s. 112, II. 
 What a powerful influence in promoting piety 
 and holiness must these considerations exert 
 upon the heart of every man who cordially be- 
 lieves and embraces them ! 
 
 II. Influence of Christ's Example in aiding the 
 Practice of Virtue. 
 
 There is a propensity to imitation implanted 
 in all men. Good and evil examples often ex- 
 ert an influence upon the heart indescribably 
 great, and sometimes almost irresistible. This 
 propensity, as well as the love of distinction, 
 ought therefore to be turned to account in edu- 
 cation. Good examples do far more to improve 
 and ennoble the character, and to perfect holi- 
 ness, than mere lessons and rules. Longum et 
 difficile Her est praecepta^ says Seneca, breve ct 
 cfficax per exempla. Such examples act more 
 strongly and directly upon the senses, and ex- 
 cite the heart to virtue and everything noble and 
 great. 
 
 The example of Jesus is held up for imitation 
 everywhere in the New Testament, as the most 
 perfect model of every virtue. It is made the 
 indispensable duty of all his followers to con- 
 form to it in all their conduct. Vide 1 John, 
 ii. 6; iii. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 11, "He has left us ex- 
 ample (pattern, rrtoypa^/tdv,) that we should 
 follow his steps." But the example of Christ 
 is recommended to us for imitation, not only in 
 respect to his general integrity, purity of mo- 
 rals, and entire blamelessness, (in which he 
 
412 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 was perfectly exemplary, and the only one in- 
 deed who ever was so; vide s. 93, III.;) but 
 also in respect to particular virtues, especially 
 those which are more high and difficult, which 
 require a great struggle and effort, such as pa- 
 tience, trust in God, firmness in suffering, the 
 practice of humility and self-denial. In these 
 respects, Christ himself commends his example 
 to the imitation of his followers. Vide 1 Pet. 
 ii. 2123; Phil. ii. 5, seq. We have still fur- 
 ther encouragement to imitate the example of 
 Jesus by the reward bestowed upon him, the 
 man Jesus, in consequence of his piety and vir- 
 tue, which we also may expect to receive, so 
 far as we are capable of it, if we follow him. 
 Vide Phil, ubi supra, and Heb. xii. 2, 3. 
 
 It is an excellent rule which is given by some 
 of the ancient Greek philosophers, that in our 
 whole life and in all our actions we should have 
 the example of some great, wise, and virtuous 
 man in view, and that we should imagine him 
 to be the witness and overseer (custos et poeda- 
 gogus) of all our conduct. They advised that 
 we should do everything under the notice, as it 
 were, of such an inspector, and inquire at every 
 step what he would do or recommend in this 
 case; would he approve or disapprove! Could 
 I do or say this thing if he were present with- 
 out blushing? &c. Epictetus (Enchir. c. 51) 
 recommends Socrates and Zeno for models ; Se- 
 neca (Ep. 11. Extra.), Cato, and Lselius. Chris- 
 tians can select no greater and more perfect man 
 to be the witness of their conduct and guide of 
 their morals than Jesus. And we know, too, 
 that we may not only imagine him to be the 
 witness and judge of our conduct, but that he 
 actually is so. He knows all our thoughts and 
 actions, and will be the sole Judge of the living 
 and the dead. So we are taught by Christ him- 
 self in his discourses recorded in John, and by 
 all the apostles. Both Christ and his apostles 
 require Christians to do everything 
 
 The passage Heb. xii. 1, 2 deserves to be no- 
 ticed among the many which speak of imitating 
 the example of Christ. Paul first compares the 
 firm and pious sufferers of antiquity, whose ex- 
 ample in suffering the Christian ought to imi- 
 tate, with spectators and witnesses, who look 
 upon our race and contest, and encourage us to 
 perseverance. Among these witnesses is Jesus, 
 who far surpasses the rest, who is the best ex- 
 ample of confidence in God, and of every virtue, 
 and who constantly observes us, and will finally 
 reward us if we follow him. 
 
 But those only who possess the character de- 
 scribed, s. 116, I., ad finem, are properly capa- 
 ble of imitating this example of Jesus. Men 
 who have not felt the consciousness that their 
 sins were forgiven, and have not been renewed 
 in the temper of their mind, have no taste or 
 
 capacity for this imitation of Christ. Nor can 
 we properly require of them what they in this 
 situation are incapable of performing. We can 
 make them feel, however, if their moral sensi- 
 bility is not entirely deadened, how far below 
 this example they stand, and how good and sa- 
 lutary it would be for them to imitate it. 
 
 PART III. OF CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ON THE PRESENT AND FUTURE CONSEQUENCES 
 OF THE WORK OF CHRIST. 
 
 SECTION CXVIII. 
 
 SCRIPTURAL TITLES OF THE SALVATION PROCURED 
 BY CHRIST FOR MEN ; ITS GENERAL NATURE J 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RE- 
 SPECTING THE ABOLITION OF THE OLD-TESTA- 
 MENT DISPENSATION BY CHRISTIANITY, AND 
 THE ADVANTAGES RESULTING FROM IT TO THE 
 WORLD. 
 
 I. Scriptural Names of the Blessings of Christianity, 
 and their Nature. 
 
 SOME of these names are literal, others figu- 
 rative. The most common are the following 
 viz., ErXoytTor, rrna, denoting every kind of be- 
 nefit, Ephes. i. 3 ; Gal. iii. 14. Xa'pt?, jn, -ion, 
 John, i. 16, "Through his infinite love we have 
 obtained %dpw avti ^aptroj," an undeserved bene- 
 fit superior to the other, in opposition to the Mo- 
 saic dispensation, (ver. 17,) which could not 
 secure this forgiveness of sin, and the blessings 
 connected with it, which are here intended by 
 the word %dpiv. The word 10?; is also fre- 
 quently used, vita vere vitalis, happiness. Also 
 07toi,fl&<u, yv, x. r. A., in opposition to drtw- 
 tet'a and awxroj, unhappiness, John, iii. 36 ; x. 
 11 ; Ephes. ii. 5, where the figure is continued, 
 " Through Christ he has vivified and raised us 
 up," &c. 
 
 The Jews had anciently very diverse opinions 
 respecting the nature of the blessings to be ex- 
 pected from Christ. Only a few of the better 
 instructed conceived that these benefits were 
 entirely of a spiritual nature. For such bless- 
 ings the great mass had no taste. They expect- 
 ed, for the most part, temporal blessings, and 
 hoped, under the Messiah, to be rich, honourable 
 and mighty. Vide s. 89. And these expecta- 
 tions have prevailed in a large portion even of 
 the Christian world. Accordingly, many, in 
 direct opposition to the s-pirit of Christianity, 
 have associated the promises of earthly good and 
 temporal welfare, made under the Mosaic insti- 
 tute, with the precepts of the New Testament. 
 We may, indeed, hope and expect to obtain from 
 God all that good, even of a temporal nature, ol 
 
L 
 
 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 413 
 
 hich we are capable, and of which we stand 
 in need. But through Christ, and observance of 
 his precepts, we cannot hope to obtain earthly 
 good. For the design of his religion is to with- 
 draw us from earth and sense, to improve and 
 ennoble the heart, and to procure the enjoyment 
 of high spiritual blessedness ; Philippians, iii. 
 14, 17, 20. On this ground, therefore, the Jew- 
 ish idea of the coming of a millenial kingdom 
 of Christ upon the earth is entirely objection- 
 able. The apostles never indulge in such ex- 
 pectations, but take every opportunity to con- 
 tradict them. They call those who entertain 
 such ideas oapxixot, persons who adhere to what 
 is sensible and exterior, have no taste for what 
 is spiritual, and are not therefore real disciples 
 of Jesus. Hence Paul says, Ephes. i. 3, "God 
 has blessed us, through Christ, jtday evtoyia 
 riv f UjU. atf i xy sv ETtovpouaotj." IIvfDju.aT'txdj is 
 here opposed to oapxi'xoj, and implies that the 
 blessings spoken of are not designed for the 
 body and the senses, but for the mind. The 
 phrase 'Ej/ -tol$ trtovpavioi$ (sc. tonoif vide verse 
 20; ii. 6, 12) does not signify in the Christian 
 'hurch, but denotes, literally, the blessings 
 which we shall enjoy in heaven, which is our 
 home, where we are citizens, (not in the visible 
 world.) Hence in Heb. viii. 6, he calls the 
 blessings which are bestowed upon us through 
 Christ, in comparison with the promises made 
 under the Mosaic dispensation, xpeiftova dyoa. 
 In Heb. vii. 19, he says, that there is through 
 Christianity, 7t?i(jayco'y?7 xps Lftovo^ i Xrfi'fioj, (i. e. 
 it inspires the hope of more great and distin- 
 guished divine favours,) since the Mosaic insti- 
 tute is removed. 
 
 The blessings bestowed upon us through 
 Christ are commonly divided into general or 
 public, (such as relate to the whole human spe- 
 cies,) and particular, privata, (such as relate to 
 each individual Christian.) Among the former 
 is, as the New Testament everywhere shews, 
 the abolition of Judaism, (the ancient institute,) 
 and the establishment of a new dispensation 
 and institute, by which all the nations of the 
 earth might be united in one common religion. 
 We shall first treat of the removal of the ancient 
 church of God, and of the establishment of the 
 new ; and then of the particular benefits of 
 Christianity. 
 
 II. The Abolition of the Mosaic Institute, and the 
 Union of Jews and Gentiles in one common Re- 
 ligion. 
 
 (1) The Israelitish constitution and religion 
 (vcyioj) were only temporary and national. They 
 were designed, in their first origin, only for a 
 barbarous and rude people, destitute of moral 
 cultivation. But the human race was not des- 
 tined to remain always in a state of infancy; 
 and as soon as men were prepared for a more 
 
 high, perfect, and spiritual instruction, that more 
 imperfect kind, intended for beginners, would 
 of course be omitted. The Jewish institute 
 was designed to be only preparatory ; such is 
 the uniform doctrine of the apostles, especially 
 of Paul. Vide the Introduction, s. 12, where 
 we have cited the most important texts, which 
 are principally contained in the epistles to the 
 Galatians and Hebrews. Now, therefore, ac- 
 cording to their instruction, Christ had abolish- 
 ed the law. (Christ himself, for good reasons, 
 gave at first only hints which led to this con- 
 clusion e. g., John, iv. 21 24; x. 16. He 
 left the full development of this doctrine for his 
 disciples.) Rom. x. 4, rt^oj tov vopov 'XpiO'tos 
 i. e., vetos H$tpe *u vo^uoi. Heb. vii. 18, 19 ; Gal. 
 iv. 4, 5; Eph. ii. 14, 15. According to these 
 and other passages Christ has freed his follow- 
 ers from obligation to observe the law of Moses ; 
 and the punishments threatened in it do not re- 
 late to those who believe in Christ. Vide Gal. 
 iii. 13, Xpwi'of ifyyopaasv ^ita? ex trfi xatdpas 
 tov vopov i. e., from the punishments which 
 the Mosaic law threatens. 
 
 Here two questions arise viz., 
 
 (a) How are we to understand those texts 
 which teach that the Mosaic law and institute 
 are removed and declared to be null by the cru- 
 cifixion? Such texts are, Gal. iii. 13; Eph. ii. 
 16; iii. 15; and especially Col. ii. 14, "He 
 took it away, and nailed it to his cross," by 
 his crucifixion he declared it invalid. The apos- 
 tles everywhere teach that the new dispensation 
 through Christ (xawri 810^307) commenced at 
 his death, and was by that event solemnly sanc- 
 tioned and introduced. Eph. v. 25, 26; Heb. 
 xiii.20; ix. 14, 15, where the preparatory eco- 
 nomy of Moses, consisting in sacrifices, is com- 
 pared with the preparatory economy of Christ, 
 consisting in the sacrifice of himself. Christ 
 himself calls his blood which was shed, al^ua 
 xuivijs Sto&r[x>7J, Matthew, xxvi. 28. Conse- 
 quentty, the ancient Israelitish dispensation 
 ceased with the death of Christ, because at 
 that event the new dispensation commenced. 
 We see by this what value was attached to the 
 death of Christ, and how everything in this new 
 dispensation through Christ proceeds from it. 
 The day of his death is the consecration-day of 
 the new covenant. The new covenant is not 
 dated from the time when he began to teach, 
 but from the time of his death. 
 
 (6) Are all the Mosaic laws abolished by 
 Christ, and no longer obligatory upon Chris- 
 tians? From the passages cited we must cer- 
 tainly answer in the affirmative. But the laws 
 of Moses are of different kinds; and many of 
 the older theologians maintained that Christ 
 abolished only the ceremonial and civil law of 
 the Israelites, and not the moral law, especially 
 that contained in the decalogue. But in the 
 2M2 
 
414 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 passages of the New Testament which treat of 
 the abolition of the law there is no allusion to 
 this threefold distinction. Paul includes the 
 whole under vo^oj, Romans, vi. 14; Gal. iii. 19, 
 25. Besides, many of the laws of Moses, which 
 are truly moral, are expressed and stated in such 
 a way as to shew plainly that they were de- 
 signed, in that form, only for the circumstances 
 and wants of the Israelites at the time being 
 e. g., " Honour thy father and thy mother, that 
 thy days may be long in the land" (Palestine ;) 
 and the law respecting the Sabbath. 
 
 The mistake upon which this limitation is 
 founded may be pointed out. Moral laws are 
 in themselves universally obligatory, and unal- 
 terable as the laws of nature. There are, doubt- 
 less, many such moral laws in the code of 
 Moses, as well as of Solon, Lycurgus, and 
 others. But they are not binding upon Chris- 
 tians because they are parts of the Mosaic code, 
 and stand in the decalogue, but (a) because 
 they are founded in the constitution of human 
 nature, which God himself has given us, and 
 are therefore laws of nature, and (6) because 
 Christ has commanded us to obey them. In 
 the same way, we observe the moral laws which 
 stand in the codes of heathen legislators Con- 
 fucius, Solon, Lycurgus, &c. ; not because they 
 have given them, but because these laws are 
 universal, and founded in our very nature. 
 When a ruler introduces a new statute-book 
 into his dominions, the old book, after its rejec- 
 tion, is no longer the rule by which right and 
 wrong are determined, although much in it 
 still remains true. Just such is the case here. 
 Morus well observes (p. 243, infra}, that Chris- 
 tians observe the moral precepts in the Mosaic 
 code, quia ratio diet at, et Christi doctrina propo- 
 nit, proponendoque confirmat. Judaei vero tene- 
 bantur ea observare, quia ratio dictabat, et Moses, 
 Jussu divino, praescripserat. 
 
 In this way we may understand the declara- 
 tion of Christ, Matthew, v. 17 19, "that he 
 was not come to destroy the law and the pro- 
 phets, (vtytov'xat rtpo^jj-raj,) and that all the di- 
 vine commands contained in them must be 
 punctually obeyed." This does not conflict 
 with the doctrine of Paul. Christ was neither 
 able nor willing to abrogate these universal 
 laws, because they were given by God for all 
 men ; not, however, because they were given 
 t>y Moses. It was, on the contrary, the design 
 of Christ still more to illustrate these laws, and 
 to recommend obedience to them by his doc- 
 trine and example. 
 
 The question, Whether the ten command- 
 ments of Moses should be retained in the moral 
 instruction of the common people and of the 
 young, has been much controverted of late. 
 (Cf. Thorn. Boclo, Etwas iiher den Decalogus, 
 oder, von der Verbindlichkeit der zehn Gebote 
 
 fiir die Christen; Schmalkalden, 1789, 8vo; 
 Hufnagel, Ueber den Religionsunterricht, nnch 
 den zehnGeboten; Zacharia, Bibl. Theol. th. 
 4; Less, Doderlein, Reinhard, in their Chris- 
 tian ethics.) From what has been already said, 
 it is plain that the Ten Commandments are not 
 obligatory because they are laws given by 
 Moses. They are not therefore, of necessity, 
 fundamental in Christian instruction. No in- 
 jury, however, is to be apprehended from mak- 
 ing them so, any more than in the first Christian 
 church, if the manner in which Christ and the 
 apostles allude to the moral precepts of Moses 
 and the Old Testament be only made our model. 
 The intelligent and conscientious teacher will 
 be very cautious in declaring to the common 
 people and the young that the Ten Command- 
 ments are abrogated, since he might be easily 
 understood to mean, that the duties enjoined in 
 them are no longer obligatory. The instruction 
 which God has given through Jesus, respecting 
 the moral law and our duties, is much more 
 perfect and extensive than that which was 
 given, or could be given, through Moses. Our 
 hearers should therefore be led directly to this 
 more copious fountain of knowledge. This will 
 not prevent our connecting instruction from the 
 Old Testament with that from the New, as 
 Christ and the apostles did, especially since 
 the history of the Old Testament so well eluci- 
 dates and explains many points of duty. 
 
 In those churches in which the decalogue is 
 incorporated, by their very constitution, into the 
 system of instruction, it is neither necessary nor 
 advisable for the teacher to urge the discontinu- 
 ance of this custom. By this course he would 
 do more hurt than good. He will proceed more 
 properly and judiciously by confirming, com- 
 pleting, and enlarging from the New Testa- 
 ment all the particular moral precepts contained 
 in the decalogue, making the decalogue, in this 
 way, serve only as a guide to Christian instruc- 
 tion. He will do well also to connect with or 
 append to the catechism a good outline of Chris- 
 tian doctrines and morals, exhibited in a natural 
 order, and in an intelligible and practical man- 
 ner, according to the holy scriptures. 
 
 (2) It was the great object of Jesus to esta- 
 blish an universal religion, by which all nations 
 of the earth might be united in one common 
 worship of God. Vide John, x. 16, " One fold 
 and one Shepherd." Cf. Reinhard, Ueber den 
 Plan des Stifters der christlichen Religion. But 
 this plan in its whole extent could not be car- 
 ried into effect, nor indeed was it designed to 
 be, until after his departure from the earth. 
 Vide John, xii. 32. In order to render this 
 plan practicable, it was essential that the Mo- 
 saic institute should be abrogated, and declared 
 to be thenceforward abolished. Without this, 
 Jews and Christians could never be brought 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 415 
 
 gether, or united in a common religious so- 
 ;iety. The Jews were distinguished by na- 
 tional pride and contempt for all the rest of 
 mankind. They considered themselves exclu- 
 sively as a holy people, beloved of God. All 
 other nations seemed to them to be desecrated, 
 and hated by God. They exhibit, as Tacitus 
 says (Hist. v. 5), Odium hostile adversus omnes 
 gentes; and, as Paul says, 1 Thess. ii. 15, a 
 universal misanthropy, Ttaniv cu^pwytotj tvavtioi. 
 And what was the occasion of this hatred and 
 separation? Their misunderstanding the Mo- 
 saic laws, and putting a false interpretation 
 upon them. 
 
 In opposition to this, the great principles of 
 Christianity are, the love of God and universal 
 philanthropy, and that all upright and true wor- 
 shippers of God, of whatever nation they may 
 be, are equally acceptable to him, have equal 
 rights, and an equal share in the blessings of 
 Christianity, John, iv. 21 24; Acts, x. 35; 
 Romans, x. 12 ; Gal. v. 6. This assimilation 
 and union, by which all distinction between 
 Jew and heathen would cease, could not be 
 brought about except by the abrogation of the 
 Mosaic institute, which was designed by God 
 to be only a preparatory economy. One of the 
 principal passages relating to this subject is 
 Ephes. ii. 1219, coll. Col. i. 21, seq. ; Ephes. 
 ii. 10, seq. " Christ has united the two (Jews 
 and heathen), has done away the cause of their 
 enmity, has established harmony, brought them 
 both together into one society, and given them 
 citizenship in the kingdom of God ; this he did 
 by removing the wall of partition (peaotoizov 
 fov ^poy^ov, ver. 14), that separated between 
 heathen and Jews, and prevented their becom- 
 ing one people." This wall of partition was the 
 Mosaic law, as he himself explains it, ver. 15, 
 vo^oj ivtoKuv. This he calls, in ver. 14, J'^pa, 
 the cause of enmity. 
 
 SECTION CXIX. 
 
 THE HAPPINESS WHICH CHRISTIANS OBTAIN IN 
 THIS LIFE FROM CHRIST. 
 
 WE treat now of the particular benefits of 
 which every professor of Christianity partakes 
 when he performs the prescribed conditions. 
 Vide s. 118,1. ad fin. As our existence is com- 
 posed of two very unequal portions, these bless- 
 ings are likewise of two kinds. We enjoy some 
 of them even in the present life, and others not 
 before we enter the future world ; s. 120. It 
 must always be borne in remembrance, that the 
 apostles derived all these spiritual advantages, 
 of whatever kind, from Christ, and that they 
 connect these, as well as the rewards of the 
 pious (natural and positive), in such a way with 
 the history of Jesus, that they represent him as 
 the procurer of them all. This method of in- 
 
 struction is perfectly suited the wants of man- 
 kind. General truths become much more intel- 
 ligible, clear, and certain, by being placed in 
 connexion with true history, from which they 
 receive a positive sanction. We find that the 
 ancient teachers of religion among the heathen 
 pursued the same course. And this is a proof that 
 they better understood the constitution of man 
 than those Christian teachers who would sepa- 
 rate everything historical from the exhibition of 
 Christian truth. Vide s. 108. 
 
 The spiritual blessedness which believers in 
 Christ receive through him, even in the present 
 life, consists, according to the doctrine of the 
 New Testament, in the following particulars : 
 
 I. Assurance of t fie undeserved Benevolence, the Con- 
 stant Favour, and Paternal Love of God. 
 
 The apostle places this class of spiritual be- 
 nefits in the closest connexion with the whole 
 history of Christ, representing them always as- 
 the fruit of the atonement. Their doctrine is, that 
 whoever is sure of the forgiveness of his sins (and 
 this assurance he receives through the atonement 
 of Christ, or through faith in Christ as a Saviour 
 and expiator), and, under the guidance and as- 
 sistance of God and Christ, lives conformably 
 to the divine precepts (which he learns from the 
 Christian doctrine and from the example of 
 Christ), such an one is capable of receiving the 
 divine blessings which are promised to such, and 
 he can at all times be assured of the favour and 
 paternal love of God ; he will be treated by God 
 and Christ as a friend, and mad.e partaker of 
 their happiness, so far as he is susceptible of it. 
 
 Various figures and expressions are used in 
 the scriptures to represent these fruits of the 
 atonement, and of faith in it. But they all con- 
 vey one and the same idea. They ought not 
 therefore, in systems of theology, to be sepa- 
 rately considered, in different chapters or arti- 
 cles. The following expressions are some of 
 the most common viz., sonship, the right of 
 adoption, election, access to God, and union with 
 him. We shall now briefly explain these terms.. 
 
 (1) Tto^adt'a sov. This is a term which was- 
 originally borrowed from the Israelitish church.. 
 In the ancient languages the phrase, children of 
 God, denotes the peculiar friends, the favourites- 
 of the Deity. The Israelites received this name, 
 and also that of firstborn, to denote their pre- 
 eminence above other people. Vide Ex. iv. 22,. 
 23. Hence in Rom. ix. 4, the Israelites are 
 said to possess vto&ctia, i. e., the rights of the 
 favourite people of God. This term is trans- 
 ferred to true Christians, in order to denote the 
 relation which subsists between them and God. 
 Those who endeavour to resemble God in their 
 conduct, and who faithfully obey his command- 
 ments, have a higher capacity for happiness and 
 reward than others who are wanting in these 
 
41G 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 traits of character. We hence conclude, with 
 reason, that God loves and favours them more 
 than others who are unlike him. One who loves 
 God as a son loves his father, and seeks to re- 
 semble him as a dutiful son seeks to resemble 
 his father, will he loved by God in return, as a 
 dutiful son is loved by his father. All the ad- 
 vantages and spiritual benefits, therefore, which 
 we obtain through faith in Christ, and obedience 
 to his precepts, are considered as belonging to 
 vto^stfta, because they are all proofs of the pater- 
 nal love of God. Vide Gal. iv. 4, 5 ; iii. 2G ; Rom. 
 viii. 15 (7tvv(j,avio$Gia$, a filial disposition), and 
 ver. 23 (the reward of Christians) ; Ephes. i. 5 ; 
 1 John, iii. 1, 2. This right of adoption we owe 
 to Christ, as the author of Christianity and our 
 Saviour. Those only possess this right who 
 believe in him as Xptcr-r'o? and Swr^p. Hence 
 John declares (i. 12), "He gives to all who 
 believe on him the privilege (tf-ovffto) of consi- 
 dering themselves the children of God" which 
 privilege they obtain, according to ver. 13, not 
 by descent from pious ancestors, according to 
 the Jewish prejudice, but solely by true faith in 
 Jesus Christ, and from the holiness and like- 
 ness to God arising from and connected with 
 faith. 
 
 The apostles give this appellation to the sin- 
 cere worshippers of God the more readily and 
 frequently on account of the name of Christ, 
 Ttoj 06ov. God treats Christians as his peculiar 
 friends on account of Christ, who is his most 
 beloved and chief favourite, TtpwroT'oxoj, p.ovo- 
 yevfy. Vide Gal. iii. 26, 27 ; iv. 47. 
 
 Pious Christians are thus called the children 
 of God in a twofold sense: (a) because they 
 love God as their Father, and obey him from 
 love; (6) because they, on account of this dis- 
 position, are loved in return by God, as obedient 
 children, and so obtain from him forgiveness of 
 sins and other Christian blessings. Both of 
 these ideas are sometimes implied at the same 
 time in this term. 
 
 [In the older writers of the English church 
 (as well as in the ancient fathers, and the most 
 devout and spiritual writers of other nations,) 
 we frequently meet with the idea, that the rela- 
 tion existing between man and God, denoted 
 by sonship, is not merely a relation of feeling, 
 but also of nature. This is sometimes illustrated 
 by saying that we are not adopted by God into 
 his family in the same manner in which a 
 wealthy benefactor sometimes adopts a destitute 
 and orphan child, conferring upon him great 
 privileges, and giving him the name of son, to 
 which he has no natural title. In such a case, 
 this name would denote only that the per- 
 son on whom it was conferred held the same 
 place in the affections of the benefactor, and 
 exercised in return the same feelings of grati- 
 tude and dutiful reverence as an own son would 
 
 in similar circumstances. And this seems to be 
 the more general sense in whioh this appella- 
 tion was used in reference to the friends and 
 worshippers of God before the Christian dispen- 
 sation, and to those few who, like the devout 
 Cornelius, are found fearing God even in the 
 midst of heathenism. But this term, when 
 applied to believers in the New Testament, has 
 a superior meaning, and points to the gift of the 
 Spirit of adoption, which, in the highest sense, is 
 peculiar to the Christian dispensation, and con- 
 sequent upon the completion of Christ's work. 
 By being born of God, and receiving this peculiar 
 grace, the Spirit of adoption, believers become 
 partakers of " the divine nature," and possessed 
 of an internal principle, the fruits of which are 
 the love and obedience in which the essential 
 nature of sonship is sometimes placed, but 
 which are in reality only the signs or effects of 
 that new life in which it really consists. The 
 possession of this Spirit by Christ, though in a 
 far higher degree of intimacy, seems to be one 
 of the grounds of his bearing the title of Son. 
 And the manner of the Spirit's presence and 
 operation in believers is compared by the sacred 
 writers with the hypostatical union of the divine 
 and human natures in Christ. These ideas 
 may be, indeed, carried so far as to involve 
 error. But it is an important question whether 
 they have not a scriptural basis. Is the compa- 
 rative infrequency, in our later theological 
 writings, of these ideas, which were so current 
 in the fathers of the English church, the result 
 of an advance or a decline in theological 
 science? TR.] 
 
 (2) All the words which literally signify to 
 choose and elect are frequently employed in order 
 to denote the distinguished favour and love of 
 God to his people. We are accustomed to 
 select from many things that which is the best, 
 most desirable, and valuable. Hence to say a 
 thing is chosen is often the same as to say it is 
 valuable or useful e. g., axsvos ix^oyr^, Acts, 
 ix. 15. Now, because our love rests upon those 
 objects which appear to us good and valuable, 
 the words which in the oriental languages sig- 
 nify to select, signify also to love, to wish well to 
 any one, to benefit him, in a distinguished man- 
 ner. In the same way is iro used in Hebrew 
 e. g., Deut. iv. 57, where JHN is added. The LXX. 
 sometimes render it by the word txte'yfo^cu, as 
 in the passage cited, and sometimes by sv8o- 
 xslv and wyartdv. The New Testament employs 
 the words ixheysa^Ku, and ixtexto$ in the same 
 manner. In the Old Testament, the Israelites 
 were denominated, by way of eminence, the 
 chosen or beloved (an^rn) of God. This term was 
 then transferred to Christians, who become wor- 
 thy of the love of God by faith in Jesus Christ, 
 and by conduct conformed entirely to the divine 
 will e. g., Matt. xxiv. 24; 1 Pet. ii. 9. 
 
I 
 
 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 
 
 417 
 
 is therefore Christianumfaccre, as 1 Cor. 
 i. 27, 28. In the same way the verba cogno- 
 scendi, in the ancient languages mean to love, 
 to be friendly to any one. Thus Christians are 
 said to be yycoc&tVr'sj vrto sov, amid Deo. Gal. 
 iv. 9 ; 1 Cor. viii. 3, coll. Ps. Iv. 14. 
 
 (3) The terms which denote the drawing near 
 of God to men, or union with him. God was 
 conceived of by the ancient world as corporeal, 
 and as resembling man. Thus many believed 
 that he was literally and actually more present 
 in one place than in another, and that he ap- 
 proached the place where he wished to exert 
 his power, and that otherwise he withdrew or 
 absented himself. Vide s. 23, II. From such 
 conceptions a multitude of figurative expressions 
 have arisen in all the ancient languages. These 
 expressions appear very gross and unworthy of 
 God. At first, however, they were literally 
 understood by the great mass of mankind, But 
 afterwards, as the views of men became en- 
 larged and improved, they were understood figu- 
 ratively, and were interpreted in such a way as to 
 be consistent with the divine perfections. The 
 terms, the approach, or coming of God to any 
 one, the connexion of God with any one, denote 
 a high degree of his favour and love, and of the 
 active display of these feelings, his assistance 
 and agency ; and so the withdrawment of God, 
 and his forsaking any one, denote, on the other 
 hand, the withdrawing of his love and the bene- 
 fits resulting from it. Thus naip denotes the 
 friendship of God, Ps. Ixxiii. 28, coll. Zech. ii. 
 1 0, 1 1 . And thus Christ promises to his disciples 
 that he and his Father would come and make 
 their abode with them i. e., would be always 
 connected with them, and never withhold from 
 them their special assistance and protection ; in 
 short, would be to them what one friend is 
 to another in guiding and upholding him ; ver. 
 21, tptyavgeiv. Thus Jesus consoles his dis- 
 ciples who were lamenting his departure. Cf. 
 Rev. iii. 20, and Matt, xxviii. 20. The terms, 
 ijfjifis sdfjLev (or jUEvo/iEv) h ^9, ^6j tcrtiv 
 (or /jiVt,} iv v^lv, which occur John xvii. 21, 
 and 1 John, iii. 24, &c., denote, in the same 
 way, a high degree of the special favour and 
 friendship of God, agreement of disposition 
 with him, and his assistance connected with 
 his favour. Cf. John, xv. 1, "Whoever is and 
 remains faithful and devoted to him shall be 
 treated by him in the same manner in return ; 
 he shall be united to him, as the branch is 
 united to the vine." 
 
 From these and similar passages the mystics 
 have taken occasion to speak of a secret union 
 (unio mysUca) with God and Christ. They 
 commonly express this by the terms, the in- 
 dwelling of God in the heart, sinking down into 
 God, ihe communication of God, the enjoyment 
 53 
 
 of him, &c. &c. Some of them associated very 
 gross conceptions with these phrases ; cf. s. 23. 
 After the eleventh and twelfth centuries such 
 language became more common in the Western 
 church. It was understood by some in a literal 
 manner, and in a sense unworthy of the charac- 
 ter of God ; by others, in a manner entirely con- 
 formed to the Bible, but yet sometimes too indis- 
 tinctly. Luther, Melancthon, and other reform- 
 ers, retained the phraseology of the ancient mys- 
 tics, and it was adopted into the systems of theo- 
 logy. Some made a special article on the subject 
 of the mystical union , though Melancthon and 
 others took pains to controvert the gross ideas 
 of the fanatical mystics. Hence it came to 
 pass that this phraseology was thus used mostly 
 in homiletical and catechetical discourses, and 
 that formerly many sermons and books were 
 written upon this subjoct. 
 
 In the holy scriptures these terms denote some- 
 times the agreement of the dispositions of the 
 pious with the law of God; sometimes the pe- 
 culiar favour and friendship of God towards 
 them, and the special proofs of it, and also their 
 enjoyment and feeling of the tokens of this 
 friendship. 
 
 There is no reason, therefore, for making a 
 particular article in the systems of theology 
 upon this subject. Caution, however, should 
 be used in Christian instruction to prevent the 
 notion that there is anything properly miraculous 
 in this matter which is not according to the 
 Bible. This caution is the more necessary, as 
 many enthusiastic parties frequently employ 
 such expressions with regard to these divine in- 
 fluences, and give them such a meaning as im- 
 plies an immediate illumination independent of 
 the holy scriptures. So the Quakers and Bohe- 
 mians. And it has sometimes happened that 
 well-meaning though nnenlightened Christians 
 have received the doctrine of these sectarians as 
 scriptural because it was expressed in scriptural 
 phraseology. 
 
 Another reason for calling these proofs of the 
 love of God, and the experience of them, unio 
 mystica, is, that they are inward, and enjoyed by 
 spiritual fellowship, and are unseen and disre- 
 garded by those who have no taste or capacity 
 for such experiences. A satisfactory and full 
 explanation of these feelings cannot be given to 
 those who have no experience of them, as is trie 
 case with all matters of experience. Paul said, 
 very truly, Col. iii. 3, " Your (the true Chris- 
 tian's) life in God, (i. e., your divine life, which 
 is acceptable to God your happy life as Chris- 
 tians,) like the present life of Christ in heaven, 
 in the full enjoyment of happiness, is concealed 
 (xExpurtfat) from the great multitude of men ;" 
 they do not regard it as happy or desirable be- 
 cause they have no taste for it. 
 
418 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 II. Happiness and Peace of Mind, and a joyful 
 Prospect of the Future. 
 
 We owe to Christ, according to the doctrine 
 of the New Testament, 
 
 (1) Inward peace and happiness. These 
 spring from the firm conviction that through 
 Christ we have obtained from God the forgive- 
 ness of sin, and from the joyful consciousness 
 of the power of God, and his approbation of our 
 feelings and conduct. This state of mind is 
 frequently expressed in the New Testament by 
 Ttofj/j^tfta, cheerful conjidence in God, in opposition 
 to an anxious and slavish fear of punishment. 
 Thus Heb. iv. 16, rtpotffp^to/if^-a p,s fa rtapfydias 
 tq ^povcp tij$ ^apttfoj, " We may now with joyful 
 confidence expect unmingled good from God, 
 and supplicate him for it." 1 John, iv. 17, 
 Tta/j^utow t%eiv ev ^pa xpttfscoj, to be able to 
 look forward to the day of judgment with cheer- 
 fulness. Cf. 1 John, iii. 20, 21, peace of God, 
 or with God. Rom. v. 1, 2, Etp^v Ttpoj rbv 
 c6v 0/ie?, 8ixau$evf$ rtpocraycoy^v c & #aptv 
 eov, &c. Ver. 11, " We can at all times rejoice 
 in the assurance of divine favour, (xav^Q^E^a iv 
 06CJ ;) and this, Christ by his atonement has en- 
 abled us to do." By this assurance and confi- 
 dence the soul of the true Christian comes to 
 such a firm, steadfast, and composed frame, as 
 enables him to endure unmoved the greatest 
 trials. He is deeply convinced that the greatest 
 adversities contribute to his highest good, and 
 are the means which God, as a kind father, em- 
 ploys for the welfare of hi$ children, whom he is 
 educating not merely for this short life, but for 
 eternity, Rom. v. 3 ; viii. 28, 32. 
 
 (2) The most cheerful prospect of the future, or 
 a certain hope of our future blessedness. One 
 great object of Christian instruction is, to 
 awaken, confirm, and cherish this hope. It is 
 always used as a motive to diligence in holi- 
 ness, to self-denial, and to steadfastness in all 
 the sufferings and adversities of the present life. 
 Rom. v. 2, fkrttj So|^j fou i. e., of the divine 
 rewards. Rom. viii. 17, 18, 24, seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 
 3; 2 Cor. vii. 1, 4, 8, seq. All this is every- 
 where connected with the history of the person 
 of Jesus in his humiliation and exaltation ; and 
 confirmation of the views now given is drawn 
 from his sufferings and death, as Heb. ix. 15; 
 from his resurrection and subsequent exaltation, as 
 John, vii. 28; xvii. 24; 1 Thess. v. 810. By 
 his death we are delivered from death. His re- 
 surrection and his exalted station are pledges to 
 us that he will actually perform all that he pro- 
 mised, and will bring us to that place to which 
 he has gone before to our proper home, and our 
 Father's house. 
 
 We ought not, however, in hope of the future 
 world, to forget the present. We should re- 
 
 member that God designs that we should live 
 for the present world, and that our happiness 
 hereafter depends upon our good improvement 
 of the time now allotted us. Faith in Christ 
 and grateful obedience to all his requirements 
 should render us happy even here. 1 Tim. iv. 8, 
 M' () w>j "t^S vvv xal -tr^ 
 . This cheerfulness and joy which 
 so visibly distinguish the pious Christian, and 
 more than ever in the midst of sufferings and 
 adversities, often compel those who are without 
 to wish that they were as pious and as enviably 
 happy as they see him to be. Many are in the 
 case of King Agrippa, (Acts, xxvi. 28,) who con- 
 fessed that but little was wanting to persuade him 
 to become a Christian. But they stop here, be- 
 cause they are unwilling to employ the simple 
 means necessary for obtaining the Christian cha- 
 racter, and dread to sacrifice their sinful pro- 
 pensities. 
 
 SECTION CXX. 
 
 THE HAPPINESS WHICH CHRISTIANS OBTAIN 
 THROUGH CHRIST IN THE FUTURE LIFE. 
 
 THIS subject also is placed in the New Testa- 
 ment in the most intimate connexion with the 
 history of the person of Jesus Christ, and "is de- 
 duced from it. He is the procurer of this happi- 
 ness. This subject needs only to be briefly and 
 summarily stated here; since the scripture doc- 
 trine respecting the happy and unhappy condi- 
 tion of men after death will be more fully exhi- 
 bited, s. 147, et seq. 
 
 I. Our Deliverance from Death obtained through 
 Christ. 
 
 Death is always represented in the New Tes- 
 tament as the effect and consequence of sin. 
 Now since Christ has delivered from the conse- 
 quences and punishment of sin, he must also be 
 regarded as the cause of our deliverance from 
 death. The resurrection of the dead i. e., the 
 complete restoration of the whole man, both as 
 to soul and body, is a blessing for which the 
 human race is indebted, according to the New 
 Testament, to Christ. Vide John, xi. 25 ; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 22. The resurrection of the dead was gene- 
 rally believed among the Jews at the time of 
 Christ and the apostles, and only the Sadducees 
 denied it. But Christianity gave to this doctrine 
 a new support and sanction. It now became 
 intimately connected with the religion of Jesus 
 and with the history of his person, like every- 
 thing else relating to the deliverance and welfare 
 of man. 
 
 (1) Christ and the apostles have the merit, 
 which is unquestionably great, of casting new 
 light upon the doctrine of life beyond the grave, 
 and the future restoration of the whole man, and 
 
L 
 
 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 419 
 
 giving it a certainty it never had before. They 
 exhibited this truth in such a way that on one 
 side it serves for the comfort and consolation of 
 mankind, and on the other, to urge powerfully 
 to the practice of goodness and holiness in the 
 present life. Vide Heb. ii. 15; 1 Thess. iv. 
 
 13, 18; 1 Cor. xv. 30, 57, 58; Acts, xxiv. 
 14 16. Paul therefore says, very truly, 2 
 Tim. i. 10, that Christ is ^wT'itfaj ^w^v xai 
 afy^apaiav Sia tov fiayy^t'ot; i. e., by his in- 
 structions he brought to light, and clearly and 
 infallibly revealed, the doctrine of a happy im- 
 mortality. 
 
 (2) But this doctrine is intimately connected 
 in the New Testament with the history of the 
 person of Christ. According to the New Testa- 
 ment we are indebted for our hope of a future 
 restoration to life by the resurrection, 
 
 (a) To the death of Christ. For the deliver- 
 ance of man from every kind of misery, and 
 from all the punishment of sin, and consequently 
 from death, is always derived in the New Tes- 
 tament from the death of Jesus. Vide s. 111. 
 The clearest passage of this kind is Hebrews, ii. 
 
 14, " Christ became man in order to take away 
 (I'va xatapyrfiy) by his death the power of him 
 who is the author of death, /AedmV," (from whom 
 death and every calamity is derived, since he is 
 regarded as the author of sin, which brought 
 death in its train. Vide 1 Cor. xv. 56.) Here 
 belongs also the passage, Rom. v. 14 19, where 
 Christ is compared with Adam. Adam brought 
 death into the world by his disobedience, Christ 
 brought in life by his obedience, (vrto-xor^ willing 
 obedience to the divine will, especially to the 
 divine purpose that he should suffer and die for 
 us.) The same thing is briefly expressed, 1 Cor. 
 xv. 21, thus : As Adam was the cause of the 
 death of all men, so all owe it to Christ that they 
 shall be raised at the last." This corresponds 
 with the language, ver. 55, $dvato$ xaterto^y tj 
 vlxo$, death overcome (by him), henceforth ceases ; 
 and also with 2 Tim. i. 10, xatfapy^oaj tbv dva- 
 tfov, taking away the power of death, vanquishing 
 it i. e., freeing men from it, and awaking them 
 to eternal life. And in the Revelation of John, 
 the victory of Christ is made to consist princi- 
 pally in the fact that through him death ceased to 
 be , Rev. xxi. 4, dva-to$ ovx ttrtiv tVi, or, was cast 
 into the lake of fire, xx. 14 i. e., was removed 
 and able no more to hurt. 
 
 Note. : The Bible mentions it as one of the 
 blessings resulting from the work of Christ, that 
 all mankind will be raised by him e. g., 1 Cor. 
 xv. 21, 22, coll. John, v. 21, seq., and conse- 
 quently the wicked as well as the good. Some 
 theologians, indeed, have objected to considering 
 resurrection in the case of the impenitent as a 
 blessing, and have rather regarded it as a punish- 
 ment. But a great value is ascribed in the Bible 
 
 to mere existence, even in the present life, where 
 we live in the midst of so many evils and adver- 
 sities. Life in itself is always more valuable 
 than non-existence, or annihilation; although it 
 seems that for some men it would have been 
 better never to have been born ; as Christ him- 
 self says, doubtless in the language of a current 
 proverb, Matt. xxvi. 24. Now although the 
 wicked are to be punished in the future world 
 through their own fault, the preservation of their 
 life does not on this account cease to be a bless- 
 ing; still less is it changed itself into a punish- 
 ment, by the punishments which will be conse- 
 quent upon it. The ancient fathers, Athana- 
 sius, Augustine, Theodoret, Hilarius, and others, 
 understood the subject very much in this way. 
 
 (6) To the resurrection of Christ. Morus, p. 
 175, s. 3. 
 
 The New Testament teaches, that from the 
 resurrection of Christ we may and should argue 
 the possibility and reality of our own. Was God 
 able to raise Christ, and did he actually raise 
 him, from the dead j he is both able to raise us, 
 and will actually do so. The resurrection of 
 Christ is therefore a sensible confirmation of the 
 doctrine of our resurrection. So Paul argues, 
 1 Cor. xv. 1220. In Acts, iv. 2, it is said that 
 the apostles taught through Jesus the resurrection 
 of the dead i. e., by his example. As God 
 raised up Christ in order to confer upon him a 
 reward in heaven, we are to share in the same 
 reward and happiness, and to be with Christ. 
 We can therefore be certain of our resurrection ; 
 1 Thess. iv. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14; 1 Peter, i. 21. 
 Christ is therefore called a/tap 
 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23, and rtpwr'oT'oxoj ex tfwv 
 thejirst that rose, Col. i. 18, because he must be 
 sv rtacrt rtpursvuv. Cf. progr. " de nexu resurrec- 
 tionis Jesu Christi mortuis et mortuorum," in 
 scripta varii argumenti, N. ix. 
 
 (c) To the more perfect condition of Christ in 
 heaven. Christ and the apostles everywhere 
 teach that it is the will of God that Christ should 
 continue and complete in heaven the great work 
 which he commenced on earth for the restoration 
 of the human race. He has therefore empowered 
 Christ to raise the dead and to hold a day of judg- 
 ment, with which Christ will accomplish his 
 great work for the good of man. He himself de- 
 clares this, John, v. 21, 25 29, and represents 
 this charge as entrusted to him by the Father. 
 In John, xi. 25, he says, fyw e Ipt, yj avdtrtaais xai 
 r[ u>r t i. e., the cause of the resurrection and 
 vivification of men, he to whom they are indebted 
 for this ; cf. ver. 26. Paul says, Rom. xiv. 9, that 
 by his death and resurrection he has shewn 
 himself to be Lord (xvpifwiv) of the dead and 
 living; and 1 Cor. xv. 25, 26, he will conquer 
 and disable death, the last enemy of the human 
 race. Cf. s. 98, 99. 
 
420 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 II. Our Deliverance from Punishment after Death, 
 and our Happiness in the Future World obtained 
 through Christ. 
 
 The consequences and punishment of sin 
 continue even into the future world ; and it is 
 there first, according to the scriptures, that the 
 positive punishments of sin are completely in- 
 flicted. Now Christ has not only freed us from 
 these punishments (eternal condemnation) on 
 certain conditions to be fulfilled by us, (vide 
 Romans, v. 9; 1 Thess. i. 10, vo>6vo$ ^ita$ drto 
 tfij? opy?j 1*^5 po/tv)7$ ;) but we owe to him our 
 whole welfare and blessedness in the future 
 world, (co7 ouwyioj.) There the happiness be- 
 gun in the present life will continue and be per- 
 fected, and everything by which it is now in- 
 terrupted will be removed. Besides, according 
 to the New Testament, we may expect that 
 God will there confer positive blessings and re- 
 wards. Paul says, 1 Thess. v. 9, 
 
 (the attainment of happiness) St 
 
 But how do we attain this happiness through 
 
 Christ? 
 
 (1) By the doctrine of Christ. This gives us 
 (a) Information respecting the nature of future 
 happiness, so far as we are now capable of un- 
 derstanding it. Vide 1 Timothy, i. 10; 1 Cor. 
 xv. (6) Direction how we may obtain the pos- 
 session of it. The religion of Christ derives 
 motives to piety and godliness from the bless- 
 edness of the future world, shews us the means 
 by which we may attain it, and prepares us for 
 it. John, iii. 16; vi. 51; 1 John, ii. 25, the 
 great end of the Christian religion (irtayyfXta) 
 is to give men u>rj atwwoj. By the Christian 
 doctrine, and obedience to it, we are made 
 (through divine assistance) to resemble the 
 holiness and righteousness of Christ in this 
 world, in order that we may hereafter be re- 
 warded, as he is; 1 John, iv. 17; 2 Thess. ii. 
 13, 15; iv. 14. Hence the Christian doctrine 
 itself is called w>J and co^ attowoj, because it 
 shews 6obv 0775 ; John, xvii. 3. But, 
 
 (2) Our enjoyment of this happiness is de- 
 scribed as principally owing to Christ's death 
 and subsequent exaltation, (a) Our entire free- 
 dom from misery and our being placed in a 
 happy condition is ascribed to the death of 
 Christ, (vide No. I.,) and consequently the 
 happiness of the future state must also be a 
 consequence of this event. Heb. ix. 15, " We 
 obtain through the death of Christ tjtayyetiav 
 afaviav xtofpovtyuo*." 1 Thess. v. 10, "He died 
 for us," i'va tfiiv avtfw fjjtfw/tci/. (6) Since Christ 
 is exalted in heaven, he cares for the good of 
 men. He is oi'f w>$ cwr^puxj aluvlov tfocj vrtaxov- 
 ovaiv 0/0*9 taah Heb. v. 9, coll. vii. 25. And 
 as he has received power from the Father to 
 raise the dead and hold a day of judgment, he 
 
 has also received charge from him to distribute 
 rewards to the righteous and to introduce his 
 followers into the abodes of the blessed. Vide 
 Matt. xxv. 32, seq. ; John, x. 28, 29, ^co^v aia- 
 VLOV SJSccyit aijfotj, xvii. 2; 2 Tim. iv. 18, et 
 seq. 
 
 ARTICLE XI. 
 
 ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CONDITIONS OF 
 SALVATION. 
 
 This Article, and the following, exhibit the man- 
 ner in which Christians may attain to the promised 
 happiness. The Eleventh Article treats of the con- 
 ditions which the Christian doctrine prescribes to 
 men, and which must be performed by them if they 
 would actually enjoy this blessedness. These con- 
 ditions are, repentance and faith. The Twelfth 
 Article treats of the assistances by which God ena- 
 bles men to perform the prescribed conditions, or, 
 technically speaking, De operationibus gratix, sive 
 de ceconomia gratiae. 
 
 SECTION CXXI. 
 
 ON THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF "FAITH," AS 
 THE ONLY CONDITION OF SALVATION; TOGE- 
 THER WITH REMARKS RESPECTING THE SALVA- 
 TLON OF THE HEATHEN AND OF INFANTS. 
 
 I. Outline of the Christian Doctrine respecting 
 Faith ; the origin and ground of the same. 
 
 (1) JESUS and the apostles, in the instruc- 
 tions which they give to adults who are ac- 
 quainted with the Christian doctrine, always 
 insist chiefly on faith in Jesus Christ as the 
 great condition of obtaining the salvation pur- 
 chased by Christ. The whole happiness of the 
 Christian (his Sixtwoavvr] and owi'jfpux) is de- 
 rived from this single source; and the unbeliever 
 (artiGtrfias') loses this happiness, and brings 
 upon himself misery, (aTtwtaia, scataxptotj;) 
 Mark, xvi. 16; Romans, i. 17; iii. 21, 22, 
 "the gospel makes known the determination 
 of God to forgive all who believe on Jesus 
 Christ, on account of their faith, (ix or Sia *jjj 
 rttWswj;)" Hebrews, x. 38, 39, seq. 
 
 (2) The doctrine of faith is therefore inse- 
 parably connected w r ith the doctrine of the 
 atonement and of justification. The latter can 
 be obtained only through faith. Therefore, cf. 
 s. 108, where the plan of this doctrine is stated. 
 
 We are led even by natural religion to the 
 following points: "Man must regard himself 
 as morally imperfect, and in such a way, too, 
 as to imply guilt on his own part; or, which is 
 the same thing, he must acknowledge himself 
 to be a sinner, a transgressor of the divine pre- 
 cepts. He must acknowledge that he ought to 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 
 
 void and abhor sin, place his confidence in the 
 mercy of God, hope for pardon and forgiveness 
 from him, and that he ought to form and execute 
 the serious purpose of obeying the divine pre- 
 cepts and living acceptably to God." This 
 might be called the faith of reason. But this 
 philosophical faith is wanting in that certainty 
 and evidence which is necessary to tranquillize 
 the mind; it is insufficient to satisfy those whose 
 consciences are awakened ; as we have before 
 shewn, s. 108. Experience teaches that a faith 
 of this general nature is not able to answer those 
 feelings which rise in the inmost soul even of 
 the best of men. There must be something po- 
 sitive and historical upon which they can rely; 
 some express assurance from God of his for- 
 giveness; or they will be left in the most dis- 
 tressing uncertainty. The greater part of the 
 human race, in all nations, are therefore united 
 in believing that something must be done in 
 order to conciliate the favour of God to sinners, 
 and to induce him to forgive their past offences ; 
 and also that their mere reformation, and their 
 living in the practice of virtue, imperfect as 
 their goodness will always be, is insufficient to 
 secure the divine forgiveness, and can afford no 
 quieting assurance that pardon is obtained. Vide 
 s. 108. Now Christianity rejects all the means 
 of conciliating the favour of God, in which the 
 great body of men place their confidence, and 
 which were common among Jews and Gentiles 
 at the time of Christ. It regards them as af- 
 fording false grounds of peace, and as being in- 
 jurious to morality; and in place of them incul- 
 cates faith in Jesus Christ, and the atonement 
 made by him, and makes this, exclusive of the 
 personal deserts of believers, the sole ground of 
 all the benefits which they enjoy. 
 
 In this manner, the doctrine respecting the 
 conditions of salvation is brought into the cl osest 
 connexion with the other positive doctrines of 
 Christianity, and especially with the history of 
 the person of Christ. To the greater part of man- 
 kind this scriptural faith possesses far more in- 
 terest, evidence, and certainty, than a merely 
 philosophical faith can ever give. The latter 
 must be for ever attended with uncertainty, doubt, 
 and fear of the reverse of what is hoped for. 
 And this uncertainty and fear may become, in 
 moments of suffering and adversity, extremely 
 disturbing, and perhaps lead to obstinate de- 
 spair. For we cannot obtain from philosophy any 
 express assurance of the will of God relative to 
 our forgiveness. Again : the scriptural account 
 of faith in Christ as the only condition of sal- 
 vation excludes wholly all the false motives to 
 duty which are so injurious to true morality. 
 The essentials of the scriptural doctrine on this 
 point, and their connexion with each other, may 
 be clearly seen in the following statement. 
 The Christian should strive after the greatest 
 
 possible moral perfection, (likeness to God.) 
 This effort should result from willing obedience 
 to God, and this again from thankful love to 
 God, and confidence in him, and not from slavish 
 fear of punishment; 1 John, iv. 18, 19. But 
 this love, this grateful confidence, cannot exist 
 unless man is convinced that God is graciously 
 disposed towards him, and will forgive his sins. 
 God does not forgive sins, however, on account 
 of good works, self-inflictions, sacrifices, &c., 
 but on account of Christ; s. 108. We must 
 therefore believe that Christ by his death has 
 procured forgiveness and salvation. But would 
 we come to the actual enjoyment of the promised 
 forgiveness, we are under indispensable obliga- 
 tions to live henceforward in the strictest ob- 
 servance of the divine commands from grateful 
 love to God and to Christ. Consequently we 
 must become familiarly acquainted with the 
 divine precepts and must regulate our whole 
 conduct according to them ; and how to do this 
 we are fully taught in the Christian doctrine. 
 And thus faith as much involves our doing the 
 divine will, as it does our knowing it. 
 
 The personal enjoyment and possession of 
 forgiveness and saving grace, and of the whole 
 sum of Christian blessedness which God has 
 promised to bestow, is called applicatio gratise, 
 and the condition on which we obtain these 
 blessings (conditio gratise') is faith. Vide Morus, 
 p. 197, seq., s. 1, 2. Those who enjoy these 
 blessings are called in the scriptures by dif- 
 ferent names. Vide Morus, p. 197, note 3. 
 Cf. Tollner, Wahre Griinde warum Gott den 
 Glauben an Christum will, in his " Vermischte 
 Aufsatze," th. ii. st. 2. 
 
 II. On the Salvation of Heathen and of Children. 
 
 (1) When treating of the conditions of salva- 
 tion established in the Christian scheme, we 
 speak in reference to Christians i. e., those 
 who have opportunity and capacity to become 
 acquainted with Christianity, and to convince 
 themselves of its truth, without undertaking to 
 say what means for attaining salvation God 
 may give those who are ignorant of Christian- 
 ity, or who remain unconvinced of its truth 
 through unintentional mistake, and without 
 criminality on their part. God is not limited 
 to one single method, which he is compelled to 
 employ equally at all times and among all men. 
 The Bible says, indeed, that God will punish 
 the heathen on account of their sins ; not, how- 
 ever, because they did not believe in Jesus 
 Christ, if this was not their fault, but because 
 they did not act agreeably to the knowledge 
 which they possessed, and the law of nature 
 with which they were acquainted ; Rom. i. 21, 
 seq.; Ephes. ii. 1, 2. The holy scriptures, 
 therefore, never regard the heathen merely as 
 such, as excluded from salvation. Such pas- 
 2N 
 
422 CHRISTIAN 
 
 sages as Mark, xvi. 16, do not relate to the 
 heathen who are innocently ignorant of the 
 gospel. The word artiatsiv does not signify 
 not to believe, but to Disbelieve, and always im- 
 plies guilt. The conclusion sometimes drawn 
 from such passages is as improper as it would 
 be to conclude from 2 Thess. iii. 10 that the 
 child and the infirm man should be left to pe- 
 rish by hunger; as Heilmann well observes. 
 No one will ever be condemned for guiltless 
 ignorance, or for unintentional and innocent 
 mistake; but only for guilty rejection and con- 
 tempt of the truth, or for living contrary to the 
 truth when once known. What Mark expresses 
 by ajttatslv, John expresses by py rtt><rttvtt,v, 
 (to be unbelieving,} John, iii. 18; xii. 47, 48; 
 and these two modes of expression are synony- 
 mous. Vide John, iii. 36. Hence artiatla, and 
 artefesia, were frequently interchanged as syno- 
 nymous, Rom. iii. 3; xi. 20, 23, 30. Now the 
 a$&ovvts$ or artitrtovvtis are (a) the unbeliev- 
 ing, those who do not receive the words and 
 declarations of another as true, who do not give 
 them credit; (6) the disobedient, obstinate, (con- 
 tumaces ,) in which sense Xenophon and other 
 classical writers use the word artKCfttv. Now 
 the terms, ajtt&iv XpcffT^, drtwmv, /JLVJ jtiG-tsv- 
 tw, a^ftftv XpKj-r'ov, are used in the New Tes- 
 tament to designate those _who are disobedient 
 to Christ, and do not follow his precepts, always 
 implying guilt on their part. This is done in 
 two ways: (a) by despising and rejecting Chris- 
 tianity when it is once made known, or when 
 opportunity is given for understanding and exa- 
 mining it ; Rom. iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. iv. 1 1 ; (j3) by liv- 
 ing in opposition to Christian truth when it is 
 understood and embraced, and by neglecting 
 its precepts. Vide Tit. i. 16. In both of these 
 cases there is guilt,- and hence punishment 
 (xa-rcwqucri?) ensues. The word unbelief, there- 
 fore, often designates at the same time these 
 two kinds of guilt e. g., Mark, xvi. 16; John, 
 iii. 1821; xii. 47, 48. 
 
 Those heathen, now, who do not belong to 
 one or the other of these classes, are not disbe- 
 lievers, though they may not believe in Christ. 
 Upon such, therefore, condemnation is not pro- 
 nounced in these passages. They are not in- 
 deed obedient to Christ, nor yet disobedient. 
 Thus one who is not the subject of a certain 
 king may not indeed be obedient to his laws, 
 either because he is ignorant of them, or not 
 bound in duty to obey them ; but he cannot on 
 this account be called disobedient. Disobedience 
 always presupposes an obligation to obedience. 
 
 (2) God has not seen good as yet to bring 
 all nations to the knowledge of Christianity. 
 And, little capable as we are of understanding 
 the plan of God in this respect, we ought not to 
 conclude from this circumstance that the Chris- 
 tian revelation is unnecessary and may easily 
 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 be dispensed with. It has pleased God to leave 
 many nations for thousands of years in a barba- 
 rous and savage state. But can we conclude 
 from this fact that intellectual cultivation and 
 moral improvement are superfluous and useless, 
 and therefore missions are unnecessary ? Nor, 
 on the other hand, can we conclude from this 
 circumstance that God cannot save the heathen 
 because they have not enjoyed the light of 
 Christian revelation. Human happiness has as 
 many degrees and gradations as human cultiva- 
 tion and refinement of manners, and all men are 
 not capable of one and the same degree. They 
 cannot all, therefore, be treated by God in the 
 same manner. One thing may be indispensable 
 to the happiness of some persons and of some 
 nations, while to others the same thing is quite 
 superfluous, because they are as yet incapable 
 of enjoying the happiness arising from it. It is 
 not said in direct words in the New Testament, 
 that God will make the heathen eternally happy. 
 If this were said, there are many who would 
 pervert it. But it is expressly asserted that 
 God does not demand more from any one than 
 he is able with his knowledge and abilities to 
 perform; Luke, xii. 48, seq.; and also, that he 
 who faithfully serves God according to the 
 knowledge and means which he enjoys, and 
 does what he considers to be his duty, is accept- 
 able to him; Acts, x. 35. Cf. Morus, p. 129, 
 note 9. According to the testimony of the holy 
 scriptures, God will have reference, in deter- 
 mining the character and conditions of men, to 
 the knowledge they have had, the dispositions 
 they have cherished, and the actions they have 
 performed. We may confidently expect from 
 the goodness of God that since he has hereto- 
 fore given to so many nations only the light of 
 nature, he will not make them miserable for the 
 want of that higher knowledge of which they 
 are innocently destitute. And since there is a 
 future life, we may trust that he will there lead 
 them to that higher degree of happiness and 
 clearness of knowledge which they did not at- 
 tain in this life, because, without fault of their 
 own, they were here incapable of receiving it. 
 To such a dispensation in the future world there 
 is at least an allusion in Rev. xxii. 2, in the tree 
 of life, by the river of life, whose leaves serve s I $ 
 
 The great body of the Jews, from the earliest 
 ages, denied salvation to the heathen, on the 
 principle, Extra ecclesiam non dari salutem. 
 But this is entirely opposite both to the Old 
 Testament and to the spirit of Christianity. 
 Even Mahommed did not go to this degree of 
 exclusiveness. Nor did the more ancient Gre- 
 cian fathers deny salvation to the heathen, 
 although they philosophized about it after their 
 manner. E. g., Justin the Martyr and Clement 
 of Alexandria held that the Adyoj exerted an 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 423 
 
 agency upon the heathen by means of reason ; 
 and that the heathen philosophers were called 
 justified, and saved by philosophy. But after- 
 wards, especially after the third century, when 
 the false Jewish notions respecting the church 
 (s. 134) were introduced into the West, and the 
 maxim was adopted, Extra ecclesiam nun dari 
 salutem, (which was the case after the age of 
 Augustine,) they then began to deny the salva- 
 tion of the heathen : though there were always 
 some who judged more favourably. Thus 
 Zwingli, Curio, and others, believed that God 
 would pardon the heathen on account of Christ, 
 although in this life they had no knowledge of 
 his merits. Cf. the historical account in Bey- 
 kert's Diss. "de salute gentium;" Strasburg, 
 1777; and a short statement of the opinions of 
 others in Morus, p. 128, 129, where he justly 
 recommends to our imitation the exemplary 
 modesty pf the apostles when speaking on this 
 point. The whole subject was investigated 
 anew on occasion of the violent attack which 
 Hofstede, a preacher in Holland, made upon 
 the Belisaire of Marmontel. This gave rise to 
 Eberhard's " Apologie des Socrates." Cf. also 
 Tollner, Beweis dass Gott die Menschen auch 
 durch seine Oifenbarung in der Natur zur Se- 
 ligkeit fiihre; Ziillichau, 1766, 8vo. Many 
 modern writers have treated this subject in such 
 a way as to lead to a feeling of indifference 
 towards Christianity; but this result need not 
 be feared from the scriptural representation here 
 given. 
 
 (3) We must apply these same principles to 
 the subject of the salvation of infants. None 
 have ever really doubted respecting the salva- 
 tion of those who have died in infancy, before 
 they attained to the full use of their understand- 
 ing. For since there is a future life, we may 
 expect with certainty that God will make such 
 provision there, that both children in the literal 
 sense, and those who are children in under- 
 standing and knowledge, will be able to obtain 
 what they were here deprived of without their 
 own fault; and that in his goodness, wisdom, 
 and justice, he will bestow upon them that de- 
 gree of happiness of which they are capable. 
 
 Theologians have pursued two different me- 
 thods in treating of this subject. 
 
 (a) Some are content with saying that God 
 will pardon and save infants on account of the 
 merits of Christ, which extend to all, although 
 they may not have believed in Christ during 
 their life-time; and that their being born with 
 natural depravity will not harm them, because 
 they themselves are not to blame for it. These 
 writers refer to Rom. v. 15 17 for an analo- 
 gous proceeding. This is the most simple and 
 the safest view. 
 
 (6) Others, misunderstanding the passage, 
 Mark, xvi. 16, suppose that faith in Christ is 
 
 an indispensable requisite for salvation in all 
 men ; and have therefore (together with some 
 schoolmen) embraced the doctrine of -a faith nf 
 infants, which they have variously explained 
 and described, as Jides prsesumpta, implicita, per 
 baptismum sine verbo (some say, sine cognitione\ 
 infusa ; talis affectio in infante qualis Deo placet. 
 The schoolmen describe it as dispositio ad jus- 
 tiliam. But none of them succeed in conveying 
 any intelligible idea. Nothing is said in the 
 New Testament about such a faith. Faith 
 always presupposes knowledge, and power to 
 exercise the understanding. Now since chil- 
 dren have neither of these requisites, faith can- 
 not be ascribed to them ; nor indeed disbelief, 
 unless the word is used very improperly. The 
 mere want of faith is not damnable, but unbelief 
 only, or the guilty destitution of faith. Those 
 who have adopted this view have thus been 
 compelled (as appears from the preceding re- 
 marks) to vary the idea which is uniformly 
 attached to the word faith when adults are re- 
 ferred to, as soon as they speak of children, and 
 to call something in them by this name which 
 is nowhere else so denominated. The passage, 
 Matt, xviii. 6, does not bear upon this point, 
 since the disciples of Christ are there meant 
 Cf. the Article on Baptism, s. 142, and Morus, 
 p. 249. From the words of Christ, however, 
 Matt. xix. 14, "Of such is the kingdom of 
 God," it is clear that he considers children as be- 
 longing to his kingdom. And this is enough. 
 
 SECTION CXXII. 
 
 OF THE VARIOUS SIGNIFICATIONS OF THE WORD 
 FAITH, AS USED IN THE BIBLE ; SOME OF THE 
 PRINCIPAL PASSAGES RELATING TO FAITH ; THE 
 PARTS OF WHICH FAITH IS MADE UP ; AND 
 SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THEOLOGICAL 
 DIVISIONS OF FAITH. 
 
 I. Significations of niyns ; and Explanation of the 
 principal texts relative to Faith. 
 
 THE terms, faith, the faithful, &c., frequently 
 occur in the religious dialect even of the He- 
 brews. They were originally taken from the 
 language of common life, and transferred into 
 the religious phraseology of the Jews, where 
 hey express various nearly related ideas. 
 From this Jewish dialect Christ and the apos- 
 tles borrowed these terms. The Hebrew words 
 CN, ppsn, rmcN, were translated by the Hellen- 
 stic Jews (e. g., the LXX.) by the words jtia- 
 tvfiv, jtia-tis, and were also rendered in the 
 same way by Christ and his apostles. 
 
 DN primarily signifies, to be firm; and then, 
 to be certain, sure, confident. Hence HJICN signi 
 les, as TttWtj does, aside from its religious use, 
 truth, faith, integrity, honour, proof (Acts, xvii. 
 31), and conviction, (Rom. xiv. 23.) When 
 
424 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 things are spoken of, pcs'n and rtiafsveiv signify, 
 to hold them (whatever they are, events, doc- 
 trines, laws) as certain; when persons are 
 spoken of, they signify, to trust in them, to rely 
 on their words, declarations, works. These 
 words were used in the same sense in reference 
 to persons and things, in the language of com- 
 mon life among the Jews. In Hebrew they 
 were construed with the particles ? or hy. Hence 
 in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, 
 rttotfEiW is construed with * ij and ev, frequently 
 too, as in pure Greek, with the dative e. g., 
 tj or EV Xpwr^, T'Q Xpiffr'a, s-uayy^u^, &c. The 
 term occurs for the first time, in the religious 
 sense, in reference to Abraham, Gen. xv. G, 
 irtiotevat 0^9 i. e., considered his promise as 
 sure, relied on it, and acted accordingly. It 
 frequently occurs afterwards in the Old Testa- 
 ment e. g., Exod. xiv. 31 ; Psalm Ixxviii. 22, 
 32, &c. 
 
 To believe, therefore, (a) when commands, 
 promises, doctrines, events, are spoken of, sig- 
 nifies, to consider and regard them as fixed and 
 certain; (6) when God is spoken of, it denotes 
 our whole duty to him, love, confidence, and obe- 
 dience to his commandments, because everything 
 which comes from him is certain and infallible; 
 (c) when prophets and the messengers of God 
 are spoken of, to believe them, means, to receive 
 and obey what they make known as of divine 
 origin and infallibly certain. This term is em- 
 ployed in the Koran in the same way. These 
 main ideas are differently modified according to 
 the different objects which are received by us 
 as certain. And hence we can easily derive the 
 strictly religious senses in which this word is 
 used in the New Testament. 
 
 (1) IliWtj frequently signifies religion itself 
 and the particular doctrines of which it consists, 
 (fides, quae creditur, or fides objectiva;} like 
 Iman, in the Koran, and runs in the Talmud. 
 It is thus used for Christianity in general, Jude, 
 ver. 3, 20, dytcotaT^ ytlctti, Gal. iii. 23. Also 
 in the phrases vrtaxorj rtiatfus, fides apostolica, 
 Nicsena, &c. No^aoj rttWtwj is the doctrine 
 which requires faith. 
 
 (2) It is more frequently used subjectively, 
 denoting the approbation which one gives to a 
 teacher, and the obedience which he yields to 
 his instructions, after being convinced of the 
 truth of his doctrine and the divinity of his mis- 
 sion. This approbation is called in the schools, 
 fides qua creditur. Thus John, v. 46, rtKjr'fvftv 
 Mttitefl 5 Matt. xxi. 25, 32, 'ludvvy. When used 
 in the gospels in reference to Jesus it denotes 
 the acknowledgment of him, and obedience to 
 him, sometimes as a prophet, and indeed the 
 greatest messenger of Heaven; and sometimes 
 as Messiah. Hence Christians are called ytto- 
 -ttvovtts, fti&toi. Synonymous with ftiatmfiv 
 are rti-<jku, fyt<&0yciv Xptar'oi' 'Iq/sovv, tlvai 
 
 . 
 
 sow, 
 
 or fi/ Xpttft^, Kvptov fl 
 ovo/j.a Xpifffov. The opposite terms 
 are arcwtsiv, artffesiv, ju^ vrtaxovstv c 
 Closely connected with this is, 
 
 (3) The sense, trust, confidence 
 which arises from the conviction of the truth 
 and divinity of a doctrine, and is manifested in 
 different ways. 
 
 (a) When one is convinced of the power and 
 goodness of another, and therefore confidently 
 hopes for help and assistance at his hand, and 
 this not only because he is able, but also will- 
 ing to help and befriend him. This use is com- 
 mon in profane writings, in Hebrew (nrs and 
 rpNpi), in the Septuagint, and in the New Tes- 
 tament. Isaiah, xxviii. 16; Matt. xix. 2, &c. 
 This confidence is therefore sometimes express- 
 ed by the word Itott's, Rom. v. 5, by fajtC&tv, 
 with sv and ej, and by other similar terms. 
 For the same reason, the confidence one may 
 feel that God will enable him in an extraordi- 
 nary manner to work a miracle, is called 7tiatt$ 
 e. g., Matthew, xvii. 20 ; Acts, vi. 5, 8 ; 1 
 Cor. xiii. 2. This faith is technically called 
 fides miraculosa the faith of miracles. 
 
 (6) When one is convinced that another will 
 do what he says, (is veracious and faithful,) he 
 depends entirely on his promises, and certainly 
 expects their fulfilment in every case, and from 
 this confidence complies with everything which 
 the other requires. Thus Abraham's faith in 
 God is described ; and thus the terms rtiatevtw 
 ?9 and Aoy9 EOV are often used, Ps. cvi. 12 ; 
 Hab. ii. 1. 
 
 From this wider meaning has arisen the pro- 
 per Christian sense of saving faith, which Paul 
 frequently uses in his epistles to the Romans 
 and Galatians, where he controverts the mis- 
 take of the meritoriousness of observing the di- 
 vine law. Here rtM'tsvsw Xpttftcj and jtiati^ 
 denote the firm persuasion that we owe our 
 whole spiritual welfare to Christ, or to the free, 
 unmerited mercy of God on Christ's account, 
 and our trust in God and Christ arising from 
 hence, Gal. ii. 16; iii. 6; Rom. iv. 16, seq. 
 This kind of Christian faith is compared with 
 that of Abraham. He confided in God in the 
 same manner, according to the measure of his 
 knowledge. He relied on the promise (sTtoy- 
 ysTita, Rom. iv. 20) of God respecting a numer- 
 ous offspring, and on the other great promises 
 connected with this, (although he saw the good, 
 as Paul says, only rtop+xo^K,) without doubt- 
 ing. (<w SifxpiHty, and ttMpoQopq&k firmly con- 
 vinced,) though the thing promised was appa- 
 rently improbable, (map 1 &rti8a, ver. 18.) Now 
 as Abraham confided in the promise of God, 
 (ftiofvtf <p,) Christians should also confide 
 in the promise of God and Christ, and look to 
 God for salvation and blessedness, in this life 
 and the life to come, in and through Christ, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 425 
 
 and not on their own account, or on the ground 
 of their own merit, of which they have nothing 
 to boast. This is what theologians call justify- 
 ing and saving faith. 
 
 The two former senses of faith are not ex- 
 cluded from this third signification, but are al- 
 ways presupposed and included in it. One 
 who would obtain forgiveness through faith in 
 Christ must (a) have an acquaintance with the 
 Christian religion, and a persuasion of its truth ; 
 he must regard it as of divine authority, and 
 embrace it with all his heart; and (6) he must 
 actually rely on the divine promises contained 
 in this religion, and prove the reality of his con- 
 fidence by his feelings and actions. The latter 
 sense springs out of the former. How could 
 Abraham have confided in God if he had been 
 destitute of the knowledge of God, of his attri- 
 butes, and promises] Hence when Paul would 
 give a complete description of true Christian 
 faith, he often comprises both these ideas quite 
 distinctly under the word rttWtj, Rom. iii., iv., 
 and James, ii. 19 24, where ritatevnv refers 
 sometimes to knowledge and the assent of the 
 understanding, and sometimes to the confidence 
 which springs from them. 
 
 Note. The passage Heb. xi. 1 has always 
 been considered one of the most important with 
 regard to the subject of faith, and so indeed it 
 should be, though its sense has been frequently 
 perverted. The meaning of this passage needs 
 to be distinctly exhibited. Paul here speaks of 
 faith, or confidence in the divine promises or 
 declarations, in general, especially of that exer- 
 cised in sufferings and persecutions, (in order 
 to preserve Christians from apostasy,) not ex- 
 clusive, however, of the peculiar saving faith 
 of the Christian, as he also hopes to obtain for- 
 giveness and salvation through Christ. This 
 is taught by the examples of Rahab, Samson, 
 Jephthah, and others, which are mentioned. 
 Paul does not undertake to give a logical defi- 
 nition of faith, but only distinctly to describe its 
 characteristics, without which one cannot lay 
 claim to the possession of faith. But this is 
 the very reason why the passage is so worthy 
 of note, and so practically useful ; for it shews 
 what is requisite to faith in general, according 
 to Paul's ideas of it, and what traits it must al- 
 ways possess, however different may be the 
 objects to which it is directed. A person shews 
 his faith by being firmly and unhesitatingly 
 convinced, on the mere testimony of God, (1) 
 with respect to things which are not actually 
 present with us and in our possession (liut<6- 
 ptva) e. g., future deliverance, future blessed- 
 ness, promised by God, of whatever kind it may 
 be, temporal or spiritual; (2) with respect to 
 things beyond the reach of our senses, (ov 
 j3a.f7t6jU.6va.) 'Trtocrfatttc and ttey%o$ are synony- 
 mous in this passage, and signify ftrma ptrsua- 
 54 
 
 sio. Paul himself explains his meaning in ver. 
 6 : the pious man must believe that God exists, 
 (although he does not see him,) and that he will 
 reward his worshippers, (although the reward 
 is not immediate.) Here therefore both know- 
 ledge and assent to the truth, and the confidence 
 which is the result of them, are requisite, in 
 order to the existence of faith in the wider sense 
 in which it is here used. 
 
 II. Theological Divisions of Faith ; and the parts 
 of which it is composed. 
 
 (1) The Bible frequently says respecting one 
 who professes Christianity, that he has faith in 
 Christ. Vide No. 1. But this faith is twofold. 
 One may understand and externally profess the 
 doctrines of Christianity without obeying them 
 or feeling their transforming influence upon his 
 heart; or he may apply them, according to their 
 design, to the improvement of his heart and the 
 sanctification of his dispositions; in short, he 
 may do all that God requires of him in the 
 Christian doctrine. The faith of the former is 
 called fides externa, historica, or theoretica; that 
 of the latter, fides interna, habitualis, salvifita, 
 (salutary, saving, tfwrTjpfcoj.) The former kind 
 of faith, disconnected with the latter, is some- 
 times called dead faith, because it is ineffectual, 
 and contributes nothing to our improvement or 
 salvation. The phrase is taken from James, ii. 
 17, 20, 26. The latter is called living, viva, ac- 
 tuosa, because it exerts a salutary influence in 
 promoting our happiness and true welfare. 
 
 Christian faith, in its whole extent, is there- 
 fore a conviction of the truth and divinity of the 
 Christian scheme of salvation, and a conduct 
 conformed to this conviction. One who believes 
 the Christian religion in such a way as to act in 
 accordance with it, and who allows his affec- 
 tions to be governed by his belief, is a true 
 Christian, and possesses fides salvifica. As to 
 one who willingly and cheerfully follows the 
 commandments of God and Christ, and sedu- 
 lously conducts himself by the rules which they 
 have prescribed, the Bible says, either that he 
 is obedient to God and Christ, or he believes in 
 them. Hence these two terms are synonymous ; 
 Morus, p. 201, n. 3. The definition, therefore, 
 which Crusius gives in the passage before 
 cited, is just: saving faith is a cordial approval 
 of, and compliance with, the divine plan of salva- 
 tion. 
 
 (2) On the different parts of which faith con- 
 sists. 
 
 Faith is made up of different parts, all of 
 which, however, must belong to it, in order to 
 its being perfect. The different objects of 
 Christian instruction, to which faith refers, 
 form the ground of this division. There is a 
 faith in events, in doctrines, commands, and 
 promises. These objects will be particularly 
 
426 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 considered in the following section. Now 
 Christian faith, in a general view, embracing 
 all these objects, is considered by theologians 
 as consisting of three parts knowledge, assent, 
 and trust, or confidence, (notitia, assensus, fidu- 
 cia), which will now be considered. Whenever 
 entire Christian faith is spoken of as compre- 
 hending all the objects just mentioned, this di- 
 vision is perfectly applicable. But all these 
 parts do not belong to Christian faith as direct- 
 ed to each particular object. They all belong 
 only to the faith in promises. Knowledge and 
 assent merely are requisite to the faith in events 
 and doctrines; and a will and inclination to 
 obey, to faith in the divine commands. To avoid 
 this inconvenience, faith might be made to con- 
 sist in two particulars knowledge, and a dispo- 
 sition of heart correspondent to this knowledge, 
 (Ertb'ypcoat; xai aia$r]ai$, Phil. i. 9,) according to 
 which one would be inclined to obey the divine 
 commands and confide in the divine promises. 
 Many theologians prefer this division. But in 
 what remains we shall follow the common 
 threefold division. 
 
 (a) Knowledge of the subject to be believed is, 
 from the very nature of the case, an essential 
 part of faith, of whatever kind it may be. Paul 
 asks, How can men believe, if they are not in- 
 structed? (if they do not possess knowledge of 
 the things to be believed,) Rom. x. 14. This 
 knowledge cannot, indeed, in every case, be 
 equally thorough and comprehensive. In many 
 of the early Christians it was at first very gene- 
 ral and confined, as indeed it is often still, to 
 some of the great elementary truths. But how- 
 ever limited and imperfect this knowledge may 
 be, it always implies certainty, and must amount 
 to a firm conviction ; otherwise, from the very 
 nature of the human mind, it can produce no 
 effect on the will, and it ceases to be faith. For 
 we believe only that of which we are certain. 
 Cf. the terms vrtoa-taais and i'Xfy#o$, Heb. xi. 1, 
 and 7tto7po$6pKj^cu, Rom. iv. 21, where it is 
 contrasted with doubting,- also James, i. 6. 
 But this conviction should be effected by rea- 
 sons which enlighten the understanding, by in- 
 struction intelligible to the human mind, not by 
 authoritative and compulsory decisions. The 
 mere reception of a doctrine on the word or 
 command of another, without being ourselves 
 convinced of its truth, is not faith, but credulity. 
 Christ and his apostles therefore prescribe in- 
 struction, (xypvaoeiv,) and make faith a result or 
 effect of instruction e. g., Mark, xvi. 16. And 
 Paul derives jtCant from dgoq, Rom. x. 17, &c. 
 From these remarks we can easily see how far 
 to admit the fides implicita of the schoolmen. 
 They mean by this, faith in such doctrines as 
 we do not understand, and of which we are not 
 convinced by reason, but must receive on the 
 mere word and authority of the church. From 
 
 these remarks, too, we can easily form an opi- 
 nion respecting the faith of children, for which 
 some contend. Vide s. 120, ad finem. 
 
 (6) Assent. This is divided into general (as- 
 sensus generalis'), by which is meant the general 
 reception of known truth as credible and sure ; 
 and into particular (assensus specialist, by which 
 is meant the special application of certain gene- 
 ral truths of the Christian doctrine to oneself 
 e. g., Christ died for men, and also for me. It 
 is this latter kind which more frequently pro- 
 duces salutary feelings and emotions in the 
 soul. Vide the examples, Rom. viii. 31 39; 
 1 Tim. i. 15, 16; Morus, p. 201, s. 6. This is 
 commonly expressed in the New Testament by 
 8%saa& and rfopo&&($<u, as Mark, iv. 20, 
 where O.XOVEIV implies the kiypwledge of the 
 truth, 7tapaSaa&, assent to it, from whence 
 the result xaprtofyopflv. 1 Thess. ii. 13, where 
 TtapaXa^jSai/ftv koyoj/, merely to hear instruction^ 
 is distinguished from fo'^o&at. 1 Cor. ii. 14, 
 the carnal man, obedient only to his passions, 
 does not assent (dc'gEo^o*) to the divine doc- 
 trine, &c. 
 
 Although assent should always be connected 
 with the knowledge of the truth, because the 
 will should be governed by the understanding, 
 yet we find that it is often withheld from truths 
 which cannot be doubted, from the prevalence 
 of prejudice or passion. So it was with the 
 contemporaries of Jesus in Palestine. They 
 could not deny that the miracles which he 
 wrought were real miracles, and yet they did 
 not yield him their assent. Like to these are 
 all who at the present day, from love to sin, re- 
 fuse obedience to the truth which they know. 
 Such persons commonly endeavour to persuade 
 themselves and others that the cause of their 
 unbelief has some other ground besides their 
 own will ; hence they give ready credit to every 
 semblance of reason for doubting the truth and 
 divinity of Christianity. 
 
 If this assent, therefore, is genuine, it must 
 act on the heart of man. The will must be con- 
 trolled and governed by the truths which the 
 understanding acknowledges and embraces as 
 true. Otherwise this assent resembles that 
 which, according to James, ii. 19, we allow even 
 to devils. Cf. James, i. 22 ; Luke, viii. 13 ; and 
 Heb. iv. 2. 
 
 It will be understood, of course, that this as- 
 sent has different degrees, respecting which we 
 shall say more hereafter, 
 
 (c) Trust, or confidence. Knowledge and as- 
 sent become, in respect to the divine promises 
 given to Christians, confidence i. e., a firm con- 
 viction that the promises given by God will 
 surely be fulfilled. Morus, p. 202, n. 2, justly 
 says, "that to the assent of the understanding 
 there must be added a trust in that grace (of 
 God) by which one conducts himself conform- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 427 
 
 'ably to this gracious promise." All the three 
 parts, therefore, of which faith consists, are 
 comprised in that faith which relates to the 
 divine promises; while, from the very nature 
 of the case, only knowledge and assent belong 
 to the faith relating to events, doctrines, and 
 commands. Here, on the contrary, from the 
 very nature of the subject, all the three parts 
 must consist together. This state of mind in 
 Christians is called in the New Testament 
 rtsrto/Styfftj, rta/3|j7<5ia, >jttj, x. i 1 . &. Ephes. iii. 
 12; Heb. iii. 6; 1 John, ii. 28. 
 
 Note. On the method pursued by Jesus and the 
 apostles in teaching the doctrines of faith. They 
 do not confine themselves merely to enlighten- 
 ing the understanding (SiScumtv), but, in con- 
 nexion with this, they would always have an 
 appeal made to the heart, (rtapcwcatatv.) So 
 2 Tim. iv. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 13; 2 Cor. v. 20, &c. 
 They always employ the effect produced in the 
 understanding by truth, to move and excite the 
 affections of their hearers or readers. Thus their 
 instruction is always perfectly practical. The 
 beginning must indeed be always made by in- 
 forming the understanding. For how can a man 
 believe or perform anything with which he is un- 
 acquainted ] Vide Rom. x. 14. But the Chris- 
 tian teacher who is content, as is often the case, 
 with giving lifeless instruction to the understand- 
 ing, and who supposes that the approval of the 
 affections will follow of course, betrays great 
 ignorance of human nature. For experience 
 proves that the state of the heart exerts a great 
 influence on the attention paid to truth, and on 
 the whole activity of the understanding. If the 
 heart is wanting in love for the truth, the under- 
 standing will be very slow in coming to a clear 
 knowledge, just discernment, and proper esti- 
 mation of it, and the reverse. According to the 
 method of Christ and his apostles, therefore, 
 which is adapted to the very nature of the human 
 soul, the teacher who labours to promote the con- 
 viction and conversion of men, must begin at 
 the very outset by inculcating the most clear, 
 practical truths, in order that the heart may first 
 become favourably disposed to the truth, and 
 that the understanding may thus become more 
 susceptible of what is taught. He must then 
 employ again the truths which he has thus com- 
 municated to excite and move the affections. 
 And whatever knowledge is conveyed to the 
 mind should always be so directed by the Chris- 
 tian teacher as to excite and move the affections. 
 
 SECTION CXXIII. 
 
 OF THE DIFFERENT OBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN DOC- 
 TRINE TO WHICH FAITH REFERS; AND THE 
 RELATION OF FAITH TO THE SAME. 
 
 THESE different objects were enumerated, s. 
 
 122, II. 2, and will now be separately consi- 
 dered. 
 
 The truths of the Christian religion which 
 faith embraces may be reduced to the following 
 classes : 
 
 I. Doctrines, and Historical Facts. 
 
 Historical facts are here classed with doctrines 
 because the Christian religion is founded on 
 facts; such, for example, as that Christ died, 
 rose again, &c. The firm conviction that these 
 doctrines or events are true is called, with re- 
 gard to the former, fides dogmatica, with regard 
 to the latter,^c?cs historica, (in the more limited 
 sense.) For examples of the former kind, vide 
 Heb. xi. 2, seq. ; of the latter kind, Rom. x. 9, 
 10; John, xx. 29; 1 Cor. xv. 3. The apostles 
 always placed the doctrines of Christianity in 
 the most intimate connexion with the person 
 and whole history of Christ, and in this way 
 gave general truths, such as the paternal love 
 of God, and his readiness to forgive, the author- 
 ity of positive Christian doctrines. Vide Art. 
 x. Christ and the apostles teach no Christianity 
 independent of the person and history of Jesus 
 Christ. Their whole system is founded on the 
 fact that Christ is the great Messenger promised 
 by God, and that life everlasting may be ob- 
 tained through faith in him ; and to these truths 
 they constantly refer; John, xx. 31. To extend 
 and perpetuate the knowledge of these facts all 
 the gospels were written, and all the apostles 
 laboured in their oral and written instructions. 
 As soon as the doctrines, laws, and promises of 
 Christianity are separated from the history of 
 Christ, they lose that positive sanction which 
 they must have in order to answer the demands 
 of the great mass of mankind. The apostles 
 therefore always built their instructions on the 
 history of Christ. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 2, 3, 14. And 
 the teacher who regards the directions and ex- 
 ample of Christ and of the early Christian 
 teachers, and who is convinced of the import- 
 ance of these peculiar doctrines of Christian- 
 ity, will follow their example in this respect, 
 that instead of withholding these doctrines from 
 the youth whom he is called to instruct, he will 
 place them before their minds in a manner 
 adapted to their comprehensions. And he must 
 disapprove the course of some who confine their 
 instructions to the truths of natural religion. 
 But even supposing that the teacher should 
 doubt in his own mind respecting the import- 
 ance of these peculiar Christian doctrines, he 
 ought to know, from the mere principles of hu- 
 man nature, that the dry exhibition of the truths 
 of reason, without the vehicle of history, is ill 
 adapted for the instruction of the common people 
 and of the young. He ought to know, too, that 
 there is no history which can be used to more 
 advantage for the purpose of rendering the great 
 
428 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 truths of religion evident, impressive, and prac- 
 tical, than the history of Christ. In neglecting 
 this method, or objecting to it, he has considered 
 only one side of the subject, and while he sup- 
 poses he is proceeding very philosophically, his 
 conduct is, in fact, exceedingly otherwise. 
 Happy the teacher who knows from his own 
 experience the salutary efficacy of the positive 
 doctrines of Christianity! Supposing him, 
 however, not to have this experience, he ought, 
 for the reasons above given, to adopt this most 
 reasonable method of instruction. Cf. Miiller, 
 Vom christlichen Religionsunterrichte ; Winter- 
 thur, 1809, 8vo. 
 
 But in order that the general doctrines of 
 Christianity may exert an influence on any one's 
 feelings and dispositions, he must exercise the 
 assensio specialis (s. 122, II.) i. e., he must be 
 convinced of the applicability of these doctrines 
 to himself; he must appropriate and apply them 
 to himself; he must feel, for example, that Christ 
 died not only for all men, but also for him. For 
 our confidence in the divine promises given 
 through Christ and on his account must depend 
 on our conviction that they relate personally to 
 ourselves, that they are given to us. To pro- 
 duce this conviction should be the great object 
 of the teacher. For religion should not be so 
 much the concern of the head as the interest of 
 the heart. 
 
 II. The. Divine Promises. 
 
 The divine promises constitute a very import- 
 ant part of the Christian doctrine. The faith in 
 them which is required of us as Christians has 
 not so much respect to the promises of temporal 
 good as to those of spiritual and eternal good 
 which we may obtain through Christ and on 
 his account. 
 
 The following particulars may be noticed with 
 respect to this faith viz., 
 
 (1) True faith in the divine promises consists 
 in a confident and undoubting hope that God will 
 fulfil them, and will actually bestow upon us the 
 good which he has promised. All the three 
 parts of which faith consists (knowledge, as- 
 sent, and confidence, Rom. iv. 16) belong to 
 this kind, s. 122. Paul illustrates the nature 
 of this kind of faith by the example of Abraham, 
 Rom. iv. 20; Gal. iii. 8, 16. Abraham had 
 great promises made to him (^rtayym'ow), the 
 fulfilment of which, at the time they were given, 
 was quite improbable; and yet he maintained a 
 firm faith. We may mention here the examples 
 of the faith of the Israelites, John, iii. 14, coll. 
 Num. xxi., and Heb. iv. 1. In the last-cited 
 passage, faith in Christian promises is not, in- 
 deed, the particular subject of discourse. But 
 all which is true of faith in other promises of 
 divine favours is also true of faith in Christian 
 promises. The only difference in the two cases 
 
 is the difference of the objects upon which faith 
 fixes. The signs and characteristics of it are 
 the same. Vide Heb. xi. 1, (s. 122, ad finem.) 
 Hence Paul calls all who believe in the divine 
 promises (oi ix rtCcttw,') Abraham's children 
 i. e., like him, and capable of a similar reward. 
 (2) The promises given to Christians, as 
 such, have all reference to Christ; Morus, p. 
 203, s. 7. They are placed in the most intimate 
 connexion with his person and history. Christ 
 is therefore always described as the ground of 
 our faith, (fundamentumfidei.) We are taught 
 everywhere that Christ died for us, that on his 
 account. God remits the punishment of sin, and 
 bestows upon us everlasting happiness. It is in 
 these divine promises that we are required to be- 
 lieve i. e., we must be persuaded that God will 
 fulfil them for us. Vide Rom. iii. 15; viii. 12, 
 17 ; iv. 24. Theologians call this kind of faith, 
 or this firm conviction that God will perform his 
 promises to us, and for Christ's sake be gracious 
 to us, the application or laying hold (apprehen- 
 sionem) of the merits of Christ. Both the theory 
 itself and this term rest upon the authority of 
 the New Testament, although the term Ttapa- 
 Xa/ijSavttv XpttfT'oi/ in Col. ii. 6, signifies, to be 
 informed respecting Christ and his religion, to 
 hear Christian doctrines. This idea is com- 
 monly denoted by the terms, rcia-ttvsw 7*9 71079 
 -tov (jfavpov, ftj v-^c^tsvrfa, x. f. X. Vide Morus, 
 p. 203, n. 1. But in John, i. 12, the term hap- 
 pdvtt,v XpitTfov is used to denote this self-apply- 
 ing faith, for it is directly explained by the term 
 
 (3) The result of this confident faith in the di- 
 vine promises is the possession or enjoyment of 
 the promised good, or the reward. God is not 
 only able to perform his promises; he is likewise 
 true and infallible. But he never makes promises 
 to men on the ground of their desert, for they 
 have none; but all his promises are undeserved. 
 lie gives them, indeed, on condition of faith 
 (Sta Tt'.Vrr'jcof), Rom. iv. 4, 16; but yet Scopsav 
 and xa-fa %dpw, and not as o^t'^/ua. This 
 truth is thus expressed in the same connexion 
 (ver. 3) ; a man's observing the divine law can 
 not be imputed to him as a merit, but faith 
 only koyt^Wat ft$ SixaioGvvyv. Cf. Gen. xv. 6. 
 For obedience to the divine law is what we owe. 
 Nor can we find anywhere, even in the greatest 
 saint, an obedience so perfect as to satisfy con- 
 science. Now since Christians are to have 
 good bestowed upon them through Christ, and 
 on account of faith in the divine promises, and 
 since this good is commenced in the removal of 
 punishment, or the forgiveness of sin (justifi- 
 cation, pardon}, this faith is called justifying 
 (justificam); as Paul says, in the passage cited, 
 8ixai,ovpvo<< dupeav 8t,a tvj$ rttWfcoj. Paul illus- 
 trates this by the example of Abraham. His 
 faith in the divine promises was imputed to him 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 429 
 
 / by God as a merit i. e., he was rewarded on 
 account of his faith. The promises made to 
 him of a favoured posterity and the possession 
 of Canaan were fulfilled to him as a reward. 
 In Heb. xi. 31, Paul illustrates this by the ex- 
 ample of Rahab. Her faith (a firm conviction 
 that the God of the Israelites is omnipotent, and 
 would fulfil his promises to the Israelites, and 
 give them the land of Canaan) was the occasion 
 of her being 1 pardoned, and not perishing with 
 the rest of the Canaanites, ov ovvo.Ttute'to T'otj 
 a,ftsi$r ( aatst,, or, as James says (ii. 25), eSixatuJty. 
 In this case, indeed, the object of faith is differ- 
 ent from the object of Christian faith. But the 
 result (reward) is the same ; and the character- 
 istics of it are the same. In the case of Rahab, 
 the good bestowed was earthly and temporal ; 
 in the other, spiritual and eternal. 
 
 III. The Divine Laws or Precepts. 
 
 Since to believe, in the large sense, is the same 
 as to receive and obey the Christian doctrine in 
 all its parts; its laws and rules of action must 
 be as perfectly acknowledged and received as its 
 promises. 
 
 (1) Statement of the doctrine of the New Tes- 
 tament on this subject. One who believes the 
 divine promises receives the good promised on 
 account of his faith ; but it is not optional with 
 him to receive this part only of the Christian 
 doctrine, and to refuse obedience to the laws 
 which it prescribes. No one can say, / will 
 hold fast to the promises, and leave the observance 
 of the law to others. These two things cannot 
 be separated ; and they are both implied in be- 
 lieving in Christ, or the gospel. Christ and the 
 apostles everywhere teach that the observance 
 of the precepts of Christianity, or holiness, can- 
 not be separated from faith in Christ. Obedi- 
 ence is the fruit of faith. Matt. vii. 21, "He 
 only who does the will of my Father can enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven." John, xv. 14; 
 Luke, vi. 4649; 1 John, ii. 36, which is 
 the most decisive text. Paul expresses himself 
 in the same manner on this subject, Gal. v. 6; 
 Ephes. iv. 22, and here certainly he does not 
 contradict James. The latter is very explicit on 
 this subject, especially in the second chapter of 
 his epistle, where he remonstrates against the 
 perversions of the doctrine of faith, as if a mere 
 knowledge and cold assent to the truth, a dead 
 faith in Christ, disconnected with the practice 
 of holiness, could be sufficient. 
 
 This disposition of the Christian to live in 
 entire conformity with the precepts of the Chris- 
 tian doctrine is called fpomf/Mt rtufvpa'tos, Ro- 
 mans, vii. 6, 7, 18 i. e., the renewed temper 
 produced by God, by means of Christianity, 
 the holiness, love, and zeal for virtue produced 
 in the Christian by the Holy Spirit. It is op- 
 posed to fypovypa cropxoj i. e., the disposition to 
 
 live according to sinful propensities. This dis- 
 position is everywhere ascribed to God, or to 
 the Holy Spirit, as the author of Christianity, 
 the guide of the pious, and the promoter of all 
 Christian perfection. In Romans, viii. 1, this 
 state is described by the phrase rttptrta-mv xata, 
 7tvfv/j.a, and in ver. 9, by rtvevpu Xptcfr'ov, a 
 Christian state of mind, a disposition like that 
 of Christ, and for which we are indebted to his 
 assistance and instructions. In 1 John, iii. 24, 
 the same term is used. In Gal. v. 22, the term 
 xaprtoj ftvivfjurtos is used, denoting Christian 
 virtues, actions proceeding from a heart renewed 
 by the Holy Spirit, through the influence of 
 Christianity. In Rom. vi. 6, &c., this charac- 
 ter is called, metaphorically, xawog cu&purtof, 
 and the renunciation of the previous love and 
 habit of sinning is called p.t?dvoia, the putting 
 off of the old man, &c., which will be further 
 considered hereafter. Faith in the divine pro- 
 mises, thus connected with obedience to Chris- 
 tian precepts, or holiness, is called living, or 
 active faith, viva, actuosa, operosa, practica. Paul 
 himself speaks of a faith (8c aydjtqi) Evspyovjuet^, 
 Gal. v. 6. 
 
 (2) On the use of the words LAW and GOSPEL, 
 in the Bible and in theology, and inferences from 
 it. Morus treats this subject as an Appendix 
 to c. 3, p. 238244. 
 
 (a) When the words v6p.os and ypa^a are 
 used in the New Testament in opposition to 
 ftiayytTaov and jtvevpa,, the former do not mean 
 precepts respecting the conduct of men in gene- 
 ral ; nor the latter merely the promises (Irtoyys- 
 Xuu) given to Christians. But v6f*o$ and ypa^a 
 frequently denote the Mosaic law, or the whole 
 Old-Testament institute and religion; iJayy- 
 ?u,of, jtvfvpa, and other similar terms, the whole 
 Christian doctrine, its commands as well as its 
 promises. Thus, e. g., the sermon on the Mount, 
 Matt, v., is purely evangelical, even in the pre- 
 cepts respecting conduct which it contains; 
 John, i. 17; Rom. viii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 6; iv. 6, 
 seq. ; Morus, p. 240, s. 4. 
 
 This will help us to explain many of the texts 
 in which the apostles speak of the great advan- 
 tages which the gospel has over the law ; where 
 they say the law was imperfect, was not design- 
 ed for all men in all ages, is not obligatory on 
 Christians, and is supplanted by Christianity. 
 Much like this is found in Rom. iii., iv., vii., 
 viii., and Gal. iii. 
 
 But the schoolmen, and many theologians 
 who followed them, did not distinguish accu- 
 rately between the various senses of the words 
 vojttoj and fvoyyt'xtov in the New Testament. 
 And notwithstanding it is clearly asserted that 
 the whole Mosaic institute, as such, is super- 
 seded by Christianity (vide s. 118, II.), yet 
 many held the opinion that the law given on 
 Mount Sinai was designed, as far as its moral 
 
430 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 part is concerned, for the whole world, and is 
 obligatory at all times, even on the ground of 
 its having been there given. They understand 
 the Christian law and the law of Moses to be sy- 
 nonymous, and believe that the Mosaic law, as 
 such, (the ceremonial part only excepted,) is 
 obligatory upon Christians. On the other hand, 
 they always understand fvayyaTuor, according 
 to its etymology (joyful news), to mean, not 
 the whole Christian doctrine, but only that part 
 of it which contains the promises. 
 
 This departure from the scriptural usage gave 
 occasion to adopt the division into law and gos- 
 pel in the theological sense. Such, then, is the 
 state of the case. Gospel, in the wider sense, 
 is the whole Christian doctrine, as composed 
 both of precept and promise. This is the most 
 common sense in the New Testament. In the 
 narrower sense, it is the promises of the Chris- 
 tian doctrine, especially those of pardon through 
 Christ. In this sense it sometimes occurs in 
 the New Testament; Rom. x. 16, coll. ver. 
 315; Rom. i. 16, 17; iii. 21; Acts, xiii. 32; 
 xx. 24, fvayy&iov ^apt-roj sou, 1 Cor. ix. 23. 
 In this sense theologians have always used it. 
 Law generally signifies in the New Testament 
 the Mosaic law; but sometimes the precepts of 
 God and of Christ, Gal. vi. 2, &c. 
 
 (&) By law and gospel, as used in theology, 
 the whole sum of the doctrine of salvation is 
 meant. By the law is understood the sum of 
 all the divine precepts given to man in the Old 
 and New Testament ; or, the whole moral law , 
 Morus, p. 238, seq., s. 2. From this we learn 
 what God has commanded and forbidden, and 
 of course what sin is. By gospel is understood 
 all the promises relating to the salvation of man 
 through Christ, whether contained in the Old 
 or New Testament. These assure men of grace 
 and forgiveness, and thus comfort and encour- 
 age the sinner ; this is what is more properly 
 called fuayyfTuov ^aptr'oj. 
 
 This definite theological use, which is not in 
 itself unscriptural, was common before the Re- 
 formation in the Romish church, and was em- 
 ployed by the schoolmen in their systems. Be- 
 cause the decalogue contains moral precepts, and 
 is called, by way of eminence, law, and be- 
 cause fo/toj occurs sometimes in this sense in 
 the New Testament, they called all moral pre- 
 cepts the law , and because cvoyyt'tow signifies, 
 etymologically, a joyful message, and occurs 
 sometimes in this sense in the New Testament, 
 they called all the promises of God, inasmuch as 
 they are of a joyful nature, gospel. This was 
 proper in itself. The fault lay in their regard- 
 ing this as the only scriptural use, and accord- 
 I ingly endeavouring to adapt it to all the pas- 
 sages in which law and gospel occur. Luther 
 and Melancthon, and also the Swiss reformers, 
 retained the established usage of these terms, 
 
 and from them it has been adopted by other the- 
 ologians of the protestant church into their sys- 
 tems. The Arminians, in the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, made the first attempt to shew, some of 
 them, that this is not to be found in the Bible, 
 and others, more justly, that it is not the only 
 scriptural use. They taught that the gospel 
 comprehends laws as well as promises, and 
 that one as well as the other must be comprised 
 in faith in Jesus Christ. But the old division 
 was for a long time retained by protestant theo- 
 logians, even in their homiletical and cateche- 
 tical instructions ; nor was there anything ob- 
 jectionable in this. Although this use of these 
 words is not the only, nor even the common 
 scriptural usage, yet there is good reason for 
 this distinction (Morus, p. 240, s. 4), if it is 
 only properly explained. The truth which is 
 designated by it cannot and ought not to be 
 passed over. For it is plain that rules for con- 
 duct and promises of blessing are of altogether 
 a different nature, have different ends, and pro- 
 duce different effects, and that both therefore 
 must have different predicates. The Christian 
 doctrine contains both. From the nature of the 
 human soul, promises of a great good awaken 
 pleasure in the mind, and incite to willing effort 
 to do everything which can secure the enjoy- 
 ment of this good. But this very nature of the 
 soul makes rules for feeling and conduct neces- 
 sary. Precepts and promises must be most in- 
 timately connected. And the promises must be 
 made to serve as a spring and motive to obey 
 the divine commands. This obedience is an 
 indispensable condition, and unless it is fulfilled 
 the promised good cannot be bestowed. This 
 is the doctrine of the New Testament. The 
 Christian teacher must therefore make use of 
 the law, in order to promote the knowledge of 
 sin, and repentance, and to shew the unhappy 
 consequences which, according to the Christian 
 doctrine, result from sin both in this life and 
 the life to come; and that he may employ for 
 this purpose everything, as well in the Old as 
 in the New Testament, which bears on this 
 subject. Vide Morus, p. 242, s. 7. 
 
 Note. The passages, Rom. iii. and Gal. iii. 
 and iv., relating to the law and its abolition, 
 have been misunderstood in two different ways, 
 which should be carefully guarded against. 
 
 (a) Some have taught that believers have no- 
 thing to do with the law, since Christ has ful- 
 filled it for them ; and they appeal to these pas- 
 sages. They would embrace only one part of 
 the gospel its promises, and would gladly be 
 relieved of the other, and thus overthrow all 
 morality. Such were the doctrines of many of 
 the fanatics at the time of the Reformation and 
 afterwards. Morus, p. 241, s. 6. The same 
 thing was charged upon Agricola in the six- 
 teenth century, and his followers, the Antino- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 431 
 
 mians. Hence the fifth and sixth articles were 
 introduced into the Form of Concord. 
 
 (6) Others have supposed that the Mosaic 
 ceremonial, or civil law exclusively, is intended 
 in those passages where it is said that man de- 
 serves nothing of God by observing the law 
 e. g., Rom. iii. and Gal. iii. and iv. They 
 maintained, accordingly, that although the fa- 
 vour of God could not be conciliated by obe- 
 dience to the ceremonial law, it might be by the 
 observance of the moral law. Thus the Soci- 
 nians and many others. But Paul knows nothing 
 of such a distinction, and what he says, he says 
 of the whole Mosaic law, moral as well as 
 ritual. The observance of the one is as little 
 meritorious as of the other; and what is true of 
 the moral law of Moses is true, according to 
 his express declaration in these passages, of the 
 whole moral law, whether learned from nature 
 or from the Christian doctrine. Vide Progr. in 
 Rom. vii. et viii., in Scripta varii argumenti," 
 Num. xii. The following is the doctrine of the 
 apostles: Obedience to the divine law is not 
 the ground, or the procuring-cause, of our for- 
 giveness and salvation. (And happy is it for 
 men that it is not; for were it so, no man of an 
 enlightened and tender conscience could ever be 
 sure of salvation.) Faith in Christ who died for 
 us is the only ground of our acceptance. Still 
 obedience to the divine law is an indispensable 
 duty in connexion with this faith; indeed, it is 
 practicable and easy only while this faith exists. 
 The strict requirements of the moral law cause 
 us to see clearly how deficient and imperfect 
 we are, since while we allow that the law re- 
 quires only what is right, we are yet unable to 
 conform to it. They also excite in us a deep 
 feeling of our need of a different dispensa- 
 tion, coming in aid of our imperfection. And 
 by seeing our need, we become disposed to em- 
 brace the provisions for salvation which God 
 offers. Thus the law leads us to Christ, Rom. 
 iii., vi., vii., and the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 
 SECTION CXXIV. 
 
 OF THE CONNEXION OF THE PARTS OF WHICH 
 
 FAITH is COMPOSED; THE CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 AND DEGREES OF FAITH J AND THE CONDITIONS 
 ON WHICH IT IS SAVING. 
 
 I. The relation in which the parts belonging to Faith 
 stand to each other. 
 
 HERE the following cautions should be ob- 
 served viz., 
 
 (1) We should not separate one part of faith 
 from another, or insist more upon one than an- 
 other, or imagine that the different parts may 
 exist at different times. This mistake has been 
 made by some with respect to the promises, 
 
 (gospel,) and the rule's of conduct, (law.) 
 Some insist wholly or disproportionately on 
 the latter, and thus alarm one who is just be- 
 ginning a religious life, and who feels himself 
 to be still weak. This is the fault of those who 
 preach only the law or morality, who are always 
 telling men (though they generally know it 
 sufficiently without being told) what they ought 
 to be, without shewing them the proper means 
 of becoming so, and how they may acquire the 
 requisite power. Others dwell entirely on the 
 promises, and neglect the law, instead of deriv- 
 ing from the promises the motives and power 
 to obey the law, as the Bible does, 1 John, iv. 
 10, 19 ; iii. 3 ; Gal. ii. 20. Vide s. 123, ad finem. 
 At the present day, the former mistake is the 
 more common one, and therefore needs to be 
 guarded against more carefully than the other. 
 
 (2) We should not consider the manner in 
 which faith arises in man, and in which one 
 part of it follows another, to be uniformly the 
 same in all cases; nor should we'prescribe the 
 same order and succession as essential to all. 
 The physical and moral constitution of men is 
 so different, and the circumstances under which 
 they begin to amend their lives are so unlike, 
 that the same form and method cannot possibly 
 be prescribed to all. The neglect of proper at- 
 tention to this difference among men gives easy 
 occasion to uncharitable judgments, to hypo- 
 crisy, anxiety, and scrupulous doubts. 
 
 The common representation is that which 
 Melancthon has given in his " Loci Theologici." 
 Reformation is commenced by means of the 
 law, which convinces man of his sins. Then 
 follows the distressing sense of the merited di- 
 vine displeasure, and the desire of obtaining 
 pardon. Here the gospel comes in for man's 
 relief, and imparts comfort and consolation. 
 Hence arise faith, and the fruits of it; and from 
 faith, forgiveness of sin and the assurance that 
 it is remitted. 
 
 In this way does the moral change in men 
 frequently, but not always, take place. The 
 order is not important, provided all the essen- 
 tial parts of faith are exhibited. Faith can no 
 more be wrought in all Christians in the same * 
 manner than the sciences and arts can be learned 
 by all in the same manner. With one, the ter- 
 rors of the divine threatenings and punishments 
 must be used in the first instance ; with an- 
 other, of a more mild and gentle disposition, 
 the infinite love of God and his promises must 
 be used.* Though beginning in different ways 
 both may come to the same result. When we 
 compare the accounts of conversions recorded 
 in the Old and New Testament, we observe this 
 very difference. They all exhibit the great es- 
 sential of faith ; but the manner in which they 
 came to the possession of it is different. Books 
 

 432 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 containing 1 accounts of the conversion of parti- 
 cular men are very useful; but we should be- 
 ware of making the experiences of individuals 
 and the way in which they may have been led 
 to faith a rule for all. Vide Toellner, Theolo- 
 gische Untersuchungen, st. i. ii. 
 
 [Note. Neander has illustrated this import- 
 ant point very fully in his " Denkwiirdigkeiten," 
 and also in his " Gelegenheitsschriften." The 
 Fifth Article in the latter collection of Trea- 
 tises, entitled, "The Manifold Ways of the Lord 
 in the Work of Conversion," is worthy of the 
 careful study of all engaged in promoting reli- 
 gion in the world. It is a deep saying of Ori- 
 gen, that what Paul said of his becoming all 
 things to all men, that he might gain some, is 
 applicable in a far higher sense to the Saviour 
 himself, in the methods he employed while on 
 the earth, and still employs in heaven, to bring 
 men to saving faith. TR.] 
 
 II. Signs by which we can discover the Existence 
 
 of true Faith. 
 
 To every Christian it is of the first import- 
 ance to know whether he possesses true faith, 
 that he may be sure of his being accepted by 
 God. These signs may be reduced to two 
 classes, which correspond with the instructions 
 of the New Testament. 
 
 (1) Christian dispositions. These are called 
 in the New Testament ^poi^a 7tvv l u.ato$, or 
 ytvfv/jLa. Vide s. 123. Rom. viii. 14, 16, 
 "The renewed Christian temper (rtvtvpa) pro- 
 duced in us by God, by means of Christianity, 
 affords us inwardly the surest proof (crr^ap- 
 fupst) that we are the children of God," that we 
 resemble him, that we love him, and that he 
 loves us a father loves his children. Eph. i. 
 13, 14, "Ye are sealed by the Holy Spirit 
 i. e., the Christian disposition, for which you 
 are indebted to God, is a sure proof to you that 
 God loves you and will bless you ; it is a. pledge 
 (djj/jaSwv) to you of future reward." Thus, too, 
 1 John, iii. 24, " By the spirit (that renewed 
 temper for which we are indebted to Christ and 
 the Holy Spirit) we know that we are true 
 Christians, and beloved by God." The Chris- 
 tian may therefore be sure that he has faith 
 when he is conscious of hatred to sin, sincere 
 love to God and Christ, to the good and pious, 
 and of a constant effort to increase in holiness 
 or moral perfection. 
 
 (2) But these dispositions must be exhibited 
 in the external conduct, by actions which flow 
 from grateful love to God and Christ, and from 
 other religious motives, (xaprtot rtj'fv.uctT'os.) 
 These, therefore, are infallible signs of faith. 
 Vide 1 John, ii. 29; iii. 7, seq. Christ said, 
 Matthew, vii. 16, "By their fruits ye shall 
 know them." Entire reliance cannot be placed 
 
 upon evidences drawn from mere internal feel- 
 ing. One may easily deceive himself with re- 
 gard to his own feelings ; and if a certain de- 
 gree of feeling is insisted upon as necessary, 
 those who do not come up to this standard, 
 while yet the} may have faith, will be easily 
 led into mistake, and involved in doubt and dis- 
 tress. Nor can we properly demand that every 
 one should give the time and hour when he be- 
 gan to believe; for faith is not always instanta- 
 neous, but, from the very nature of the human 
 soul, is sometimes gradual. Vide Spalding, 
 Vom Werth der Gefuhle. 
 
 Note. The common theological phrase, in- 
 ternum testimonium Spiritus Sancti, is derived 
 from Rom. viii. 16. (The passage, 1 John, v. 
 6, 8, does not relate to this point.) 
 
 (1) This passage treats directly of the inward . 
 conviction which Christians obtain of their be- 
 ing forgiven by God, from the new disposition 
 which he has produced in them by means of 
 Christianity. By this they are sure (a) that 
 they are now free from the divine punishments, 
 which they had reason to fear while they con- 
 tinued unrenewed and followed their sinful de- 
 sires ; and also (&) that they have a share in all 
 the rights and privileges of believers, and shall be 
 partakers of the promised blessedness in future. 
 
 (2) But under this phrase theologians include 
 the internal conviction which Christians have of 
 the divinity of the Christian doctrine. But this 
 conviction arises only by way of inference. The 
 Christian reasons thus: Because more is ef- 
 fected for the moral good of men by means of 
 Christianity than by all other means, (as he can 
 say from his own experience,) it follows that 
 this doctrine is divine, or that we must believe 
 what Christ and his apostles say when they 
 declare it to be divine. John, vii. 17, " One 
 may be sure from his own experience that what 
 Christ affirmed is true, that he did not speak of 
 himself," &c. Cf. 1 Thess. ii. 13. This con- 
 viction depends, therefore, on the experience of 
 each individual Christian. He himself must 
 have felt the efficacy of the Christian doctrine 
 in his own heart. Hence this is called the ex- 
 perimental proof of the divinity of the Christian 
 religion; and Christ himself insists upon it, 
 John, vii. 16, 17; 1 Thess. ii. 13. Every true 
 Christian must have this experience , but it can- 
 not be used to convince one who is not a true 
 Christian, because he has never felt in himself 
 the better influence of the Christian doctrine; 
 still less can this experience be brought in proof 
 of the divinity of the books of the Bible. It only 
 proves the divinity of the doctrine contained in 
 them. Vide Less, in the Appendix to his 
 "Wahrheit der christlichen Religion," and 
 Noesselt, Diss. de Sp. S. test. ; Halle, 1766 
 Cf. s. 7, II., ad finem. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 433 
 
 III. The different degrees of Faith; the possibility 
 of losing Fait ft and of falling away. 
 
 (1) The knowledge, intelligence, and whole 
 mental state of men are very different, as well 
 as their natural constitution, temperament, and 
 faculties. Hence we infer that faith cannot have 
 the same degree of perfection in all. We are 
 not responsible, however, for the weakness and 
 imperfection of faith any further than it is cri- 
 minal; a subject, the consideration of which be- 
 longs more properly to theological ethics. The 
 Bible accordingly distinguishes between a weak, 
 imperfect, incipient faith, and a strong, perfect, 
 confirmed, and assured faith. It compares the 
 state of one just beginning to exercise faith, to 
 childhood, and that of the more confirmed Chris- 
 tian, to manhood. Vide Romans, iv. 19 ; 2 
 Thess. i. 3; Ephes. iv. 13, 14; 1 Cor. iii. 1. 
 
 (2) But no Christian can make pretensions 
 to the highest possible degree of perfection in 
 faith, although he should constantly strive after 
 it. Great imperfections and innumerable defects 
 always remain even in the best Christians, part- 
 ly in respect to their knowledge, partly, and in- 
 deed mostly, in respect to their practice of 
 known duties. Vide Ps. xix. 13; Phil. iii. 12; 
 James, iii. 2. This ought frequently to be no- 
 ticed by the teacher, in order to humble the pride 
 of men, and to excite more zeal and effort in the 
 pursuit of holiness, and more watchfulness 
 against sin. This consideration leads us to 
 say, 
 
 (3) It is possible that even the best and most 
 perfect Christian should lose his faith, and apos- 
 tatize. The Bible clearly teaches that one may 
 lose his faith, and therefore fail of the blessed- 
 ness promised on condition of faith. Vide 1 
 Tim. i. 19 ; vi. 21. Christ himself mentions, 
 (Luke, viii. 13,) the Ttposxcupovj, who indeed 
 possessed true faith, but did not remain stead- 
 fast. And for what purpose are the frequent 
 exhortations to constancy in faith given in the 
 holy scriptures, if there is no possibility of its 
 being lost! Cf. Gal. ii. 2; Heb. vi. 4, seq. 
 Still the way of recovery stands open even to 
 the apostate while he lives ; Luke, xxii. 32 ; 
 Ps. li. 219. Cf. s. 113. But from the very 
 principles of our nature it is plain that reforma- 
 tion and the recovery of faith must be more dif- 
 ficult the oftener one who had begun to walk in 
 the way of holiness returns to unbelief and sin ; 
 2 Pet. ii. 2022 ; 2 Timothy, ii. 26. 
 
 Note 1. Many have held that true faith can- 
 not be lost. Against this opinion the above pa- 
 ragraph is directed, (a) Some fanatics have 
 held that faith could not be lost or destroyed, 
 even by living in sin and vice. So taught the 
 Valentinians, according to Irenaeus ; and more 
 lately, the enthusiastic Anabaptists, Munzer, 
 &c., at the time of the Reformation. They are 
 55 
 
 condemned in the thirteenth article of the Augs- 
 burg Confession. (6) The advocates of abso- 
 lute decrees also held that he who had once at- 
 tained true faith could not lose it, because God 
 could not alter the irrevocable decree he had 
 once formed respecting his salvation. And as 
 faith is made in the Bible an indispensable con- 
 dition of salvation, one predestined to salvation 
 could not, in their view, lose faith. Cf. s. 32, 
 ad finem. Augustine was the first who held 
 this doctrine. He was followed in the fifth 
 century by Prosper of Aquitania, and in the 
 ninth century by Gottschalk, although the lat- 
 ter expressed himself doubtfully on this subject. 
 Calvin and Beza, in the sixteenth century, 
 adopted this doctrine, which, together with the 
 doctrine de decreto absoluto, was established by 
 the Synod at Dortrecht, 1618, as an article of 
 faith, in opposition to the Arminians. 
 
 [Note 2. On the doctrine of the saint's per- 
 severance there has been much needless debate. 
 To prevent this, and to arrive at a just and sa- 
 tisfactory conclusion as to this doctrine, it is 
 important to dismiss whatever does not proper- 
 ly belong to it, and to make the subject of in- 
 quiry as specific and simple as possible. 
 
 First, then, it is no part of this question, whe- 
 ther it is in itself possible that believers should 
 fall away ; or whether they are liable, or exposed 
 to this, or are in danger of final apostasy. The 
 advocates of this doctrine may admit all this as 
 really as its opponents. Indeed, it is often as- 
 serted by them (e. g., in the articles of the Sy- 
 nod of Dort) that believers not only may, but if 
 left to their own strength certainly will draw 
 back to perdition. 
 
 Secondly. It is admitted on both sides that 
 Christians are to be warned of their danger, after 
 the example of the scriptures ; and that this dan- 
 ger should be set before them as a means of 
 awakening them from slumber, inciting to duty 
 and watchfulness, and making them faithful 
 unto death. 
 
 Thirdly. It is admitted also on both sides 
 of this question that the belief in the doctrine 
 of perseverance will probably have a bad influ- 
 ence upon those who think themselves Chris- 
 tians when they are not, and even upon true 
 Christians in a state of declension. 
 
 Fourthly. All, too, will admit that many 
 who appear for a time to have Christian faith, 
 and belong to the visible church, do in fact 
 apostatize. 
 
 When these conceded points are dismissed 
 from the question, what remains at issue be- 
 tween the advocates and opponents of this doc- 
 trine ? Merely this, Whether God will actually 
 preserve all true believers from final apostasy, and 
 keep them through faith unto salvation? In ar- 
 guing this point, nothing is necessary for the 
 advocates of this doctrine but to prove from 
 20 
 
434 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 scripture that God has purposed and promised 
 to preserve all whom he has renewed by his 
 Spirit. If this can be shewn, the warnings and 
 exhortations contained in the scriptures, so far 
 from being inconsistent with the promise and 
 purpose of God, are the most suitable means of 
 securing their fulfilment ; since no motive tends 
 so powerfully to keep Christians, as intelligent 
 and moral agents, from apostasy, and to secure 
 their perseverance, as the exhibition of their 
 danger. 
 
 As to the power of God to employ such means 
 and exert such an influence on Christians, in 
 perfect consistency with their moral agency, 
 as shall hinder the hurtful tendencies of the 
 world and their own hearts, and bring them to 
 heaven, there can be no reasonable doubt. 
 
 It may be proper to ask, in conclusion, whe- 
 ther the objections commonly urged against this 
 doctrine do not derive their chief strength from 
 misapprehension and mis-statement, and from 
 a vague use of terms'? Let the simple inquiry 
 be made, whether believers will in fact fall 
 away and perish ; and let this question be an- 
 swered in a purely scriptural manner, and the 
 common objections will lose their force, and the 
 doctrine of perseverance be acknowledged to be 
 adapted to glorify God, and to comfort and ani- 
 mate the pious. TR.] 
 
 IV. The Attributes essential to "Saving" Faith. 
 
 (1) Constancy to the end of life, (perseveran- 
 tia.) This is called by Paul vrfo^ow} ; Heb. x. 
 36, coll. iii. 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 58. (In Matt. xxiv. 
 13, the subject is not salvation, but temporal 
 deliverance.} This constancy must extend to 
 all the parts which belong to faith. One must 
 neither renounce the Christian doctrine in gene- 
 ral, and apostatize from it, (Luke, viii. 13; 2 
 Pet. ii. 20;) nor may he give up particular 
 doctrines which are essential to the Christian 
 system ; 1 John, ii. 24. He must remain un- 
 shaken in his reliance upon the divine promises ; 
 Heb. vi. 12; Col. i. 23. He must avoid most 
 cautiously all disobedience to the divine com- 
 mands; 1 Timothy, i. 18, coll. Ezek. xviii. 26. 
 
 (2) Growth and increase infaith, (incrementa 
 fidei.) (a) We must endeavour to extend and 
 perfect our knowledge of Christian doctrines 
 and duties; Heb. v. 12; vi. 1, seq. ; Phil. i. 9, 
 seq. (6) We must make constant advances in 
 holiness, and in the practice of all Christians 
 virtues. W T e must strive daily to be freed from 
 our remaining faults, and to cherish and deepen 
 our hatred to sin (p&nitentia quotidiana}, 1 Pet. 
 ii. 1, 2. Holiness and the practice of Christian 
 virtue must become habitual with us ; 2 Cor. vii. 
 1. The observation often made by theologians, 
 that there is no pausing here, that we must 
 either advance or recede in goodness, is true 
 from the very nature of the human mind. 
 
 (3) The evidence of faith by good works. 
 
 A. The various meanings of the word 
 in the holy scriptures. A careful examination 
 of these would have prevented many mistakes 
 and controversies. 
 
 (a) "Epyov denotes an action, in the widest 
 sense, whether morally good or bad e. g., God 
 rewards man according to his works, Romans, 
 ii. 6, &c. Hence spyoi/ also signifie's an em- 
 ployment, business, office ; an office in the church, 
 for example, as in 2 Tim. ii. 21, seq. 
 
 (6) The phrase pya ayo&a or xahd, or f'pya 
 simply, frequently denotes particular actions 
 which are conformed to the law of God, or 
 Christian virtues, which God has promised to 
 reward, in opposition to a/tap-tiai or f'pya Ttov^pa ; 
 Matt. v. 16 ; Rom. ii. 7; 1 Tim. v. 24, 25, &c. 
 In this sense the word tpya is used by James 
 throughout the whole of the second chapter of 
 his epistle. Cf. James, iii. 13. With James, 
 then, good works are pious actions, such as are 
 done with reference to God i. e., such as flow 
 from love to God and a spirit of obedience. 
 Such actions only are pronounced by the scrip- 
 tures to be true virtues, because they flow from 
 religious motives. They are Christian good 
 works whenever they are done with a particular 
 reference to Christ. 
 
 But this term came to denote, in a narrower 
 sense, particular works of love, such as alms, 
 &c. ; Acts, ix. 36 ; 1 Tim. vi. 18, &c. During 
 the middle ages the Roman church made this 
 particular sense the prominent one, and accord- 
 ingly ascribed great merit to almsgiving, pre- 
 sents to cloisters, churches, &c., s. 125. But such 
 works are called good in the holy scriptures 
 only so far as they are an active exhibition of 
 love and obedience to God, and as they flow 
 from religious motives. 
 
 (c) Quite different from this is the meaning 
 of the term f'pya vopov, (sometimes simply 
 f'pya,) when used by Paul in opposition to 
 rttWtj, Rom. ii., iii., iv. ; Gal. ii., iii., &c. Vide 
 Progr. " De dispari formula docendi, qua Chris- 
 tus, Paulus et Jacobus de fide et factis disse- 
 rentes usi sunt, item que de discrimine tpycov 
 vofjLov eU'pycov oycW (1803,) in " Scr. Var. 
 Argum." Num. xii. (Translated in the Bib. 
 Repository, Jan. 1833.) Correspondent to this 
 phrase is that in the writings of the Rabbins, 
 D" Tinn D^D, which denotes the fulfilment and 
 observance of the divine law and of its particu- 
 lar precepts, whether they are of a moral nature 
 or not, and whether they are given by God 
 through Christ, Moses, or by the law of nature. 
 Vide s. 113, II., and s. 123, and fin. in the note. 
 
 Paul allows, and frequently expressly de- 
 clares, that whoever should perfectly obey this 
 law, in whatever way made known to him, 
 should actually live by it, or enjoy the blessed- 
 ness promised by God as a reward, not because 
 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 435 
 
 he could demand this as something which he 
 had earned, but because God had promised it. 
 But no man, in his present condition, can boast 
 of such an obedience as this, and therefore none 
 can hope to be accepted with God and blessed 
 on the ground of his obedience to the divine 
 commands, (t| epyw vo^ou.) Paul expresses 
 himself very clearly on this point, Tit. iii. 5, 
 coll. ver. 3 ; 2 Tim. i. 9 ; Ephes. ii. 8. The 
 reason, therefore, why he excludes obedience 
 to the divine commandments as a ground of our 
 forgiveness, or why he holds that obedience is 
 not the meritorious cause of forgiveness, is, that 
 we do not in reality obey the divine law in such 
 a manner as to enable us to rely on the divine 
 promise above mentioned. And yet God has 
 declared that he will shew mercy to us ; this 
 must therefore be done in some other way, and 
 by some other means namely, by faith. It is 
 on this account that he excludes the t'pya vopov, 
 or our supposed obedience to the divine com- 
 mandments, from faith in Christ, and from the 
 forgiveness and salvation to be attained through 
 faith, Rom. iii. 20, et passim. But as to pya 
 ayc&a i. e., the virtues performed from love to 
 Christ, Paul would no more exclude them than 
 Christ and James did. On the contrary, he 
 derives them, as they did, from faith, and in- 
 sists strenuously upon them, and in the very 
 passages in which he denies merit to spya 
 VO/JLOV e. g., Rom. ii. 7 10; Ephes. ii. 10, 
 seq. Cf. s. 108, 123, ad finem. 
 
 Paul and James are therefore agreed in fact. 
 And there is no difference in the meaning of the 
 words TttWtj and Sixaiova^at, as used by them, 
 but solely in the use of the word tpya. Paul 
 speaks of the foolish mistake, by which one 
 would obtain life and salvation from God by his 
 supposed fulfilment of the divine law, while in 
 reality he does not keep the law. James speaks 
 of the pious, unpretending exercise of virtue, 
 which is the first fruit and the evidence of faith, 
 and therefore rewarded by God. Paul and 
 James, as well as Christ, disapprove of the for- 
 mer, while both of them, as well as Christ, re- 
 quire the latter, with great seriousness and ear- 
 nestness. 
 
 B. What Christ and the apostles teach as to 
 shewing faith by good works. They are all 
 agreed in saying that an indolent and inactive 
 faith (vtxpa, James, ii.) is of no advantage, and 
 is entirely contrary to its object. For faith is 
 designed wholly for active life, and must be 
 manifested and proved, so often as there is op- 
 portunity, by the practice of holiness. This is 
 what James so well insists upon in the second 
 chapter of his epistle. His doctrine is, that 
 every Christian must possess faith in God, (the 
 knowledge of God, and that trust in him result- 
 ing from this knowledge;) but that this faith 
 must be exhibited in works, (fruits, chap, iii.) 
 
 What good does it do for one to say, I know 
 and honour God, and confide in him, if he does 
 not prove this by his pious actions ? If Abra- 
 ham had professed faith with his mouth, but 
 had not obeyed when God commanded him to 
 offer up Isaac, would that have pleased God? 
 No ! He did not receive the divine approbation 
 and blessing until he proved in fact that he had 
 right conceptions of God, and that he placed 
 unlimited confidence in him. In the same way 
 Christ shews that man must be known by his 
 works, (xoprtot,) and prove by them that he 
 truly fears God, Matt. vii. 16 24; John, xiv. 
 15; xv. 14. And Paul, too, teaches that God 
 will reward men for the uniform practice of vir- 
 tue, (vrto/juvri tpyou dycov,) Rom. ii. 7, and 
 that, while Christians are indebted for their sal- 
 vation to the mere grace of God, and not their 
 own works, they are yet placed by the divine 
 commands under obligation to practise these 
 spya ayc&a, Ephes. ii. 8 10. Thus he calls 
 the virtues xoprtovj rtvsvpa'tos, (the fruits of a 
 heart renovated by the influence of the gospel,) 
 Gal. v. 22, 25. In Rom. viii. 1, 13, he says, 
 that one is not a Christian who has not jtvevpa, 
 Xpiff-r-ov. Vide other passages in Morus, p. 212, 
 Note, 
 
 The uniform doctrine of the holy scriptures 
 is therefore briefly this : " Faith is the condi- 
 tion of salvation. (Hence so high a value is 
 placed upon it, from the beginning to the end 
 of the scriptures.) But this faith cannot exist 
 unless the heart is truly renewed and made 
 holy ; and this inward renewal is evidenced by 
 good actions or works. Now this faith, and 
 the holiness inseparably connected with it, and 
 and the exhibition of it by good works, is re- 
 warded by God. This faith and what is con- 
 nected with it is therefore the condition of sal- 
 vation (conditio salutis,) but not the meritorious 
 cause, (causa meritoria ;) for salvation is an un- 
 merited favour. Vide Romans, iii. 24, 25 ; vi. 
 22, seq. Cf. s. 125. 
 
 SECTION CXXV. 
 
 OF THE NATURE OF CHRISTIAN GOOD WORKS OR 
 VIRTUES; THE RELATION IN WHICH THEY 
 STAND TO SALVATION; AND THEIR MERITORI- 
 
 OUSNESS. 
 
 I. The true nature of Christian good works. 
 
 THEIR worth or capability of being rewarded 
 (not their merit} consists partly in their con- 
 formity to the rules of conduct which God has 
 given to Christians, (materiale actionis,} James, 
 ii. 11, and partly in the end to which they are 
 directed, and the motive by which they are per- 
 formed, (formate.} An action, therefore, is not 
 a good work, although it may be right and law- 
 ful in itself, when it results from impure and 
 
436 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 unworthy motives, such as vanity, ambition, the 
 gratification of inclination, &c. The Christian 
 performs good works only when he acts from 
 thankful love to God and Christ, and in uncon- 
 ditional obedience to their requirements; in 
 short, from motives drawn from the Christian 
 religion, Romans, xii. 2; 2 Cor. v. 15; Phil. i. 
 11 ; John, xiv. 15, 21, and almost the whole of 
 the first epistle of John. 
 
 We can here distinguish three cases viz., 
 
 (1) In acting, the Christian may be con- 
 scious of this motive, and act solely on account 
 of it. 
 
 (2) But it is neither possible, nor requisite, 
 that he should at all times, and in every action, 
 be distinctly conscious of this motive. For one 
 acquires, from long exercise in virtue as well as 
 in vice, a habit of action. And since this habit 
 presupposes a high degree of perfection, the 
 value of actions performed under the force of 
 this principle is not less, but often greater; for 
 they imply a prevailing feeling of piety and love 
 to God. 
 
 (3) Filial obedience to God, or religious mo- 
 tives, are not always the single and only motives 
 to good actions, even in Christians. Their own 
 advantage, reward, fear of punishment, the main- 
 tenance of a good reputation, &c., influence them 
 to action. These motives, in themselves, should 
 not be entirely banished, as some rigorous mo- 
 ralists, who are ignorant of human nature, would 
 do. For God makes use of these very means to 
 hold men to the observance of his laws. They 
 may therefore be used by us as assistances. But 
 it is clear that an action which results from such 
 motives merely, cannot be called a pious Chris- 
 tian action, or a good work, although in itself it 
 may be useful, commendable, and even accept- 
 able to God. Vide Rom. ii. 14, 26, 27 ; Acts, x. 
 4, 34, 35. The teacher, therefore, should beware, 
 in Christian education, of drawing the prinicipal 
 motive from ambition and selfishness; for these 
 principles will exclude every good and religious 
 feeling, and introduce manifold evil into the 
 youthful heart. 
 
 In Christian good works, therefore, every- 
 thing depends upon the state of mind, the dis- 
 position (rtvsvpa, Gal. v. 22) with which they 
 are performed. That man only is capable of 
 good works (in the Christian sense) who has 
 a pure and prevailing love to God and Christ, 
 and whose principle it is to practise all known 
 good and to avoid all known evil, because such 
 is the will of God and of Christ. God and 
 Christ estimate the worth of an action, therefore, 
 not according to the external appearance, upon 
 which men look, but according to the disposition 
 of the heart, which men do not see. Hence an ac- 
 tion may frequently appear to men to be trifling, 
 insignificant, or even blamable, while in the sight 
 
 of God it is commendable and of great price. 
 Such was the act of Mary in anointing Jesus, 
 which his disciples blamed, Mark, xiv. Christ, 
 however, called it a good work, because it was 
 a pious deed i. e., because it resulted from sin- 
 cere and grateful love to him ; and such actions 
 only are, in his judgment, good works. Vide 
 Tollner. Ueber die Beschaffenheit eines guten 
 Werkes, in his "Theol. Untersuch," th. ii. 
 
 Note 1. Good works are required from every 
 Christian, so far as he is able to perform them, 
 Gal. v. 25 ; 1 John, ii. 6 ; iii. 7. Cf. s. 123. The 
 last clause contains a necessary limitation. For 
 sometimes he finds no opportunity, or is placed 
 in circumstances unfavourable for exhibiting, by 
 his outward actions, the pious dispositions con- 
 cealed in his heart. Moreover, those just com- 
 mencing a religious life, and who, though they 
 have real faith, have it in a less degree, (s. 
 124,) cannot exhibit that perfect and mature 
 fruit which is expected from advanced and con- 
 firmed Christians. But God judges of the 
 goodness of actions according to the inward 
 disposition and the sincerity of the heart. In a 
 good work this rectitude of motive in indispen- 
 sable. Ephes. iv. 20 ; 1 John, ii. 6. We can- 
 not therefore say that faith is always rich in 
 virtues ; for it cannot always be so. Nor will 
 his unfruitfulness be charged against any one 
 as a sin, unless he himself is to blame for it. In 
 this matter God is the only infallible judge. 
 
 Note 2. When the Bible speaks of the neces- 
 sity of Christian good works, it refers only to 
 Christians, and to what is required of them ac- 
 cording to the Christian doctrine. No one who 
 is destitute of the knowledge of Christianity 
 without his own fault can be required to live 
 according to its rules, or be punished merely 
 because he does not. Nothing will be required 
 of any one which has not been given him. 
 Christian actions may indeed be more perfect 
 and noble in themselves than others, because 
 they flow from more perfect, pure, and elevated 
 motives; but the good actions of those who are 
 not Christians do not cease to be good and ac- 
 ceptable to God because they do not flow from 
 Christian motives. Cf. the example of the cen- 
 turion Cornelius, Acts, x., and the declaration 
 of Paul, Rom. ii. 6 11. In the former passage, 
 (ver. 35,) Peter ascribes $6,3ov &iov to the hea- 
 then centurion Cornelius ; and in the latter, 
 Paul calls the actions of heathen J'pyct oyo&a ; 
 and both teach that truly religious actions in 
 heathen are acceptable to God, and will be re- 
 warded by him. The doctrine of Augustine, 
 therefore, virtutes ethnicas esse splendida vitia, is 
 false. He taught that all which man does as 
 man, without supernatural and irresistible grace, 
 is sin. Hence he affirmed that the heathen were 
 | condemned because they could not but sin. Vide 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 437 
 
 s. 121, II. [Of. "Bib. Repos." Jan. 1833. 
 Art. Augustine and Pelagius. TB.] 
 
 II. The Relation which exists between the Good 
 Works of Christians and their Salvation. 
 
 There was a controversy in the Lutheran 
 church in the sixteenth century on the question, 
 Whether good works are essential to salvation ? Ge. 
 Major, a theologian of Wittenberg, and some of 
 the disciples of Melancthon, held the affirmative ; 
 Flacius and others, the negative. Nic. Amsdorf 
 of Raumburg went so far as to say (1559) that 
 they stood in the way of salvation a horrible 
 position if it is understood to mean, that obe- 
 dience to the divine law is damnable. But this 
 was not his meaning; he only meant to affirm 
 that the opinion that good works could merit 
 salvation is dangerous to the soul. And in this 
 he was right; but so was Major in his position. 
 
 The difficulty may be removed by considering 
 in what the salvation of Christians consists. 
 
 (1) It is begun, the foundation of it is laid, in 
 the forgiveness of sin, or justification in the nar- 
 rower sense. This is the free gift of God, and 
 cannot be merited by good works, s. 113, II. 
 But this blessing is forfeited by one who ornits 
 good works, and commits sin. Vide 1 John, iii. 
 6 ; Gal. v. 19 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. Good works, 
 therefore, are necessary for the continuance (con- 
 servatio) of this benefit. They are, when they 
 can be performed, the condition of pardon, though 
 not the meritorious cause of it. 
 
 (2) Salvation consists in the divine rewards, 
 or proofs of the divine favour; partly those 
 which are natural, such as quiet of soul, peace 
 with God, &c., and partly positive, bestowed 
 both in the present and future life, as we are 
 taught by the scriptures. These rewards can- 
 not be merited by good works in themselves 
 any more than the forgiveness of sin. But 
 faith, and the good works connected with it, are 
 the conditions on which alone these rewards are 
 obtained, and the degree of reward is regu- 
 lated by the degree of zeal in holiness which 
 is exhibited; Matt. xxv. 20 29; 2 Cor. ix. 
 6 ; Gal. vi. 7, &c. For obedience to the di- 
 vine law is as essential a part of Christian faith 
 as to trust in God through Christ, s. 123. Good 
 works are therefore always described in the 
 Bible as the effects and fruits of Christian faith, 
 James, ii. 26, seq. 
 
 We may therefore justly say, as Major did, 
 that good works are essential to the attainment 
 of salvation, as a condition, and we may also say, 
 as Flacius and Amsdorf did, that they are not 
 to be regarded as meritorious, or the procuring 
 cause of our salvation. Cf. F. T. Riihl, Werth 
 der Behauptungen Jesu und seiner Apostel ; 
 Leipzig, 1791, 8vo; especially the 4th Essay, 
 " Seligkeit beruht allein auf Glauben," u. s. w. 
 
 Also Storr, Commentar zum Brief an die He- 
 braer, th. ii. 
 
 III. History of opinions respecting the meritorious- 
 ness of Good Wcrrks. 
 
 God has determined and promised to reward 
 the good actions of men. But this reward is not 
 something earned by men, (s. 108, II.,) which 
 God is bound to pay them ; it is given to them 
 of his free, undeserved goodness. Hence these 
 rewards are called in the New Testament #aptj, 
 Swpm, tVtatvoj, (approbation,) 56(ja, crttfyavo? 
 terms which imply gifts and undeserved rewards. 
 These rewards are intended to excite men to love 
 God more sincerely and to yield a cheerful and 
 willing obedience to the divine commands, not- 
 withstanding the difficulties with which this obe- 
 dience is attended. 
 
 But obvious as this doctrine is to sound and 
 unprejudiced reason, the great mass of mankind, 
 of all ages and religions, have regarded certain 
 external actions as meritorious and propitiatory. 
 This error, as far as it is theoretical, results from 
 false notions respecting God, and our relations 
 to him. This is the reason why it is so preva- 
 lent, in one form or another, among the Jews, 
 the heathen, and Christians. Vide s. 108, II. 
 But this theoretical error would have been easily 
 escaped or exploded if it were not connected with 
 the depraved inclinations of the human heart. 
 Love to sin makes men quick in inventing theo- 
 ries which will allow them to indulge in it at 
 pleasure, and yet assure them of the favour of 
 God. We shall here briefly exhibit the false 
 opinions which have prevailed on this subject 
 among Christians. 
 
 (1) Many Christians, (especially the converts 
 from Judaism,) even in the times of the apostles, 
 cherished the opinion that their acts of supposed 
 conformity to the law, such as almsgiving, sacri- 
 fices, ceremonies, circumcision, and obedience to 
 other particular precepts of the ceremonial and 
 moral law of Moses, were meritorious. They 
 even believed that the good works of their ances- 
 tors were imputed to them. Hence Paul shews, 
 in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, that 
 man deserves nothing of God for his supposed 
 obedience to the divine law ; that the opinion of 
 the meritoriousness of our own works is in the 
 highest degree injurious; and that God forgives 
 and rewards us solely on account of faith, with- 
 out any desert on our part, (Stxatovv Swpstxv, 5ta 
 
 But here again a mistake was made on the 
 other side, and Paul was understood to speak 
 lightly of the observance of the divine law. He 
 himself complains that he was thus misunder- 
 stood, Rom. iii. 8 ; vi. 15 ; Gal. v. 13. The same 
 thing has happened to Luther, Arndt, Spener, 
 and other Christian teachers of ancient and mo- 
 2o2 
 
438 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 dern times, who have followed in his footsteps. 
 Even in the age of the apostles there were 
 some false Christians, and even false teachers. 
 They lived a sensual, disorderly life, and justi- 
 fied this on the ground that Christians are free 
 from the law. Against such a sentiment there 
 is much said in the epistles of John, Peter, and 
 Jude. Others believed that an inactive faith 
 would suffice, and that works are not important. 
 They were content if they were only orthodox 
 in head. James, in the second chapter of his 
 epistle, is strenuous in opposing this sentiment. 
 He shews that true Christian faith cannot exist 
 unless it is exhibited by Christian virtues. Cf. the 
 Essay above cited in " Scripta Varii Argumenti." 
 (2) Notwithstanding these clear instructions 
 of the New Testament, these two mistakes re- 
 specting the merit of works and the sufficiency 
 of an inoperative faith, have always prevailed 
 among Christians. The mistake respecting the 
 merit of works was adopted into the whole sys- 
 tem of the Latin church. This will now be 
 shewn from history. 
 
 A. During the dark ages, after monastic prin- 
 ciples became prevalent in the Western church, 
 the worship of God, piety, and holiness, were 
 supposed to consist almost wholly in external 
 rites. They believed that God would be induced 
 by certain external actions to bestow favour on 
 mankind. They thought they could merit his 
 approbation somewhat as the day-labourer earns 
 his wages by toil. Much importance was at- 
 tached to works of beneficence, to almsgiving and 
 presents, especially to cloisters and churches. 
 They thus kept to the sense in which i'pya oya^a 
 is sometimes used in the New Testament viz., 
 opera benefica, stopping, however, with the out- 
 ward action, and leaving the disposition of the 
 heart out of account. Vide s. 124, ad finem. 
 They also insisted upon self-inflictions, fasts, and 
 other external punishments, arbitrarily imposed ; 
 just as the Jews formerly did. They even re- 
 lied, like the Jews again, upon the virtues of the 
 saints, and upon their treasure of good works. 
 These views led to great corruption in morals, 
 and a wide remove from the genuine spirit and 
 true nature of Christianity. 
 
 B. After the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, 
 the schoolmen, and especially Thomas Aquinas, 
 began to admit these views into their theological 
 systems, and to defend them by logical argu- 
 ments. They reasoned (a) from the term jutcr- 
 05, which is frequently used in the Bible to 
 denote wages earned, as 1 Cor. iii. 8, where the 
 Vulgate has meritum ; and also from many of 
 the old Latin fathers, who had said, MERERE ho- 
 minem salutem, &c. But by such language they 
 meant nothing more than consequi, impetrare, 
 in which sense merere is used by Cicero and 
 other Latin writers. And in general in all the 
 ancient languages, and in the Hebrew and 
 
 Greek, the terms which denote wages, recom- 
 pence, are used for reward of any kind, whether 
 deserved or not. The meaning in every case 
 must be determined by the context. In the New 
 Testament, what is called ^to^oj is also called 
 #apc,j and &op?a in the same context. We are 
 said to receive jtus^ov Scopsav. Thomas Aquinas 
 taught that when man of his own accord per- 
 forms benevolent actions, gives alms, endows 
 churches, &c., God considers this as done to 
 him, and sees fit (acquum, congruum) to recom- 
 pense the act. This he called meritum de con- 
 gruo. (6) Again, he appealed to the doctrine 
 of Augustine, De gratia supernaturali spiritus 
 sancti. This grace produces good works in the 
 regenerate, which therefore merit salvation, be- 
 cause they are derived from the Holy Spirit. 
 He called this meritum de condigno. The unre- 
 generate cannot perform any such meritorious 
 works, because they do not possess this grace. 
 He was followed in his opinions by other teach- 
 ers ; and in the sixteenth century this doctrine 
 was confirmed by the council at Trent. 
 
 C. This false theory, so greatly injurious to 
 morals, was vehemently opposed by the German 
 reformers of the sixteenth century. Luther es- 
 pecially argued against it from the principles 
 contained in Paul's epistles to the Romans and 
 Galatians, which were directed against similar 
 mistakes made by the Jews. But, in the heat 
 of the controversy, Luther frequently went to 
 the other extreme, and sometimes expressed 
 himself with toolittle precision and distinctness. 
 He sometimes appeared not only to deny merit 
 to those works which the monks regarded as 
 meritorious, and to all self-righteous works, 
 (Paul's works of the law,} but also to speak 
 slightingly of Christian virtues, and rather to de- 
 preciate than recommend them ; though this 
 was far from his intention. But afterwards, 
 when his doctrine was misapplied by some who 
 appealed to his authority, he became more 
 guarded, and expressed himself more definitely. 
 Melancthon especially took pains to guard 
 against these perversions in the Augsburg Con- 
 fession (Art. iv.), in his Apology, and in his 
 " Loci Theologici." After the death of Luther, 
 Melancthon and some of his associates endea- 
 voured to analyze the subject still further, and 
 to obviate all mistake. But they were poorly 
 rewarded for their pains, since they were charged 
 with departing from Luther and adopting the 
 errors of the Romish church. Hence much con- 
 troversy arose in the Lutheran church in the 
 sixteenth century, which ran out for the most 
 part into mere logomachy, as in the case of 
 Major and Amsdorf. It was hoped that the 
 Formula of Concord would put an end to this 
 strife, Morus, p. 214. But the adherents of the 
 Romish church still appealed to the second 
 chapter of James, in opposition to Luther. He 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 439 
 
 and his associates did not know how to defend 
 themselves against this argument, and did not 
 sufficiently understand the difference between 
 it'pya dyo&a and the t'pya vopov, which were re- 
 garded as meritorious. This is the reason why 
 I he and the authors of the "Magdeburg Centu- 
 ; ries," and some other theologians, spoke so dis- 
 creditably of this epistle. 
 
 Note. The circumstances of the Christian 
 teacher in our days are frequently such, that, 
 after the example of Christ and the apostles, he 
 must sometimes insist more upon faith as the 
 ground of pardon and salvation, and sometimes 
 more upon the fruits of faith, or pious Christian 
 actions. He should take the former course 
 when he has to do either with sinners who are 
 sorrowful and truly penitent on account of their 
 sins, or with those who have a self-righteous 
 disposition, and hope that they shall be forgiven 
 and saved on account of their supposed obe- 
 dience to the law, and their virtuous conduct. 
 Vide Luke, xxiii. 40, seq., xviii. 9 ; Rom. iv. 
 5; Acts, xvi. 30. He must do this in order to 
 shew that salvation depends entirely upon a dis- 
 position of sincere and unwavering confidence 
 in God (i. e., upon faith,) since God and 
 Christ, who know the heart, have regard solely 
 to the disposition. In this way one who is 
 proud of his virtue, self-righteous, and pharisa- 
 ical, will learn wherein he is deficient. 
 
 He must take the latter course that of re- 
 commending good works, or the fruits of faith 
 when he deals with those who undervalue or 
 neglect the pursuit of holiness either through 
 levity, indolence, or the love of sin; who per- 
 suade themselves that a mere external pro- 
 fession of faith will be sufficient; who say, 
 Lord, Lord , but obey not his commandments ,- 
 and who pervert the doctrine of justification 
 through faith to excuse a life devoid of good- 
 ness, perhaps openly sinful. Such persons 
 must be made to see that their sentiments are 
 false, and that there are some infallible signs 
 by which it may be known whether a person 
 possesses true faith ; as a tree may be known 
 by its fruits. These signs are pious actions, 
 which are the invariable attendants of faith, 
 and which the true believer will never fail to 
 perform whenever he has opportunity. Matt. 
 vii. 16; xix. 21; xxv. 31 46; Rom. ii. 6; 
 1 Tim. vi. 18 ; James, ii. 
 
 SECTION CXXVI. 
 
 EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS WHICH ARE USED IN 
 THE SCRIPTURES TO DENOTE BOTH THE EXTER- 
 NAL PROFESSION OF CHRISTIANITY (FIDES EX- 
 TERNA) AND INTERNAL MORAL IMPROVEMENT 
 AND SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 IT is the general custom to treat of repentance, 
 conversion, renewal, regeneration, sanctificaiion, 
 
 in separate and distinct articles (loci} ; but this 
 was not the case anciently. Neither the eccle- 
 siastical fathers nor the schoolmen treated these 
 topics separately. It was not until the sixteenth 
 century that this method was adopted ; and the 
 chief object of this at first was to explain more 
 fully these scriptural terms and obviate different 
 errors relating to them. But afterwards the dis- 
 tinction was more finely drawn, these doctrines 
 were more separated, and particular proof-texts 
 were sought for each. But many of these dis- 
 tinctions are not to be found in the Bible. All 
 of these terms denote the improvement of men, 
 and imply the same divine agency ; although 
 sometimes the gradual progress and the differ- 
 ent degrees of moral improvement are distin- 
 guished. The better plan is, therefore, to bring 
 all these topics together, and to treat of them in 
 one and the same article, as, indeed, most theo- 
 logians now do. So Morus, p. 220, seq., s. 6. 
 The case is the same with respect to calling, 
 illumination, and similar expressions, which 
 will be explained in Art. xii., De operationibus 
 gratise, s. 130. 
 
 I. Scriptural idea of the words denoting Conver- 
 sion, (cn-tcrrpo^jj, iTriffTptyetv, by which the LXX. 
 translate the Hebrew 211?.) 
 'Ertiatpetyeiv frequently stands alone, some- 
 times connected with erti or rtpoj tbv sov, to 
 turn to God. This term is derived from the 
 very frequent comparison of the actions and con- 
 duct of man with a way, and with walking in 
 it; whence the religion itself which one adopts 
 is itself called ^-n. But this term is used in 
 two different senses viz., 
 
 (1) It denotes the moral improvement and ho- 
 liness of men when they repent of their sins and 
 forsake them. In this sense is the term com- 
 monly used in theology, Ezek. iii. 19; Joel, ii. 
 12, 13; Matt. xiii. 15; Acts, iii. 19. This 
 turning is produced by God, or the Holy Spirit, 
 by means of revealed truth. The same is ex- 
 pressed by the word petavotiv, by which also 
 the LXX. render the Heb. an?. These two 
 forms of expression are frequently interchanged 
 as synonymous, as Acts, xv. 3, coll. xi. 18. 
 "The heart is turned away from the love of sin, 
 and inclined to efforts after what is good and 
 right, under the assistance of God and the Holy 
 Spirit." Vide 2 Cor. vii. 11 ; Jer. iii. 12, 13, 
 (an exhortation to the Israelites to return to 
 God, from whom they had departed.) 
 
 (2) It denotes sometimes the external transi- 
 tion from a false religion to the true, the re- 
 nunciation of idolatry; Hos. iii. 5 ; Ezek. xiv. 
 6. Hence it is applied in the New Testament 
 (a) to Gentiles who enter into the external 
 Christian community, Acts, xx. 21 ; xxvi. 18; 
 1 Thess. i. 9 ; (6) to Jews becoming Christians, 
 Acts, ix. 35; xiv. 15; 2 Cor. iii. 16. 
 
440 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 These two senses ought to be distinguished 
 in the explanation of this term. For though 
 conversion of the former kind is the object of the 
 latter, yet it is not always attained. But some- 
 times the two meanings are connected together, 
 because the first is the object of the second, and 
 with many is actually attained. Thus when the 
 apostles preach conversion to Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, they mean both, for neither Christ nor his 
 apostles encouraged a merely external introduc- 
 tion into the Christian church. Still they re- 
 quire men to enter into the external church be- 
 cause there are the means of conversion found. 
 
 II. Scriptural idea of the words denoting Regenera- 
 tion, (rraXjyyei/ftna, yei/j/aaSat avuSev or favnpov, 
 dvaytwaaSai. Also the synonymous terms dvaKal- 
 vuaif, dvavsovv, Kaivus a'j/SpajTioj, Kaii/rt Kriaif, K. T. A.) 
 
 The word rtafayyeveaia, denotes frequently 
 any entire alteration of state, by which one is 
 brought into an entirely new and reformed con- 
 dition, or placed in a better situation. The 
 change indicated by this term is, however, as 
 Morus justly observes, in every case, mutatio 
 in melius, p. 223, note at the top. Vide " Scripta 
 Varii Argumenti," Num. vi. Thus Cicero 
 (Att. iv. 6) calls his restoration from exile, 
 rta?uyyj/cr/a* and Josephus (Ant. xi. 3) calls 
 the restoration of the Jewish land after the cap- 
 tivity rtaTiiyyEvsaia rtar'ptSoj. The stoics spoke 
 of 7ta^tyyj>tfta T?WV ohuv. In Roman law, the 
 manumission of a slave was called his regene- 
 ration. In Matt. xix. 28, it denotes an intro- 
 duction into a new and happy situation, whe- 
 ther the resurrection or the establishment of the 
 Messiah's kingdom be understood. 
 
 When the Israelites spoke of a person chang- 
 ing his religion, they used the phrases birth, 
 new birth, &c. When a Gentile passed over to 
 Judaism (became a proselyte), he was regarded 
 by the Jews as new born, a new man, a child 
 just beginning to live. As such he was re- 
 ceived into their church, and obtained civil 
 rights. Even in the Old Testament the term 
 iSi is used in reference to proselytes, Ps. Ixxxvii. 
 5, coll. Is. xlix., li., liv. This might be called 
 external regeneration. The term was afterwards 
 used by the Rabbins in a moral sense, since it 
 became the duty of one who had been admitted 
 into the Jewish church to live according to 
 Jewish laws, and to have a better moral dispo- 
 sition. This is internal, moral regeneration. 
 The term was used in both of these senses by 
 the Jews at the time of Christ and the apostles. 
 
 Now it was not the manner of Christ and the 
 apostles to invent new terms, but to borrow 
 terms from the ancient Jewish phraseology, and 
 transfer them to Christianity. Hence we find 
 all these words used in the New Testament in 
 three different senses viz., 
 
 (1) To denote one's passing over externally 
 
 from Judaism or heathenism to the Christian 
 society, and making an external profession of 
 the Christian, in opposition to the Jewish or 
 heathen religion, which the Christian renounces. 
 Thus Paul says, Ephes. ii. 15, "Christ has 
 united Jews and Gentiles into one church," (JHJ 
 xawbv <xjpw7toj>, which cannot here denote in- 
 ternal reformation, as this could not be predi- 
 cated of all.) Cf. James, i. 18. Thus Peter 
 says, 1 Pet. i. 3, " God hath brought us to the 
 profession of Christianity (avayswrfias ^aj), in 
 order to enable us to obtain salvation." Paul 
 frequently says of those whom he had induced 
 to make profession of Christianity, that he had 
 begotten them (yvrav), Philem. v. 10; 1 Cor. 
 iv. 15; and w5tvi>, Gal. iv. 19. 
 
 (2) To denote the internal or moral renewal 
 of the heart and of the whole disposition of 
 man. This is the object of one's becoming a 
 Christian, to renounce the love of sin, and love 
 what is good, and to practice it from motives 
 of love to God and Christ. This state is ef- 
 fected in Christians by God, or the Holy Spirit, 
 through faith in Christ. The creation of a new 
 heart (reformed disposition) is mentioned in 
 this sense, even in the Old Testament, Ezek. 
 xxxvi. 2628; Ps. li. 12. In other passages 
 the term circumcision of heart is used, Deut. x. 
 16; elsewhere a new heart, a new spirit, a new 
 mind, which has God for its author, Ezek. xi. 
 19, 20 ; Psalm 1., li. ; Is. i., &c. In this sense 
 Paul speaks of putting on the new man, and 
 putting off the old man, of a new creature, after 
 the image of God, Ephes. iv. 22, 24, and Col. 
 iii. 9, 10, and avaxaivuoi$ vo6$, Rom. xii. 2, and 
 ttvcu/covKj^at to rtvsvpati,, Ephes. iv. 23, seq. 
 Here belong all the texts, in John and else- 
 where, which teach that man must be born of 
 God, or the Holy Spirit i. e., become his child, 
 love him, in disposition and conduct resemble 
 him, that he may be loved by God in return; 
 for all which he is indebted to God or to the 
 Holy Spirit, 1 John, iii. 9; v. 1 ; John, i. 12, 
 13. Cf. the remarks respecting vlo&Oia, s. 119, 
 I. 1. These different terms, therefore, refer to 
 one and the same thing. 
 
 (3) In many passages these two senses are 
 combined, because internal regeneration is the 
 object of external regeneration; exactly as in 
 the case of 7tia*p$iv. Among other texts 
 is John, iii. 3, 5, Whoever is not born of bap- 
 tism and the Holy Spirit (i. e., does not conse- 
 crate himself by baptism to the profession of my 
 religion, and does not become, through divine 
 assistance, a reformed man, a child of God, a 
 friend of God, like him in moral character) can- 
 not be considered a member of the Messiah's 
 kingdom (j3affitaia sou)." Hence baptism is 
 called, Tit. iii. 5, hovtpbv rtaTu.yysvm'aj, because 
 we are not only solemnly admitted by this rite 
 into the Christian society, but are likewise 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 441 
 
 thereby obligated, according to the precepts of 
 Christ, to become reformed in character; and 
 on this condition have all the rights and re- 
 wards of God's children granted and assured to 
 us. So the Rabbins expressed themselves with 
 regard to the baptism of proselytes. And for 
 this reason the most ancient fathers, Ignatius 
 and Justin, call baptism a 
 
 further shewn, s. 127. This change always 
 presupposes an entire revolution in the views 
 and feelings of the subject of it; he begins 
 thenceforward to love and practise good instead 
 of evil. This was the great subject of the 
 preaching of John the Baptist; Metavoeite was 
 his continual theme, Matt. iii. 2, 11 ; Luke, iii. 
 8. The same may be said of Christ, Mark, i. 
 15. It here denotes a radical alteration, or a 
 change by which an entirely new direction is 
 given to one's life and efforts. Hence the 
 phrases which occur so frequently, prtavotiv 
 artb "cZ*v o/tapr'twv or tpywv vsxpuv, Acts, viii. 
 22; Heb. vi. 1. Hence, too, ^stavoetv and ini- 
 otptysw are interchanged as synonymous, Acts, 
 iii. 19, 26; Rom. ii. 4. 
 
 (3) The writers of the New Testament fre- 
 quently connect the two meanings of the word 
 pttoLvoiu together, since the object of an exter- 
 nal change of religion is always the improve- 
 ment of the heart. Acts, xi. 18, " God hath 
 granted even to the heathen pftdvoiav elf ur t v. 
 The ancient ecclesiastical fathers, even in the 
 Latin church, also connected with this word the 
 idea of repentance and reformation in the moral 
 sense; and Lactantius proposes well (Inst. Div. 
 vi. 24) to render it by the word resipiscentia. 
 But the word commonly employed in Latin 
 theology was pcenitentia, by which the Vulgate 
 renders fisTavota ; which is not, indeed, incorrect 
 in itself, but often rather ambiguous, and some- 
 times quite inappropriate. Cf. Morus, p. 224, 
 s. 2. After the fourth century writers began to 
 understand this word according to the Latin 
 etymology, and to vary from the usage of the 
 Bible. The influence of Augustine contributed 
 to the wide diffusion of this error. He insisted 
 upon the derivation of the word p&nitentia from 
 punio or pcenio ,- because man himself punishes 
 his own sins, and therefore receives forgiveness. 
 P&nitentia est qusedam dokntis VINDICTA, semper 
 PUNIENS in se, quod dolet commisisse, De Pcenit., 
 c. 8. He was followed by other Latin teachers, 
 especially by Peter of Lombardy and other 
 schoolmen. The unscriptural idea that pocni- 
 tentia is not only repentance for past sins, but 
 punishment, self-inflicted, on account of them, 
 has prevailed widely not only in the Romish 
 but also in the protestant church. 
 
 This sort of pcenitentia is expressed in the 
 Roman church by the German terms, Busse (pe- 
 nance, punishment, in the shape of a fine or 
 mulct), Busse thun (to do penance"), biissen (to 
 atone), the last of which terms expresses more 
 clearly the false associated idea. Many pro- 
 testants have therefore wished that when the 
 error of the Romish church implied in this term 
 was abandoned, this term itself, which so easily 
 leads into mistake, had also been given up. 
 Christ has freed us from the punishment of sin, 
 and an atonement on our part is not possible. 
 
442 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Even when we repent (pstavoelv) i. e., alter 
 and reform, we make no atonement, but we re- 
 ceive great blessings. Vide the Apology of the 
 Augsburg Confession, c. v. and vi. But there 
 is no word in German [and the same is true in 
 English] which answers fully to the Greek 
 pstdvoia. And if the scriptural idea of this term 
 is explained in the early catechetical instruc- 
 tions, the inaptness of the terms by which it is 
 rendered need not be so much regretted, since 
 people in common life are not accustomed to 
 take words in their etymological sense. 
 
 IV. Scriptural idea of terms denoting Holiness or 
 
 Sanctity, (ayjwavi/r/, aytafffjidf, K. r. X., also 6<ridnjf, 
 
 3<no{. Heb. trip, with its derivatives.} 
 
 The words oyto$, oytan>, Eh,T> designate 
 primarily whatever is singled out, selected, or 
 best in its kind. Vide s. 29. It was first applied 
 in the ancient languages to external excellences 
 and privileges; afterwards, to those of an inter- 
 nal and moral nature. Hence arose the twofold 
 use of these terms in the Bible, which must not 
 be overlooked; they denote sanctitas externa, 
 and interna. 
 
 (1) All the Israelites are called by Moses 
 on?p, and holiness is ascribed to them without 
 respect to their moral conduct, but merely from 
 the circumstance that they were (externally) 
 separated from the Gentiles, and (external) pro- 
 fessors of the true religion. The same way of 
 speaking became common in respect to Chris- 
 tians, who are frequently called in the New 
 Testament oytot, ^yioKj^ot, merely from the 
 circumstance that they profess externally the 
 Christian religion, and belong externally to the 
 Christian community, and thus are distinguish- 
 ed from Jews and Gentiles. Hence all who 
 were received into the visible Christian church 
 by baptism, were called oy&ot, Christians, with- 
 out respect to their moral disposition, as appears 
 from the epistles to the Corinthians. 
 
 (2) These terms are also evidently used by 
 the sacred writers in a moral sense. Lev. xix. 
 2, " Be ye holy, for I am holy." Cf. 1 Pet. i. 
 14 1C. So dytactytos, in Rom. vi. 2^2, is the 
 same as Sixawavvr] in ver. 18, 19, virtue, righte- 
 ousness , dyuocrvvj?, 1 Thess. iii. 13, and dyxiv, 
 v. 23. 'Ayccw/to$, in Heb. xii. 14, is that with- 
 out which no man shall see the Lord. The same 
 is true of 6cw>$ and osio-r^j, Ephes. iv. 24 ; Luke, 
 i. 75, orftoT^s xai 8ixaioavvr;. It here denotes 
 that blamelessness of feeling and conduct which 
 is required, according to the divine precepts, 
 from a true worshipper of God, and especially 
 from a Christian, and also the habitual abhor- 
 rence of sin and love of moral excellence. Cf. 
 1 John, iii. 7, 5/xaioj iatt, xc&wj exsivo$ 8ixai6s 
 Itfiv Rom. vi. 18, Sovtevsiv Sixaiovvvy, coll. ver. 
 19, "He is dead to sin, and lives entirely for 
 virtue." In this way the Christian becomes 
 
 like God, and loves him from similarity of dis- 
 position, and in return is loved by God, as a 
 dutiful son who resembles his father is loved 
 by him. Man is destined for holiness, and the 
 happiness proportionately connected with it. 
 Vide s. 51, II. ; and when any one is admitted 
 into the community of the saints, (the Jews un- 
 der the old covenant, and Christians under the 
 new,) his holiness is the great object aimed at. 
 The church is designed to be schola sanctitatis. 
 Otherwise, his admission into the church and 
 his fellowship with the saints will be of no ad- 
 vantage to him ; indeed, his condemnation will 
 be aggravated in consequence of these privi- 
 leges. Holiness is therefore the evidence and 
 result of conversion, or of repentance and regene- 
 ration. One who is destitute of holiness, or 
 who is negligent in the pursuit of it, is not con- 
 verted, or born again, or has not repented. For 
 an account of the nice distinctions and techni- 
 cal definitions of the words conversion, regenera- 
 tion, repentance, renewal, sanctification, which 
 theologians formerly introduced into their sys- 
 tems, vide Morus, p. 223. [Also cf. Hahn, a. 
 523, if. TR.] 
 
 SECTION CXXVII. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF MORAL REFOR- 
 MATION ; ITS COMMENCEMENT; ON PUTTING 
 OFF REPENTANCE; AND ON LATE CONVERSIONS. 
 
 I. Scriptural Doctrine respecting Repentance and 
 Conversion / inferences from it ; and an Expla- 
 nation of Technical Terms. 
 
 (1) Two things are justly considered as es- 
 sential to the commencement of reformation 
 viz., the knowledge of sin as sin, and the sor- 
 row of soul arising from it, or bitter penitence 
 on account of sin and abhorrence for it. Chris- 
 tian repentance is therefore a lively knowledge, 
 agreeably to the precepts of the gospel, of the 
 sin which we have committed, as a great evil. 
 This knowledge is called lively when it is effi- 
 cacious and influences the will, in opposition to 
 a dead knowledge, which has no influence upon 
 the determinations of the mind. These two 
 things must belong to reformation of every 
 kind, and to whatever object it relates, for they 
 are founded in the very nature of the human 
 soul. Whenever a change takes place in human 
 views and feelings, whether entire or partial, it 
 is always effected by the same laws, and in- 
 volves the same general feelings. In order that 
 a man may renounce a particular vice, (suppose 
 drunkenness,) his understanding must first ap- 
 prehend it as a fault, and must see its injurious 
 consequences. The first effect is therefore pro- 
 duced upon the understanding, and next, through 
 that, upon the will. The lively conception of 
 the evil consequences of past transgression or 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 443 
 
 of habitual vice awakens sorrow for sin, aver- 
 sion to it, and a determination henceforward to 
 avoid it. But Christian reformation does not 
 consist in the giving up of particular sins and 
 vices, but in renouncing sinful dispositions and 
 principles, in the turning of the heart from the 
 love of sin to the love of goodness. Particular 
 outbreakings of sin may be compared with par- 
 ticular symptoms of a dangerous disease; at- 
 tempting to remove these will be in vain, unless 
 the disease itself is entirely cured. If this is 
 done, these symptoms of course disappear. In 
 the same way we should strive, not only to be 
 rid of particular sins, but to be renewed in the 
 whole temper of our souls. 
 
 The same things are essential to every kind 
 of reformation e. g., Jer. iii. 12, 13, where the 
 Israelites are exhorted to renounce their idola- 
 try ; and 2 Cor. vii. 8- 11, which describes the 
 feelings produced among the Corinthians by the 
 rebuke which Paul administered to them on ac- 
 count of their indulgence to the incestuous per- 
 son; and these feelings were the cause of their 
 reformation, or of their putting away the offence. 
 Here pstdvoM is said expressly to consist main- 
 ly in hvrtri xata sov, godly sorrow, which was 
 very beneficial to them after they became con- 
 scious of their guilt. Cf. Ezek. xviii. 21, seq. ; 
 Luke, iii. 10 14. 
 
 Now since the nature and operations of the 
 human soul are the same at all times, it is not 
 to be wondered at that the manner of moral re- 
 formation is described in the Old Testament as 
 essentially the same as in the New. And, in- 
 deed, the process of reformation could not be dif- 
 ferent in the Old Testament and the New, since 
 it depends upon the unaltered constitution of the 
 human soul, of which God himself is the author. 
 The experience of David, (after his affair with 
 Bathsheba,) recorded in Ps. li., is full of in- 
 struction on this point. It consists of the know- 
 ledge of his sin and desert of punishment, sor- 
 row, repentance, desire of forgiveness, the ear- 
 nest wish for reformation and for confirmed 
 goodness; also of love, confidence, and sincere 
 gratitude to God. Cf. Ps. xxxii. 
 
 The nature of reformation, and especially of 
 its commencement, are clearly described by 
 Christ in two parables. 
 
 (a) The parable of the pharisee and the pub- 
 lican, Luke, xviii. 9 14. The pharisee is very 
 proud of his virtues and merits, and thinks no 
 man is better than himself, and is fluent in 
 praise of his own good works. The publican 
 acknowledges his sins, is troubled, and peni- 
 tent. He utters the simple feeling of his heart 
 in the few words, * God be merciful to me, a 
 sinner." And Jesus decides, that the latter went 
 down to his house forgiven by God, the other 
 not. Here the man who believes that he shall 
 
 obtain the grace of God on account of his own 
 works or worthiness, through pride and selfish 
 blindness remains ignorant of himself and his 
 great imperfections, and does not see God as 
 holy and just. He is not therefore inclined to 
 embrace the doctrine of forgiveness through 
 grace without personal merit, and accordingly 
 he is not forgiven. This mistake is called self- 
 righteousness, from Rom. x. 3. Cf. Dan. ix. 
 18 ; Is. Ixiv. 6. This mistake is one of the most 
 injurious and dangerous, because the man who 
 makes it persuades himself that he does not 
 need reformation. 
 
 (>) The excellent parable of the prodigal son, 
 Luke, xv. The object of this parable is two- 
 fold. First, to shew in what way a man comes 
 to the knowledge of sin, and to the feeling of 
 guilt; how he must humble himself, and ac- 
 knowledge his unworthiness of the divine fa- 
 vours, and yet have confidence, and lay hold of 
 and embrace the undeserved forgiveness of God. 
 Secondly, this parable shews how gracious and 
 kind the feeHngs of God are, and how ready he 
 is to forgive the repentant sinner. Vide Luke, 
 xv. 7, 10. Cf. Tollner's Essays in his " Theol. 
 Unters." Bd. i. th. 2, s. 390, seq. ; " Busse 
 und Glauben ;" also, " Ueber die Parabel vom 
 verlornen Sohn." 
 
 (2) Sorrow for the sins we have committed, 
 (7w;t7, 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10,) which is also an es- 
 sential part of reformation, is called by theolo- 
 gians contrition, brokenness of heart, (Germ. 
 Zerknir scfiung.) Our older theologians justly 
 render and explain this term by the phrase Reue 
 und Leid, (penitence and sorrow.) The term is 
 taken from the Hebrew nn NST and 13& ; J ^S (lit. 
 wounded heart), Ps. xxxiv. 19 ; Is. Ivii. 19 ; Ps. 
 li. 19. Both of these terms are applied to a de- 
 sponding, contrite, troubled mind, whatever the 
 cause of the distress may be. Cf. Is. Ixi. 1, 
 and other passages cited by Morus, p. 218, h. 9. 
 The lively knowledge of sin as a great evil, ne- 
 cessarily involves unhappy feelings and sorrow, 
 (dolor animi, A/urt};,) Ps. li. 19; Jer. xxxi. 19; 
 Luke, xviii. 13. And since we are drawn away 
 to sin by the strength of our passions, and cold 
 reason is far too weak to afford the necessary 
 resistance, other feelings must be opposed to 
 those which incline us to sin, in order to coun- 
 teract their influence; for man is not merely a 
 rational being, but is composed of sense and 
 reason, (Germ. Verniinftig-sinnliches Wesen.) 
 Now it is a great object, and one of the chief 
 advantages of religion, to excite and maintain 
 these penitential feelings. Sorrow for sin is 
 highly beneficial in its influence, and is essen- 
 tially involved in true and radical reformation. 
 Hence Paul, 2 Cor. vii. 9, calls this penitence 
 and sorrow, iwjtqv xa-ta s6v, acceptable to God, 
 agreeable to his will and purpose because it 
 
444 
 
 CHRISTIAN 
 
 contributes to our salvation, (a? owr^ptav.) And 
 because it does so, it is a repentance not to be 
 repented of, (d^fta^t^^oj/.) 
 
 But this sorrow for sin is very different in de- 
 gree both as to strength (intensive) and continu- 
 ance, {extensive.'} Men differ exceedingly from 
 each other in respect to constitution, tempera- 
 ment, and the entire mental disposition. Ac- 
 cordingly, their feelings, and the manner in 
 which they express them, are very different. 
 No general rule can therefore be prescribed for 
 all, respecting the degree of sorrow which it is 
 necessary to feel, and the manner in which it 
 must be expressed. We have no definite mea- 
 sure of human feeling, no mathesis ajfectuum. 
 Let this, then, be the only rule by which we try 
 ourselves and others : Sorrow for sin is then only 
 sufficiently great (for the purpose of reformation) 
 when it produces in us a constant aversion to sin, 
 remaining through our whole lives. It implies 
 the sincere wish, Would that I had not trans- 
 gressed the divine commands, and also the ac- 
 knowledgment of the desert of punishment on 
 account of such transgression. But while one 
 is inclined from his very temperament to sorrow 
 and despondency, or to violent outbreakings of 
 feeling, another is naturally disposed to cheer- 
 fulness, is more considerate and reserved, and 
 gives little vent to his emotions. Besides, there 
 are different degrees, both of actual sin and of 
 inward corruption, in different men; and their 
 feelings of sorrow will of course vary accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 Sincerity of heart is the great requisite here; 
 Ps. xxxii. 2. It is on this only that God looks 
 with approbation. The accurate recollection of 
 each particular sin we have ever committed is 
 neither necessary nor possible. Still less are 
 the external, visible signs of penitence and sorrow 
 essential to reformation, unless they arise from 
 the deep, sincere sorrow of the heart. Whether 
 the feelings of the heart shall be expressed by 
 external signs depends wholly upon the differ- 
 ence of men as to natural temperament and or- 
 ganization. As to tears, lamentations, and 
 sighs, they are of very little consequence in this 
 matter. Provided the heart be renewed, whe- 
 ther it be with or without tears is a point of in- 
 difference. The tearless repentance of a man 
 of a sedate cast of mind may be more sincere 
 and acceptable to God than the penitence of a 
 person of a more effeminate mould, which is 
 attended with sighing and weeping, but which 
 often passes soon away and leaves no abiding 
 effects. Cf. 124, I. II. We should beware, 
 however, of considering persons to be hypocrites 
 because they make these violent demonstrations 
 of feeling a rash decision too often made! On 
 this point we are liable to mistake, and religious 
 teachers have often, from the earliest times, 
 been in fault here. Many made too much of the 
 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 term contrition, and undertook to lay down de- | 
 finite rules on this subject, and appealed to 
 some examples and passages in the Bible, 
 which are not, however, universally applica- 
 ble e. g., the repentance of David, Mary Mag- 
 dalene, Peter, and the repentance in sackcloth 
 and ashes mentioned in the Old Testament, * 
 Which, however, does not describe reformation 
 of heart, but the public external rites employed 
 in case of pestilence and other great calamities. 
 Such vehement expressions of feeling are not 
 required of all men. The example of David, 
 who spent three quarters of a year in trouble on 
 account of his sins, is frequently mentioned 
 here. But he had himself to blame for this ; 
 since he himself confesses, Psalm xxxii. 3, 4, 
 that he endeavoured to keep silence respecting 
 his sins i. e., to exculpate himself before God, 
 to palliate his guilt, and to avoid the necessity 
 of humble confession and penitence. As soon 
 as he acknowledged his sin and repented of it, 
 God forgave him, ver. 5. 
 
 Christianity does not lay down any definite 
 rule, or prescribe any artificial efforts by which 
 this moral change must be effected. It requires 
 from each nothing but what is adapted to his 
 nature. Peter wept, and considering his cha- 
 racter and his crime, this was natural. The 
 publican only sighed. Zacchaeus does not ap- 
 pear to have done either the one or the other. 
 And yet the penitence and reformation of all 
 was acceptable in the sight of God. 
 
 According to the precepts of Christianity this 
 change must result in the suppression of the 
 reigning desires of the flesh, and in restoring 
 dominion to those principles of reason which 
 are conformable to the will of God ; and thus 
 renovating the whole man, and making him, 
 before carnal (cropxtxoj), to be spiritual (jtvevpa,' 
 ftxoj), obedient to the precepts of Christianity, 
 and in a state prepared to enjoy the guidance 
 and assistance of God, or the Holy Spirit. Cf. 
 Romans, vii. 25; viii. 1, seq. 
 
 Theologians call the reformation of men who 
 were before entirely rude and savage, pceniten- 
 tiam primam, or magnum ; that of those who 
 are in a better moral condition, but still need 
 reformation, posnitentiam stantium, or secundam, 
 or quotidianam. And all, even the greatest 
 saints on earth, stand in need of this daily re- 
 pentance, though in different degrees. None 
 can justly consider themselves perfect. Alt 
 must acknowledge themselves sinners, deficient 
 and imperfect. So the whole scriptures require 
 us to feel ; and everywhere insist upon sincere 
 and unpretending humility, and condemn the 
 opposite dispositions. 
 
 (3) Sorrow or penitence for sin must flow 
 from the knowledge of sin i. e., from a con- 
 sciousness that we have acted contrary to the 
 divine law, and therefore deserve divine punish- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 445 
 
 ments. Hence it follows that we should impar- 
 tially examine our actions according to the law 
 of God. Now when one sees that he has been 
 ungrateful and disobedient, and rendered him- 
 self unworthy of the divine favour; when, in 
 view of this, he feels sorrow and sincere peni- 
 tence, and begs God to pardon his sins and 
 avert deserved punishment; this is called mak- 
 ing confession of sin to God, (confessio.") This 
 is not, then, as some would have it, a particular 
 part of repentance. It is the opposite of con- 
 cealing, exculpating, palliating one's sins before 
 God, (refusing to acknowledge them as such, 
 and to seek forgiveness for them.) Proverbs, 
 xxviii. 13, " He that covereth his sins shall not 
 prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh 
 them shall have mercy." So Christ represents 
 it in the parable of the prodigal son, Luke, xv. 
 Vide Psalm xxxii. 3 -6; Dan. ix. 4; 1 John, 
 i. 8, where saying we have no sin is opposed to 
 o/iotoycafc apaptiwj ver. 9, to acknowledge 
 and repent of sin. 
 
 The Bible says nothing of the necessity 
 which the Romish church teaches of making 
 confession to men as to representatives of God. 
 It recommends, however, the practice of con- 
 fessing our faults to experienced Christians, and 
 of opening to them the state of our hearts, as 
 conducive to vital religion. Cf. James, v. 16. 
 
 (4) Sorrow for sin and hatred and abhorrence 
 of it are always founded on a previous know- 
 ledge of sin; but they are produced in two 
 ways viz., 
 
 (a) By contemplation of the divine precepts 
 and the penalty threatened in the law against 
 transgressors. The divine laws were given for 
 our highest good. Every violation of them both 
 destroys the happiness flowing from obedience 
 and incurs the punishment annexed to disobe- 
 dience. When the sinner seriously revolves 
 such considerations as these, he must necessa- 
 rily feel mingled emotions of shame, terror, 
 anxiety on his own account, and abhorrence for 
 sin itself. We find that Christ and the apos- 
 tles made use of these considerations in order 
 to awaken a salutary fear in the minds of their 
 hearers. Vide Matt. in. 7, 10; Luke, iii. 3, 
 seq.; Heb. x. 29, seq. This is called by the 
 schoolmen and in the Romish church, attritio, 
 or, as Thomas Aquinas has it, contritio informis 
 i. e., imperfecta, inchohata, (dolor de peccato e 
 metu pcenarum.) 
 
 (6) By contemplation of the divine promises 
 contained in the gospel. When we consider, 
 on one side, the undeserved love and kindness 
 of God, exhibited in so many ways, and espe- 
 cially through Christ, and which has sought 
 in every possible manner to lead us to true hap- 
 piness in this life and the life to come, and has 
 invited and encouraged us by the greatest pro- 
 mises, (John, iii. 16;) and when we consider, 
 
 on the other side, our own levity and negligence, 
 our wilful rejection of the means of good offered 
 us by God ; when we consider all this, we must 
 be constrained to feel the deepest penitence and 
 shame, abhorrence for sin, and love to God and 
 Christ who have done so much for us. These 
 motives have a great and mighty efficacy in 
 promoting radical reformation. Jesus and the 
 apostles use these motives more frequently than 
 any others. Their whole heart, as it were, lives 
 in them. Vide John, iii. 16; xxi. 15, seq.; 1 
 Pet. iv. 13 ; Tit. ii. 10, 11. The schoolmen 
 and the Romish church call this contritionem 
 (dolorem de peccato e dilectione oriundum.} Thus 
 this very consideration of the great blessings 
 for which we are indebted to Christ leads to 
 faith in him. He who knows that much has 
 been forgiven him, loves much, Luke, vii. 47. 
 Since Christ has done so much for us, and has 
 even died for us, we are led to place our whole 
 trust in him, and look to him for all our happi- 
 ness, and to obey his commands from grateful 
 love, John, iii. 5, 14 21. We see that by our 
 sins we are rendered unhappy, that by our own 
 merit we cannot obtain the favour of God, not 
 even by our best works. Hence we confide in 
 Christ, and seek through faith in him to obtain 
 forgiveness of God,sx itl<Miv>$ Stxauo^jjvcu, Gal. 
 iii. 24. In this way we become children of God, 
 (Tloi ov Sta, TtiWswf ev Xpttfr^, ver. 26,) be- 
 loved of God, and blessed by him. 
 
 Many of the schoolmen and theologians of 
 the Romish church reject altogether the motives 
 first mentioned, asserting that they are not at all 
 promotive of our moral improvement. The An- 
 tinomians of the sixteenth century expressed 
 themselves in a similar manner with many 
 others. It is true that this attrition may be so 
 abused as to lead to a despair which will abso- 
 lutely prevent instead of promoting reformation. 
 But still when it is cautiously made use of, espe- 
 cially in the case of rude and uncultivated men, 
 it produces a very good effect, and is therefore 
 employed in the Old Testament, by John the 
 Baptist, and Jesus himself, with many classes 
 of hearers. Some are entirely incapable of the 
 tender emotions to which the appeal is made in 
 this second class of motives. Their heart must 
 be broken and softened before it can become 
 susceptible of the motives of the gospel. There 
 is in this respect the same difference even in 
 adult persons that there is between children, 
 some of whom are ill-mannered and rude, and 
 others docile and well-disposed. The wise 
 teacher will employ different means with these 
 different cases ; and so must also the teacher 
 of religion. Vide Tollner's Essay (No. 1) 
 "Busse und Glauben." 
 
 When one is reformed, the love of sin, now 
 renounced, is succeeded in his mind by holiness, 
 diligence in duty, or pious Christian dispositions 
 2P 
 
446 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 and a holy Christian walk. Cf. s. 126, IV. 
 Hence some theologians of the Lutheran church 
 in the sixteenth century, took pcenitentia in so 
 wide a sense as to include/art^ and diligence 
 in good works. 
 
 Morus (p. 216, 217, s. 2) has given a good 
 summary statement of the different parts of re- 
 formation here separately considered. The in- 
 ward man is principally regarded in Christian 
 reformation. The object is not merely to re- 
 strain the gross outbreakings of sin, but to rec- 
 tify the whole disposition and heart, so that 
 the subject of it will henceforth act from entirely 
 different motives and principles. The holy 
 scriptures, both of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments, insist everywhere that the vovs, xapSt'a, 
 Ttvev/ta, 6 ff av^pwrtoj, must be renovated. The 
 terms, circumcision of the heart, new heart, reno- 
 vation, regeneration, new creature, all express 
 this truth. Vide John, iii. 1 21 ; also No. vi. 
 in " Scripta Varii Jlrgumenti," above cited. If 
 any one expects to succeed, by attempting to 
 amend externally, or in any other way than by 
 a radical change of heart, he will be disapoint- 
 ed. Vide No. i. 1. 
 
 II. Delay of Repentance ; and late Conversion. 
 
 This subject is treated more fully in Chris- 
 tian ethics. 
 
 (1) The danger and evil of delaying reforma- 
 tion, (a) The danger and difficulties. The 
 longer one continues in sin the more fixed be- 
 comes his habit of sinning, and of course the 
 more difficulty will he find in breaking loose 
 from it. He will thus become more and more 
 the slave of sin, and be constantly bound with 
 stronger chains. The longer therefore reforma- 
 tion is deferred, the more difficult it becomes. 
 Besides, external circumstances are not in our 
 power. Many die suddenly ; others lose the 
 use of their reason, or in their last moments are 
 entirely unfitted for the mental efforts which are 
 requisite for attending to the important concerns 
 of religion, &c. (6) There must always be an 
 evil and injury attending late reformations, 
 however thorough and sincere they may be. 
 God proportions the rewards he bestows to the 
 degree of zeal which one shews in goodness, 
 and to the length of time during which he has 
 exhibited it. Vide s. 125, II. One who has 
 just commenced a virtuous course, and has 
 made but little advancement in it, cannot expect 
 a great reward. In the future life, he must re- 
 main inferior to others, and thus suffer for his 
 remissness and negligence. 
 
 (2) The opinions of theologians have always 
 been very much divided on the question as to 
 the possibility of late repentance, and the worth 
 of it. Vide the history of these opinions in He- 
 gelmeyer's Diss. "de sera pcenitentia," p. i. ; 
 Tubingen, 1780. 
 
 First. Most hold, with truth, that late reform- 
 ation is possible, and that God may pardon 
 (though with the limitations mentioned, No. 1) 
 even those who defer repentance to the last, if 
 it is then thorough and sincere. They hold, 
 however, for the reasons above given, that such 
 late conversions are very doubtful, and that 
 great caution should be used in speaking confi- 
 dently of the salvation of those who put off reli- 
 gion to the last, lest this should tend to confirm 
 others, to their great injury, in their prevailing 
 errors. It is unsafe for men to pronounce any 
 opinion in such a case. For there is no evi- 
 dence of true faith but the works of the life. 
 None but God can look into the heart. But 
 since God can look into the very soul ; since he 
 will forgive, without exception, all who sin- 
 cerely repent of their sins, and ask forgiveness 
 through Christ, in the way which he has pre- 
 scribed, (1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 9;) and since 
 the grace of God is limited to no time, to no ter* 
 minum gratiae peremptorium, (s. 1 13, 1. 3 ;) there 
 can be no doubt, in abstracto, but that God will 
 really forgive those who seek for pardon, though 
 it may be late, if their desire be only sincere 
 and earnest. He will bestow even upon such 
 that happiness and reward of which they are 
 susceptible. The example of the malefactor on 
 the cross (Luke, xxiii. 40 43) is justly refer- 
 red to in behalf of this opinion. The Christian 
 doctrine justifies us in promising pardon and 
 mercy to all, even the greatest sinners, at all 
 limes, provided they will only accept these 
 offers. To cut off, therefore, an unhappy dying 
 man from all hope, and to thrust him into de- 
 spair, is without scriptural warrant, and highly 
 presumptuous and cruel. 
 
 Secondly. Others regard late repentance as 
 impossible, and hold that one who has deferred 
 it to the last cannot hope for pardon; because, 
 they say, late repentance never can be true or 
 sincere, and this is a condition indispensable to 
 forgiveness. They appeal to the example of 
 many who in prospect of death gave signs of 
 repentance, but who, as soon as danger was 
 past, became worse than before. 
 
 But (a) there are also examples of a different 
 kind examples of those who, like the thief on 
 the cross, became repentant and believing in 
 circumstances of imminent danger, and who yet 
 have afterwards manifested an unshaken fidelity. 
 (b) Those who advocate this opinion often mis- 
 take the want of perseverance in faith for the 
 want of sincerity in it. (c) The examples men- 
 tioned do not prove that late repentance is never 
 sincere and thorough, but only that it is not 
 always so ; which indeed is true. 
 
 The great argument, however, which is used 
 on this side is, that conversion is not the work of 
 a moment, (not subitanea or instantanea,} but 
 requires time, earnestness, zeal, practice. This 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 447 
 
 is true from the very nature of the human mind. 
 But this only proves the great difficulty, the 
 uncertainty and danger of such late conver- 
 sions, and not the entire impossibility of them. 
 Many men, in whom the work of conversion is 
 not completed, are still not entirely evil and 
 destitute of all good. The seed of goodness 
 frequently lies in their hearts, while its growth 
 and fruitfulness are impeded and prevented by 
 various internal and external hindrances. But 
 this work may have been silently and unob- 
 servedly going on in the midst of these difficul- 
 ties. And now unexpectedly some external 
 circumstance occurs as a means of awakening. 
 The person hears a moving exhortation, is re- 
 minded of some promise or threatening from 
 the Bible, is placed in imminent danger, or in 
 some such manner is aroused, and impelled to 
 attend more earnestly to the concerns of his 
 soul. These circumstances depend on Divine 
 Providence, and God makes use of them as 
 means for the conversion of men. This appears 
 o have been the case with the malefactor on the 
 cross. Probably there had been a long prepa- 
 ration in his mind for the result to which he 
 hen came. The passage, Heb. vi. 4 6, 'A8v- 
 vatov rtapartsaovtas cwaxcuvi^fiv fi$ /Aftdvoiav, 
 has no relation to this point. This passage 
 refers to those who persevere in apostasy, and 
 the rejection of religion. The phrase, u&vva.'tov 
 Itfft, means only that it is impossible for men. 
 Cf. Matt. xix. 26. 
 
 Those theologians who differ so widely from 
 the Bible as to hold that the forgiveness of men 
 depends altogether upon their holiness or obedi- 
 ence to the divine commandments, and not upon 
 faith in Christ and his atonement, are indeed 
 hard pressed in this point. If they would be 
 consistent, they must deny salvation to those 
 who delay repentance till just before the close 
 of life, and who therefore do not exhibit the 
 fruits of this change. So even Steinbart 
 thought. The holy scriptures, on the contrary, 
 teach that God forgives men on account of their 
 faith in Jesus Christ; that holiness is the con- 
 sequence of this faith, and that without this 
 faith in Christ man is not able to live holy. 
 Now if a man, whose reformation begins with 
 faith, is prevented by death from exhibiting the 
 fruits of this faith, (which, however, he would 
 have exhibited had he lived longer,) he cannot, 
 on this account, be excluded by God from hap- 
 piness ; although his happiness will be less than 
 that of others who have pursued a long course 
 of active virtue. Thus we might conclude in 
 abstracto ; the determination in particular given 
 cases must be left with God. 
 
 Note. The work of Noesselt, " Ueber den 
 Werth derMoralundspatenBesserung," (Halle, 
 1777, 8vo, Ausg. 2, 1783 ; especially s. 220, 
 seq.,) contains much on this subject which is ex- 
 
 cellent. This work was occasioned by the unset- 
 tled, partial, and indefinite views contained in 
 many works on this subject, especially in those 
 which held up the opinion that late repentance 
 is impossible or of no avail ; such, for example, 
 as that of Saurin, " On the Delay of Conver- 
 sion;" Edward Harwood, "On the Invalidity 
 of Repentance on the Death-bed ;" and Stein- 
 bart, on the question * What Value can be al- 
 lowed to Sudden Conversions, especially on the 
 Death-bed ; and what is it advisable publicly to 
 teach on this subject?" Berlin, 1770, 8vo. 
 
 SECTION CXXVIII. 
 
 REMARKS ON THE FALSE OPINIONS AND PERVER- 
 SIONS CONCERNING THE DOCTRINE OF REPENT- 
 ANCE, WHICH HAVE BEEN GRADUALLY ADOPTED 
 IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 MOST of these mistakes have arisen from false 
 ideas, agreeing with the depraved inclinations of 
 the human heart, respecting forgiveness of stn, 
 propitiating God, and the merit of good works. 
 Cf. s. 108, and s. 125, III. 
 
 I. Penance of the Excommunicated. 
 
 The apostles and other ancient Christian 
 teachers held that it is the prerogative of God 
 alone to forgive sin, and that men are bound to 
 confess their sins to him, and to seek forgiveness 
 from him. So taught Justin the Martyr (Apol. 
 2), and others. But even as early as the times 
 of the apostles the custom (which had before 
 prevailed among the Jews) of excommunicating 
 gross offenders from the church (d^opto^oj) was 
 adopted by Christians, and was indeed necessary 
 at that time. The rites attending restoration to 
 the church became constantly more numerous 
 and complex during the second, third, and fourth 
 centuries. Those who were restored were com- 
 pelled to perform pub lie penance, (pcenitentia pub- 
 /z'ca.) The excommunicated person (lapsus) was 
 bound (1) to labour to convince the church of 
 the reality of his penitence and reformation. 
 He appeared therefore in public in a mourning 
 dress ; he fasted, wept, and begged for prayers, 
 (contritio.) (2) He was bound to make a pub- 
 lic confession of sin, and to ask forgiveness of 
 the church; and this, in order to humble him and 
 to warn others, (confessio.} (3) His undergo- 
 ing these and other trials and punishments im- 
 posed upon him as the condition of his being 
 readmitted, was called satisfactio , and he ob- 
 tained pacem. Vide Morini Tractatus de poeni- 
 tentise sacramento. This was originally only 
 church discipline, and nobody pretended that it 
 was connected with the forgiveness of sins by 
 God, who looks not upon the outward man, but 
 upon the heart. Indeed, Montanus in the se- 
 cond century, and Novatian in the third, though 
 they were so rigorous in church discipline that 
 
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 they were unwilling to readmit a person who 
 had been once excluded, did not deny that he 
 might obtain forgiveness from God. 
 
 II. Penance supposed the means of obtaining the 
 Forgiveness of God. 
 
 We find that the great body of Christians 
 since the second century have entertained very 
 erroneous apprehensions respecting this excom- 
 munication. Many believed (although the doc- 
 trine was not as yet formally sanctioned by the 
 authority of the church) that a person by being 
 excommunicated from the church is also ex- 
 cluded from communion with God. But they 
 also held that when the church forgives a person 
 and admits him again to their fellowship, God 
 also forgives him and admits him to his favour. 
 And this opinion was more dangerous in its ten- 
 dency than the former. The church, and espe- 
 cially those who ruled over it, who had the most 
 to say in this matter, came to be regarded more 
 and more as the representatives of God. Vide s. 
 135, 1. Hence great importance was attached to 
 the external rite in the read mission of the excom- 
 municated. The idea became prevalent, that 
 God is influenced, and moved as it were to com- 
 passion, by fasting, weeping, kneeling, begging, 
 and sighing. In short, it was believed that a per- 
 son could obtain forgiveness of God by the same 
 external means by which the favour and forgive- 
 ness of the church and its rulers could be obtained. 
 And the teachers of religion often contributed to 
 the increase of such errors by insisting injudi- 
 ciously upon these external rites. Even Origen 
 sometimes expressed himself in this unguarded 
 manner e. g., in Homil. 15 in Levit. After 
 the fourth century, the service of God was made 
 to consist more and more in mere outward cere- 
 monies. 
 
 III. Auricular Confession. 
 
 When the Christian church was much en- 
 larged, the Grecian church in the third century, 
 and the Western church in the third and fourth, 
 commuted the public confession of the excom- 
 municated for private confession to be made to 
 a presbyter appointed for that purpose. Vide 
 Sozom. ix. 35. This too was soon abolished in 
 the Grecian church, but it was retained in the 
 Latin church. Hence arose by degrees the prac- 
 tice of auricular confession, and then, slowly, the 
 whole system of public penance. At first the 
 lapsi only were bound to confess their grosser 
 offences to spiritual guides, before they could be 
 reinstated and allowed to approach the holy sup- 
 per. But in process of time, every Christian 
 was required to confess to the clergy all his 
 sins, even the least of them, before he could be 
 admitted to the Lord's table. The clergy and 
 the monks confirmed the populace in the persua- 
 sion, to which it was itself predisposed, that con- 
 
 fession to the priest was the same as confession 
 to God ; and that the priests gave absolution in 
 God's stead. 
 
 This much-abused principle, that confession 
 must be made to spiritual teachers and the heads 
 of the church, is found very early, even in the 
 third century e. g., in the writings of Origen 
 (Homil. in Levit.), and especially of the Latin 
 fathers, Cyprian, Hieronymus, and Augustine. 
 They compared the presbyter with a physician, 
 who cannot heal a disease if he is not made 
 acquainted with it. In all these rites, there is 
 much which is good, and which might be prac- 
 tised to great advantage, and, indeed, was so in 
 the early church. But afterwards, when the 
 priesthood and laity had both very much dege- 
 nerated, they were greatly perverted and mis- 
 applied. 
 
 IV. Penance imposed by the Clergy. 
 
 At first the church imposed the satisfaction to 
 be made by offenders. This was now done by 
 the ecclesiastic, to whom confession was made. 
 The penalties imposed by him were now no 
 longer considered merely as satisfaction given to 
 the church. It was believed, that by these same 
 means God is rendered propitious and his judg- 
 ments are averted. It was also believed that 
 the teachers and ministers of the church are the 
 representatives of God. These ministers were 
 now frequently compared, as indeed they had 
 been during the third century, with the Leviti- 
 cal priests, who, in God's stead, imposed pu- 
 nishments for the purpose of atoning for sin, 
 such as prayers, fasts, almsgiving, and other rites 
 and gifts, which were now looked upon as me- 
 ritorious good works, s. 125. The ecclesiastics 
 and monks had books of penance, in which the 
 penalties were assigned for each particular sin. 
 Vide Joh. Dallaus, De prenis et satisfactionibus 
 humanis; Amst. 1649. 
 
 V. The Doctrine of Indulgences. 
 
 At last the doctrine of indulgences was intro- 
 duced. This was destructive of all morality. 
 The practices of penance and confession which, 
 at least during the darker periods of the middle 
 ages, maintained to some degree an external 
 discipline and order, fell at once into neglect 
 and disuse. For by means of indulgences the 
 people obtained remission of the penances, and 
 freedom from the canonical or ecclesiastical pu- 
 nishments of sin, which were imposed by their 
 father confessors. These indulgences were first 
 granted by the bishops, when an individual of- 
 fered of his own accord to perform some good 
 work, to give alms, to found charitable institu- 
 tions, to build churches, &c. They were after- 
 wards sold for mere money. After some time 
 the pope appropriated the trade in indulgences 
 to himself, and durino- the thirteenth and four- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 449 
 
 teenth centuries carried on a wide extended mo- 
 nopoly in this business. Indulgences could 
 now be purchased even for future sins. It was 
 the prevailing belief that these indulgences de- 
 liver not only from canonical punishments 
 i. e., from those imposed by the laws of the vi- 
 sible church, but also from the divine punish- 
 ments, since the pope is the vicar of God and 
 of Christ. After the thirteenth century this 
 practice was sustained by the doctrine de thesauro 
 bonorum operum, which the church, and espe- 
 cially the pope, the head of the church, were 
 supposed to hold at their disposal, s. 125. The 
 abuses attending this practice gave occasion to 
 the reformation in Germany and Switzerland in 
 the sixteenth century. 
 
 VI. Scholastic System of Penance. 
 
 These erroneous opinions, which had gra- 
 dually arisen, were brought into a formal scho- 
 lastic system by the schoolmen, and especially 
 by Peter of Lombardy in the twelfth, and Tho- 
 mas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. The 
 whole doctrine of the Bible respecting moral 
 reformation and a change of heart was thus 
 changed into a matter of external penance. This 
 became the prevailing system of the Romish 
 church, and all these principles of the school- 
 men were sanctioned by the Council at Trent, 
 Sess. 14. 
 
 The following are the main principles of the 
 schoolmen viz., 
 
 (1) Poenitentia is derived from punio, accord- 
 ing to Augustine, and therefore denotes the pu- 
 nishment of oneself . Hence originally the Ger- 
 man Busse, Avhich signifies, punishment, atone- 
 ment, &c. Vide s. 126, IV. 
 
 (2) Each particular sin must be atoned for by 
 particular satisfactions. 
 
 (3) Therefore every Christian must confess 
 all his sins to the minister of the church, as a 
 priest and judge, placed in God's stead. 
 
 (4) Conversion, therefore, consists of three 
 things viz., contritio, or compunctio cordis, con- 
 fessio oris, (to the priest in God's stead,) and 
 satisfactio operis, (satisfaction rendered by per- 
 forming the penances imposed.) All this was 
 borrowed from the ancient ecclesiastical disci- 
 pline. Vide No. I., on the distinction between 
 attritio and contritio. Cf. s. 127, 1. 3. 
 
 (5) This satisfaction, or atonement, must be 
 made by prayer, alms, fasts, and other external 
 rites and bodily chastisements. Accordingly, 
 Peter of Lombardy says, Oratio dominica delet 
 minima et quotidiana peccata. Suffkit oratio do- 
 minica cum eleemosynis et jejunio. Vide s. 108. 
 
 (6) This pwna satisfactoria, which must, in 
 the usual course, be endured, may be somewhat 
 remitted, says Thomas Aquinas, by means of 
 indulgences. But this principle was afterwards 
 very much extended. Vide No. v. 
 
 57 
 
 (7) One who is not absolved of his pardon- 
 able sins by rendering such satisfactions goes 
 at death into purgatory, where, in the midst 
 of torments, he must make atonement for them. 
 The doctrine de purgatorio was propagated dur- 
 ing the fourth century in the West, and univer- 
 sally prevailed from the ninth to the eleventh 
 centuries. It was believed, however, that souls 
 could be freed from purgatory, or, at least, 
 that their continuance there could be shortened 
 by having masses said for their souls. Vide 
 s. 150. 
 
 ARTICLE XII. 
 
 ON THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE ; OR THE DI- 
 VINE INSTITUTIONS FOR PROMOTING RE- 
 PENTANCE AND FAITH; S. 12S-133, INCLU- 
 SIVE. 
 
 SECTION CXXIX. 
 
 EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS " GRACE, OPERA- 
 TIONS OF GRACE, MEANS OF GRACE," AND 
 OTHER PHRASES EMPLOYED IN THEOLOGY ON 
 
 THIS SUBJECT; AND THE CONNEXION OF THIS 
 DOCTRINE WITH THE PRECEDING. 
 
 
 
 I. Connexion of this Doctrine with the foregoing , 
 and the Import of it. 
 
 THE whole Christian doctrine is given by 
 God to men in order-to bring them to faith and 
 repentance, and consequently to eternal happi- 
 ness. For they are not capable of this happi- 
 ness until they perform the conditions described 
 in Article xi. But, as the scriptures teach us, 
 we are not at present in a condition to amend 
 ourselves, and by our own powers to fulfil 
 these conditions, without some higher assistance 
 and guidance of God. This incompetency is 
 owing to the power of sense, and its preponder- 
 ance over reason, or, which is the same thing, 
 to natural depravity. Vide sec. 77 80. Now, 
 though man needs a moral change, his will, / 
 according to both scripture and experience, 
 being in a high degree depraved, he is yet 
 unable, without divine help and assistance, 
 either to awaken within himself earnest desires 
 after holiness, or to execute the good purposes 
 he may form, and persevere in them, or to 
 perform the other conditions upon which his 
 salvation depends. All the arrangements, there- 
 fore, which God has made, in order to produce 
 in those who live in Christian lands faith in 
 Christ and a change of heart, and to secure 
 their continuance, and thus to bring men to the 
 enjoyment of the promised salvation, are called 
 by the general name of grace, or the operations 
 2 p2 
 
450 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 of divine grace, (operationes gratis?, German, 
 Gnudenwirkungcn. ) 
 
 II. The Various Names by which these Operations 
 are commonly designated in Theology. 
 
 (1) Gratia. By this term is understood, in 
 theology, the divine operations or power (assist- 
 ance} exerted in producing repentance or con- 
 version. It is contrasted with nature, and by 
 this is meant, the natural powers of man, which, 
 on account of his depravity, are regarded as too 
 weak and insufficient to effect this moral reno- 
 vation, and therefore need to be elevated and 
 strengthened by God. The state of one who is 
 enlightened by Christian doctrine, and by a 
 faithful use of it, under divine assistance, is re- 
 newed, is called a state of grace, (status gratiae.} 
 This is opposed to the natural state, (status na- 
 turae, or naturalis,') by which is meant the state 
 of one who is not as yet enlightened by the 
 Christian doctrine, or renovated by its influ- 
 ence, and has not yet experienced the assist- 
 ance of God. Morus, pages 234, 235. Augus- 
 tine first used the word gratia to denote the su- 
 pernatural agency of God in conversion. He 
 held this agency to be, in reality, miraculous, 
 and therefore irresistible. Vide sec. 132. This 
 use of the termfhas since been retained in theo- 
 logy, even by those who have discarded the er- 
 roneous opinions of Augustine. 
 
 Xaptj is used in the Bible to denote (a) the 
 undeserved divine favour towards men in general ; 
 (6) the result and proof of this favour in the par- 
 ticular blessings bestowed ; and (c) more espe- 
 cially the blessings for which we are indebted to 
 Christ, pardon, the forgiveness of sins, and all 
 the Christian privileges connected with forgive- 
 ness. Hence all the operations of God on the 
 hearts of men, in promoting repentance and holi- 
 ness, are comprehended by the sacred writers 
 under the term ^aptj, as being the most distin- 
 guished favours; although these are not the 
 only favours intended by this term in its scrip- 
 tural usage, but the others now mentioned are 
 also often designated by it. Vide s. 88, II., 
 note. 
 
 The whole series of operations and means 
 which God employs to bring men to the enjoy- 
 ment of the blessedness procured by Christ is 
 called in theology, ceconomia gratiae, the oscono- 
 my or dispensation of grace, (Germ. Gnadenan- 
 stalt, or Einrichtung.} Theologians distinguish 
 here (a) actus, or operationes gratix i. e., the 
 gracious, salutary influences (also called auxilia 
 gratiae} by which men are brought to salvation, 
 and (|8) the media gratisc i. e., the means 
 which God employs in exerting these influ- 
 ences on the hearts of men ; the means of rer 
 pentance or holiness. These means are, the 
 Word of God the divine doctrine, especially 
 that made known through Christ. The theolo- 
 
 gians of Tubingen have sometimes ^iven the 
 name gratia applicatrix to these divine opera- 
 tions, because, through them, God applies to us 
 the merit of Christ to be embraced by faith 
 i. e., he places us in a condition in which we 
 actually realize the fruits of Christ's merits. 
 
 (2) These operationes gratisc are sometimes 
 called the office of the Holy Spirit, (officium, or 
 munus Spiritus Sancti, or better, his opus, busi- 
 ness, work, cf. s. 105, I. 2,) because the sancti- 
 fying divine influences are frequently ascribed 
 in the scriptures to the Holy Spirit. Some the- 
 ologians have ascribed a fourfold, and others a 
 fivefold office to the Spirit, in renewing the 
 heart of man viz., elencticum, didacticum, pas- 
 deuticum, paraclcticum, and others, epanorthoti- 
 cum. A different division is made by others. 
 This form of the doctrine is derived from the 
 passage, John, xvi. 7 15. But there the thing 
 principally intended is the instruction which 
 the apostles should receive from the Holy 
 Spirit, by which they themselves should be 
 enabled to teach men, to exhort them to repent- 
 ance, and to convince (Jxeygetv) them of their 
 unbelief. This passage, then, does not speak 
 of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit 
 on the hearts of all Christians ; though all these 
 renewing influences are, beyond a question, as- 
 cribed everywhere in the scriptures to God, and 
 especially to the Holy Spirit. Vide s. 131. 
 
 Note. The various, and mostly fruitless, 
 controversies which have prevailed among the- 
 ologians, especially since the time of Augus- 
 tine, respecting the manner in which the agency 
 of God is exerted in renewing the heart of man, 
 and likewise the various technical terms and 
 fine distinctions which have been introduced, 
 have rendered this article one of the most diffi- 
 cult and involved in the whole system of theo- 
 logy. These subtleties, however, should have 
 no place in the religious instruction given to the 
 unlearned Christian. It is sufficient for him to 
 know (1) that he owes his renewal not to him- 
 self and his own powers, but (2) that it is the 
 result of that powerful divine assistance which 
 God denies to none for this purpose; (3) that 
 faith and repentance are not produced by an ir- 
 resistible influence, but that man can resist 
 them ; (4) that in the case of those who enjoy 
 the Word of God (revealed religion), the sav- 
 ing change is effected by God, through this 
 Word, as a means ; and that (5) those, there- 
 fore, who enjoy the Word of God are to expect 
 no divine assistance entirely disconnected from 
 it, though they may look for this assistance in 
 connexion with the faithful use of the Word of 
 God ; and that, accordingly, (6) man must not 
 be passive and supine in this work, but care- 
 fully use all the opportunities and means which 
 divine grace affords him. 
 
 Erasmus remarked in his work, "Contra 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 451 
 
 librum Lutheri de servo arbitrio," that it is not 
 essential that one should be able to determine 
 accurately and logically the manner in which 
 grace operates on the heart, if he only inwardly 
 experiences these renewing influences. Not 
 every one who imagines that he understands 
 the manner in which the divine agency is ex- 
 erted has himself, of necessity, actually expe- 
 rienced it, and the reverse. Nor is it either ne- 
 cessary or possible, in particular cases, to deter- 
 mine definitely how much man himself (natura) 
 has contributed to his own improvement, and 
 how much grace has done for him, provided he 
 sincerely believes that he owes his entire re- 
 newal to the unmerited divine compassion. 
 Vide Morus, p. 229, note, and p. 236, 237. 
 
 SECTION CXXX. 
 
 WHAT ARE THE OPERATIONS OF DIVINE GRACE 
 FOR PROMOTING THE REPENTANCE AND SALVA- 
 TION OF THOSE WHO LIVE IN CHRISTIAN LANDS ; 
 AND WHAT MEANS DOES GOD EMPLOY IN EXERT- 
 ING THESE INFLUENCES ON THEIR HEARTS? 
 
 I. In what the Operations of Divine Grace consist ; 
 and in what order they follow. 
 
 WE shall first exhibit this doctrine in the form 
 in which it is commonly treated in theological 
 systems, and then shew how it may be more 
 simply and intelligibly represented. 
 
 (1) The common method in theological 
 schools is to describe these various divine ope- 
 rations by figurative terms drawn from the 
 Bible, often using them, however, in a differ- 
 ent sense from that in which they are there 
 used, and then to treat particularly and sepa- 
 rately of calling^ illumination, regeneration, 
 union with God, sanctification, and renovation. 
 The result of this has been, that these particu- 
 lar parts are conceived of as different and dis- 
 tinct, while in truth they are most intimately 
 connected. Vide s. 126, in prin. Theologians 
 make the following division of these influences, 
 and suppose them to follow in this order: (a) 
 Man is invited by the truths of the Christian 
 religion to repent and accept the salvation of- 
 fered him, (vocatio.} (6) He now attains a pro- 
 per, lively, and salutary knowledge of Chris- 
 tian truth, (illuminatio.^) (c) When the under- 
 standing entertains just views, then the will is 
 renewed. Good feelings and dispositions arise 
 in place of sinful ones, (regeneration) (c?) This 
 work of illumination and regeneration must be 
 carried on by ever-increasing divine influences ; 
 and thus progressive sanctification, or entire 
 holiness, will be effected ; and the higher the 
 degrees of divine influence, the more closely 
 will man become united with God, (unto mys- 
 tical] The proper scriptural import of most of 
 these terms was explained s. 126 ; and the unio 
 
 mystica in s. 119, I. 3. Cf. Morus, p. 232. 
 Calling and illumination still remain to be ex- 
 plained. 
 
 (a) Illumination. This word is commonly 
 explained in theology in such a way as to ren- 
 der it applicable only to the true believer. It 
 denotes that true and living knowledge of the 
 doctrines of salvation which has a powerful effi- 
 cacy upon the will, which is not the case with 
 the knowledge which unregenerate men pos- 
 sess. So that, as theologians explain it, illu- 
 minare aliquem is the same as cum effectu salu- 
 tari docere aliquem. Of such a kind, indeed, 
 must our knowledge be, in order to be salutary 
 and saving; and to make it so is the object of 
 the divine influences. In the Bible, however, 
 this term is differently used in a wider and nar- 
 rower sense. To enlighten, tyuti^etv, 'VNn, 
 means, (a) to instruct, teach. It is used by the 
 LXX. as synonymous with Siodaxsw, x. t. &. 
 And human teachers are said to enlighten men 
 as well as God. Thus, Eph. i. 18, "The eyes 
 of the understanding being enlightened ;" and 
 iii. 9, $u*%w', and 2 Cor. iv. 6; Heb. vi. 4, 
 (jKorKtyioj. For $105 is intelligence, clear know- 
 ledge, and the opposite, oxotos, is ignorance. 
 Of the same import is the phrase, cwolytw tov$ 
 o^atytovj, Acts, xxvi. 18, &c. . All this is the 
 same as the phrase, fiovfot yi/uxytv tfwr'jjptaf, 
 Luke, i. 77. ()3) Light and darkness also sig- 
 nify prosperity and adversity. Hence, in the 
 scriptural use, (y) both meanings are some- 
 times united in these words, (in the widest 
 sense) instruction, and the happiness which 
 results from it. Thus Christ is said ^uti^ew 
 "tbv XOG/AOV, and to be $w$ xoop.ov, a teacher and 
 benefactor of the world, John, i. 4; viii. 12. In 
 the scriptures, therefore, illumination signifies, 
 instruction in those truths which God gives to 
 men for their salvation. It is always the end 
 of this illumination to influence the will and to 
 promote holiness ; but through the fault of man 
 this end is not always attained. Those with 
 respect to whom the design of God is attained 
 are savingly enlightened. But in a wider sense 
 even the wicked may be said, according to the 
 scripture use of this term, to be enlightened i. 
 e., converted. Hence q>utiG$ivt$ is frequently 
 a general name of those who live in Christian 
 lands, because they are better instructed, al- 
 though they are not all savingly enlightened. 
 
 (6) Calling, gracious calling. Theologians 
 understand by this term the offer of the bless- 
 ings purchased by Christ which is made to 
 men, whether they accept the offer or not. This 
 use of the term has its origin principally in 
 some of the parables of Christ, in which he de- 
 scribes the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom, 
 or Christian privileges, under the image of a 
 great feast, to which many guests (xsxx^fvot) 
 are invited, many of whom despise the invita- 
 
452 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 tion, and only a few accept it, as Matt. xxii. 3, 
 seq. Now some have undertaken to apply this 
 beautiful figure employed by Christ to all the 
 cases in which xtojiofij, x^toi, xateiv occur in 
 the apostolical writings, by which the greatest 
 violence is done to these terms. In most of the 
 passages of the New Testament, in which 
 xaXftv stands without any further qualification, 
 it signifies, not merely to offer Christian privi- 
 leges to any one, but actually to impart them. 
 It denotes admission into the Christian church, 
 and the enjoyment of Christian rights. K7n?fot 
 are those who have not only received an invita- 
 tion to become Christians, but are real Chris- 
 tians, (such as are admitted;) and x&qat; is, in 
 general, that divine favour conferred on any one 
 by which God counts him worthy of the privi- 
 leges of Christianity. It is therefore frequently 
 a blessing bestowed only upon actual Chris- 
 tians. Kk^tftj therefore frequently signifies the 
 particular advantages which any one obtains by 
 means of Christianity. Vide Romans, i. 7; 2 
 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Peter, i. 3; Eph. iv. 4, ejiTtt'j 
 xXrjtffcof. Heb. iii. 1, xhi-<u$ ETtorpavtoj, &c. ; 
 and when Christ says, Matt. xx. 14, many are 
 called, (enjoy the advantages of Christian in- 
 struction,) few belong to the chosen, (those who 
 are truly good and acceptable to God.) 
 
 But what is the origin of this use? From the 
 ancient use of the words sip and xateiv. They 
 were used to denote calling i. e., accepling,re- 
 ceiving ; designing or nominating any one to a 
 particular service, employment, office, privilege, 
 &c. Hence it was said of priests and prophets 
 whom God took into his service, that they were 
 called; and so of Abraham, whom he chose to 
 be his peculiar friend; and of the Israelites, 
 whom he received and selected from others, as 
 his own people e. g., Is. xlviii. 12. The 
 particular members of the Christian society to 
 whom this benefit happened are called xfaj'toi. 
 Thus Paul uses the words x^onj, and xate LV of 
 the external election of the Israelites to be the 
 people of God, Rom. xi. 29, and ix. 11. This 
 phraseology was now applied to Christians, 
 denoting partly their external reception in the 
 Christian community, (Rom. ix. 24,) and partly 
 all the advantages and blessings which they re- 
 ceive through Christianity. We are able, there- 
 fore, according to Morus, to distinguish three 
 different uses of the word xatetv in the New 
 Testament, when it is used in reference to reli- 
 gion viz., (a) to admonish or counsel any one 
 for his best good ; (6) to instruct him as to his 
 welfare, to point out to him and furnish him the 
 means of attaining it, (faith in Christ, which is 
 active in good works ;) (c) to offer and promise 
 this good to any one. So in the parables of 
 Christ. When, therefore, God is said to call 
 any one, the meaning is, in the theological 
 sense, that he teaches him, or causes him to be 
 
 instructed in the truths of salvation, that he may 
 embrace them, and act accordingly, and that he 
 promises him all the blessings and privileges 
 connected with the Christian doctrine. 
 
 (2) The method best adapted to the nature 
 of the subject is to divide all which God does 
 to assist us in obtaining the blessings promised 
 in the gospel into three principal classes viz., 
 
 FIRST. The first divine influences are in- 
 tended to communicate to man the knowledge 
 of the truths of the Christian religion, and of 
 the blessedness purchased by Christ for man- 
 kind, (illuminatio, in the wider sense.) This 
 must necessarily come first; for how can a man 
 be disposed to desire or accept a divine favour 
 of which he knows nothing? Paul therefore 
 says, very justly, Rom. x. 14, "How should 
 they serve God in whom they do not believe ? 
 And how should they believe in him of whom 
 they know nothing (ov ovx rjxovaar} 1 And how 
 should they know anything of him without be- 
 ing instructed ?" By this instruction man be- 
 comes acquainted with the divine decree, (pre- 
 destinatio,} that the happiness promised through 
 Christ is intended even for him, and that ho 
 must appropriate it to himself; that Christ has 
 redeemed him, died for him ; and that he there- 
 fore may obtain the forgiveness of sin, and eter- 
 nal salvation, &c. In this way man is invited 
 to receive and obey the Christian doctrine, that 
 his heart may be thus disposed ; and this is 
 called vocatio, in the widest sense. 
 
 This calling is sometimes said to be universal. 
 If by this is meant that the Christian religion 
 and the blessedness attainable by it is actually 
 offered to all, and that all have opportunity to 
 become acquainted with it, and that those who 
 do not know and receive it can blame only 
 themselves, the statement is false, and contrary 
 to historical fact. For the blessings of Chris- 
 tianity are not published, even to the present 
 day, to all nations, to say nothing of all men ; 
 because God must know that at present all are 
 not prepared to receive these blessings, though 
 doubtless he does not wholly neglect even such, 
 but in a different way conducts them to all that 
 happiness of which they are capable, and will 
 doubtless continue to do so throughout the future 
 world. Vide s. 121, II. Cf. s. 88, II. 
 
 In another sense, however, this gracious call- 
 ing is truly and scripturally said to be univer- 
 sal ; in the sense, namely, () that all people 
 and individuals have free access to the grace of 
 God in Christ as soon as they have opportunity 
 to become acquainted with it ; and () that every 
 real Christian, without exception, may enjoy the 
 whole sum of blessedness procured by Christ, 
 by complying with the prescribed conditions, 
 (yttWij xai jUft'ttfota, Art. xi.) 
 
 SECOND. The next class of operations go to 
 secure our actual enjoyment of the blessedness 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 453 
 
 promised us and procured for us by Christ. 
 These operations take effect when man no 
 longer acts in opposition to the knowledge 
 which his understanding has received ; but 
 faithfully complies with it, follows what he 
 knows to be right, and allows his will to be 
 governed by it; so that his knowledge is no 
 longer dead, but living. It is in fact the same 
 divine agency which enlightens the understand- 
 ing and renews the will. Whatever is done in 
 the understanding has the renewal of the will for 
 its object, and is for this end effected. This 
 divine agency has for its aim the production of 
 faith and repentance, the excitement of Chris- 
 tian dispositions, and the salutary consequences 
 thence resulting ; Rom. v. 5, rtvcv/ta aytov ; xiv. 
 17, bixaioavvrj, fipr t vrj, ^apa, v TtvfVjUa-r't. ayt-^. 
 Tit. iii. 4 7. The pouring out of the Holy 
 Spirit is, in this passage, producing and com- 
 municating the Christian temper of which God 
 is the author, and by which we become xtypovo- 
 [toi co?;>$ aluvtov* 
 
 This is calling in the stricter sense, [or effec- 
 tual calling,] and regeneration (convcrsio transi- 
 tiva) in the theological sense; s. 126. 
 
 When any one feels a firm and lively convic- 
 tion of the truths of salvation with which he is 
 acquainted, God grants him power to subdue his 
 sinful desires, and cheerfully to obey the divine 
 precepts. Thus (a) the internal hindrances to 
 faith and repentance, by which we are kept from 
 the enjoyment of spiritual happiness, are re- 
 moved ; and ignorance, error, prejudice, and the 
 prevailing bias to sense, are weakened. Vide 
 Morus, p. 226, n. 1, where the texts of scripture 
 are cited. (6) On the contrary, man is led by 
 God to entertain better views, is inclined to 
 faith and repentance, and is brought into a state 
 in which he is ready and able to repent and be- 
 lieve. Both of these particulars are comprised 
 in the expression of Christ, God draws (ehxvtiv') 
 men to believe in him i. e., he convinces them, 
 and renders them disposed to this duty, John, 
 vi. 44. Vide Morus, p. 227, Note 2. 
 
 THIRD. The third class of divine operations 
 relates to the preservation of faith, and the con- 
 tinuance of the entire happy condition resulting 
 from it. Faith is saving only on certain condi- 
 tions. These are, its firmness, growth, and in- 
 crease, and the shewing of it by good works, 
 or Christian virtues. Vide s. 124, IV. This 
 class comprehends, therefore, (a) those divine 
 operations and institutions which tend to in- 
 crease our knowledge of the great truths of sal- 
 vation, and perfect our acquaintance with them. 
 The state resulting from these influences is 
 commonly called illuminatio regenitorum. (6) 
 Those influences by which the Christian is ad- 
 vanced in holiness and fitted for the practice of 
 Christian virtue, so as to attain a habit of good- 
 ness, (renovatio and sanctificatio, in the theolo- 
 
 gical sense; s. 126.) Both of these influences 
 are noticed 2 Thess. ii. 17, 0*6? ot^pi'tca fytoj 
 iv rtovT't Xoy9 xai, py< ay 0,^9. The latter 
 is mentioned 1 Thess. v. 23, 0*6? dyiacrat fytaj 
 dtort&ftf. Cf. iii. 13. 
 
 Note. When the enlightening of the mind 
 into the knowledge of the truths of salvation 
 and the learning of these truths is spoken of, it 
 is only so far as these truths are practical, and 
 stand in connexion with the plan of salvation 
 (Art. xi.), and so have an influence on the holi- 
 ness or moral improvement of men. These 
 illuminating divine influences are not intended 
 to convey learned theological science to the 
 mind, or to teach the holy scriptures theoreti- 
 cally. All this must be done by each individual 
 by his natural efforts. The divine influences 
 are directed only to moral ends, producing faith 
 and repentance, and renewing the heart. It 
 is therefore possible for an unregenerate and 
 wicked man, who has not therefore experienced 
 these renewing influences, to possess a funda- 
 mental theoretic knowledge of religion, which 
 he may have acquired by his own diligence. 
 And if he is a teacher, he may clearly explain 
 to others the doctrines of the Bible, and convince 
 them, and thus be the means of good. Cf. Phil, 
 i. 16 18. This good, however, will be very 
 much prevented by the fact that hearers give 
 much more regard to the example than to the 
 doctrines of their teacher, and that what does 
 not go from the heart does not commonly reach 
 the heart. Again ; these divine influences have 
 different degrees, since the capacity for them 
 is different in different men. Vide s. 124, III. 
 
 II. The Means which God employs in producing 
 
 these effects. 
 
 The doctrine of the protestant church has 
 always been, that God does not act immediately 
 on the heart in conversion, or, in other words, 
 that he does not produce ideas in the under- 
 standing and effects in the will, by his absolute 
 divine power, without the employment of exter- 
 nal means. This would be such an immediate 
 illumination and conversion as fanatics contend 
 for, who regard their own imaginations and 
 thoughts as effects of the Holy Spirit. Morus, 
 p. 231, note. The doctrine of the protestant 
 church is, that God exerts these reforming in- 
 fluences mediately , and that the means which 
 he employs with those who have the holy scrip- 
 tures, is the divine doctrine taught in them, espe- 
 cially the truths of Christianity, in their full ex- 
 tent, comprising law and gospel, (precept and 
 promise.} On this subject, cf. s. 123, III. It 
 is only through the medium of these truths that 
 these effects are produced, and not in a direct 
 manner. 
 
 The sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
 per, are enumerated among the means of grace, 
 
464 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 and are so called. This is proper, if we remem- 
 ber that these sacraments do not exert an in- 
 fluence through themselves alone, as external 
 rites of religion, but only as connected with the 
 word of God, or so far as the truths of the Chris- 
 tian religion are connected with them, are sen- 
 sibly exhibited and impressively set forth by 
 them, and so through their means are personally 
 appropriated by men. Everything here comes 
 back to the Word of God, or the revealed doc- 
 trines of Christianity, which is the medium 
 through which God exerts his influence, even 
 in the sacraments, 
 
 The fact that God exerts these influences in 
 the conversion of men, through the doctrines of 
 revelation, is established, 
 
 (1) By such passages of scripture as ex- 
 pressly declare that faith, repentance, and holi- 
 ness, are excited and produced in the human 
 heart by God, through the influence of Christian 
 truth; as 2 Pet. i. 3, "The divine power hath 
 given us, by means of the Christian doctrine 
 (jbcvyvutf*;), all the means which we need in 
 order to live piously and godly." Rom. x. 17, 
 IS, ^ TttWt? E' axoqst cf. ver. 14. James, i. 18, 
 * God has renewed us Aoyp dx^Etaj." Con- 
 nect with these all the texts in which the Chris- 
 tian doctrine is compared with seed sown by 
 God, falling upon the human heart, and bear- 
 ing fruit, Luke, viii. 11, seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 23, 
 (Sttapd. I John, iii. 9, Grttppa, Avtov nivtt, lv 
 ovr> 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Tim. iii. 16; John, 
 viii. 31, 32. 
 
 (2) The texts which declare that through this 
 divine doctrine Christians are brought to the en- 
 joyment of blessedness, and are preserved in it. 
 John, xvii. 17, 20 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6, rtvtvpa, ^coortowt, 
 1 Tim. iv. 16, "If thou rightly teachest the 
 Christian doctrine azavtov (tcxtus xo,l axovovtd$ 
 0ov." Ephes. vi. 13 17, where it is shewn in 
 figures that by the right use of the Christian 
 doctrine one may advance far in all Christian 
 virtues, and may secure himself against apos- 
 tasy. 1 John, v. 4, " By your faith in the Son 
 of God you overcome the world." James, i. 
 21, the Christian doctrine is called epfyvtos Ao- 
 yoj i. e., the doctrine implanted in Christians, 
 in which they are instructed ; as Paul uses 
 
 , 1 Cor. iii. 6, seq., adding 8vvdpevos 
 v%a.s V/AUV. Morus cites other passages, 
 p. 225, s. 1, note 1. 
 
 Note. It has become common in theological 
 schools to denominate the divine doctrine, the 
 sum of which is contained in the holy scriptures, 
 the Word of God, from a literal translation of 
 OTiSs -\iy, /ji^a, or Aoyo$ tov, or Xptcrtov. This 
 term denotes the declarations, oracles, revela- 
 tions made in the Bible, and hence the divine 
 doctrine, or instruction in general, as Psalms 
 cxix., civ., cv., &c. Thus in the New Testa- 
 
 ment the Christian doctrine is denominated 
 simply Aoyoj. In later times it has become 
 common to call the Bible itself, considered as a 
 book, the Word of God, and many have ascribed 
 a divine and supernatural power to the Bible as 
 a book. In this way occasion has been given 
 to the mistake of ascribing to the book, as such, 
 what belongs to the truths or doctrines contained 
 in it. This is never done in the holy scriptures 
 themselves. There the Word of God is the di- 
 vine doctrine itself, with which we are made 
 acquainted by this book, but which can be effi- 
 cacious without the book, as it was in the first 
 ages of Christianity, before the writings com- 
 posing the New Testament were written. For! 
 the power lies not in the book itself, but pro-! 
 perly in the doctrine which is contained in the) 
 book. Vide Toellner, Ueber den Unterschiedl 
 der heiligen Schrift und des Wortes Gottes, in 
 his " Vermischten Aufsatzen," 2te Samml. s.j 
 88, f. 
 
 SECTION CXXXI. 
 
 HOW IS THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THESE GRACIOUS! 
 RENEWING INFLUENCES PROVED FROM THE HOLY > 
 SCRIPTURES? AND REMARKS IN EXPLANATION 
 OF THE SCRIPTURAL PHRASEOLOGY ON THIS 
 SUBJECT. 
 
 I. Scriptural Proof of the Divine Origin of the\ 
 Influences of Grace. 
 
 MANY texts are frequently cited here which i 
 do not belong to this subject, but which refer, 
 only to miraculous gifts, which the apostles andj 
 some of the first Christians received, and not) 
 at all to the renewing influences which are im-j 
 parted to all Christians. Such are 1 Cor. xv. 
 10; 2 Cor. iii. 18. Still there are many texts! 
 which relate directly to this subject, a few only! 
 of which will be here cited, under two principal 
 classes. 
 
 (1) The texts which teach that God, or, what! 
 is the same thing, the Holy Spirit, works by hisi 
 power in the hearts of Christians, 1 Thess. ii. 
 13; Ephes. i. 19 ; Rom. viii. 1 6. Hence the 
 whole renewed and sanctified state of the true 
 Christian is denominated rcv^v^o, and ^poi^p* 
 rtvsvpato$, as in the passages cited. Vide s.| 
 123, II. 1, and s. 124, II. Through this influ-i 
 ence, the flesh or sense (^pov^ta aopxo$, crap)j 
 loses its dominion over reason, and the will is 
 renewed ; all which results from God, or from" 
 the Holy Spirit, who dwells and works in the, 
 hearts of Christians. 
 
 Now in the same way as the influence of Godj 
 or of the Holy Spirit (fvfpyfia, tvtpyti* 
 takes place in true Christians, the sVf' 
 Safava, <japx6$, x. r. k., works in unbelievers and| 
 sinners e. g., Ephes. ii. 2; cf. i. 19, 20. Fo 
 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 455 
 
 is Satan is regarded and described as the author 
 )f evil and wickedness in depraved and unbeliev- 
 ng men, so is God the author of goodness and 
 rirtue in enlightened Christians. So Rom. v. 
 >; Ephes. iv. 30, bvrtftv rtvsv/jia oiytov, to coun- 
 eract by sin his salutary influences. 
 
 (2) The texts in which all the specific spiri- 
 ual benefits which Christians enjoy are ascribed 
 o God, or to the Holy Spirit, as the author, or 
 fficient cause. There is not one among all 
 hese benefits which is not somewhere described 
 I as produced by divine influence. Thus (a) in- 
 struction in Christianity (illuminatio), John, vi. 
 45, 65 ; Ephes. i. 17, 18, " God gives us rtvsvpa 
 oofyias by the Christian doctrine;" 1 Thess. iv. 
 9; 1 Cor. xii. 3, 8. (6) Conversion and/at^, 
 and the entire sum of Christian blessedness 
 (x^tftj), Phil. i. 6; Ephes. i. 11 ; ii. 5, 10; iii. 
 16; Acts, xvi. 14 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25. (c) The ef- 
 fects and consequences of faith ; such as good in- 
 tentions^ readiness to good works, and skill in 
 doing them, Ephes. iii. 16 ; 2 Pet. i. 3 ; 2 Thess. 
 ii. 17; Rom. xv. 5. Indeed, the very execution 
 of our good purposes is represented as the work 
 of the Spirit, 1 Cor. i. 8; 1 Pet. v. 10; Rom. 
 viii. 13, 14; ix. 1; xiv. 7; Phil. ii. 12, 13, 
 " The Christian who is in earnest about his own 
 salvation should exhibit all diligence and zeal ; 
 and yet he should cast himself upon the divine 
 guidance and assistance, since he can do nothing 
 of himself. For it was God who had awakened 
 in the Philippians*(when Paul was among them) 
 a serious desire for salvation, and who aided in 
 the execution of this desire, (although Paul 
 was absent from them.) And this he did vjtep 
 tvooxias i. e., for all this the Philippians were 
 indebted to the mere mercy of God, to his free, 
 gracious will." 
 
 H. Remarks Explanatory of the Scriptural Phrase- 
 ology on this subject. 
 
 (1) There are many passages in the Bible 
 I which, taken by themselves, appear to affirm an 
 I immediate influence of God in the renewal of 
 men an influence, therefore, which is miracu- 
 lous and irresistible, and involving an exertion 
 of his bare omnipotence. And so there are pas- 
 sages, where, on the other hand, it seems to be 
 taught, that God denies and withholds from men 
 the means for their improvement, and renders 
 them hard, obdurate, &c. In other passages, 
 however, it is expressly said that God employs 
 means, and that these are accessible to all men. 
 Vide s. 130, II. These influences are described 
 in these very passages as resistible. It is dis- 
 tinctly taught that man is not to be compelled; 
 that he himself must not be inactive about his 
 own moral welfare; that he is free to will and 
 choose good or evil. Hence good and evil ac- 
 tions are ascribed to man himself, and considered 
 
 as imputable to him. We find these two ways 
 of representing this subject connected together 
 in the same manner in the Old Testament, and 
 in other ancient writings e. g., those of the 
 Arabians and Greeks. Cf. the texts cited s. 
 85, II. 3. According to these, God puts good 
 and evil, wisdom and folly, into the hearts of 
 men, and is the author both of their prosperity 
 and their overthrow. And yet, according to 
 these same writers, the good actions of men are 
 rewarded by God, and their wicked actions pu- 
 nished by him, as their own actions ; whereas if 
 they came from God, they would not be imput- 
 able to those by whom they were performed. 
 
 (2) Art not these two representations really 
 contradictory ? Such they may appear to t/s, 
 who are accustomed to different distinctions and 
 expressions from those which were formerly com- 
 mon respecting divine influences, the freedom of 
 the human will, and its relation to Divine Pro- 
 vidence. Those especially who are scientifically 
 educated are apt to bring these subjects into a 
 philosophical form, and to express them in scho- 
 lastic terms. Hence in modern languages we 
 have appropriate 'expressions with regard to free- 
 dom, &c., even in common discourse. Such was 
 not the case in ancient times. And for this rea- 
 son we frequently find difficulties and contradic- 
 tions where they saw none. On the one hand, 
 the ancient world acknowledged, with us, that 
 God governs everything, and that nothing can 
 take place without his co-operation; on the 
 other hand, they knew that the human will 
 must at the same time remain free, because the 
 actions of men would otherwise cease to be their 
 own actions. If men were moved like machines, 
 and wrought upon like statues, their actions 
 could not be imputed to them. But in the an- 
 cient world, the means by which God acts were 
 not always so carefully distinguished as is com- 
 mon at present. And even when these means 
 were known, they were more seldom mentioned. 
 The sacred writers, indeed, well understood 
 them, for they frequently mention them, but not 
 in every case distinctly. Thus it happens that 
 many things were generally described by the an- 
 cients as the immediate effects of divine power, 
 which actually took place through the instru- 
 mentality of means which were either unknown 
 to them, or which they left unmentioned. And 
 so, many effects of the divine agency which 
 have a miraculous aspect were really produced 
 by natural means. To those who are unac- 
 quainted with the ancient phraseology, the de- 
 scription given of those effects in the ancient 
 manner of thinking and speaking seems to im- 
 ply that God brought them to pass by an imme- 
 diate and irresistible agency. Vide s. 70, Note 
 ad fin. 
 
 Now what did Augustine and his followers 
 
456 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 do 1 They took only one class of these texts, 
 and interpreted them as they would the lan- 
 guage of accurate philosophers, without paying 
 any regard to the extreme simplicity of style in 
 which the Bible was written. They drew con- 
 clusions and general doctrines from these texts, 
 which were never drawn by the authors them- 
 selves from these premises; and all this from 
 ignorance of the ancient manner of thinking and 
 speaking. Vide s. 85. Illiterate persons have 
 generally understood this scriptural phraseology 
 better than others. 
 
 From these passages, Augustine and his fol- 
 lowers deduced the doctrine of the irresistible 
 grace of God as something which is miraculous 
 in its nature, and which, according to his uncon- 
 ditional decree, he bestows upon some men r and 
 withholds from others. Without this grace, man 
 could not recover himself to holiness, because, 
 since the fall, he possesses no freedom of will in 
 spiritual things. Man can do nothing which will 
 contribute to this end. He is entirely passive 
 under these operations of grace. Augustine de- 
 pended much on the passage. John, vi. 44, " No 
 man can come to me unless the Father draw 
 him," (de gratia irresistibili etparticulari.} The 
 meaning of this passage is, "No man can come 
 to me unless the conviction of the great love of 
 the Father (in giving me to the world from 
 love to it) induces him, under divine guidance 
 and co-operation, to come to me, and believe on 
 me." 
 
 Even Origen (rttpl ap#wv, iii. 19) noticed both 
 these classes of texts, and said that they should 
 not be separated, but taken together, that they 
 might not contradict one another, and that one 
 sense might be deduced from them both. And 
 in fact, the two things, the earnest efforts of man 
 and the assistance of God, are connected in the 
 holy scriptures. Morus therefore observes, very 
 justly, p. 225, s. 1, that the following result may 
 be deduced from the various texts of scripture 
 taken together : " God leads us, by means of his 
 truth, to faith and repentance." Truth is the 
 means which God employs for this end. So the 
 symbols and the protestant theologians. Vide 
 ubi supra, note 5. 
 
 (3) The following ideas, though variously mo- 
 dified, are found to have prevailed generally in 
 the ancient world viz., that all life, activity, and 
 motion throughout the universe, proceed from 
 spirits or invisible beings. And even the extra- 
 ordinary and unusual mental excitements, the 
 talents, acquisitions, courage, and magnanimity 
 which appear among men, were derived from the 
 inspiration of higher spirits, and viewed in con- 
 nexion with them. They believed, too, very 
 generally, in evil spirits, to whose influences 
 (under the divine permission) they ascribed the 
 wicked purposes, the errors, faults, and calami- 
 
 ties of men. Cf. s. 58, II. With this mode of 
 representation the holy scriptures plainly agree 
 throughout. Vide the article on the Angels. 
 They however take no part in the superstitious 
 notions which heathen antiquity, and even the 
 great mass of the Jews, connected with this re- 
 presentation. From all these they keep aloof. 
 But, on the other hand, the Bible is equally far 
 from agreeing with that modern mechanical 
 philosophy which tends to set aside the influ- 
 ence of spiritual beings, and, as far as possible, 
 that of God himself. According to the Bible, 
 there are good and evil spirits, which in various 
 ways operate on the earth and on man. But 
 there is especially a divine Spirit (trnjp nn), in 
 an eminent sense, which operates in and upon 
 true Christians, as it did in the times of the Old 
 Testament upon the Israelites. Christians are 
 indebted to Christ for this Spirit, whence he is 
 called Tivtv/j-a Xpt^or, the Paradetus, the coun- 
 sellor of the pious, whom Christ sends in his 
 own stead from the Father, John, xv. 16. As' 
 soon as any one believes in Christ, this divine 
 Spirit begins to influence his heart, and, as it 
 were, to dwell with him. And all the good 
 which such an one now thinks or does hia 
 knowledge, his holiness and happiness he 
 owes solely to him. He it is whom Christ 
 truly enlightens in his understanding and guides 
 into all the truth. Nor can he accomplish any- 
 thing good without his agency. He does not, 
 however, exert his influence upon all in the same 
 manner. He renews the heart and all the dis- 
 positions of every true Christian (dona spiritus 
 sancti ordinaria) ; but upon some in the first 
 Christian church he exerted a peculiar agency, 
 enduing them with the gifts of teaching, of 
 working miracles, &c. (dona extraor dinar ia.} 
 Cf. i Cor. xii. 411, also s. 39, coll. s. 19, II., 
 and s. 9, III., IV. 
 
 To the great bulk of mankind, who are unac- 
 customed to the arbitrary and mechanical philo- 
 sophy of the schools, and who are unperverted 
 by it, this simple and truly animating represen- 
 tation, which is everywhere given in the New 
 Testament, is more intelligible, clear, and con- 
 soling, and has more influence on their heart, 
 and is more conducive to their moral improve- 
 ment, than all the philosophical and metaphysical j 
 reasonings on Divine Providence and co-opera- 
 tion, how deep soever they may apparently be. 
 
 (4) The uniform doctrine of the holy scrip- 
 tures is, therefore, that God effects the moral 
 change and renovation of the human heart, not , 
 immediately, but mediately, and that the means | 
 which he employs is the Christian doctrine in all i 
 its extent, its doctrines, precepts, and promises. 
 Vide No. 2, ad finem. But the Bible also ' 
 teaches, that the cause of the effect which is 
 produced by this divine doctrine lies not merely 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 457 
 
 in the power and weight of the arguments by 
 which Christianity is proved, or of the truths 
 which it exhibits, but principally in the power 
 and agency of God, who, by means of this doc- 
 trine, acts in the souls of men. Theologians 
 say, "Divina efficientia a doctrina ipsa, ejusque vi 
 et efficacia discernitur" This clearly appears 
 from the passages before cited, especially from 
 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7; Phil, ii, 12, 13; 2 Thess. ii. 
 1517; i. 11; Ephes. i. 1620; iii. 1620; 
 1 Pet. i. 15; Acts, xvi. 14, and many of the 
 discourses of Jesus, especially those recorded in 
 John e. g., iii. 1317, &c. 
 
 This now entirely agrees with the promise of 
 Christ, (a) that after his departure from the 
 earth he would support by his constant and spe- 
 cial assistance all those who should believe on 
 him, even to the end of life; and (6) that the 
 Holy Spirit of God should always work among 
 them, through the Christian doctrine. This the 
 apostles everywhere repeat. And so they de- 
 scribe the whole moral renovation and perfection 
 of man as the work of God, or of the Holy 
 Spirit; Ephes. i. 19; James, i. 5, 18; where, 
 however, this work is said to be accomplished 
 
 taf, iii. 17, seq. ; Heb. xiii. 20, 21. 
 When this doctrine is rightly understood 
 (i. e,, in such a way that human freedom, or 
 the moral nature of man, is not violated) 
 sound reason cannot object to it. For it affirms 
 no new revelations or irresistible influences. 
 The manner, however, in which this influence 
 is exerted cannot be understood by reason, be- 
 cause the subject belongs to the sphere of things 
 above sense. This we are taught by Christ 
 and the apostles. When Christ (John, iii.) 
 had told Nicodemus that the Holy Spirit effects 
 a moral regeneration in men, the latter thought 
 the doctrine incredible, and was unwilling to 
 believe it. Christ replied, (ver. 8,) that it 
 would be unreasonable to consent to believe 
 only what is directly perceived by the external 
 senses, and the whole manner of whose exist- 
 ence and operation we could see, as it were, 
 with our own eyes. He illustrates this by a 
 comparison with the wind, which we cannot 
 see and follow with our eyes, but of whose ac- 
 tual existence we may be convinced by its ef- 
 fects ; as, for example, by the sound which it 
 makes. And such is the fact here. And there 
 are a number of important passages of the same 
 import, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, 
 chap. i. iii., and especially ii. 14. Cf. Morus, 
 p. 237. Here $v%ixb$ av>pwrto$ is not the natu- 
 ral man, for which <j>vcrixd? would be the word; 
 but the carnal man i. e., (where objects of 
 knowledge are spoken of,) one who will ac- 
 knowledge and receive in religious matters no 
 higher divine instruction and guidance, who 
 will believe nothing but what he perceives by 
 58 
 
 his external senses, (crapsetxoj,) one who has no 
 perception of the truths revealed by the Holy 
 Spirit, (tan 'fov rtvsvfia.'tos aytoin) No wonder, 
 therefore, that he does not yield his assent to 
 these truths, and that they even appear foolish- 
 ness (juwpttt) to him. For such doctrines require 
 to be differently discerned from those which are 
 merely of human discovery ; they must be dis- 
 cerned TCvsvpaaixus. We reject human doc- 
 trines, or renounce them, when they do not in- 
 struct or satisfy us. But since God cannot err, 
 the truths which he has revealed, and which we 
 know from our own convictions to be such, 
 may not be judged of by us in the same man- 
 ner. We are not at liberty to oppose or re- 
 nounce them because they may chance to be 
 displeasing to us, or because they may be hard 
 and unintelligible. 
 
 (5) But the scriptural views of the agency of 
 God in producing the moral renovation of man, 
 when carefully examined, are by no means in- 
 consistent with the philosophy of the day. 
 They agree in all essential points with the doc- 
 trine which is confirmed by experience and 
 reason, respecting the providence and agency 
 of God. For (a) all ability and power which 
 man possesses for perceiving the truth, and for 
 choosing either good or evil, is derived solely 
 from God. (i) But God must also concur by 
 his agency in the use and exercise of these 
 powers, and preserve them to us in the moment 
 of action. Vide s. 69. (c) We owe it to God, 
 too, that we have opportunities to exert our fa- 
 culties, and objects about which we may em- 
 ploy them. Through the divine ordering and 
 government, we have teachers, and all the other 
 internal and external assistances for acquiring 
 knowledge of the truth, and for making progress 
 in goodness. If we are deprived of these aids, 
 we are not in a case either to understand the 
 truth, to practise virtue, or to do anything great 
 and useful. Vide s. 70. Everything from 
 without which contributes to our moral good is 
 ordered by Divine Providence and is employed 
 by God for the promotion of his designs ; so 
 that to him alone are we indebted not only for 
 all temporal, but also for all spiritual good ; 
 although by all this our freedom of will is not 
 n the least impaired. Vide s. 70, 1. But being 
 unable to fathom or comprehend the manner of 
 the divine government, we cannot presume to 
 determine positively how God can or must con- 
 rol us, and in what way he may, or may not, 
 exert an agency in promoting our moral improve- 
 ment. On this subject we must confine our- 
 selves wholly to experience,) and especially to 
 the instructions of the holy scriptures, if we 
 nake them the ground of our knowledge. Nor 
 must we renounce this doctrine because we can- 
 not understand the internal modus of it. 
 2Q 
 

 458 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 SECTION CXXXII. 
 
 A SKETCH OF SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL THEORIES 
 RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE, AND 
 THE FREEDOM (OR ABILITY) OF MAN IN SPI- 
 RITUAL THINGS J AND THE CONTROVERSIES ON 
 THIS SUBJECT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 I. Opinions of the early Greek Fathers. 
 
 IN the earliest ages, shortly after the time of 
 the apostles, there was no controversy on this 
 subject, as Augustine himself acknowledges. 
 In the exhibition of this doctrine most of the 
 first teachers contented themselves with that 
 simplicity which prevails in the New Testa- 
 ment. They so express themselves, that while 
 they affirm, on one side, that man receives as- 
 sistance (auxilia) from divine grace, they still 
 allow to him, on the other side, freedom of ac- 
 tion. Nothing was said from the first to the 
 third century about irresistible grace. Vide s. 
 79, in the History of the Doctrine of Original 
 Sin. So Irenaeus says in many passages, " that 
 God compels no man ; that we are free, and can 
 choose good or evil." Clement of Alexandria 
 says, " that God indeed guides, but never binds 
 our free wills ; and that hence to believe and to 
 obey is in man's power." In the third century, 
 Origen expressed his opinion still more defi- 
 nitely than the fathers who had preceded him. 
 In his work ritpi dp^wv, (1. iii. c. I.) he says, 
 we are indebted for faith to God alone. He 
 gave us the means of faith. From him come 
 both the faculties which man has of doing right, 
 and the preservation of these faculties. But 
 the use of these faculties bestowed upon us de- 
 pends upon ourselves. When therefore in some 
 passages of the New Testament the improvement 
 of man is ascribed solely to God, and in others 
 to man himself, there is no contradiction. For 
 even that which depends upon our own free will 
 cannot take place without the divine assistance ; 
 and God does not work in us without our own 
 co-operation. For he does not bind the free 
 human will. With these sentiments, Athana- 
 sius, Basilius the Great, Chrysostom, and other 
 fathers of the Greek church, perfectly agree. 
 
 [Note. The early Greek fathers were led to 
 insist thus strongly upon avtt^ovGiov, iMt$epfcMt 
 rtpocupftHv, (the. self-determination, freedom of the 
 will,) by standing in immediate conflict with 
 the views of man prevailing throughout the hea- 
 then world, and especially among the contem- 
 porary Gnostic sects. Before Christianity was 
 promulgated, it had become almost universal to 
 regard man as acting under the same necessity 
 to which material nature is subjected. Evil 
 was supposed either to belong to matter, and to 
 be inherent in the human organization, or to re- 
 sult from an irresistible fate and necessity. 
 Thus the free and accountable agency of man 
 
 was theoretically obscured, and practically also, 
 as far as the image of God, which is never 
 wholly effaced, can be obscured by theoretic 
 error and moral corruption. 
 
 The publication of Christianity cast new light 
 upon the condition and relations of man. While, 
 by revealing a remedy, it implied his helpless- 
 ness and need, on the other hand, by offering 
 pardon, it implied his guilt and exposure to pu- 
 nishment, and by appealing to the divine por- 
 tion in man it awakened him from his apathy 
 as to moral obligation and effort. The whole 
 nature of the Christian remedy, consisting not 
 of magical or physical influences which would 
 have been requisite had man been under a na- 
 tural necessity of sinning but of moral means, 
 calling our moral faculties into exercise, con- 
 tained an implied contradiction to the pagan and 
 Manichean philosophy, and struck at the root 
 of every view which derives evil from a neces- 
 sity of nature rather than from the perverted use 
 of our moral powers. 
 
 From these considerations it may be explain-' 
 ed that the early Greek fathers should have in- 
 sisted so disproportionately upon the freedom 
 of the human will, though they by no means 
 went into the Pelagian excess of ascribing to it 
 an independency on divine grace. Had they 
 been placed in as immediate contact with the 
 stoical or pharisaical doctrine of human self-suf- 
 ficiency, as with the Pagan and Gnostic idea of 
 natural necessity, they would, doubtless, have 
 given to man's inability and dependence on 
 God that place which human freedom and power 
 now hold in their system. 
 
 As it was, the excess to which the Greek 
 fathers carried this point laid the foundation for 
 the divergency between the Eastern and West- 
 ern churches, which will appear in the sequel 
 of this sketch. 
 
 With regard to the anthropological views of 
 the Greek fathers of this period, cf. Neander, 
 Kirchengeschichte, b. i., Abth. iii. s. 1049 
 1060 TR.] 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 459 
 
 natural powers of men,) De Anirna, c. 21. He, 
 however, allows to man Libert arbitrii put estate rn. 
 Cyprian, in the third century, comes still nearer 
 to the opinions of Augustine. And indeed 
 there must have been many in Africa before 
 and at the time of Augustine who held the es- 
 sentials of his system. 
 
 This induced Pelagius, (who was a native of 
 Britain, but who was extensively read in the 
 works of the Greek fathers,) in the beginning 
 of the fifth century, to analyze and collate the 
 doctrines of the Greek fathers, and especially 
 of Origen, and to draw consequences from them 
 which they themselves had not authorized. He 
 taught that three things should be distinguished 
 in man, the posse, velle, and agere. For the 
 faculty or power to do good men are indebted 
 to God alone (gratise), who had granted it to 
 human nature. To will and to act depends upon 
 man himself. Still men are so assisted by the 
 grace of God that their willing and acting is 
 facilitated. But the means which God makes 
 use of in affording his aid are doctrina and reve- 
 latio. He made this last point more prominent 
 than any of the teachers who had preceded 
 him ; and this was well. But in other points 
 he deviated from the doctrine of the Bible 
 viz., (a) by denying natural depravity , (6) by 
 deriving our ability to do good solely or princi- 
 pally from the power with which our nature 
 was originally endowed by God; (c) and by 
 allowing to God no real instrumentality in the 
 conversion and sanctification of men. Accord- 
 ing to this system, God works only by means 
 of the Christian doctrine i. e., he is the author 
 of this doctrine, which contains more powerful 
 motives than any other. 
 
 Against this system Augustine contended. In 
 Africa, councils were held in opposition to Pe- 
 lagius, in which his doctrine was condemned. 
 The Christians of the Eastern church, of Pales- 
 tine and elsewhere, did not, however, assent to 
 this decision; and the same is true of many in 
 the Latin churches beyond the bounds of Africa, 
 and at first even of the Roman bishop himself. 
 This was owing, partly to the extravagant zeal 
 of Augustine, and to the mixture of many erro- 
 neous opinions in his system; and partly to the 
 guarded and ambiguous phraseology of Pela- 
 gius, by which he concealed his departures 
 from the scriptural doctrine. But at length 
 Augustine succeeded so far in his efforts, that 
 the doctrine of Pelagius was condemned, and 
 the condemnation confirmed by the Emperor. 
 And thus the theory of Augustine obtained the 
 predominance, at least in the West. 
 
 III. Augustine's Doctrine respecting Grace. 
 (1) He held that human nature is so de- 
 praved (s. 79) that it no longer possesses free- 
 dom of will in spiritual things (carere libero 
 
 arbitrio in spiritualibus] i. e., is unable to un- 
 derstand spiritual things, (the truths of salva- 
 tion contained in the scriptures,) or to act con- 
 formably with them, without the divine instruc- 
 tions contained in the scriptures, and the gracious 
 assistance of God, although he may possess free- 
 dom in natural things (liberum arbitrium kabere 
 in naturalibus) i. e., he may learn God from 
 nature and reason, and fulfil many of his duties. 
 The Bible, too, teaches that the wicked come 
 at length to such a habit of sinning that they 
 become the slaves of sin, (John, viii. 32, 36; 
 Rom. vii. 23,) and that they can be delivered 
 from this slavery only by faith in Jesus Christ 
 and by divine assistance. Since now Augus- 
 tine was led, by opposition to Pelagius, to ex- 
 aggerate the doctrine of natural depravity, (vide 
 s. 79, 80,) he represented the assistance afford- 
 ed by God in the improvement of man as truly 
 compulsory, and of such a nature as to infringe 
 upon human freedom. The ancient fathers, on 
 the other hand, held to to avts^ovaiov, under- 
 standing by this term, or the term liberum arbi- 
 trium, (which Tertullian first borrowed from a 
 term in Roman law,) the power of man to 
 choose good or evil freely and without compul- 
 sion. This view was universally held in the 
 East, and in the West, too, before the Pelagian 
 controversies. 
 
 (2) Augustine made a careful distinction be- 
 tween nature and grace. Vide s. 129, II., and 
 Morus, p. 234, note 2. Grace alone can renew 
 man; he can do nothing for this end by the 
 powers of mere nature. And it is true, in a cer- 
 tain sense, according to the Bible, that man 
 alone cannot deliver himself; that by his own un- 
 aided powers he cannot renew himself. But Au- 
 gustine went further than this, and the additions 
 which he made are not scriptural. Man, he 
 said, can do nothing which will at all contribute 
 to his spiritual recovery. He is like a lump 
 of clay, or a statue, without life or activity. 
 Hence, he denied virtue and salvation to the 
 heathen, and to all who are not enlightened by 
 grace. Vide s. 121. 
 
 (3) This divine grace, which alone is able to 
 renew the heart, is described by Augustine as 
 efficax and sufficiens i. e., alone sufficient to 
 overcome the power of sin, (in which Augus- 
 tine was right,) and also as irresistibilis. For 
 he conceived grace to be the direct operation of 
 divine omnipotence, acting in a miraculous 
 manner, qua voluntatem hominum indeclinabili 
 vi ad bona trahat. 
 
 (4) Augustine made a threefold division of 
 grace, founded on the doctrine which he held in 
 opposition to Pelagius, that to will, to be able, 
 and to perform, depend solely on divine grace 
 viz., (et) gratia excitans or incipiens, that grace 
 which renders the human will inclined to faith, 
 excites good emotions, and produces the begin- 
 
4GO 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 nings of faith. Other names given to this in- 
 cipient grace are, prseveniens, puhans, tiahens, 
 vocans, prseparans. (6) Operans or efficiens, that 
 grace which imparts faith and new spiritual 
 powers for the performance of duty. God pro- 
 duces good desires and determinations in man 
 by the truths of the Christian religion, (c) Co- 
 operans, perficiens, or assistant, that by which 
 the believer is assisted after his conversion, so 
 that he will be able to perform good works, and 
 to persevere in faith. 
 
 Augustine differed from all the theologians 
 who had preceded him, in teaching that grace 
 anticipated the human will, (prsevenire volunta- 
 tem.) This may be understood in a very just 
 and scriptural sense. But Augustine meant by 
 it nothing less than that the first good desires 
 and determinations to amend are miraculously 
 produced, or infused into the heart by divine 
 grace; whereas the earlier theologians had uni- 
 formly taught that God gives man, in the use 
 of means, opportunity to repent, and that he 
 guides and assists in this work by his own 
 agency; but that man himself must be active, 
 and must form the resolution to repent, and 
 have a disposition to do so ; in which case di- 
 vine mercy will come to his relief, (quod volun- 
 tas hominum prasveniat auxilia gratix.) To this 
 view, however, Augustine could not consent, 
 because he denied all power to the human will. 
 In this work, man, in his view, is entirely pas- 
 sive. But many of his followers in the West 
 differed from him in this particular, and adhered 
 to the more ancient representation. Afterwards 
 they were frequently numbered with the Semi- 
 Pelagians, and in the sixth century their doc- 
 trine was condemned. 
 
 (5) With respect to the manner in which 
 saving grace operates, Augustine believed that 
 in the case of those who enjoy revelation, grace 
 commonly acts by means of the word, or the 
 divine doctrine, but sometimes directly, because 
 God is not confined to the use of means. On 
 this point there was great logomachy. Real 
 conversions, even in such extraordinary cases 
 as that of Paul, are effected by the word of God, 
 and the believing reception of it; although the 
 circumstances under which the word is brought 
 home to the heart may be extraordinary. 
 
 (6) Augustine connected all these doctrines 
 with his theory respecting the unconditional de- 
 cree of God; respecting which vide s. 32. He 
 taught that the anticipating and efficient grace 
 of God depend not at all upon man and his 
 worthiness, (susceptibility,) but solely on the 
 decree of God. God, according to his own will, 
 elected some, from all eternity, from the whole 
 mass of mankind, in order to make them vessels 
 of mercy, (susceptible of his grace ;) while from 
 others he withholds this renovating grace, that 
 they may be vessels of wrath. He imparts, in- 
 
 deed, to all the anticipating grace; but efficient 
 grace only to a few viz., the elect. Of this 
 procedure none can complain; for God is not 
 bound to bestow his grace upon any. Thus the 
 efficacy (efficacia) of grace on the heart is made 
 by him to depend on the unconditional decree 
 of God, (ab electione Dei,~) and also the opposi- 
 tion (resistentid) of men : the latter on the de- 
 cretum reprobationis. For God does not will to 
 exert the whole power of his grace upon the 
 heart of those who prove reprobate. Why he 
 does not we are unable to determine; this is 
 one of the unfathomable mysteries of the divine 
 decrees. Such doctrines as these are distinctly 
 expressed in many of the writings of Augus- 
 tine, as in his work, De predestinations Sanc- 
 torum. He is not, however, at all times con- 
 sistent with himself; and feeling how hard his 
 doctrine is, sometimes expresses himself less se- 
 verely. [For a more complete view of the sys- 
 tem of Augustine, cf. the Jan. No. of Bib. Repo- 
 sitory, for 1833, Art. Augustine and Pelagius.] 
 
 IV. Controversies on Particular Points in the 
 Augustinian System. 
 
 The system of Augustine respecting grace 
 was, taken as a whole, made fundamental in 
 the Western church in the ages succeeding his. 
 Some adopted it entire, others only in part; 
 most, however, dissented from it in some parti- 
 culars, and lowered it down, so to speak. They 
 retained many of his terms, -but employed them 
 in a more just and scriptural sense. Others, on 
 the contrary, adopted the system of Pelagius, or 
 endeavoured to compose a new system by com- 
 bining his opinions with those of Augustine. 
 The principal points on which a difference of 
 opinion existed in the Latin church were the 
 following viz., 
 
 (1) The doctrine of predestination. Although 
 Augustine believed in unconditional decrees, 
 this doctrine never became universal in the 
 Latin church. Most of the members of this 
 church, until the ninth century, held only to 
 those passages in his works in which he ex- 
 pressed himself with less rigour. But in the 
 ninth century, when Gottschalk began to advo- 
 cate unconditional decrees strenuously, a vehe- 
 ment controversy arose. Vide s. 32, note. His 
 principal opponents were Rabanus Maurus, 
 Hinkmar, and others, who justly derived pre- 
 destination from God's foreknowledge of the 
 free actions of men. In this opinion they had 
 many followers, though a large number still 
 adopted the theory of Augustine, after mode- 
 rating and modifying it in various ways. To 
 this party Peter of Lombardy and other school- 
 men belonged. Luther and Melancthon (as 
 well as Calvin and Beza) were at first strong 1 
 Augustinians; but they afterwards abandoned 
 his doctrine of predestination, while Calvin and 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 461 
 
 Beza still adhered to it, and made it a doctrine 
 of their church. Vide the sections above cited. 
 Between the seventeenth and eighteenth centu- 
 ries the most violent controversies on this sub- 
 ject raged in the Romish church, between the 
 Jansenists, who were zealous Augustinians, 
 and the Jesuits in the Netherlands and France. 
 The latter agreed very nearly in sentiment with 
 Rabanus, and had many supporters. 
 
 (2) The doctrine of the freedom of the human 
 will and its relation to the operations of grace. 
 On this subject there are three principal systems. 
 
 First. The Jlugustinian, which allows to 
 man no freedom of will in spiritual things, ac- 
 cording to the statement above made ; No. iii. 
 The strenuous adherents of Augustine above 
 named entirely agreed with him in this particu- 
 lar; and the doctrine of the entire inability of 
 man in spiritual things, in the sense of Augus- 
 tine, was zealously advocated by the Domini- 
 cans, who in this followed Thomas Aquinas. 
 Out of this arose the violent controversy which 
 prevailed in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 
 turies, de auxiliis gratiae, between the Domini- 
 cans and Netherland theologians on the one 
 side, and the Jesuits and their adherents on the 
 other, and afterwards, in the seventeenth and 
 eighteenth centuries, between the Jesuits and 
 Jansenists. Luther, with Carlstadt and some 
 others of his coadjutors, belonged at first to this 
 high party. The former defended this doctrine 
 in his book, De servo arbitrio, against Erasmus. 
 Afterwards, however, his views became very 
 much more moderate, and he retained but little 
 more of the doctrine of Augustine than the 
 terms in which it was expressed. He was fol- 
 lowed by a large number of the theologians of 
 his church. 
 
 Secondly. The scholastic system. Most of the 
 schoolmen endeavoured to moderate the theory 
 of Augustine. They taught that grace is indeed 
 powerful and efficacious, but that man is not 
 compelled by it, and can resist it. The assent 
 of the human will must accompany grace, with- 
 out which it is inefficacious. They allowed, 
 therefore, the freedom of the will in a certain 
 sense. They held that the will of man can 
 either follow or resist grace ; while still they 
 admitted that grace has a certain influence in 
 the renovation of man, not indeed miraculous, 
 but yet acting physically in connexion with the 
 divine word. They were followed afterwards 
 in the Romish church by the great body of the 
 Jesuits, who on this account were involved in 
 much controversy with the Dominicans, Jansen- 
 ists, and others, who were strict Augustinians, 
 and by whom they were accused of inclining 
 to Pelagianism. At the time of the Reforma- 
 tion, in the sixteenth century, this theory 
 prevailed far and wide in the Romish church, 
 and was defended by Eck and Erasmus against 
 
 Luther. It was adopted by Melanclhon, and 
 expressly avowed by him after the death of Lu- 
 ther, and by the theologians of his school in the 
 sixteenth century. Others, however, would not 
 swerve from the earlier system of Luther,* 
 though the difference which now existed be- 
 tween the two parties was more in words than 
 in reality. This doctrine was called by the lat- 
 ter syncrgism, and its advocates syner gists, be- 
 cause they taught that the operations of grace 
 are accompanied by the action of the human 
 will. The principal advocate of this synergism 
 was Victorin Strigel, and its principal oppo- 
 nent Flacius. Since that period the opinions on 
 both sides have assumed a much more mode- 
 rate shape, and a great deal of logomachy has 
 ceased; but there still remains a difference of 
 opinion on this point in the protestant as well 
 as in the catholic church. 
 
 Thirdly. The system of Pelagius. Many think 
 that this system is better than any other to re- 
 move the contradiction between human freedom 
 and the influences of grace. Pelagius entirely 
 denies any physical influence of grace, and any 
 alteration of the will effected by means of it. 
 God, indeed, operates on men, but merely 
 through the (natural) power of the truths of re- 
 ligion, of which he is the author. Man has 
 ability both to understand these truths and live 
 according to them, and also ability to sin. And 
 this is the freedom of will essential to man. 
 God causes the renovation of the heart, but 
 merely through the influence of Christian doc- 
 trine, inasmuch as this doctrine, of which God 
 is the author, contains more powerful motives 
 to improvement than any human systems. Vide 
 the Estimate, No. ii. ad fin. Many modern 
 theologians have received this system entirely, 
 and some have undertaken to interpret the com- 
 mon ecclesiastical formulas and the Augusti- 
 nian phraseology in conformity with it. Re- 
 specting these controversies and systems vide 
 the works of Vossius, Sirmond, Mauguin, 
 Serry, Norisius ; also the works of Semler, 
 Walch (Ketzergeschichte), Rosier (Bibliothek 
 der Kirchenvater), and others. [Cf. Neander, 
 Kirchengesch. b. ii. Abth. iii. Bretschneider, b. 
 ii. s. 606. TR.] 
 
 V. Later History of this Doctrine. 
 
 Since the seventeenth, and especially since 
 the eighteenth century, many theologians of the 
 protestant church have laboured to cast light on 
 the doctrine of the operations of grace and the 
 efficacy of the divine word, and to exhibit this 
 doctrine in a manner correspondent with the 
 principles of modern philosophy. Some have 
 declared themselves decidedly in favour of the 
 Pelagian system. Others have adopted it only 
 in part, or, while they have held it, have dis- 
 guised their belief by using the terms of the 
 
462 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Augustinian or scholastic theory in an entirely 
 different sense from what belongs to them, in 
 reality denying physical influence. In this 
 point, however, the protestant church is agreed, 
 * that the Holy Spirit does not act immediately, 
 but mediately, through the word, s. 130, II. 
 So clearly do the symbols teach. Morus, p. 
 231, n, 1. Still there is a great diversity of 
 opinion on the question about the manner in 
 which the Holy Spirit acts through the word, 
 and on the question whether these operations 
 may be denominated supernatural, and in what 
 sense. On these points there are two principal 
 theories prevalent in the protestant church. 
 
 (1) Many hold that although grace operates 
 through the word, there is still connected with 
 the word a special power of the Holy Spirit, in 
 enlighteningand converting men. This power, 
 however, is never exerted without, but always 
 in connexion with the word. Cnnjunctum cum 
 usu doclrinse auxilium Dei, quod tile fert utenti- 
 bus ea, Morus, p. 228, note. The greater part, 
 though not all of the early protestant and Lu- 
 theran theologians, were of this opinion. So 
 Melancthon. Some gave such a turn to this 
 doctrine that tbey were suspected of fanaticism. 
 This was the case with Herm. Rathmann, a 
 Lutheran preacher in Dantzig, who affirmed in 
 his work, "Gnadenreich Christi" 1621, that man 
 is so depraved that the Word of God can by 
 itself exert no power on his heart, unless the 
 almighty power of the Holy Spirit is connected 
 with it. Upon this a great controversy arose 
 in the seventeenth century. Some, too, of the 
 party of the pietists, in the eighteenth century, 
 expressed themselves so vaguely on this point 
 that they were suspected of fanaticism. But, 
 in fact, neither their opinions, nor that of Rath- 
 mann, can properly be called fanatical. Fana- 
 tics and enthusiasts believe in an illumination 
 and renovation of man effected immediately by 
 God, without the use of the word, or the truths 
 of the holy scriptures, of which consequently 
 they speak with disregard. So, e. g., the 
 Quakers. Vide Morus, p. 231, s. 5, for a brief 
 view of their system. 
 
 Many modern theologians have entirely de- 
 parted from these views, (vide No. 2 ;) while, 
 on the other hand, many have adhered to the 
 more ancient theory, and defended it against all 
 attacks. E. g., C. A. Bertling, Vorstellung 
 was die Lutherische Kirche von der Kraft der 
 heiligen Schrift lehre ; Dantzig, 1756, 4to. The 
 author of the "Freundschaftliche Unterredun- 
 gen iiber die Wirkungen der Gnade," 2te Ausg. 
 4 thl.; Halle, 1774, 8vo. Also the " Briefe 
 uher die Wirkungen der Gnade," by the same 
 author, which is the best work in favour of this 
 theory. Gottl. Christ. Storr, " De Spiritus 
 Sancti in mentibus nostris efficient, et de mo- 
 mento ejus doctrinae;" Tubingen, 1777, 4to. 
 
 Cf. Gehe, Diss. inaug. de argumento quod pro 
 divinitate religionis Christians ab experientia 
 ducitur; Gottingen, 1796. 
 
 This theory, however little it may accord 
 with the prevailing principles of modern philo- 
 sophy, is strongly supported by many passages 
 of scripture, s. 130, s. 131, II. 4. 
 
 (2) Others, on the contrary, hold that the 
 divine and supernatural (though they do not 
 like to make use of this word) power of the 
 word of God, by which man is converted, is not 
 to be looked for in connexion with the word, 
 but as belonging to the word itself. They thus 
 consider the power by which man is renewed 
 and made holy, to be in no sense a physical, 
 but rather a logico-moral power. This opinion, 
 which is fundamentally Pelagian, was ingeni- 
 ously defended in the seventeenth century by 
 Claud Pajon, a reformed theologian of Orleans; 
 it led, however, to much controversy. This 
 opinion was first fully exhibited in the Lutheran 
 church, after the eighteenth century, by Joh. 
 Ernest. Schubert, in his "TTnterricht von der 
 Kraft der heiligen Schrift;" Helmstadt, 1753, 
 4to. It was against this work that Bertling 
 wrote. Cf. No. I. It was afterwards defended 
 by Spalding, " Ueber den Werth der Gefuhle 
 in Christenthum," and by Eberhard, " Apologie 
 des Sokrates," thl. i., iii. The most copious 
 and learned work on this subject is, Junkheim, 
 "Von dem Uehernaturlichen in den Gnadeu- 
 wirkungen;" Erlangen, 1775, 8vo. This the- 
 ory has been adopted by most modern theolo- 
 gians of the protestant church, and essentially 
 even by Morus. They frequently employ, in- 
 deed, the ancient phraseology and formulas, 
 but in a different sense from that in which they 
 were originally used a sense which is consi- 
 dered by them more rational, i. e., more con- 
 formed to the philosophical system adopted by 
 these modern theologians. We shall now give 
 a brief historical account and illustration of this 
 theory, which at present is the most popular and 
 current among protestant theologians, adding, 
 however, a critique as we pass along. 
 
 SECTION CXXXIII. 
 
 EXHIBITION OF THE MODERN THEORY RESPECTING 
 THE DIVINITY OF THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE, 
 AND THE POWER OF THE WORD OF GOD.* 
 
 I. How does God act in promoting the Moral Im- 
 provement and Perfection of Men? and in what\ 
 consists the Divinity of the Operations of Grace ? 
 
 (1) GOD does not act in such a way as to\ 
 
 * How far I assent to this theory, either on scrip-, 
 tural or other grounds, will appear from the previous j 
 sections. Where I agree with it entirely, I shall 
 state it as rny opinion ; wherever it appears to me i 
 erroneous i. e. not demonstrable from the Bible 
 I shall give it as the opinion of others. 
 

 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 463 
 
 infringe upon the free will of man, or to inter- 
 fere with the use of his powers. Vide Phil. ii. 
 12, 13. Consequently, God does not act on 
 man immediately ', producing ideas in their souls 
 without the preaching or reading of the scrip- 
 tures, or influencing their will in any other way 
 than by the understanding. Did God operate 
 in any other way than through the understand- 
 ing, he would operate miraculously and irresisti- 
 bly. And the practice of virtue under such an 
 
 nfluence would have no internal worth ; it 
 would be compelled, and consequently incapa- 
 ile of reward. But experience teaches that the 
 work of reformation and holiness is not effected 
 violently and at once, but by degrees; which 
 could not be the case if God acted irresistibly 
 and miraculously. Experience teaches, too, 
 
 hat man can resist; and so the Bible says ex- 
 >ressly, Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Heb. iii. S, seq. ; John, 
 vii. 17; Acts, vii. 51. We find, also, that the 
 moral reformation of man cannot take place with- 
 out earnest and zealous effort, (the working out 
 of salvation with fear and trembling, Phil, ii.,) 
 or the vigorous exercise of one's own powers ; 
 
 nd that man must be anything rather than pas- 
 sive and inactive in this matter. The Bible 
 ;eaches the same thing, and so requires of men 
 ;hat they should reform, change their heart, 
 Acts, ii. 38 ; viii. 22. It exhorts them to in- 
 crease in knowledge and virtue, Ephes. ii. 10; 
 Tit. ii. 17 ; 1 Pet. ii. 1, 2, seq. And for what 
 )urpose has God given to man the direct reve- 
 
 ation of his will, if it is not to be used and 
 employed by God himself in promoting the sal- 
 vation of men? Hence all genuine protestant 
 theologians, on whatever other points they may 
 differ, are agreed in this. 
 
 (2) The divinity in the operations of grace 
 consists, 
 
 (a) In the doctrine revealed by God. For by 
 means of this, faith is excited and preserved in 
 men. This doctrine could not have been dis- 
 covered by man without a divine revelation; 
 and God is the author of all the effects which 
 result from it. In the same way we properly 
 ascribe to a discourse, or to a great writer, all 
 the beneficial effects which may result from his 
 discovery or writings, and regard him as the 
 author of these effects. All this is true; but 
 this is not all which the Bible teaches on this 
 subject. The Bible teaches that besides this 
 there is an agency of God connected with divine 
 truth and accompanying it; or that there is con- 
 nected with the divine word an operation of 
 God on the hearts of men, having for its end 
 their improvement and holiness. Vide s. 131, 
 II. 4. 
 
 (6) In the wise and beneficent external institu- 
 tions which God has established, by which man 
 is led to the knowledge of the truth, and his 
 heart is prepared and inclined to receive it. 
 
 Who can fail to recognise the divine hand in 
 these external circumstances, by which so pow- 
 erful an influence is exerted upon us ; and which 
 are often entirely beyond our own control? 
 How much does the moral culture and improve- 
 ment of man depend on birth, parentage, early 
 instruction, education, society, example, na- 
 tural powers, adversity, or prosperity ! Vide s. 
 131, II. 4. These circumstances are frequently 
 mentioned in the Bible, Rom. ii. 4, seq. Hence it 
 follows that God has made wise arrangements for 
 the good of man, which may properly be called 
 grace., inasmuch as they are proofs of his unde- 
 served goodness. It follows also that God 
 withholds his assistance from none, and that 
 the work of moral renovation is effected in a 
 manner entirely adapted to our moral nature, 
 not forcibly, irresistibly, instantaneously, but 
 gradually. Vide s. 126, seq. 
 
 Now, so far as the end which God has in 
 view, in wisely ordering these circumstances 
 and appointing these means, is attained i. e., 
 when man does not himself resist their influ- 
 ence, this grace may be called efficacious. Still 
 it is exerted in such a way that no one is com- 
 pelled. Grace never acts irresistibly. The re- 
 newal of man is effected by God through the 
 Christian doctrine, the influence of which can 
 be resisted, because it acts on the will through 
 the understanding; and the will is not necessa- 
 rily determined, but only rendered disposed to 
 determine itself for a particular object. In the 
 physical world the law of sufficient reason and 
 of necessity prevails ; in the moral world, the 
 law of freedom. God, therefore, who himself 
 has given this law, will not act in contradiction 
 to it. Frequently, however, one cannot prevent 
 the good impressions and emotions which arise 
 on hearing or reading the truths of the Chris- 
 tian religion ; just as he is unable to prevent the 
 sensations or ideas which external objects pro- 
 duce in his mind, through the senses. This 
 observation, which is founded on the nature- 
 of the human soul, gave rise to the position* 
 which was taken in the controversies between 
 the Jansenists and Jesuits; gratiam non esse. 
 irresistibilem, sed inevitabilem. For although 
 man cannot prevent in every case good impres- 
 sions and emotions, he is able to prevent the 
 consequences of them in actual reformation. 
 
 II. In what manner does God operate on the heart 
 
 of man through the Word, in promoting his Moral 
 
 Improvement ? 
 
 On this point theologians are divided. 
 
 (1) The natural power of truth acts first on 
 the human understanding. The Christian doc- 
 trine makes us acquainted with God, with his 
 feelings towards us, and with what he requires 
 of us. It delivers us from ignorance and preju- 
 dice. For all this we are indebted to God. God 
 
4G4 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 gave us these instructions that they might have 
 an effect upon us i. e., that they might act 
 powerfully on the will, and excite in us good feel- 
 ings and resolutions. Thus the consideration of 
 the divine promises revealed in Christianity 
 tends to lead our minds to repose confidence in 
 God. The consideration, too, of these promises, 
 and the examination of our conduct by the di- 
 vine precepts, produces sorrow and repentance. 
 These precepts and promises, which the Chris- 
 tian religion makes known, are adapted to pro- 
 duce zeal for virtue or holiness. At first our 
 powers for goodness are weak; but by exercise 
 they increase in strength and become confirmed. 
 Vide Art. xi. All this takes place according to 
 the natural laws of the human mind ; but the 
 effect produced does not cease on this account to 
 be the work of God. 
 
 (2) But the New Testament always ascribes 
 to the Christian religion a greater power and 
 efficacy in rendering men virtuous and happy 
 than to any truth ever discovered or taught by 
 man, or supported merely by arguments of hu- 
 man wisdom. Thus Paul says, Romans, i. 16, 
 i3ayy\ioj> XpitfT'ov is Svva/^tj toy atj tfwr'^ptar 
 rtavti TV rttatsvovti. In 1 Cor. i. and ii. he 
 shews that the gospel had produced greater ef- 
 fects than any human system ever did or could 
 produce, although exhibited in the most eloquent, 
 forcible, and convincing manner. Cf. John, 
 vi. 63, and John, iii. Experience and history 
 confirm this. Philosophers and moralists, who 
 depend upon the internal strength and validity 
 of their systems derived from human wisdom, 
 have never been able to accomplish such great 
 and wonderful results as the Christian religion 
 has produced, although exhibited without elo- 
 quence or human wisdom. What merely human 
 teacher of morals could ever boast of so great 
 and remarkable an effect from his instructions as 
 we read of in Acts, ii. 37, and viii. 27 38 "? And 
 whence is all this 1 Some have thought it to be 
 owing to the divine authority on which the Chris- 
 tian doctrine is published. This authority, they 
 say, exerts more influence on one who acknow- 
 ledges it, and removes doubts and difficulties more 
 easily, than the most convincing arguments and 
 the most eloquent address, which depend on no- 
 thing more than mere human authority. But 
 why have not other religions, which have also 
 been published on divine authority, produced 
 these same effects 1 This divine authority can- 
 not therefore be the only ground of the difference. 
 With this must be connected the internal excel- 
 lence of the religion itself, and the salutary na- 
 ture of its doctrines. These two taken together 
 constitute the whole cause, so far at least as it is 
 externally visible, of the facts under considera- 
 tion. But even these do not satisfactorily ac- 
 count for all the effects prod uced by the Christian 
 doctrine ; they are not assigned by the holy scrip- 
 
 tures as the principal cause from which these 
 effects are explicable. The scriptures teach 
 that the cause of these great effects does not lie 
 merely in the power and weight of the doctrines 
 of Christianity, and the evidence by which they 
 are supported, but principally in the almighty 
 power and influence of God, who through the 
 Christian doctrine works in the souls of men. 
 Vide s. 131, II. 4. This efficacy of the divine 
 doctrine is called in theology, the power (vix, 
 cfficacia) of the divine word. 
 
 (3) Inferences drawn from the preceding state- 
 ment. 
 
 (a) The power of the word of God, or the 
 agency of the Holy Spirit, is not physical but 
 logico-moral i. e., the Holy Spirit acts upon the 
 human soul in a manner conformed to our ra- 
 tional and moral nature. This influence is 
 founded in the knowledge of the truths of Chris- 
 tianity, and of the motives contained in it, by 
 which the human will is drawn, but not com- 
 pelled. To this is added, on the part of man, 
 the firm conviction of the divine origin and au- 
 thority of this doctrine, and of the divine su- 
 perintendence by which its effect on him is in- 
 creased. Power to convince and reform is im- 
 parted to and connected with the Christian doc- 
 trine in the same *way as power to germinate 
 and grow is given to seed, and power to heal, 
 to medicine. 
 
 This last statement is in itself true and scrip- 
 tural. Cf. Mark, iv. 28. But it is not incon- 
 sistent with the other equally scriptural view of 
 the influence of God on the heart of man. For 
 he does not act on us otherwise than by means 
 of the Christian doctrine, and consequently not 
 in a compulsory and irresistible manner, but in 
 a manner conformed to the moral nature of man, 
 although the internal modus of his agency may 
 be inexplicable to us. And who can explain the 
 internal modus of the effects produced by God in 
 the natural world? John, iii. 8. Vide s. 131, 
 II. 4. To helieve, therefore, that there is an 
 influxum (vim physicam, or as others express it, 
 more guard ed\y,physico-analogam,') is, according 
 to what has now been said, not contrary to scrip- 
 ture, but conformed to it. 
 
 (6) But however powerful the operation of the 
 divine word, and of God by means of his word, 
 may be, man himself must not, in the meantime, 
 be inactive and sluggish; Phil. ii. 12, 13. For 
 the effect of the divine influence on the heart of 
 any one depends on his making a right use 
 and proper application of the divine doctrine, 
 and on his whole conduct in regard to these di- 
 vine influences. If he disregards these influ- 
 ences, and neglects to improve them in the 
 proper manner, he can no more be benefited by 
 them than one can be satisfied and nourished 
 without the use of food. Such is the uniform 
 representation of the Bible. Vide Mark, iv. 20, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 465 
 
 denying grace to the heathen, to deny decidedly 
 that they had any virtue, or can attain to sal- 
 vation. 
 
 Note. In popular religious instruction the 
 teacher should confine himself to such clear and 
 scriptural points as Morus has exhibited, (pages 
 236, 237, note 4,) illustrating these by the Bible 
 and experience, and setting aside all learned 
 theological disputes and scholastic terms. 
 
 (1) God has endued man with reason and 
 conscience. By the aid of these principles, 
 man is enabled to learn much respecting the na- 
 ture and will of God, and to act conformably to 
 this correct knowledge, Rom. i. 19, 20 ; ii. 14, 
 15, seq. 
 
 (2) But the holy scriptures give us a far more 
 perfect knowledge of God and of our duty. The 
 revealed religion contained in them has much 
 which is peculiarly excellent, and which is not 
 taught in natural religion. And, according to 
 the testimony of the scriptures, God has pro- 
 mised his special assistance, support, and guid- 
 ance, to those who possess them, and obey the 
 precepts contained in them. Arid this promise 
 is confirmed by experience; Rom. i. ii. We 
 ought therefore thankfully to receive, and faith- 
 fully to obey, the instruction contained in the 
 holy scriptures. 
 
 (3) No one can understand, discern, or receive 
 with approbation the instructions of the holy 
 scriptures, unless he is taught the truths con- 
 tained in them ; nor can any'one obey these in- 
 structions, unless the hindrances which stand in 
 the way of his reception of them, in his under- 
 standing and will, are removed, 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
 
 (4) To be delivered through divine instruction 
 and assistance from our ignorance, our mistakes, 
 prejudices, and from our evil passions, is a great 
 and invaluable benefit; and we owe this benefit 
 to none but God and the Holy Spirit. Vide the 
 texts cited, s. 130* 
 
 (5) There are, and always will be, great diffi- 
 culties and hindrances, both within and without, 
 by which our assent to the truths of revelation 
 will be weakened, and our progress in holiness 
 retarded; and these difficulties and hindrances 
 cannot be overcome and removed without the 
 constant assistance and support of God, John, 
 v. 44; viii. 43, seq.; Ephes. iv. 18, and other 
 passages. Vide s. 130, 131. 
 
 (6) We need therefore, in commencing and 
 continuing a life of piety, the help, support, and 
 guidance of God. We ourselves, however 
 must not in the meantime be inactive, but must 
 conscientiously employ the means which God 
 has given us, and faithfully obey the instruc- 
 tions and directions contained in the Bible, al- 
 ways remembering that we owe these means 
 of improvement and virtue to God only, and 
 that without him we can do nothing. Phil, 
 ii. 12, 13. 
 
4G6 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 [Note. The opinions of the Lutheran theolo- 
 gians since the time of our author have been 
 equally diversified as when he wrote, and per- 
 haps more so. This is the less strange, as it is 
 now a conceded point that their own established 
 tandards are at variance among themselves on 
 the doctrine of the operations of grace. Cf. s. 
 32, Note. Henke, Eckermann, and Wegschei- 
 der, follow out the positions of Morus, Junk- 
 heim, Michaelis, Doederlein, and others, to the 
 full Pelagian extreme, and make the grace of 
 God in conversion to be only that general 
 agency by which he has endued man with ra- 
 tional powers, written the law upon his heart, 
 instituted Christianity, and caused it to be pro- 
 mulgated, and by which, in his providential ar- 
 rangements, he gives to every man opportunity 
 and excitement to repentance. Ammon also 
 (Summa, s. 133, 133) makes the renewing 
 grace of God to consist procuratione institutionis 
 sslutaris, excitations per exempla virtutis illustria, 
 paupertate, calamitatibus, admonitionibus amico- 
 rum et inimicorum. ' 
 
 All these writers agree in making the opera- 
 tions of grace merely external, in the way of 
 moral influence, and in denying an immediate 
 agency of God upon the human mind. In this, 
 their system is stamped with one of the most 
 essential features of Pelagianism. Cf. Nean- 
 der's development of the Pelagian system in 
 Part iii. of the 2nd vol. of his Church History. 
 
 There is another class who are distinguished 
 from the former by admitting an immediate di- 
 vine agency in the moral kingdom, though they 
 differ among themselves as to the relation of 
 this influence to the agency of man, especially 
 at the commencement of the life of faith. Bret- 
 schneider contends strenuously for an immediate 
 divine influence as indispensable to conversion. 
 At the same time, he supposes it to depend upon 
 the character and state of the individual who is 
 the subject of this influence, whether grace alone 
 produces faith in him, or whether he himself 
 contributes anything towards it. The operations 
 of grace, accordingly, are not uniform, but as 
 various as the states in which it finds man, from 
 untutored barbarism, to the highest degree of 
 illumination and refinement enjoyed in Chris- 
 tian lands. Nearly the same views are express- 
 ed by Reinhard in his Theology. 
 
 Neander and Tholuck, as will be obvious to 
 any attentive reader of their works, hold promi- 
 nently, that even in faith there is a divine ele- 
 ment that it can by no means result from the 
 unaided efforts of man ; that, besides the gene- 
 ral influence of Christianity, there is an internal 
 influence of the Spirit of God a drawing of the 
 Heavenly Father but that man also is active 
 in this work; and that it is an unwarrantable 
 assumption to undertake to settle immovable 
 limits to these two conspiring agencies, or to 
 
 solve the mystery belonging to the secret ope- 
 rations of grace. 
 
 Again: Schleiermacher, Marheinecke, and 
 others belonging to the more appropriately phi- 
 losophical school of theologians, have restored 
 the entire system of Augustine as to immediate 
 and efficacious grace, and the absolute and un- 
 qualified dependence of man upon God for the 
 very commencement of faith. With regard to 
 this class, it is remarkable, that while Augus- 
 tine and Calvin rested the proof of this doctrine 
 mainly upon scriptural authority, these have been 
 led to adopt and now maintain it on grounds 
 purely philosophical. The weight of the names 
 of such writers has raised the Augustinian and 
 Calvinistic theory of grace far above the con- 
 tempt and reproach with which it was hereto- 
 fore treated by the great body of Lutheran theo- 
 logians. 
 
 A few extracts, under distincts heads, will 
 shew something of the manner in which this 
 doctrine is treated by writers of this class, and 
 how much importance is attached by them to 
 the idea that the divine influences are immediate, 
 and not merely moral and external. Our ex- 
 tracts are drawn from two of the more lucid and 
 popular writers. The statements of Schleier- 
 macher and others of the same school upon this 
 subject, though still more decisive on the point 
 in question, are so intimately interwoven with 
 the whole of their system, and receive so much 
 colouring from it, as to require more explanation 
 to render them perfectly intelligible than the 
 present limits will allow. 
 
 That such an influence is to be desired, is af- 
 firmed by Reinhard in the following passage 
 from the 4th vol. of his "Moral," s. 129: 
 "When one considers the innate depravity of 
 which man is conscious the weakness of his 
 moral powers hence resulting the innumerable 
 perversions to which those constitutional feel- 
 ings and propensities which are in themselves 
 good, are liable, the disordered states which 
 arise from these perversions, and which more or 
 less hinder a true moral development in fine, 
 the many external* causes which nourish and 
 strengthen depravity, and render genuine refor- 
 mation exceedingly difficult, when one who is 
 in earnest in the work of improvement considers 
 all this, he must feel the wish arise, that God 
 would lighten this arduous work, and come in 
 aid of his efforts." 
 
 Objections having often been made to the^os- 
 sibility of such influences, by Reimarus, Les- 
 sing, and others, on the ground that violence 
 would thus be done to the intellectual and moral 
 nature of man, Bretschneider thus replies: 
 "That God has power to act inwardly on the 
 souls of men, and to awaken ideas in their 
 minds, cannot be denied. As the Creator of 
 spirits he knows their nature, and how he can 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 167 
 
 operate upon them ; and as almighty, he must 
 be able to produce in his creatures any effect 
 which he desires. Does any one deny this 
 power to God, he erects between him and the 
 spiritual world an insurmountable wall of par- 
 tition; and in order to be consistent, must deny 
 that God is the governor of the world in gene- 
 ral, any more than he is of the spiritual world. 
 The possibility of an inward agency of God 
 upon the world of spirits cannot therefore be de- 
 nied, although the manner in which this agency 
 is exerted is inscrutable; which indeed is true 
 as to the manner of all the divine operations." 
 # u With what truth now is it presupposed 
 t these influences must hamper the free 
 agency of the mind, and reduce the subject of 
 ;hem to a mere machine 1 Does not the very 
 nature of the case require that reason, the reci- 
 oient, should actively receive, retain, and appro- 
 priate that which is given it? Does not the 
 teacher often, in giving instruction to the child, 
 suddenly interrupt the course of his thoughts, 
 and put him on an entirely new train of ideas 1 
 But are the laws of mind in the child violated 
 by this interruption 1 The teacher, it is said, 
 makes use of words. But cannot God, by an 
 adloquium internum, cause new thoughts in the 
 souls of men ? Or are words the only possible 
 way by which a Spirit can impart his light to 
 other spirits, and teach them." Dogmatik, b. 
 . s. 129, ff. 
 
 But an immediate influence of this kind is not 
 only desirable and possible, but also highly pro- 
 bable. Here again Bretschneider remarks: 
 "As God stands in connexion with the material 
 world, and by his most full and perfect life con- 
 tinually operates upon it, he must also stand in 
 constant connexion with the moral world, other- 
 wise there could be no moral government." 
 Dogmatik, b. ii. s. GOO. This probability, drawn 
 from the co-operation of God in the material 
 world, is stated still more strongly by Reinhard. 
 If there is an immediate concurrence and agency 
 of God in the material world, as generally con- 
 ceded by German philosophers and theologians, 
 such an agency is much more to be expected in 
 the moral world, since this is a far more conge- 
 nial sphere for divine operations. " In the ma- 
 terial sphere, the connexion between natural 
 causes and effects is obvious to the senses, and 
 must therefore be principally regarded by us, 
 although even here the scriptures commonly 
 mention only the highest and last cause, which 
 is God. But in the kingdom of freedom, there 
 is no such mechanical connexion between cause 
 and effect, but an unimpeded intercommunion 
 of beings freely acting; here, therefore, there 
 can be no reason why we, with the scriptures, 
 should not conceive of an immediate influence, 
 since such an influence is far more adapted 
 than one which is mediate, to the sphere of 
 
 which are we now speaking." Moral, b. ir. 
 s. 258. 
 
 But while these writers contend for the fact 
 of immediate divine influences in promoting the 
 renewal of men, they are careful to guard against 
 the perversion of this doctrine by enthusiasts 
 and fanatics. " The reality of these influences," 
 says Bretschneider, "cannot be proved from ex- 
 perience. The influences of grace, as such, 
 cannot be distinguished in consciousness from 
 others; because our consciousness informs us 
 only of the effect, and not of its origin ; takes 
 note only of the change itself which passes 
 within us, but is unable to feel whether it comes 
 from God. * * * As the agency of God in the 
 material world always appears to us as natural, 
 and in the effects produced we never discern the 
 supernatural cause, so his agency in the moral 
 world will always appear to us as natural, and 
 conformed to the laws of psychology, and we 
 are unable in our consciousness to distinguish 
 him as the acting cause." Dogmatik, b. ii. 8. 
 600. Cf. Reinhard's " Moral," b. iv. s. 264. 
 
 In this manner do these writers contend for 
 the fact of immediate divine influences, by argu- 
 ments derived from the need of man, the perfec- 
 tions of God, and the analogy of his agency in 
 the material universe ; and at the same time 
 guard against the perversions of this salutary 
 opinion by enthusiasts who, in the words of 
 Tucker, "think they can see the flashes of illu- 
 mination, and feel the floods of inspiration pour- 
 ed on them directly from the divine hand, and 
 who undertake to give an exact history of all 
 his motions from the very day and hour when 
 he first touched their hearts." 
 
 It may be remarked here, that Kant conceded 
 the possibility of immediate operations of grace 
 for the conversion of man, but denied that they 
 could be either proved or disproved from philo- 
 sophy. The belief in such influences he held 
 to be useful in awakening the hope that God 
 would do for us what we ourselves might b 
 unable to accomplish in the work of our moral 
 renovation. TR.] 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 OF PRAYER AS A MEANS OF GRACE. 
 
 THE doctrine respecting prayer is commonly 
 treated in systematic theology in connexion with 
 the doctrine of the operations of grace. But as 
 the full discussion of this subject belo/igs rather 
 to Christian ethics than to theology, it has by 
 some theologians been either wholly omitted, or 
 only cursorily noticed in their systems. On this 
 subject we shall make here only the following 
 remarks. The prayer of Christians is a means 
 of grace included under Christian doctrine, and 
 
468 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 not to be separated from it. For the influence 
 of prayer is not to be derived from the mere act 
 of those who pray. It stands in connexion with 
 the power of the religious truths to which prayer 
 relates. 
 
 (1) Statement of the philosophical theory 
 respecting prayer. 
 
 The following is the theory respecting prayer 
 which has been adopted in modern times, espe- 
 cially in the eighteenth century, by Mosheim 
 and Morus, and which is held by many philo- 
 sophical and theological moralists. One who 
 institutes a merely philosophical examination of 
 prayer, and passes by all the positive promises 
 to the supplicant contained in the holy scrip- 
 tures, and especially in the Christian system, 
 will yet allow, if he understands the nature of 
 man, a great moral influence to prayer. For it 
 is the means of reminding us of the great truths 
 of religion, and of impressing these truths deeply 
 on our hearts. It excites, moreover, a sure and 
 grateful confidence in God and his promises, and 
 a longing desire after the enjoyment of the bless- 
 ings which he has promised. It is therefore, in 
 itself, of a most beneficial tendency, and has an 
 indescribable influence in promoting moral im- 
 provement, and in purifying the heart. A man 
 is not prepared for the blessings which the 
 Christian doctrine promises, and is not capable 
 of free, moral improvement, unless he acknow- 
 ledges God as the author of them, and has a 
 lively perception of these benefits, and an ear- 
 nest desire to obtain them. Now from this de- 
 sire after divine blessings springs the wish, di- 
 rected to God, that he would bestow them upon 
 us, and this is the inward prayer of the heart. 
 If these feelings are strong and vivid, it is com- 
 mon and natural to us to express them in words 
 and in the form of an address to God, whom we 
 conceive to be present with us, and acquainted 
 with our thoughts and wishes. (The verbal ex- 
 pression is, however, by no means essential to 
 prayer. A soul directed to God is all which is 
 requisite.) By the very act of prayer, this vi- 
 vidness of conception is very much heightened, 
 and in this way our desires and our longings 
 are cherished and strengthened by prayer itself. 
 In this exercise God is made, as it were, pre- 
 sent with us ; and while we are engaged in this 
 duty, we feel as we are accustomed to feel in 
 direct intercourse with a person who is near at 
 hand listening to us, and who by our words and 
 requests is rendered favourable towards us and 
 becomes intimate with us. To the philosopher 
 all this may appear illusion and imagination, 
 but if he looks at experience, which on this sub- 
 ject is worth more than all speculation, he will 
 find that this aid is indispensable to any one 
 who means to make religion a matter of serious 
 and lasting interest. Experience shews that 
 good thoughts, purposes, and resolutions, unac- 
 
 companied by prayer, amount to nothing, be- 
 cause they leave the heart cold and the mind 
 unaffected. 
 
 (2) Examination of this view of prayer. 
 
 It is true that prayer, considered merely as a 
 means of improvement, has great moral advan- 
 tages i. e., that it has a great effect on our 
 moral improvement, that it withholds from evil, 
 tranquillizes the soul, and is in every way pro- 
 motive of the interests of morality and sincere 
 religion. But it -is also true, that it would 
 cease to produce these results which are expect- 
 ed from it if we should content ourselves with 
 this theory of our philosophical moralists, and 
 did not confidently hope to obtain the blessings 
 for which we ask. One who considers the 
 often-repeated assurances, " he that asks shall 
 receive," &c., as delusive, and not serious or sin- 
 cere, will find that he wants an inward impulse 
 to prayer. He can exercise no earnest desires, 
 no real confidence, and no hearty gratitude. It 
 is not our business to inquire how God can hear 
 and answer our supplications without infringing 
 upon his immutability, or altering the establish- 
 ed course of nature. We are to be satisfied 
 with knowing that he can do more than we un- 
 derstand, and that he can and will do every- 
 thing which he has promised. Such consider- 
 ations, connected with personal experience, are 
 enough to secure us against every doubt. Nei- 
 ther Christ, nor the other early teachers of 
 morals, nor the prophets of the Old Testament, 
 ever made use of the motives to prayer, so often 
 used at the present day, derived merely from its 
 moral advantages. Their great motive to prayer 
 is, that it will be heard, upon which they could 
 depend as confidently as the child does upon its 
 father, when it requests what is needful for it. 
 This is the great motive by which prayer should 
 be inculcated on the common people and the 
 young, otherwise they easily get the erroneous 
 impression that prayer, as such, is of no advan- 
 tage, and in reality useless, since it is not heard. 
 On this account Jesus and the other teachers of 
 morals and religion in ancient times did wisely, 
 both in omitting to mention the motives to pray- 
 er derived from its moral uses, and in inculcat- 
 ing it on the simple ground that it is heard, 
 without philosophizing upon the question, in 
 what way it has an influence. And certainly 
 Christians do well in holding fast to the doc* 
 trine of Jesus and of the holy scriptures. Cf. 
 Cramer, Die Lehre vom Gebet, nach Offenba- 
 rung und Vernunft untersucht, u. s. w. ; Keil 
 und Hamburgh, 1786, 8vo; and Nitzsch, Diss. 
 inaugural., Ratio qua Christus usus est in com- 
 mendando precandi officio; Viteberg, 1790; 
 also, " Nonnulla ad historiam de usu religiosa 
 precationis morali pertinentia," by the same 
 author, and published at the same place, 1790, 
 4to. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 469 
 
 Two points deserve particular consideration 
 in this connexion. 
 
 (a) The feeling that prayer is necessary is 
 ibsolutely universal. The history of all nations 
 who have had any religion shews that prayer is 
 (everywhere recognised as an auxiliary to piety, 
 which is indispensable and founded in our very 
 nature. Experience, too, teaches that those re- 
 igions which inculcate frequent prayer, and in- 
 sist upon it as a duty of the first importance, are 
 the most practical, and can enumerate among 
 their followers more examples of men eminent- 
 y religious and virtuous than other religions 
 which make prayer of less importance, and at 
 most prescribe certain public prayers and set 
 brmulas. Next to the Jewish and Christian 
 religion, the Mohammedan has exerted the 
 most influence on the heart, because it so stre- 
 nuously inculcates prayer. This religion, next 
 to the Jewish and Christian, has had the great- 
 est number of truly religious professors and de- 
 irout worshippers of God. [Cf. the work of 
 JTholuck on Ssuffismus, or the doctrine of the 
 Ssuffis a Mohammedan sect in Persia. TR.] 
 
 6) Christ makes it the special duty of his 
 bllowers to supplicate God in his name, and 
 >romises to them a sure audience, which he 
 would, as it were, procure for them, John, xiv. 
 13 ; xvi. 23, 24. This duty is inculcated by the 
 postles upon all Christians. The sentiment of 
 many passages taken together is this: Pray 
 with reference to Christ and his work, conse- 
 quently in belief or sure confidence in him and 
 n his promises. In prayer we must be deeply 
 convinced that he is the author of our salvation, 
 that even now he is mindful of our interests, and 
 makes the things for which we ask his own, and 
 intercedes with God to hear our requests. In 
 this respect he is represented as our Paracletus 
 and Advocate with God, 1 John, ii. 1. But the 
 blessings which Christianity promises to us are 
 not temporal, but spiritual. Desire to obtain 
 these is always conformable to the divine will, 
 and as far as they are concerned, the hearing of 
 prayer is certain. 
 
 ARTICLE XIII. 
 
 ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY 
 OR CHURCH. 
 
 [The common order is to treat, first, of the sacra- 
 ments, and then of the church ; but the reverse order 
 is in many respects more natural and proper; for 
 both of these parts of divine service have a principal 
 relation to the church. By baptism we are solemn- 
 ly initiated into the church ; and by the Lord's Sup- 
 per, the members of the church solemnly renew and 
 perpetuate the remembrance of Jesus Christ, and of 
 
 the blessings which he has bestowed upon the hu- 
 man race.] 
 
 SECTION CXXXIV. 
 
 WHAT IS MEANT BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH J ITS 
 
 OBJECT; ITS NAMES; AND THE DIVISIONS OF 
 THE CHURCH COMMON IN THEOLOGY. 
 
 I. Idea of the Christian Church / its Object; and 
 an Explanation of its Scriptural Names. 
 
 THE Christian church, in the widest sense, 
 may be defined to be, the whole number of those 
 who agree in worshipping God according to the 
 doctrine of Jesus Christ. In this wider sense it 
 agrees with the word Christendom. Its object 
 is, to maintain and perpetuate the Christian doc- 
 trine, and by means of ordinances and exercises 
 observed in common, to promote the practice of it. 
 Such is the great body of mankind, that with- 
 out some common duties and some external or- 
 dinances, the Christian religion could scarcely 
 be maintained among them ; certainly it could 
 not be kept from totally degenerating. The 
 government and preservation of the church are 
 everywhere properly ascribed to Christ, as its 
 head. The same scriptural principles are there- 
 fore applicable here which were above laid 
 down in the doctrine respecting the kingdom of 
 Christ, s. 98. 
 
 The scriptural names of church are, 
 
 (1) 'Exx^ata. This term is used by the 
 Greeks to denote an assembly of men, called 
 together on the authority of the magistracy ; 
 from sxxaheu, evoco, convoco e. g., Acts, xix. 
 32, 39. The Hebrew Snp is used in the same 
 way, especially in the books of Moses, and is 
 commonly translated in the Septuagint by fx- 
 xT^rjaia. The same is true of the Hebrew tnpp. 
 The term Snp (rvirv), denoted secondarily all 
 those who belonged to the Jewish people, and 
 professed the Jewish religion. Christians took 
 the word from the Jews, and like them used 
 txxhyaia to denote (#) particular societies of 
 Christians in particular cities or provinces e. 
 g., ixxhycsia ev 'Ifpoaohv/AOit, x. 1. X., Acts, viii. 
 I ; (&) the religious assemblies of these societies, 
 and the places in which they met e. g., I Cor. 
 xi. 18; xiv. 19, 28, &c. ; (c) the whole sum of 
 those who profess the Christian religion, wher- 
 ever they may be e. g., 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Matt, 
 xvi. 18, seq. 
 
 (2) Swoycoyjj and fTtKjwoycoyrj* and these, 
 too, are used by the Septuagint to render the 
 words Snp and rry. But they were employed 
 by the Grecian Jews about the time of Christ 
 to denote their places of prayer, or oratories, and 
 the congregations connected with them. Vide 
 Vitringa, de Synagoga Vetere. And so we find 
 them used in the New Testament, to denote the 
 religious assemblies of Christians, and the 
 
 2R 
 
470 - 
 
 CHRISTIAN 
 
 places where they held them e. g., Heb. x. 
 25; James, ii. 2. These terms, however, were 
 never used, like the preceding, to denote the 
 whole of Christendom. 
 
 (3) There were also various figurative names 
 employed e. g., jSacaft-Eta *tu>v ovpavav, or tov 
 <s>sov. So frequently in the discourses of Christ. 
 Vide s. 99, 1. But this term denotes not simply 
 the Christian religion and church; it compre- 
 hends all to whom belong the rights, duties, 
 and the entire blessedness of the pious follow- 
 ers of Christ, in this life and the life to come 
 e. g., John, iii. 3 ; Matt. v. 3. Sw^a Xptcrrou 
 (of which he is the xf$a"kri) a figurative ex- 
 pression used to denote the intimate connexion 
 between believers and Christ, and to impress 
 upon them the duties of mutual harmony and 
 brotherly love; Rom. xii. 5. He is the head, 
 we the members, Eph. i. 22, also chap. iv. and 
 v. Na6$ 0sov, 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, used to de- 
 scribe the dignity and holiness of Christians, 
 and the inviolableness of their rights. Ofrcoj 
 Ofou, 1 Pet. iv. 17, seq. Besides these, all the 
 terms used to designate the Israelites as the 
 peculiar and favourite people of God are trans- 
 ferred to Christians in the New Testament e. 
 g., Xaoj Ttfptouaioj, Titus, ii. 14; &a6$ ei$ Tttpt- 
 jtoLyaiv (rtfptrtotjjtjfcjj), 1 Pet. ii. 9; exfax'toi,, x. 
 t. x. The Israelites were the ancient people of 
 God, (under the Ttahaia SIO^-T-XJ?,) in opposition 
 to the new people of God, (under the xaivrj 5ta- 
 j?3C77.) And this ancient people is always re- 
 garded as the stock from which the new sprung, 
 Rom. xi. 17, seq.; Acts, xv. 16. And on this 
 very account Paul earnestly warns Christians, 
 in the passage cited, against despising or un- 
 dervaluing the Jews. 
 
 II. Divisions of the Church. 
 
 (1) Into universal and particular. The church 
 universal comprehends within itself all who 
 profess the Christian doctrine, No. I. But since 
 all Christians cannot agree respecting doctrines 
 and forms of worship, it is natural that those 
 who do agree in these respects should enter into 
 a more intimate connexion. Hence have arisen 
 particular churches, differing according to place 
 and time, doctrine, forms, &c. Hence the divi- 
 sion of the church into the Eastern, Western, 
 Roman, African, Papal, Lutheran, Calvinistic, 
 &c. Again ; these particular churches are sub- 
 divided into ecclesise singulares, by which are 
 understood the separate communions belonging 
 to one particular church, since even these often 
 differ according to time and place, and even 
 with respect to doctrines and usages. Thus we 
 have the Lutheran church in Saxony, Branden- 
 burg, Sweden ; the Reformed church in Eng- 
 land and Switzerland, &c. 
 
 (2) Into the true church and fake churches, 
 and their subdivisions. This division must be 
 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 retained in abstracts, although it should be ap-1 
 plied very cautiously in concrete, or to particular ' 
 cases. We may see, in general, that that Chris- 
 tian church deserves eminently the name of the 
 true church in which there is an entire agree- 
 ment with the doctrine of Jesus and the apos- 
 tles. The more it obeys Christ in everything 
 which he has commanded, the more worthy is 
 it of this name, Eph. v. 23, 24. But there has 
 never been a church respecting all whose mem- 
 bers this could be said ; nor was there any such, 
 even during the times of the apostles, as we see 
 from their writings ; there has never been a par- 
 ticular church wholly free from errors and devi- 
 ations from the doctrine of Jesus. Christ him- 
 self declares that in his church on earth there 
 will always be error and truth, good and evil 
 mingled together. Vide s. 135, II. It is there- 
 fore better to say that is the true church, or, 
 more properly, haa the most truth, in which 
 there is found a nearer agreement with the doc- 
 trine of Jesus and the apostles than in other 
 churches. 
 
 On this subject the opinions of Christians are 
 so divided that it is impossible to give any ge- 
 neral characteristic marks of the true church 
 which would be approved by all. The defini- 
 tion of the true church will always depend upon 
 the individual belief and conviction of every 
 Christian ; and each one regards that church as 
 true which is most accordant with his own 
 views. The following principles, however, 
 may be of some practical importance : 
 
 (a) No one church is in the exclusive pos- 
 session of the truth. There are in every church 
 faults, defects, and errors; and so it was at the 
 time of the apostles, and so it is in all human 
 societies and institutions. 
 
 (6) Nor is there, on the other hand, any 
 Christian church which is wholly wanting in 
 the truth, or which does not profess many use- 
 ful and important truths, although mixed more 
 or less with error. We cannot in this matter 
 judge of the particular members of a church 
 from the established and received doctrines of 
 their church without doing the greatest injus- 
 tice. In this respect wrong is often done; for 
 experience teaches that there are often good 
 Christians in a church which professes many 
 errors, and which has a bad constitution; and, 
 on the contrary, that there are often connected 
 with very excellent church-establishments those 
 who are unworthy of the Christian name. These | 
 observations have given occasion to the division 
 of the church into pure and impure, according j 
 as more or less errors or false principles are em- j 
 braced. We also speak of a corrupt church, by i 
 which is meant particularly a church in which ! 
 false moral principles, exerting an injurious in- : 
 fluence upon the life and Christian walk, are 
 mingled with Christian doctrine. It remains 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 471 
 
 therefore true, that the separate Christian com- 
 munions are of different value and excellence 
 according to their greater or less purity in doc- 
 trine, and according to the greater or less adapt- 
 edness of their external polity and forms to pro- 
 mote moral improvement. It cannot therefore 
 be in itself an indifferent matter to which of 
 these one belongs. No one, however, should 
 desire to make his own individual conviction 
 the unconditional rule for all others, and despise 
 and condemn those who do not agree with him- 
 self. 
 
 (c) If there is no church in which the system 
 of doctrine, the regulations, forms of worship, 
 &c., are perfect and incapable of improvement, 
 it follows that improvements may and ought to 
 je made in them whenever and wherever there 
 s a necessity for it, and that it is an entirely 
 "alse maxim to adhere invariably to what is an- 
 cient; and never to alter. It does not belong, 
 lowever, to any particular member, not even to 
 a public teacher, to urge his supposed improve- 
 ments upon the church. And correct as is the 
 principle de reformatione ecclesise, in the abstract, 
 ts practical application is attended with very 
 
 great difficulties. 
 
 (d) To unite externally all the different 
 churches is not practicable ; and even if it could 
 je done, would occasion more injury than bene- 
 it. And notwithstanding all the difference as 
 to opinion and form in religious matters, mutual 
 love and toleration may still exist. This is 
 proved by the history of the church in ancient 
 and modern times. 
 
 (3) The church is divided into visible and in- 
 visible. This division is entirely rejected in 
 several of the new systems e. g., in those of 
 G rimer, Doderlein, and others. They seem, 
 however, to have taken offence merely at the 
 terms. These are, indeed, new ; and have come 
 into use since the Reformation. But the thing 
 itself which is intended by these terms is well 
 supported, and is as ancient as the Christian 
 church itself, and was acknowledged as true by 
 Ihrtst and the apostles and the whole early 
 church. These terms came into use in the fol- 
 lowing way : Luther denied that the Romish 
 church, according to the doctrine and polity 
 which it then professed, is the true church. It 
 was then asked, M r here then was the true church 
 before him? To which he answered, that it 
 was invisible i. e., before the Reformation 
 those Christians had constituted the true church, 
 and held the pure doctrine, who, without re- 
 garding the authority and commandment of 
 men, had followed the scriptures according to 
 their own views, had lived piously, and kept 
 themselves free from the errors of the public 
 religion; and such persons there always had 
 been, even at the most corrupt periods, although 
 they had not always been known. It was from 
 
 this just observation that this division arose. 
 Cf. Confess. August., Art. vii. and viii., and 
 Apol. A. C. 
 
 Protestants understand by the invisible church 
 true Christians, who not only know the precepts 
 of Christ, but from the heart obey them, Matt, 
 vii. 21. This church is not always clearly seen ; 
 indeed, to speak justly, it is known only to God, 
 Col. iii. 3 ; while from the eyes of men, who 
 judge only according to the external appearance, 
 it is wholly concealed. On the contrary, the 
 visible church consists of all who by profession 
 belong externally to the church i. e., attend 
 public worship, partake of the sacraments, &c. ; 
 for wherever the Christian doctrine is proclaim- 
 ed, and the rites prescribed by it are observed, 
 there the visible church is. Not every one, 
 therefore, who belongs to the visible church, 
 even if it be one of the best, does on this account 
 belong also to the invisible church. For in the 
 visible church there are often wicked men and 
 hypocrites. This is not, then, a division generis 
 in species, but eadem res diverso respectu. The 
 same is true with respect to other societies 
 e. g., the republic of the learned. 
 
 There are not wanting passages in the New 
 Testament in which this distinction is plainly 
 made, although it is not expressed in this man- 
 ner. For, first, the word ixx^aia in many texts- 
 denotes the whole number who make an outward 
 profession of Christianity, without having any 
 reference to their inward state e. g., 1 Cor. i. 
 2, &c. Vide No. I. But, secondly, in other 
 passages such predicates are given to the church 
 as do not apply to all who profess Christ, but 
 only to that better and nobler part which is 
 called the invisible church e. g., Eph. v. 27, 
 oyta, (tyicojiioj, p,rj f^oucra tfTuXov 77 pur'iSa, &c. 
 Here belongs the remarkable passage, Mark, ix. 
 38 40, where the disciples of Jesus would not 
 acknowledge a person to be a genuine follower 
 of Christ, because he did not belong to their 
 society, their external church, and was not, as 
 it were, enrolled as belonging to their corpora- 
 tion ; on which point Christ sets them right* 
 Cf. Matt. xv. 22, seq. That in the visible 
 church (jBatfi^fta tuv ovpavwv) the evil and the 
 good are mingled together, and cannot be exter- 
 nally separated without injury to the whole, is 
 taught by Christ in the excellent parable, Matt. 
 xiii. 24 30. The wicked are compared with 
 the tares, although they belong to the external, 
 visible church ; but the good, who belong both 
 to the visible and invisible church, are compared 
 with the wheat. Cf. the text, Matt. vii. 21, 
 above cited. 
 
 Note. Christ regards all who from the heart 
 believe in him (the members of the invisible 
 church) as a present which God has given him,, 
 and so calls them ; and upon them, he says, he 
 bestows eternal life. Vide John, vi. 37 ; xviu 
 
472 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 2, 6. The better, pious part of mankind are 
 spoken of as belonging- to God, they are his 
 children ; and this his possession he gives over 
 to the charge of Christ, to lead them to eternal 
 life. This is a great and heart-affecting idea ; 
 and if such a thought had been found in Plato 
 or Xenophon, there would have been no end of 
 praising it; but in the holy scriptures it is less 
 regarded. 
 
 (4) The church is divided again into militant 
 and triumphant. By the church militant is 
 meant Christians in the present life, so far as 
 they have to contend with many internal and 
 external sufferings, adversities, and persecu- 
 tions. By the church triumphant is meant the 
 society of Christians in heaven, so far as they 
 are freed from all these trials, and enjoy the 
 most perfect rest and blessedness. The church, 
 however, is here used, in the narrower sense, 
 for the invisible church and its members. This 
 division was taken principally from the text, 
 Rev. xii. 7, seq., though this is rather a descrip- 
 tion of the rest to which the church will be re- 
 stored here upon the earth, after long persecu- 
 tions and calamities. It is also derived from 
 those passages in which the dangerous and toil- 
 some life of Christians is compared with a strife 
 and conflict, which will soon be over e. g., 2 
 Tim. iv. 7. Here too must be mentioned the 
 text, Heb. xii. 22, 23, where the noble thought 
 is exhibited, that we compose but one society 
 with the host of blessed angels and the company 
 of the saints now rewarded in heaven (f^ftetco- 
 fic vw Stxauoj/), of whom Jesus is the Head ; and 
 that when we have completed our course here 
 below, we shall join this upper society in our 
 native land. 
 
 Note. Among the writings of the older pro- 
 testant theologians, in which this division and 
 the other topics introduced in this section are 
 treated very thoroughly, that of Jo. Musaeus, De 
 Ecclesia, (Jenae, 1675,) deserves particular men- 
 tion. 
 
 SECTION CXXXV. 
 
 ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH J THE 
 ECCLESIASTICAL TERMS COMMONLY EMPLOYED 
 TO DESIGNATE THEM, AND THEIR SIGNIFICA- 
 TION. 
 
 IT has been common, in imitation of the an- 
 cient confessions, to predicate of the true church 
 the four attributes, una, sancta, catholica, aposto- 
 lica. In the apostolic symbol it is called a holy 
 Christian church, the society of the saints ; in the 
 Nicene symbol, one only, holy, Christian, apos- 
 tolic church. Most of these terms are taken from 
 the New Testament, though they are there used 
 in a different sense from that in which they are 
 employed in the later ecclesiastical phraseology. 
 And this difference should be carefully noted. 
 
 It must be remarked in general that all these at- 
 tributes properly apply only to the invisible 
 church, although many of them may be predi- 
 cated also of the visible church, when rightly ex- 
 plained. The doctrine of the perpetuity of the 
 church may be most conveniently considered in 
 connexion with these. 
 
 I. Unity of the Church. 
 
 This predicate has an entirely different mean- 
 ing in the New Testament from that which it 
 bears in the common ecclesiastical phraseology. 
 Its two significations will therefore be separately 
 considered. 
 
 (1) When the unity of the church is spoken 
 of in the New Testament it is a moral unity 
 which is intended. The import of this term is, 
 that all who worship God according to the doc- 
 trine of Jesus should regard themselves as mem- 
 bers of one society, and as such should exercise 
 mutual brotherly love; that notwithstanding all 
 differences of birth, condition, knowledge, opi- 
 nions, and forms, they should still constitute 
 but one church, or religious society, worshipping 
 one and the same Lord, even Christ, and par- 
 taking in common of the blessings promised to 
 his followers. That there should be such a 
 union among his followers was the last will, the 
 testament of Christ; John, xiii. 34, coll. xv. 1, 
 seq. And in order to this, it is not essential 
 that there should be a full and entire agreement 
 of opinion on every particular. doctrine. Chris- 
 tians, though differing as to their mode of think- 
 ing, their particular opinions and forms, and 
 though divided into particular communions, 
 ought to regard themselves as constituting still 
 but one church, and so to live together in unity 
 of spirit. This is the true spirit of Christianity ; 
 it infuses feelings of toleration. And the more 
 one has of the mind of Christ the more tolerant 
 will he be to others ; and especially, because he 
 knows that not only his Lord, but his brethren, 
 see much in him which requires forbearance. 
 Vide Tit. iii. 35. 
 
 This unity of the church is mentioned in 
 those passages in the New Testament in which 
 warnings are given against disturbers of the 
 peace and against controversies; and in those 
 also in which it is taught that it is the design of 
 Christianity to remove all distinction between 
 Jew and Gentile, and to unite all nations in a 
 common religion; respecting which vide sec. 
 118,11. 
 
 The principal proof-texts here are, John, 
 xvii. 20, IVa Ttdvtes ev ZMW John, x. 16, "one 
 fold, one shepherd ;" and Ephesians, iv. 3 6, 
 and ver. 13, evotyg Ttvevpatog, because all wor- 
 ship one God and one Christ, have one baptism 
 and one doctrine. The svotrjs rtiatfas in ver. 13 
 is one and the same Christian doctrine, professed 
 alike by Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 473 
 
 who ought therefore to love each other as bre- 
 thren. Galatians, iii. 28, rtavfts !? iv Xpujr-cp. 
 Rom. xii. 5, rt ohhoi ev (jw^ua ts^v, coll. ver. 
 13 ; x. 17 ; 1 Cor. i. 12, 13 ; viii. 6. The true 
 spiritual unity of Christians is therefore placed 
 by Christ himself in this, that they believe in 
 the only true God, and in Jesus, as the Saviour 
 of the world ; that they love him, and from love 
 to him obey his commandments, and especially 
 that they love one another. By this only can 
 the true disciples of Christ be known; not by 
 external names and forms, but by faith, work- 
 ing by love the love of Christ and our neigh- 
 bour. 
 
 (2) But there gradually arose, after the second 
 and third centuries, an entirely different concep- 
 tion of the unity of the church. It first origin- 
 ated among the fathers in the West, in conse- 
 quence of their transferring to Christianity cer- 
 tain incorrect Jewish ideas which were disap- 
 proved by Jesus and his apostles, and which had 
 the most injurious results. The unity of the 
 church was placed by them in an entire external 
 agreement as to those doctrines and forms which 
 were handed down from the times of the apos- 
 tles, through the churches founded by them, and 
 in the external connexion and fellowship of the 
 particular societies founded upon this agree- 
 ment. 
 
 The most ancient passages relating to this 
 subject are found in Irenaeus, (i. 10,) Tertullian 
 (De Prescript. Hseret. c., 20, ad fin.) and Cy- 
 prian, (in his Book, "DeUnitate Ecclesiae.") 
 The object contemplated in this external con- 
 nexion of churches was at first very good ; it was 
 designed by this means to set bounds to the ever 
 encroaching corruption in doctrine and life, and 
 to remove false teachers. But when the rulers 
 of the churches no longer possessed the genuine 
 spirit of Jesus, then, through these principles 
 and the consequences derived from them, the 
 hierarchy was gradually established ; and into- 
 lerance and the spirit of persecution and anathe- 
 matizing became very prevalent. Even the pa- 
 pal hierarchy rests entrirely upon these princi- 
 ples, and originated from them. The principal 
 bishops now established a kind of college or se- 
 cret society; and this unity of the church was made 
 dependent, first, upon many heads, then, upon 
 one visible head of the church. And whoever 
 ventured to dissent from the doctrine or the ordi- 
 nances of the principal bishops, who held toge- 
 ther and governed their churches, was excluded 
 from church-fellowship and declared a heretic. 
 Even Cyprian derived the one true church in 
 the West from Peter, because he taught at Rome, 
 and because the church there was the mother of 
 most of the churches in the West. The bishops 
 regarded themselves therefore as the successors 
 of the apostles, and as the representatives of God 
 and of Christ; and whoever was excluded by 
 60 
 
 them from church-fellowship was excluded by 
 God himself; and it was early believed and 
 taught that he was at the same time excluded 
 from salvation. Vide s. 128, II. Hence even 
 Cyprian states in his book the principle, extra 
 ecclesiam illam unicam et veram [externam or 
 visibilem] non dari salutem a principle from 
 which so many false doctrines were afterwards 
 deduced. Vide s. 121, II. 
 
 Upon these supports does the whole false 
 system of the hierarchy in the Romish church 
 depend. Vide Henke, De Unitate Ecclesise, in 
 his " Opuscula." But there is no such societas 
 Christiana, nor ought there, according to the de- 
 sign of Jesus, to be any which shall resemble 
 civil societies ; for this leads to a hierarchy, and 
 all the evil consequences which flow from the 
 collision of secular and spiritual power. 
 
 Protestants have never had properly one 
 church, but churches, (ecc/estas.) Such, at least, 
 is the language employed iu the Augsburg Con- 
 fession, Art. vii., and in the other public instru- 
 ments, even in the peace of Westphalia ; and it 
 is in this that protestantism is distinguished from 
 consolidated popedom. The Roman-catholic idea 
 of the church is vindicated in a very subtile and 
 plausible manner in the work, "Idea Biblica 
 EcclesiaR Dei," by Franc. Oberthiir, vol. i. ; 
 Salzburg, 1790, 8vo, vol. ii. 1799. He pro- 
 ceeds on the definition, Quod sit ecclesia schola 
 quasdam, quant Deus erexerit, nutriendse ac pro- 
 movendx internas religionis causa, in which, 
 however, there does not seem to be anything 
 insidious. 
 
 II. The Sanctity of the Church. 
 
 .This is twofold viz., 
 
 (1) External,- and this is predicated of the 
 church so far as it is distinguished from other 
 religious societies (e. g., Jewish or Gentile) by 
 the superior excellence of its religious princi- 
 ples. In this wider sense, even the Jews are, 
 in the Old Testament, often denominated holy ; 
 and taken in this sense, the visible Chris- 
 tian church may justly be called holy ; for it is 
 not the moral character of the members which 
 is designated by the term in this wider sense. 
 And so all Christians, even those who are such 
 merely by external profession, are often deno- 
 minated aytoc in the New Testament. Vide s. 
 126, IV.; also 1 Pet. ii. 9. 
 
 (2) Internal, or moral. The whole object of 
 the establishment of the church, and the instruc- 
 tion communicated in Christian doctrine, is to 
 bring the members of the church, under divine 
 guidance, to this internal holiness. This is said 
 by Paul in the passage cited, Ephes. v. 26, 27, 
 coll. Tit. ii. 14. But this object is not actually 
 attained in respect to all who belong to the ex- 
 ternal visible church, but only in those who 
 belong to the invisible church. It can therefore 
 
474 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 be truly said only of the invisible church, that 
 it is holy in this internal, moral sense. 
 
 Many have been led, by confounding these 
 different meanings, and by misunderstanding 
 those passages in which it is made the duty of 
 every Christian to be holy, to adopt the princi- 
 ple that even the external or visible church must 
 be a society consisting only of renewed persons 
 or saints, and that a church which tolerates 
 within itself unholy or unregenerate persons 
 cannot be a true church, and so is to be ex- 
 cluded from Christian fellowship. It was on 
 these principles that the Novatians proceeded 
 in the third century, and the Donatists in the 
 fourth and fifth. And they were still more fre- 
 quently maintained by the Anabaptists and 
 other fanatical sects in the sixteenth century. 
 The same principles have been revived in still 
 more modern times by the quakers, and many 
 other fanatics and separatists. 
 
 But they do not consider that in all external 
 human societies good and evil must be mixed, 
 and that often the Omniscient only can discern 
 and distinguish the hypocrites, who are much 
 more injurious than the openly vicious. And 
 so Christ pronounced that the external church 
 could never be pure from evil, and that the tares 
 and the wheat must be suffered to grow toge- 
 ther; Matt. xiii. 3, seq., ver. 24 31, 47 50; 
 and so, too, he himself endured Judas among his 
 apostles. Too great severity often terrifies the 
 good and keeps them at a distance ; and wicked 
 ancestors often have descendants who are good 
 and useful members of the church, but who 
 would not have been so if their ancestors had 
 been excluded. The external, visible church 
 cannot, therefore, be a society consisting of 
 pious Christians only; it is rather a nursery 
 (seminarium}, designed to raise up many for 
 the invisible kingdom. 
 
 Still, however, it is always right, and cer- 
 tainly according to the spirit of Christ, for like- 
 minded Christians to associate together, and to 
 establish among themselves institutions which 
 they may deem promotive of piety, or even to 
 form smaller societies, in which they will permit 
 those only to participate who have a like object 
 and possess similar dispositions with them- 
 selves, excluding all others, the ecclesiolae in eccle- 
 sia of which Spener spoke. They should beware, 
 however, against running in this way into spiri- 
 tual pride, against holding themselves to be bet- 
 ter than others, and against regarding those who 
 do not join them, and are not enrolled among 
 them, as worse Christians than themselves. 
 It does not belong to the government to interdict 
 such associations, if they do not disturb civil 
 peace and order, any more than to forbid and 
 hinder other private associations of citizens for 
 other lawful objects. The reasons for and 
 against these associations are canvassed in 
 
 Burkhardt's " Geschichte der Methodisten;" 
 Nurnberg, 1795, s. 123, f. The history of tru 
 church teaches that these smaller association* 
 have had, upon the whole, a highly beneficial 
 effect. In times of ignorance and unbelief the) 
 have been the depositories of uncorrupted Chris- 
 tianity. Without the Waldenses, the Wick- 
 lifites, and the Hussites, the Reformation woulc 
 never have taken place. 
 
 III. The Catholic and Apostolic Church. 
 
 A different idea is attached to the term catho- 
 lic in modern times, and especially in the pro- 
 testant church, from that which anciently be- 
 longed to it. Catholic is now used in its etymo- 
 logical sense, and is synonymous with universal 
 And the church is said to be universal, because 
 all in the whole earth who profess Christ belong 
 to it, and because Christianity is not merely z 
 national religion, or the religion of a country, 
 but one which may be professed by all mer 
 without distinction. The church is called apos- 
 tolical, because the members of it profess tc 
 adopt the doctrine taught by the apostles, an<3 
 contained in their writings ; according to Eph, 
 ii. 20, "built upon the foundation of the apos- 
 tles." But anciently xo&oMxoj was synony- 
 mous with 6po'6ofoj, and/des catholica was the 
 same as fides orthodoxa, which was the faith 
 held in opposition to heretics, because it was 
 supposed that the true faith, which accords with 
 the will of Christ and the apostles, must be the 
 universal faith of all Christians, and be found 
 in all the churches established by the apostles, 
 Hence ecclesia catholica is that quas hobetfidem 
 sive veritatem catholicam }.. e., the right and 
 pure doctrine and constitution, in opposition tc 
 those churches which have not the pure aposto- 
 lic doctrine, but belong to the heretics. Thej 
 proceeded on the principle that there is only one 
 true church, (vide No. I.,) and in order to es- 
 tablish and maintain this, the principal churches 
 and their bishops throughout the Roman empire 
 (xa' otojv otxov/tEvi?!/) had gradually formed a 
 separate church union. Whatever agreed with 
 this was xa&faxov, otherwise alpetixov. The 
 genuine apostolic doctrine was supposed, how- 
 ever, to be found in those churches which the 
 apostles themselves had founded. To -these 
 churches, and to the doctrine handed down in 
 them from the times of the apostles, the appeal 
 was therefore made, in the controversies in 
 which the catholic fathers were engaged with 
 the heretics; and it was by this appeal, an ap- 
 peal to tradition, that they confuted them. Vide 
 Introduction, s. 7, III. But the whole body of 
 Christian churches professing the orthodox doc- 
 trine handed down in the apostolic churches 
 were called the catholic, orthodox, or apostolic 
 church, because they all agreed in the doctrines 
 and regulations prescribed by the apostles to 
 
STATE IN^TO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 475 
 
 the churches founded by them e. g., by Peter 
 to the church at Rome, by Paul to that at Ephe- 
 sus, &c. The earliest passages relating to this 
 subject are found in Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres, 1. 
 iii., and especially in Tertullian, De Prescript. 
 Haer., c. 20, 21. It is there said, for example, 
 Tot ac tanlse ecclesise, una est ; ilia ab apostolis 
 prirna, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes primx, et omnes 
 apostulicse dum una,- omnes probant unitatem, 
 etc. Vide the Essay of Henke before cited. 
 
 ^V ; e . The infallibility of the church was 
 not believed during the first centuries. Between 
 the period of the Nicene Council in the fourth 
 century, and Gregory the Seventh, many traces 
 of this opinion appear. From Gregory the 
 Seventh until the Western schism in the four- 
 teenth century, it was placed mostly in the in- 
 fallibility of the pope. From that period until 
 the Council at Trent, the idea prevailed that 
 only the church collected in general council is 
 infallible. Since that period, the opinions of 
 catholic theologians have been divided on this 
 point. Some (the genuine Romanists) make the 
 pope the subject of this infallibility ; others (and 
 among these even Febronius) suppose the oecu- 
 menical councils alone infallible; others still 
 (and principally the French theologians since the 
 middle of the seventeenth century) attribute in- 
 fallibility only to the church dispersed at large. 
 At present this doctrine is wholly abandoned 
 by some of the more liberal catholic theologians. 
 Vide the excellent book (written by a catholic,) 
 entitled Kritische Geschichte der kirchlichen 
 Unfehlbarkeit, zur Beforderung einer freyern 
 Priifung des Katholicismus, Frankf. a. M. 1792, 
 8vo. Cf. also the very learned and liberal 
 work, entitled " Thomas Freykirch, oder Frey- 
 miithige Untersuchung von einem katholischen 
 Gottesgelehrten iiber die Unfehlbarkeit der ka- 
 tholischen Kirche, Ir. b. ; Frankf. und Leipzig, 
 1792, 8vo. 
 
 IV. The Perpetuity of the Church. 
 
 Christ himself teaches, with the greatest as- 
 surance, that the religious society and constitu- 
 tion founded by him will never cease, but be 
 perpetual. M the powers of decay and destruc- 
 tion shall not get advantage over 7, rtvXcu ci6ot> 
 (where all which perishes or is destroyed upon 
 the earth is collected) ov xo,-tus%vGovG(.v avtr^, 
 Matt. xvi. 18. It is the doctrine of the New 
 Testament that Christ, as the Ruler of the 
 church, is now actively employed in heaven for 
 its good, and that he will continue until the end 
 of the world to support and enlarge it. Vide 
 Matt, xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 25, coll. Ephes. iv. 
 16, and s. 98, respecting the kingdom of Christ. 
 This, however, is not to be so understood as to 
 imply that the particular forms of doctrine which 
 prevail at any particular time, and the particu- 
 lar church communions originating from them, 
 
 will be of perpetual duration. Changes must 
 necessarily here take place. The history of the 
 church teaches that one mode of church polity 
 succeeds another, and that yet, however great 
 these changes may be, Christianity still sur- 
 vives. External constitutions and economies 
 resemble the scaffolding, which aid in the con- 
 struction of the building, but are not the build- 
 ing itself. They may be taken down and broken 
 to pieces when they have answered their pur- 
 poses, and the building will then proceed in a 
 different way. That this is so, is proved by the 
 history of the church. It has been, however, a 
 common mistake for the members of certain par- 
 ticular churches e. g., the catholic, Lutheran, 
 and others, to suppose that if their particular 
 constitution should cease the whole Christian 
 church and Christianity itself would perish. 
 So most in all the separate communions still 
 think, and always have thought; and yet the 
 Christian doctrine and church have hitherto 
 been perpetuated, notwithstanding the greatest 
 revolutions in states and in ecclesiastical poli- 
 ties ; and this beyond a doubt would still be the 
 case, even if the particular churches and esta- 
 blishments now existing should perish. The 
 spirit and essential nature of Christianity may 
 remain, however much its external form may be 
 altered. Christianity, however, is not so con- 
 nected with any one place or nation that it must 
 necessarily be perpetuated there, nor has any 
 one church a promise that its descendants shall 
 be Christians. We know from the history of 
 the church, that where Christianity was once 
 most flourishing, it has since been expelled, 
 either by superstition or unbelief, and it has 
 thence travelled to other regions which were 
 formerly sunk in the deepest night of ignorance. 
 Let the reader call to mind the former flourishing 
 condition of the Eastern churches, and then com- 
 pare with it their present state. Every church 
 should make the use of this fact which is sug- 
 gested in Rev. ii. 5. 
 
 SECTION CXXXVI. 
 
 OF THE HEAD OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; AND 
 OF THE INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED TO MAIN- 
 TAIN AND EXTEND IT, ESPECIALLY THROUGH 
 THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC TEACHING. 
 
 I. The Head of the Church. 
 
 THE only true Head and supreme Lord of the 
 Christian church is Jesus Christ, according to 
 the uniform doctrine of Christ himself and the 
 apostles. Vide Moms, p. 278, s. 2. Those 
 who profess his doctrine are brethren, and as 
 such have equal rights. Vide Matt, xxiii. 8. 
 Hence he is called o rtot/op, ap^trtot/ur ( r, x. i 1 . 7.. 
 John, x. 12; 1 Pet. v. 4; Heb. xiii. 20; and 
 , Ephes. i. 22, iv. 15 ; Col. ii. 
 
476 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 10. Nor is he called by these titles merely in 
 a figurative sense, but because, in his exalted 
 state, he exercises unwearied and watchful care 
 over men, and especially over his church and 
 its members. Vide s. 98, respecting the king- 
 dom of Christ. 
 
 Christ therefore by no means wished that his 
 apostles should exercise a lordly dominion over 
 other Christians, Luke, xxii. 24, and they never 
 assumed such authority, but expressly protested 
 against it. Vide 1 Pet. v. 1 3 ; 1 Cor. v. 6, 
 seq. Nor was it his will that one of the apos- 
 tles, or his successors, should possess supre- 
 macy and magisterial power over the church, 
 like what is asserted in the Romish church re- 
 specting Peter and his successors, of which 
 there is not a trace in the New Testament or in 
 the first centuries, as appears from church his- 
 tory. The text, Matt. xvi. 18, upon this rock I 
 will build my church, relates indeed to Peter and 
 his merits in diffusing the Christian faith. For 
 history teaches that he really laid the first foun- 
 dation of the great building of the house of God 
 after the departure of Christ, both from the Jews, 
 Acts ii., and from the Gentiles, Acts x. a 
 building which is firmly based (built on a 
 rock,) and which will endure until the end of 
 the world, whence he is always pre-eminent 
 among the apostles. But nothing is said in this 
 passage respecting his own supreme and judi- 
 cial power over the church, or that of his suc- 
 cessors. Peter is here spoken of as a disciple, 
 and not as a ruler and governor. Moms ex- 
 plains this passage very well, (p. 284, seq. n. 3.) 
 
 It is therefore justly affirmed in the protestant 
 church that Christ has constituted no visible 
 head of the whole church who is to hold his 
 place upon the earth, and to act and make de- 
 crees as his representative and in his name. 
 
 It is quite another question, Whether the 
 Christian church has not the right to commit to 
 some one the charge and government of its exter- 
 nal public concerns ? This right the church cer- 
 tainly has ; and if good order is to be preserved, 
 it must be exercised, because all the members 
 of the church cannot take part in its govern- 
 ment. Thus it was in the apostolic church. 
 But the one, or the many, who are appointed to 
 this duty, and who constitute an ecclesiam re- 
 prsesentativam, possess this pre-eminence not 
 jure divino, but humano. They ought not 
 therefore to give out their decretals as divine, 
 and in the name of God. Their enactments are 
 merely human, and ought to have no more than 
 human authority; they may be altered, im- 
 proved, &c. 
 
 Since, moreover, in every well-organized so- 
 ciety there must be subordination, no good rea- 
 son can be given why this should not be intro- 
 duced among the officers and teachers of the 
 Christian church, and why one should not have 
 
 more authority than another. In this way, at a | 
 very early period, a great pre-eminence over the 
 other occidental bishops was ascribed to the ' 
 Roman bishops, and he was called the head of !| 
 the (occidental) church, while as yet there was ,| 
 no absolute dominion or magisterial power over | 
 the church allowed him. But for a further ac- j 
 count of this matter we must refer to canon law 
 and church history. 
 
 II. The Office of Teaching in the Church. 
 
 Every Christian has the right, and indeed is 
 under obligation, to do all in his power to main- 
 tain and promote Christian knowledge and feel- 
 ing. Vide Rom. xv. 14; Gal. vi. 1; Eph. v. 
 19 ; vi. 4 ; 1 Thess. v. 14. But since all Chris- 
 tians have not the time, talents, or other qualifi- 
 cations requisite for this work, some were set 
 apart by Christ, whose appropriate business and 
 calling it should be to teach and counsel those 
 committed to their charge ; and these were to 
 be the instruments through whom he designed 
 that his doctrine should be maintained and trans- 
 mitted, and the practice of it promoted. Paul 
 therefore derives the institution of the different 
 kinds of officers and teachers in the church di- 
 rectly from God and Christ, and says that each 
 received a different office and employment, ac- 
 cording to his talents and gifts ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; 
 Eph. iv. 11, 12; and in the latter passage he 
 says that this arrangement was made for the 
 perfection and edification of the Christian 
 church, (rfpoj xatapifiripov f t$ oixoSo^v cfw^uatoj 
 Xpttf-r'ov.) They are hence called i^ptraj and 
 8idxovoi sou and Xpttfroaj those who stand in 
 the service of God and Christ, and are employed 
 by them as instruments. They are also called 
 fellow workers with God, (tjwfpyot,) 1 Cor. iii. 9. 
 
 The Christian office of teaching was therefore 
 appointed by Jesus Christ himself as an insti- 
 tution designed for the maintenance and spread 
 of the gospel through all ages. And he had 
 the right to do this, as being commissioned and 
 authorized by God himself to be the founder 
 and head of his church. No one of his follow- 
 ers can therefore consistently undervalue this 
 institution, or wilfully withdraw himself, on any 
 pretence, from the assemblies of Christians for 
 the purpose of religious instruction. Matt. 
 xxviii. 18 20; Eph. iv. 11, seq.; Heb. x. 25. 
 But it is necessary, in order to obviate various 
 abuses and mistakes, that we should here more 
 particularly illustrate some points relating to the 
 office of teaching. 
 
 (1) The apostles were set apart, as public 
 teachers and as founders of Christian churches, 
 directly by Christ himself; and they again, as 
 ambassadors for Christ, appointed a perpetual 
 office of teaching, and the public assembling of 
 Christians for worship, and other institutions, 
 calculated to impart strength and perpetuity to 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 477 
 
 the church. Cf. the first chapters of the Acts of 
 the Apostles. Cf. also Spalding, Vom Werth 
 und Nutzen des Predigtamts, 2te Ausg. ; Berlin, 
 1773, 8vo. 
 
 The teachers in the apostolic church are di- 
 vided into ordinary and extraordinary. Among 
 the latter are included the apostles themselves, 
 the evangelists, (who were missionaries and as- 
 sistants of the apostles,) and in general all who 
 were not appointed as permanent teachers over 
 particular churches, but who were employed in 
 extending Christianity, and in founding new 
 churches. Among the former the ordinary and 
 permanent officers and teachers of each particu- 
 lar church were tjticxortoi,, rtpsafivtfpoi, jtot- 
 , (of which the general name is 
 , officers, rulers of the church, Hebrews, 
 xiii. 7, 17, 24.) Some of these had more to do 
 with the external concerns of the church, (pres- 
 byteri regentes, rtotpeves,) and others were more 
 especially employed in instruction, (presbyteri 
 ducentes, StSctoxakot.) But for a more particular 
 account of this matter we must refer to church 
 ! history. 
 
 These officers and teachers were not appointed 
 i immediately by Christ himself; and in the first 
 church they were not always appointed in the 
 i same way and by the same persons; certainly 
 i no rule was given respecting this point which 
 should be binding in all places and at all times. 
 The apostles never imposed teachers upon any 
 church, but left to the churches the enjoyment 
 of the right belonging to them of choosing their 
 own teachers. This right of choosing their of- 
 ficers was sometimes exercised by the churches 
 e. g., Acts, vi. 2, 3, 5; 2 Cor. viii. 19; and 
 sometimes they left it to the apostles, or persons 
 commissioned by them, to whom was committed 
 the care of the public affairs of the church e. 
 g., 2 Tim. ii. 2; Tit. i. 5, seq. 
 
 But all these teachers and overseers, appoint- 
 ed either by the churches or their rulers and re- 
 i presentatives, were regarded in the New Testa- 
 ment as appointed by God, or the Holy Ghost, 
 i or Christ e. g., Acts, xx. 28; Col. iv. 17; be- 
 ; cause their consecration took place on his autho- 
 i rity, and according to his will. It is common 
 j to denominate the naming and consecration of 
 any one to the office of teaching, his calling (vo- 
 catio), because *np and xateiv are used in the 
 scriptures with respect to the designation of 
 j prophets and other teachers, and the divine com- 
 | missions entrusted to them. And this calling, 
 I even in application to the teachers of religion at 
 | the present day, may be denominated divine, so 
 i far as it is accordant with the divine will, and 
 with the order which God has established; in 
 j the same way as the institution of government 
 j is called divine, Romans, xiii. 1. At the present 
 i time, however, this calling is never immediately 
 \ from God. And every teacher may be sure that 
 
 he has a divine call (i. e., one in accordance 
 with the divine will) when in a. regular manner 
 he has received a commission to his office from 
 those who have the right to induct him, and 
 after careful examination, in the presence of 
 God, has found that he can hope to discharge 
 its duties with the divine approbation. The 
 characteristics of a teacher who is acceptable to 
 God and to Christ are briefly enumerated, 1 
 Tim. iii. 27; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Titus, i. 59; 
 1 Pet. v. 2, seq. ; and by these each one may 
 examine himself. 
 
 That a teacher of religion should be solemnly 
 consecrated to his office, or ordained, is a regula- 
 tion which is indeed useful both to the teacher 
 himself and to the church ; but, in itself consi- 
 dered, it is not a matter juris divini ; it is no- 
 where expressly commanded by God, and con- 
 tributes nothing, considered as an external cere- 
 mony, to efficiency and activity in the sacred 
 office. Luther himself pronounced ordination 
 not to be necessary, and said that a rightful call- 
 ing is sufficient to make any one a rightful 
 teacher, and this is the consecration of God. 
 And this is very true; for the right to teach 
 does not properly depend upon ordination, but 
 upon vocation. On protestant principles, the 
 ordination of a teacher is nothing else than a 
 public approval and confirmation of his calling 
 to the office of teaching; so that thenceforward 
 he may begin his work, and enjoy his rights. 
 Moms, p. 282, n. 3. 
 
 The act which is now called ordination, and 
 which is still retained in the protestant church, 
 is something very different from ^ordination ac- 
 cording to the use of the ancient church, and the 
 old ecclesiastical Latinity. Ordinatio was there 
 the same as %t tpot ovia, and was taken from mili- 
 tary life among the Romans, like the word or- 
 dines ; for Christians were called milites Christi. 
 It was therefore synonymous with constitutio, 
 constituere ad munuspublicum, and was the same 
 with vocare. But afterwards they made a sepa- 
 rate order of the clergy, and allowed them en- 
 tirely peculiar privileges, and an ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction, and then called them ordo, in the 
 same sense in which the Roman senate is called 
 ordo, ordo senatorius, with which it was com- 
 pared ; and when any one was received into 
 this order by special consecration, he was said 
 ordinari. t 
 
 The right of ordaining, according to protest- 
 ant principles, is not confined to particular per- 
 sons e. g., bishops; but it can be performed 
 by any one who is commissioned to do it by the 
 church, or by their functionaries and representa- 
 tives. The imposition of hands in the induction 
 of teachers into office is mentioned e. g., 1 Tim. 
 iv. 14; Acts, xiii. 3; and is a ceremony bor- 
 rowed from the Jewish church, where it was 
 practised with regard to all to whom any office 
 
478 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 was given, to whom anything was promised, or 
 for whom any blessing was implored from God, 
 as a sign of blessing, invocation, &c. symbo- 
 lum collationis. 
 
 There is one practice in the protestant church 
 with reference to this subject which is a real 
 remnant of popery viz., that an ordained per- 
 son may still teach and administer the sacra- 
 ments, even when he no longer properly fills an 
 office as a teacher of religion, as if ordination 
 put a character indelebilis upon a person ; while 
 the truth is, that the permission and the right to 
 discharge these duties depend upon a person's 
 vocation to the sacred office, and not upon his 
 ordination. In this respect, therefore, the prac- 
 tice of the protestant church is inconsistent with 
 its theory, and many evil consequences are the 
 result. 
 
 (2) Of the rights of Christian teachers. 
 
 First. As to the rights of teachers, they have, 
 merely as teachers, no other than to instruct and 
 counsel that part of the church entrusted to their 
 care, to perform the services of public worship, 
 and in return to expect their maintenance from 
 the church ; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3 ; Acts, xx. 28 ; 1 Cor. 
 ix. 6 14. The church and the government may, 
 however, if they see it to be best, confer still 
 other rights, privileges, and immunities upon 
 teachers. 
 
 yffote. As to the manner in which the church 
 's'hall be governed, and by what sort of persons, 
 and how instruction shall be provided for, there 
 are no precepts given in the Bible. Properly, 
 all Christians have a right to teach every fa- 
 ther his own family ; and even to administer the 
 sacraments, as even Tertullian truly observes. 
 There is, therefore, truly a jus laicorum sacerdo- 
 tale, as Grotius, Salmasius, Bohmer, and Spener 
 have maintained. Even among the Jews the 
 teachers of the people were not priests, but lay- 
 men ; and any one who had proper qualifications 
 might teach in the synagogue or in the temple. 
 Among the ancient Israelites the prophets were 
 commonly not from the order of the priesthood, 
 but for the most part from other tribes, classes, 
 and orders of the people. But for the sake of 
 good order, the business of teaching and of per- 
 forming the services of public worship must ne- 
 cessarily be entrusted to some particular persons; 
 otherwise irregularities and abuses are inevita- 
 ble; as may be seen from-the example of some 
 sects which allow every one to teach, 1 Cor. xii. 
 
 Secondly. It was not long, however, before 
 other rights and privileges were conferred upon 
 the teachers of the Christian church ; partly such 
 as had belonged to the Jewish priests (with whom 
 Christian teachers were compared) and even to 
 the heathen priests within the Roman empire, 
 and partly such as were given to the extraordi- 
 nary teachers in the first Christian church, and 
 especially to the apostles. To these extraordi- 
 
 nary teachers Christ promised extraordinary \ 
 gifts of the Spirit, and many of their peculiar 
 privileges and rights were founded upon these 
 gifts, and could not be claimed by their succes- ^ i 
 sors, to whom these gifts were not imparted. 
 
 Among these is especially the office or the 
 power of the keys, (potestas clavium.} This in-1 
 eludes the power of forgiving or not forgiving 
 sins, like what is common in the protestant; 
 church at confessions, or at the preparation for 
 the Lord's Supper; (against which there is no- 
 thing to be objected, if it is understood that this 
 absolution is not collativa, but merely declarativa 
 or hypothetica ,) and also plenipotentiary power, 
 either to exclude any one from church fellow- 
 ship, or to receive him again ; so that the entire 
 administration of church discipline is called ojfi- 
 cium clavium. Vide Morus, p. 286 288. 
 
 But with regard to this there are more mis- 
 takes than one which need to be answered. 
 
 (a) In all the passages of the New Testa- 
 ment which are appealed to in behalf of the 
 power of the keys, the apostles only the extra- 
 ordinary teachers of the church are spoken of. 
 
 (6) In the passages Matt. xvi. 19 and xviii. 
 -18, nothing is said about forgiving or not for-* 
 giving sins, but about binding and loosing, 
 which in such a connexion always mean, in the 
 Syriac, Chaldaic, and the Rabbinical writers, 
 to forbid and to allow. Cf. Lightfoot and Wet- 
 stein on these texts. The meaning is " You, 
 as my ambassadors, shall have power in the 
 Christian church (xteis jSctcrttatas twv ovpavuv)^ 
 to make regulations and to give precepts, to 
 allow and to forbid ; and God will approve these 
 your appointments, and they shall be regarded 
 by men as if they were from God." For the 
 apostles had special gifts of the Spirit, and 
 were the ambassadors of God and of Christ. 
 The doctrine of the apostles should therefore be 
 to all Christians the rule of what they should 
 do and what they should leave undone. The 
 same is taught in other words, Matt, xviii. 18. 
 This is somewhat differently explained by Mo- 
 rus, p. 284, 287. 
 
 (c) In John, xx. 23, Christ gives to his apos- ( 
 ties, as ambassadors of God, full power to for- 
 give sins, or to withhold forgiveness. The rea- 
 son of this is to be found in the gifts of the 
 Spirit promised ver. 22. The apostles did not 
 indeed become omniscient and infallible by the 
 possession of these extraordinary gifts ; but they 
 received power to free men from certain evils, 
 which were regarded as punishments of sin, 
 especially from sicknesses ; and it is this power 
 which seems to be here spoken of, and therefore 
 not so much de remissione peccatorum VERBALI, 
 (as theologians call it,) as de remissione reali. 
 Thus the healing of the lame man, Matt. ix. 6, 
 is derived from the power which the Messiah 
 possessed of forgiving sins. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 479 
 
 (d) The right to receive any one into the fel- 
 lowship of the church, or to exclude him from 
 it, did not belong to the apostles or to other 
 teachers exclusively. Nor did the apostles ever 
 exercise it, or claim it for themselves ; but they 
 left the exercise of it to the churches. Vide 
 1 Cor. v. 13 ; 2 Cor. ii. 610. That the church 
 not only have the right, but are under obliga- 
 tion, to provide for the support of their doctrine 
 and constitution, and to see to it that nothing is 
 done contrary to them, is indeed unquestionable. 
 And this is the foundation of Christian disci- 
 pline i. e., of all those public regulations and 
 appointments by which the Christian doctrine 
 and constitution, and a correspondent demean- 
 our in the members of the church, are promoted 
 and preserved. And this is according to scrip- 
 ture. But respecting the manner in which 
 Christian churches shall administer this disci- 
 pline, no general rules are given. This must 
 depend upon the situation and circumstances of 
 each particular church. The church may allow 
 this right to be exercised by some particular 
 persons e. g., by its teachers; but these in 
 such a case do not possess this right in and of 
 themselves, but in the name of the church and 
 as its representatives. In the Augsburg Con- 
 fession and the Apology there is a particular 
 chapter on the power of the church as exercised 
 through its teachers. But many protestant teach- 
 ers are dissatisfied with having their power 
 limited to mere teaching and counselling. It is 
 moreover a maxim in the protestant church, that 
 church discipline should not have the form and 
 effect of civil punishments. Vide Morus, p. 
 285, s. 8. 
 
 If therefore the phrase, the power of the keys, 
 is to be retained, and this power is to be consi- 
 dered as belonging to the office of teaching, it 
 must be understood to denote the right and duty 
 of the teacher earnestly to exhibit before the 
 impenitent and unconverted the consequences 
 of their sins, the divine punishments ; to ad- 
 monish them, to counsel and exhort them to re- 
 pentance ; and, on the contrary, to comfort and 
 console the penitent, and to convince them, with 
 reasons drawn from the Christian system, of 
 the mercy of God, and the forgiveness of their 
 sins. This right is derived from the very object 
 of their office, and cannot be denied. Cf. the 
 texts relating to this subject, as cited by Morus, 
 p. 283, n. 2, and p. 287, No. 2. And to these 
 points are the rights and duties of teachers 
 limited, according to the principles of the pro- 
 testant church. 
 
 Note 1. The more extended investigation of 
 the doctrines of church government, of the 
 primacy, of the rights of the church and its 
 teachers, the relation of the church to the state, 
 &c., which were formerly introduced into the 
 theological systems, belong rather to canon law 
 
 or to church history. It will be sufficient here 
 to make this one additional remark, that the 
 uniting of persons in an ecclesiastical society 
 produces no alterations in their lawful, civil, 
 and domestic relations. Vide 1 Cor. vii. 20 24. 
 The church is not a society which is opposed 
 to the state; it rather contributes to advance 
 the good ends of civil society. Hence the mem- 
 bers of the church are always directed to yield 
 the most perfect obedience to the government. 
 Vide Luke, xx. 25; Rom. xiii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 
 13 17. The true Christian should not indeed 
 conform to the world (the great body of unre- 
 newed men), and ought to keep himself unspot- 
 ted from the world ; still he should not, of his 
 own accord, relinquish his worldly station and 
 calling, so far as it is not sinful. 
 
 [Note 2. On the general subject of this arti- 
 cle, cf. Hahn, s. 613, ff. Neander, Kircheng. 
 i. b. 1 Abth. s. 346. Bretschneider, b. ii. s. 
 785, ff. TR.] 
 
 ARTICLE XIV. 
 
 OF THE TWO SACRAMENTS BAPTISM AND 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 SECTION CXXXVII. 
 
 OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 I. Different uses of the term " Sacramentum" 
 
 (1) In the earliest times of the church. Even 
 Tertullian employed the term sacramentum with 
 reference to Baptism and the Lord's Supper (sa- 
 cramentum aquas et eucharistae), and many of the 
 Latin teachers after him. But neither Tertullian 
 nor the other ancient fathers employ it exclu- 
 sively with reference to these ; but they were 
 accustomed also to apply it to other things, to 
 such especially as they elsewhere called myste- 
 ria. Hence we find that in Tertullian the 
 terms mysterium and sacramentum are used to 
 denote the whole Christian religion and its par- 
 ticular doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity, 
 of the Incarnation of Christ, &c., are called al- 
 ternately mysterium and sacramentum. The 
 same is true of all the rites and ceremonies 
 practised by Christians, so far as they are the 
 types of spiritual things, and have a special sig- 
 nificancy, or a secret sense, or are kept private. 
 
 But from whence is this use of SACRAMENTUM 
 derived? Not from the ancient Latin significa- 
 tions of this word, according to which it denotes 
 the military oath, or a sum of money deposited, 
 but from the ancient Latin versions of the Bible 
 e. g., the Vulgate. In these the Greek pva- 
 tfyiov is frequently rendered by the word sacra- 
 mentum. And since this Greek term was used 
 
480 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 respecting all secret and unknown things, and 
 designated the higher religious truths, the secret 
 sense of a thing, &c. (vide Introduction, s. 6), 
 the term sacramentum was employed in ecclesi- 
 astical Latinity in all these senses. And it 
 was adopted the more willingly by the fathers, 
 because they were accustomed to compare the 
 doctrines and rites of Christianity with the doc- 
 trines and ceremonies of the pagan mysteries, 
 in order to secure for them a higher regard and 
 authority among the heathen. The texts of the 
 Vulgate on which this use is founded are the 
 following viz., Dan. ii. 18, 30, where Ne- 
 buchadnezzar's unknown dream is called sacra- 
 mentum. Tob. xii. 6, 7 ; B. of Wisdom, ii. 22 ; 
 Ephes. iii. 3, 9, where it stands for the Chris- 
 tian system, and its particular doctrines. Ephes. 
 v. 32 ; Rev. i. 20 ; xvii. 7, Ac. The fathers now 
 called everything standing in any relation to 
 religion, sacramentum, and extended it espe- 
 cially to all religious rites which have a secret 
 sense or anything symbolical, and which are 
 the external and sensible signs of certain spiri- 
 tual things not cognizable by the senses. Re- 
 specting the meaning of this term, cf. G. J. 
 Vossius, Disp. xx. de Baptismo; Amst. 1648. 
 Gesner, Thesaur. Lat. h. v. Windorf, Index 
 Latin. Tertull. t. vi. p. 500. The primary 
 sense, therefore, of the term sacramentum, is, 
 as Morus justly observes, sacrum signum, or 
 significatio ret sacra?. 
 
 (2) The rites of baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
 per have always been justly regarded in the 
 Christian church as the most important acts of 
 religious service, and as possessing a peculiar, 
 mystical efficacy. But to many other usages 
 which have gradually become prevalent in the 
 church, and which were not instituted by 
 Christ himself, a great significance and effi- 
 cacy was attributed ; and they were supposed 
 to contain deep religious mysteries. To all 
 these the term sacramentum was applied, in the 
 sense in which it was used by Augustine viz., 
 Sacramentum est visible signum rei sacra?, sive 
 rei divinse invisibilis. In this way all the rites 
 of the church might be reckoned as belonging 
 to the sacraments, and this was actually done. 
 
 Now after the twelfth century the schoolmen 
 began to contend about the number of the sa- 
 craments, and at length most of them settled 
 upon seven (as a sacred number), which they 
 regarded as the most important and efficacious, 
 and to which, by way of eminence, they gave 
 the name sacramenta. These were first dis- 
 tinctly stated by Peter of Lombardy, in the 
 twelfth century, as baptism, the Lord's Supper, 
 confirmation, (confirmatio catecumenorum), ordi- 
 nation, extreme unction, auricular confession (sa- 
 cramentum poenitentiae') , and wedlock. He was 
 followed in this by most of the teachers in the 
 
 Romish church, and they endeavoured to sup- 
 port their opinion even from the Bible. This 
 doctrine was not, however, publicly acknow- 
 ledged until the Council at Trent, in the six- 
 teenth century. It must be acknowledged that 
 this selection does not reflect much credit upon 
 the sagacity of the one who made it; and it 
 proved the occasion of a great accumulation of J 
 ceremonies, and confirmed the people in the de- 
 lusion that Christianity consists essentially in j 
 ecclesiastical rites, and that those invented by 
 men have equal authority with baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper, which depend upon divine ap- 
 pointment, and possess equal power and effi- 
 cacy. 
 
 (3) These perversions induced the protestant 
 theologians of the sixteenth century, especially 
 those of the Lutheran church, to use the word 
 sacramentum in a more limited sense than that 
 in which it had been previously taken, and so 
 to determine its meaning that it should no more 
 include all the rites which had been formerly 
 denominated sacramenta, but merely baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper. Hence the doctrine of 
 seven sacraments was publicly established in 
 the Romish church by the Council at Trent, in 
 opposition to the protestants ; and it was there 
 maintained that all the seven were instituted by 
 Christ, and were sacraments in the same sense 
 with baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is 
 however expressly said, in the Apology of the 
 Augsburg Confession by Melancthon, that no- 
 thing depends upon the use of the word, or 
 upon the number, if the thing itself is only 
 rightly understood, and human institutions are 
 not made of equal authority with those of God. 
 Nemo vir prudens de nomine et numero rixabitur. 
 Cf. Morus, p. 276, s. 5. 
 
 The Lutheran theologians have adhered close- 
 ly to the use of this word in the narrower sense 
 adopted in the sixteenth century. But the re- 
 formed theologians have often used it in the 
 wider sense, after the ancient manner e. g., 
 they frequently call the Levitical ceremonies 
 and all the types of the Old Testament, sacra- 
 ments. Many among the catholics (Bellarmin, 
 and more lately Oberthiir) have expressly al- 
 lowed that baptism and the Lord's Supper are 
 the most general and important of the sacra- 
 ments, and that they therefore approached the 
 protestants more nearly than the Council at 
 Trent. Oberthiir (in his Idea Bibl. Eccks. Dei, 
 vol. ii.) confesses that Christ expressly and 
 immediately appointed only two sacraments, 
 but insists that he conferred upon the church 
 and the priesthood the power to add others. 
 The assertion made by some that baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper are even in the New Testa- 
 ment denominated pva-trfiia, is without founda*- 
 tion. For the oLxovopos fuwtrfrUw tov (1 Cor 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 481 
 
 religion which are herein represented, and 
 which should be deduced from these ceremo- 
 nies, produce their effect in the same way (or 
 rather the Holy Ghost produces through them 
 an effect in the same way) upon the heart of 
 man, as they are accustomed in other cases to 
 do, when they are heard, read, &c. ; only in 
 these sacraments they are not taught by words, 
 but in different ways are rendered obvious to 
 the senses. All which has been before said 
 respecting the operations of grace through the 
 Word of God, s. 129, seq., is therefore equally 
 applicable to this subject. Cf. especially with 
 reference to the Biblical doctrine, s. 131. Me- 
 lancthon, therefore, well observed in the Augs- 
 burg Confession, Art. vii., that Augustine truly 
 said, Sacramentum esse verbum visibile ; for, he 
 adds, ritus oculis accipitur (ut moveat corofa), et 
 est quasi pictura verbi, idem significans quod vcr- 
 bum. Now in the same way in which God ex- 
 erts his power through the word, when it is 
 heard or read, in the very same way does he 
 act through the Word (the truth}, when in 
 other ways and by external rites it is repre- 
 sented to the senses. 
 
 (2) Inferences from this representation of the 
 Lutheran theologians. From this limitation of 
 the idea of sacramentum it follows that only 
 baptism and the Lord's Supper can properly be 
 regarded as sacraments. For the characteristics 
 of the sacraments have been so settled that they 
 can all apply only to these two; and other ce- 
 remonies are excluded from the number. By 
 these distinctions are excluded, 
 
 (a) The five other sacraments of the Romish 
 church, because the third and fourth of the cha- 
 racteristics above mentioned do not belong to 
 them ; or at least one or the other of these two 
 characteristics is wanting. Morus shews this 
 particularly with regard to each one of the five 
 Romish sacraments, p. 275, s. 4, in the Note. 
 
 (6) The washing offset (pedilavium], which 
 was regarded by some as a religious rite ap- 
 pointed for all the members of the Christian 
 church in all ages, because Christ washed his 
 disciples' feet, (John, xiii. 5,) and because it 
 appears from 1 Tim. v. 10, that this rite was 
 practised in the first Christian church. But 
 this act was symbolical, and Christ designed by 
 it to inculcate upon his disciples, after the ori- 
 ental manner, the duty of Christian love, con- 
 descension, and readiness to serve others. 
 Vide ver. 12, seq. It was never appointed by 
 the apostles as a rule for all Christians in all 
 ages. By degrees, as customs altered, and 
 another mode of thinking prevailed, it fell into 
 disuse in most of the Western churches. Still 
 it was long retained in the Eastern churches, 
 and in some of them is common to this day. 
 Even in the West, it has been revived by some 
 of the smaller churches e. g., by a part of the 
 2S 
 
482 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Mennonites ; an'd it is now practised by some, 
 though not all, belonging to the society of 
 United Brethren. They, however, do not in- 
 sist that it is an essential Christian rite, which 
 must be observed by all Christians, and which 
 should again be introduced into all Christian 
 churches, after it has now fallen into disuse; 
 but they leave every one to his own judgment 
 respecting it. 
 
 (c) The Jewish religious rites, such as offer- 
 ings, sacrifices, &c. For Paul says that they 
 did not effect the forgiveness of sin before God, 
 although they were instituted by him, Heb. ix. 
 9 ; x. 11. So far as they typified spiritual bless- 
 ings, (vide s. 90, III. 7,) they might be called 
 sacraments in the old sense. 
 
 (c?) Especially have circumcision and the 
 passover been considered as sacraments, and 
 called, by way of distinction, sacramenta Vete- 
 ris Testamenti, and compared with baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper. But many modern theolo- 
 gians have decided that they cannot be called 
 sacraments in the sense of the Lutheran church. 
 For although they were commanded by God, 
 they were attended by no promise of spiritual 
 blessings. Circumcision related merely to ex- 
 ternal good, the possession of Canaan, the pos- 
 terity of Abraham, &c., Gen. xvii., and not to 
 the forgiveness of sins, &c. On the contrary, 
 it is assigned as the object of baptism, the ini- 
 tiatory rite of the Christian religion, to promote 
 the circumcision of the heart, or moral improve- 
 ment. Vide Col. ii. 11, 12. The passover was 
 instituted merely to commemorate the deliver- 
 ance of the Jews from Egypt. Still, although 
 it is not declared in the scriptures that baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper have come into the place 
 of circumcision and the passover, yet both of 
 the latter may be regarded as sacraments, so 
 far as they typified spiritual blessings. For it 
 was expressly said to Abraham at his circumci- 
 sion, that the great promises made to him and 
 his posterity should be fulfilled, (Gen. xvii. 
 21,) and among these were spiritual blessings. 
 And all the offerings and festivals of the Jewish 
 religion, and especially these two, which were 
 the most solemn, are said in the New Testa- 
 ment to have a figurative sense. Vide 1 Cor. 
 v. 7 ; John, xix. 36 ; and s. 90. Cf. Heilmann, 
 Definienda justa sacramentorum notione, in his 
 "Opuscula," th. i. s. 433. 
 
 III. The Object of Christ in instituting these two 
 
 Sacraments. 
 
 (1) The utility and necessity of religious rites 
 may be inferred from the constitution of our na- 
 ture. Man is not a mere spirit, but a being com- 
 posed of reason and sense. And on this account 
 there must be something in religion which will 
 appeal to his senses, excite and sustain his de- 
 votion, and strengthen his zeal in piety. The 
 
 sensible representation of the truths of religion 
 often makes a stronger impression upon men, * 
 as experience shews, than mere instruction ; be- j 
 cause their feelings are apt to be more strongly 
 excited by anything which appeals to the senses 
 than by that which addresses simply the under- j 
 standing. Hence our religious services cannot 
 be merely spiritual. Even ceremonies of human 
 appointment have a great effect, and far more j 
 those which have divine authority, and, like 
 baptism and the Lord's Supper, are accompa- 
 nied with special promises. 
 
 Religious rites in general contribute much 
 also to the support of religion itself; since by 
 their means the solemn and public profession 
 of religion is renewed, and even children are ! 
 from their youth up accustomed to them, and I 
 are bound to their observance. A religion with- j 
 out external religious rites, and without the ' 
 aids of sensible exhibitions of its truths, would i 
 be as liable to become obsolete, as the different ' 
 systems of philosophy. The truth of this re- 
 mark is confirmed by the history of the church. 
 In the oriental church, Christianity was indeed 
 very early disfigured by many false doctrines; 
 but the profession of Christ, and the essentials 
 of his religion, still continued, until Moham- 
 med and his adherents succeeded in abolishing 
 Christian worship, together with baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper. It is therefore very neces- 
 sary that these religious rites should be main- 
 tained ; and the opponents of Christianity pro- 
 ceed very wisely when they endeavour to bring 
 them into disuse and contempt. For the doc- 
 trines to which they relate must soon share the 
 same fate. 
 
 (2) But it is equally important, on the other 
 hand, that religion should not be overloaded 
 with external rites, and that they should be as 
 few as possible; for when they are multiplied 
 their effect is weakened, and they are soon re- 
 garded with indifference and contempt. This 
 is proved by the example of all religions, and 
 even of the Christian religion, when it has been 
 burdened with ceremonies. Christ endeavoured 
 by his doctrine to withdraw men more and more 
 from what is external and sensible, and to pro- 
 mote internal, spiritual worship, as an affair of 
 the heart. Cf. John, iv. 23, 24. Hence he 
 appointed but few ceremonies. An additional 
 reason for this was, that at the time when Chris- 
 tianity was founded, the religious ceremonial 
 both of the Jews and of the heathen nations was 
 looked upon with coldness, or even with con- 
 tempt, by the more cultivated and thinking part 
 of the public, on account of the great multipli- 
 city of its rites, and the superstition with which 
 it was attended. Even a great portion of the 
 religious Jews at that time felt the burden of 
 the Jewish ceremonial law to be very oppres- 
 sive. Cf. Acts, xv. 10; Matthew, xxiii. 4. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 483 
 
 A new religious institution, therefore, prescrib- 
 ing but few, simple, and easy rites, would on 
 this very account commend itself to the Jews 
 and the heathen. Cf. Matt. ix. 1417. 
 
 Considered in this respect, these two sacra- 
 ments of Christ have great advantages. They 
 are natural, simple, and universally applicable. 
 They are therefore peculiarly appropriate to an 
 institution which is designed to be universal. 
 It is otherwise with the Jewish ritual, which is 
 not adapted to all men, countries, and times. 
 Indeed it was not designed by God for all men, 
 but only for a particular period, and that for a 
 limited time. Christ, however, has not forbid- 
 den the introduction of other religious usages; 
 for an increase of them may often be indispen- 
 sable to the maintenance of united religious 
 worship. But he has left this to the discretion 
 of his church, which may appoint and modify 
 them according to the circumstances. Those, 
 however, which Christ has instituted should 
 serve as models and patterns, in point of sim- 
 plicity, for all other Christian ceremonies. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 SECTION CXXXVIII. 
 
 NAMES, INSTITUTION, AND ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN 
 BAPTISM J WITH OBSERVATIONS ON JOHN THE 
 BAPTIST AND THE JEWISH BAPTISM OF PROSE- 
 LYTES. 
 
 I. Names of Baptism in the Bible. 
 
 (1) To ,Sart-rto ( ua, from Pajft^ew, which pro- 
 perly signifies to immerse, (like the Germ. 
 tanfen,) to dip in, to wash, (by immersion.) In 
 the Syriac and Chaldaic (which Christ used) 
 this is denoted by the words, Sato, riSus, Stas, 
 (Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. p. 849, 850.) Hence the 
 washing of vessels with water is called fait-tw- 
 juot, Mark, vii. 4. And instead of vi^uvfoA in 
 ver. 3 of the same chapter, we have in ver. 4, 
 jSartn'crcoi'T'ac,' so also of the washing of hands, 
 Luke, xi. 38, seq. (In the New Testament the 
 form 6 jSart-z'Ktytos is never used for the religious 
 rite of baptism, either of John or of Christ; but 
 always *6 jSarffia/ia.) Hence it is often used 
 tropically, (a) For what flows, or is communi- 
 cated, to any one in full measure; as in Latin, 
 pcrfundcre, imbuere, &c. e. g., Acts, i. 5. 
 (6) For severe sufferings which befal any one 
 e. g., Matt. xx. 22, 23 ; for these are often com- 
 pared with waves which overflow any one; Ps. 
 Ixix. 2, 3. So among the Latins, Jluctus mi- 
 serix, mergi malis. Hence martyrdom is called 
 by the ancients, baptisma sanguinis. In the 
 
 classics, e. g., in Plato, a drunken person is 
 said to be part*ta$tV* vino imbutus, mersus. 
 
 (2) Kc&aptffjitdj, John, iii. 25; because by 
 washing purification is effected, and baptism 
 represents purification from sins, and is design- 
 ed to promote this end in the one who is bap- 
 tized. Hence Josephus (xviii. 7) employs tx- 
 xo&aiptiv in respect to the baptism of John. 
 Perhaps, too, 2 Peter, i. 9, (xc&opwr/ioj t^v 
 rtakat a^uapT'ttov, coll. Eph. v. 26) belongs in 
 this connexion. 
 
 (3) To o"wp, because baptism was adminis- 
 tered with water; John, iii. 5, coll. Acts, x. 47; 
 Eph. v. 26, seq. 
 
 (4) Among the church fathers one of the 
 oldest names was ^cor'tcr^oj, from the instruction 
 which the subject of this rite received in con- 
 nexion with his baptism, as Justin the Martyr 
 (Apol. i. 61) explains it. The Syriac, too, 
 translates tov$ oijtat ^wi'i^Was (Heb. vi. 4), 
 those once baptized, which version Michaelis 
 follows, though it is a doubtful rendering. Bap- 
 tism is moreover called by the church fathers, 
 
 sigillum, (character Christiani,} 
 tvSvpa, a<J>-ap<jux?, x. -t. h. 
 
 II. Institution of Baptism, and the principal texts 
 
 relating to it. 
 
 Jesus, even during his life upon the earth, 
 required those who wished to become his dis- 
 ciples to be baptized by his apostles; John, iii. 
 22, coll. ver. 5 of the same chapter, and chapter 
 iv. 1, 2. But at that time none but Jews were 
 received into his church and baptized ; as was 
 the case also with John in his baptism. Shortly 
 before his ascension to heaven, he first gave the 
 commission to his apostles to admit all (itdvto, 
 l^wf) into the Christian church, and to baptize 
 them without distinction ; Matt, xxviii. 18 20, 
 cf. Mark, xvi. 15, 16. They were to be made 
 disciples of Jesus Christ, or professors of his 
 religion (fto$N?f*vfty) in a twofold manner 
 viz., by baptism and by instruction. They were 
 to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit i. e., by baptism they were 
 to be obligated to accept and obey the doctrine 
 which Acknowledges and receives Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit. Whoever, therefore, is bap- 
 tized, declares by this rite that he acknowledges 
 Father, Son, and Spirit for his God, that he 
 will obey his laws, and that he expects protec- 
 tion and blessing from him; and God, on the 
 other hand, promises and grants to him the en- 
 joyment of all the benefits which the gospel of 
 Christ enjoins upon us to expect from the Fa- 
 ther, Son, and Holy Spirit. For a more full 
 explanation of this formula, vide s. 35, I., and 
 Morus, p. 275, s. 2, 3. It is the opinion of 
 some that Christ did not design in this passage 
 so much to prescribe a precise formula, in 
 which case he would rather have said, "Bap- 
 
484 
 
 CHRISTIAN 
 
 tize ye, and say, I baptize tkee in the name of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," but that he 
 merely intended to teach what is the meaning 
 and object of this rite. That this command of 
 Christ was obeyed by the apostles may be seen 
 from the Acts and Epistles. The other import- 
 ant passages concerning the object, design, and 
 effect of baptism e. g., John, iii. 5 ; Titus, iii. 
 5; Acts, xxii. 16; Gal. iii. 27; Rom. vi. 3,4; 
 Ephes. v. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 21, &c., will be ex- 
 plained in the following sections. 
 
 III. Origin of Christian Baptism ; the, Baptism of 
 John, and the Jewish Baptism of Proselytes. 
 
 (1) John baptized before Christ appeared 
 publicly as a teacher, and Christ even suffered 
 himself to be baptized by him. The baptism 
 of John is described, equally with the baptism 
 of Christ, as a divine institution, and as per- 
 formed under divine authority; John, i. 33, 
 (God sent him to baptize,) and Luke, vii. 30, 
 where it is called a divine institution (j3ov^ 
 sol)), and Matt. xxi. 25, seq. 
 
 (2) But although this is a divine institution, 
 we must still seek among the prevailing prac- 
 tices and expectations of the Israelites the more 
 immediate reason why just this and no other 
 form of initiation was then introduced by John 
 and Christ. From the passage, John, i. 25, it 
 is manifest that the Jews (the Sanhedrim and 
 the Pharisees) expected that the Messiah and 
 his herald Elias would baptize. Cf. Lightfoot 
 on this text. And so, many even among the 
 learned (the Pharisees and Sadducees) suffered 
 themselves to be baptized by John (Matt. iii. 
 7) ; which probably would not have been the 
 case if baptism had been to them a strange and 
 unheard of thing. The Israelites, like many 
 other nations, had different forms of lustration 
 and washings with water, which were clearly 
 prescribed by their law, by means of which they 
 sanctified, consecrated, and cleansed themselves 
 from impurities. Vide Wetstein on Matt. iii. 
 6. As, now, the Messiah was to bring about 
 a general reformation, and to establish a new 
 constitution, into which every one must be so- 
 lemnly initiated, and to which he must be con- 
 secrated ; as, moreover, it was the universal 
 expectation, according to the prophets, that he 
 would cleanse men from their sins, which was 
 exactly typified by the washings in the Levi- 
 tical law; it does not seem unnatural that just 
 this form of initiation should have been expect- 
 ed by the Jews, and should, in fact, have been 
 chosen by John and Christ, according to divine 
 appointment. 
 
 If, now, the baptism of proselytes was custom- 
 ary among the Jews at or before the time of 
 Christ, many things could be explained still 
 more clearly from this circumstance. The Tal- 
 mud and its interpreters relate that the prose- 
 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 lytes, as well circumcised, as uncircumcisedj 
 were initiated by baptism into the worship of' I 
 the one true God, and that this was a symbol; 
 of purification from sin, and of the renunciation 
 of heathenism ; and that they were then consi-t 
 dered as burn again exactly the expression 
 used by Christ (John, iii.) and by Paul (TitJ 
 iii.) respecting Christian baptism. Vide s.j 
 126, II. The Talmudists make this practice! 
 very ancient, and place it as far back as the) 
 time of Moses, and even further, (which pro-i 
 bably is going too far, as thebr way is.) The 
 oldest passage respecting a religious cleansing, 
 or sort of baptism, occurs in Jacob's historyj 
 (Gen. xxxv. 2,) when he puts away the idolsj 
 in his house, and builds an altar to Jehovah. 
 This passage may certainly have induced thej 
 Israelites to adopt this custom. So much isj 
 certain, that as early as the second century prp-j 
 selyte baptism must have been very customary; 
 since in the Dissertations of Epictetus (ii. 9), 
 published by Arrian, j3fj3a j tt j u.i'oj signifies aj 
 Jewish proselyte, and ygapatt*t'j&t$, one who| 
 had not sincerely embraced Judaism. Others,! 
 however, are inclined to think that Christians\ 
 are here meant, and that Epictetus confounded 
 them with the Jews. For these reasons, Dantz 
 firmly maintained that the baptism of proselytes 
 was, as it were, the prelude of the baptism of 
 John and of Christ; and he is followed by Mi- 
 chaelis, Less, and others. Cf. his treatise de 
 antiquitate baptismi initiationis Israel, in Meu- 
 schen's N. T. e Talmude illustrato, p. 133, f. 
 and Wetstein on Matt. iii. 6. 
 
 There is much for and much against the 
 opinion that proselyte baptism was customary in| 
 the first century, and even earlier, (a] Jlgainst.l 
 There is not found, even to the present time, 
 one distinct evidence of it in any writer before,! 
 at, or shortly after, the time of Christ; not inl 
 Philo, not in Josephus, even when he speaks: 
 of the conversion of the Idumeans, under Johni 
 Hyrkan, to Judaism (xiii. 9), where he simply; 
 mentions circumcision, not even in the Chal- 
 daic paraphrases. Zeltner firmly opposes to ! 
 Dantz this stubborn silence of the writers nearj 
 the age of Christ. (6) In favour. The unani-j 
 mous testimony of all the Rabbins, theuniver-| 
 sality of this practice among the Jews of the| 
 second century, since it can scarcely be thoughtj 
 that they would have borrowed it from the! 
 Christians, who were so hated and despised byj 
 them, the striking similarity of the Jewish ex-' 
 pressions, concerning the baptism of proselytes,, 
 with those which occur in the New Testament! 
 respecting the Christian rite (regeneratio'), alsol 
 the circumstance that Josephus, in his account] 
 of John the Baptist, does not express the least 
 surprise at this practice as a new and unwonted] 
 ceremony. This last argument, however, is 
 invalidated by the remark, that it is known to 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 485 
 
 ! have been expected that the precursor of the 
 Messiah would baptize. Besides, it appears 
 that the baptism of John did excite among the 
 
 ' Jews some degree of surprise. This is seen 
 
 1 from the question, why baptizest thou then? and 
 from his being called the Baptist. Ziegler has 
 lately maintained, with very probable reasons, 
 that the antiquity of the Jewish baptism of pro- 
 
 1 selytes ascends beyond the origin of Christian- 
 ity. Cf. his Theological Essays, part ii. (Got- 
 tingen, 1804,) Num. 3, " Concerning the Bap- 
 tism of John as the unaltered application of the 
 Jewish Baptism of Proselytes, and concerning 
 the Baptism of Christ as the continuation of that 
 of John." But although much may be advanced 
 in support of this opinion, it cannot be relied 
 upon with certainty, since it is entirely destitute 
 of clear contemporary evidence. 
 
 IV. Was the Baptism of John different from 
 Christian Baptism, ? 
 
 Many theologians of the Romish church for- 
 merly maintained that there is a difference, but 
 protestants usually take the opposite side, al- 
 though some, especially the more modern, have 
 again adopted the former opinion. The follow- 
 ing observations may serve to settle the mat- 
 ter: 
 
 (1) The object of John's baptism was the same 
 with that of Christian ; and from this it may be 
 at once concluded that it did not differ essen- 
 tially from the latter. John exhorted 'the per- 
 sons baptized by him to repentance (^tf-r'atwa) 
 and to faith in the Messiah who was shortly to 
 appear, and made these duties obligatory upon 
 them by this rite, Matt. iii. 11; Luke, iii. ; 
 Mark, i, ; John, i. ; Acts, ii. 38. And as soon 
 as Jesus publicly appeared, John asserted in the 
 most forcible manner that he was the Messiah, 
 and so required of all whom he had then or be- 
 fore baptized, that they should believe in Jesus 
 as the Messiah. Now in Christian baptism, 
 repentance and faith in Jesus as the Messiah are 
 likewise the principal things which are required 
 on the part of the subjects of this rite. 
 
 (2) The practice of the first Christian church 
 confirms the point that the baptism of John was 
 considered essentially the same with Christian 
 baptism. For those who acknowledged that, 
 they had professed, by the baptism of John, to 
 believe in Jesus as the Christ, and who in con- 
 sequence of this had become in fact his disci- 
 ples, and had believed in him, were not, in a 
 single instance, baptized again into Christ, be- 
 cause this was considered as having been already 
 done. Hence we do not find that any apostle or 
 any other disciple of Jesus was the second time 
 baptized; not even that Apollos mentioned in 
 Acts, xviii. 25, because he had before believed 
 in Jesus as Christ, although he had received 
 only the baptism of John. 
 
 (3) But all those disciples of John who had 
 not before acknowledged this truth, and had re- 
 ceived the baptism of John or his successors in 
 an entirely different signification, were properly 
 considered at the time of the apostles as not be- 
 ing baptized, or as wrongly baptized, and all 
 such were therefore required to be baptized ex- 
 pressly into Christ as the Messiah. This was 
 the case with the Jews, who, according to Acts, 
 ii. 41, were baptized into Jesus, among whom 
 were many whom John had baptized, but who 
 had not then recognised Jesus as the Messiah, 
 and had even taken part in his crucifixion. This 
 was likewise the case with those persons whom 
 Paul (Acts, xix. 1 5) permitted to be baptized 
 at Ephesus, although they had already received 
 the baptism of John. There is in this place 
 nothing that needs to be artificially explained. 
 The meaning is, "That when they heard from 
 Paul that it was essential to baptism that one 
 should believe in Jesus as the Lord and Christ, 
 (which they hitherto had not done, since the 
 disciples of John who baptized them had said 
 nothing to them about it,) they were then will- 
 ing to suffer themselves to be solemnly obli- 
 gated by baptism to the acknowledgment of 
 Jesus." Vide Bengel's Gnomon, ad h. 1. and 
 Semler, Diss. ad Acts, xix. 1, seq. This was 
 the more necessary at that time, as many of the 
 disciples of John had entirely separated them- 
 selves from the Christians. These false disci- 
 ples of John still continued to practise John's 
 baptism into the approaching Messiah, but de- 
 nied that Jesus was the Messiah. Even to the 
 present day there are remnants of this sect in 
 Syria and Arabia. Vide Norberg, Von der Re- 
 ligion und Sprache der Zabier, and Walch, De 
 Sabgeis, in the Comment. Soc. Gott. 1780 and 
 1781. There is much directed against the false 
 disciples of John in the accounts given by the 
 Evangelists respecting John the Baptist. Vide 
 Storr, Ueber den Zweck der evang. Gesch. und 
 der Briefe Johannis; Tubingen, 1786, 8vo; 2d 
 ed. 1809. There is nothing therefore in the 
 passages Acts ii. and xix. which favours the 
 doctrine that those who had been baptized by 
 John were required to be re-baptized, in order 
 to admission into the church of Christ. 
 
 SECTION CXXXIX. 
 
 HOW AND BY WHOM BAPTISM IS TO BE ADMINIS- 
 TERED ; AND RESPECTING THE OPTIONAL AND 
 UNESSENTIAL THINGS ATTENDING THE OBSERV- 
 ANCE OF THIS RITE. 
 
 I. Concerning Immersion, Affusion, and Sprinkling 
 with Water. 
 
 (1) IT is certain that in Christian baptism, 
 as in the baptism of John, only water was used 
 by Christ and his apostles. Vide John, iii. 5; 
 2s2 
 
486 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Ephes. v. 26. But after baptism in itself con- 
 sidered, and simply as an opus opcratum, came 
 to be regarded as essential to salvation, the 
 question was started, Whether, in the want of 
 water, baptism could be performed with any 
 other material e. g., wine, milk, or sand 1 The 
 question must be answered in the negative, 
 since to do this would be contrary to the insti- 
 tution of Christ. For any one to be prevented 
 necessarily from being baptized does not subject 
 him to condemnation, but only the wilful and 
 criminal refusal of this rite. 
 
 (2) Immersion is peculiarly agreeable to the 
 institution of Christ, and to the practice of the 
 apostolical church, and so even John baptized, 
 and immersion remained common for a long 
 time after ; except that in the third century, or 
 perhaps earlier, the baptism of the sick (bap- 
 tisma clinicorurn) was performed by sprinkling 
 or affusion. Still some would not acknowledge 
 this to be true baptism, and controversy arose 
 concerning it, so unheard of was it at that time 
 to baptize by simple affusion. Cyprian first 
 defended baptism by sprinkling, when necessity 
 called for it, but cautiously and with much limi- 
 tation. By degrees, however, this mode of bap- 
 tism became more customary, probably because 
 it was found more convenient ; especially was 
 this the case after the seventh century, and in 
 the Western church, but it did not become uni- 
 versal until the commencement of the fourteenth 
 century. Yet Thomas Aquinas had approved 
 and promoted this innovation more than a hun- 
 dred years before. In the Greek and Eastern 
 church they still held to immersion. It would 
 have been better to have adhered generally to 
 the ancient practice, as even Luther and Calvin 
 allowed. Vide Storr, Doct. Christ. Pars theoret., 
 p. 291. If it is asked, however, if immersion 
 is so essential that one who has been only 
 sprinkled is not to be considered as properly a 
 baptized person, it may be answered, No ! No- 
 thing more is essential to the external part of 
 baptism than that water be used, (Acts, x. 47; 
 John, iii. 5,) and that the subject, by the solemn 
 use of this rite, be consecrated to Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit, and be pledged to obey the 
 Christian doctrine, Matt, xxviii. 19. The wash- 
 ing with water is considered as the symbol of 
 the purification of sins, and this can be signified 
 as well by affusion as by immersion. Hence, 
 even in affusion, the external significancy of the 
 rite is retained. And this is the reason why 
 many in the Western church, and even in the 
 protestant church, have contended that this rite 
 should be administered, not per adspersionem, 
 but per largiorem aquas uffusionem. 
 
 (3) There is no command given concerning 
 the question, whether immersion or affusion 
 should be performed only once, or more than 
 once ; this therefore is in itself optional. In 
 
 the Greek church we find the threefold immer- 
 sion earlier and more prevalent than in the La- 
 tin; whence the Greeks objected to the Latins. 
 Basilius and Hieronymus say that this was 
 practised in conformity with an ancient tradi- 
 tion ; and if it was not common in the first 
 church, perhaps the controversies with the 
 Antitrinitarians in the third century might have 
 given the first occasion for it. In the African 
 church it was already common in the times of 
 Tertullian and Cyprian, and in the apostolical 
 constitutions it was so ordained. At the fourth 
 church council at Toledo, in the year G33, this 
 threefold immersion was first established by 
 ecclesiastical authority in the Latin church, in 
 opposition to the Arians. 
 
 (4) It is also optional whether the head, the 
 forehead, or the breast, be wet with the water; 
 and in this respect the one who administers this 
 sacrament must govern himself according to the 
 usages of his own particular church. 
 
 II. On the use of Formulas in Baptism. 
 
 The formulas used in administering baptism 
 have always been very different. In the Greek 
 church it is still common to say, as formerly, 
 Baptizetur hie, or hsec (servus, or serva Dei} in 
 nomine, &c. In the Latin church the subject is 
 addressed, I baptize thee in the name, &c. The 
 formula adopted by some of baptizing in the 
 name " of GOD the Father, GOD the Son, and GOD 
 the Holy Ghost," is liable to be misunderstood, 
 as it might be interpreted to mean that there are 
 three gods. It has appeared strange to some 
 that we find in the New Testament no passage 
 from which it plainly appears that the words 
 used Matt, xxviii., in the name of the Father, 
 &c., were used in the apostolical church. For 
 we always find only, etj XpKJtov or 'Iqaovv sLf 
 ovOjita Kvptov or 'Irjfjov e. g., Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. 
 iii. 27; Acts, ii. 38; x. 48; xix. 5. The opi- 
 nions on this subject are not unanimous. (1) 
 We might say, with some, that although the 
 formula in Matthew xxviii. were not used in 
 the apostolical church, but it was merely said 
 in the name of Jesus i. e., into the profession 
 of Christ and his doctrine yet this was entirely 
 the same with the other, because it compre- 
 hended the profession of the Father and of the 
 Holy Spirit, since whoever was baptized into 
 Jesus by this act professed his belief in the 
 whole doctrine of Christ, and therefore in that 
 which he taught concerning the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit. Basilius endeavoured to ex- 
 plain the thing in this way. (2) Others (and 
 among the rest, Facundus Hermianensis, De 
 Tribus Capit. i. 3) are of opinion that it does 
 not follow from these places that they did not 
 fully employ the prescribed formulas in bap- 
 tism ; but that Christian baptism was so named 
 in distinction from the baptism of John, and 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 487 
 
 from the Jewish proselyte baptism, since one 
 who had received this proselyte baptism, or had 
 wrongly understood that of John, was not bap- 
 tized into Christ. This can be reconciled very 
 well, at least with Acts, xix. 5, and with some 
 other places. Vide s. 138, II. But in addition 
 to these there is a third reason. (3) In the an- 
 cient Christian church immediately after the 
 time of the apostles, the words prescribed by 
 Christ at the establishment of this rite were cer- 
 tainly used, (Just. M. Ap. 1, 80.) It may there- 
 fore be rightly inferred that it was the same at 
 the time of the apostles ; and that it is right and 
 proper to continue in this use. It is not, how- 
 ever, forbidden to unite with this other formulas 
 which are suitable, and which serve to explain 
 the design of this rite, and to excite pious feel- 
 ings. The teacher will of course govern him- 
 self in this matter according to the circumstances, 
 the constitution, and usages of the particular 
 church to which he may belong. 
 
 III. By whom is Baptism to be administered ? 
 
 In ordinary cases, certainly by the teachers 
 of religion ; for it is their appropriate business 
 and calling to lead disciples to Christ, (^ua^- 
 tftvfiv,) and this duty is also committed to them 
 by the church and government. We find, there- 
 fore, that baptism in the apostolical church was 
 always administered by the teachers. Vide 
 John, iv. 2; Acts, x. 48; 1 Cor. i. 16. But 
 although this na^tfvuv is the appropriate busi- 
 ness of teachers, still they have no exclusive 
 right to it, as this is nowhere given to them in 
 the New Testament. But in case of necessity, 
 and when no teachers can be obtained, baptism 
 may be administered by any Christian, and is 
 valid if it is performed according to the institu- 
 tion of Christ. Vide s. 136, II. 2. This has 
 been the doctrine and practice which has univer- 
 sally prevailed in the church. 
 
 IV. How far a knowkdge of Christian Doctrines is 
 
 essential in the subjects of Baptism. 
 This knowledge must certainly be presup- 
 posed in adults before they can be baptized. For 
 how could they solemnly profess, as they do in 
 baptism, to believe, and pledge themselves to 
 obey, a doctrine respecting which they were 
 wholly ignorant! We find, therefore, even in 
 the writings of the New Testament, that the 
 candidates for baptism were previously instruct- 
 ed. But this instruction was by no means par- 
 ticular; it was confined to the main, funda- 
 mental truths of Christianity ; the doctrine of one 
 God; the principal articles respecting Christ; 
 that he is the Messiah ; and that through him 
 we receive forgiveness from God ; also concern- 
 ing the Holy Spirit promised to Christians, and 
 the indispensable necessity of repentance and 
 holiness : these are the principal truths in which 
 
 the candidates for baptism were briefly instruct- 
 ed. When they were sufficiently acquainted with 
 these truths, and had professed them from the 
 heart, they were allowed baptism, and received af- 
 terwards more complete instruction both in these 
 and the other Christian doctrines. Cf. Acts, ii. 
 41; viii. 12, 36, seq.; ix. 17, 18; x. 3448, where 
 in the words of Peter we have an example of 
 the instruction commonly given before baptism. 
 Cf. Heb. vi. 1, seq. In the great addition of 
 new converts in the first period of Christianity, 
 this preparatory instruction could not possibly 
 be very long or particular, especially as the 
 teachers of religion were yet few. Accordingly, 
 the confessions of faith to be made in baptism 
 were at first very short and simple; such, for 
 example, was the symbolum apostolicum, so call- 
 ed ; but this was gradually enlarged by the ad- 
 dition of new distinctons, by which the orthodox 
 endeavoured to distinguish themselves from he- 
 retics. The instruction of catechumens and the 
 time of probation preceding baptism were by 
 degrees increased and prolonged ; and for this 
 there was good reason. For as the number of 
 Christian proselytes constantly increased, and 
 multitudes were pressing into the church, 
 greater caution became necessary in admitting 
 them. This led to the appointment of fixed 
 periods for the probation of new converts before 
 baptism. 
 
 V. Usages incidental to Baptism, but not essential 
 to its Validity. 
 
 Many of these are very ancient, but they may 
 all be dispensed with without affecting the vali- 
 dity of Christian baptism, because they are not 
 commanded by Christ. In Christian archaeo- 
 logy and church history they are more fully ex- 
 hibited than they can be here. We mention 
 only some of those which are still common 
 among us. 
 
 (1) The sign of the cross appears to have 
 been first introduced in connexion with baptism 
 in the fourth century, and is intended to be a 
 solemn memorial of the death of Christ; Rom. 
 vi. 3. 
 
 (2) The imposition of a name ; this was also 
 done in connexion with Jewish circumcisions. 
 
 (3) The laying on of hands, as a symbol of 
 the communication of the Holy Ghost, or of the 
 gift of sanctification, which in this way is so- 
 lemnly sought of God for the subject of baptism, 
 and promised to him. This is mentioned even 
 by Tertullian. 
 
 (4) Sponsors at baptism. Tertullian (De 
 Bapt. ch. 18) mentions these as being present 
 at the baptism of children; but they were also 
 concerned in the performance of this rite for 
 adult persons; just as sponsors were called in 
 at the rite of circumcision among the Jews. 
 Such only, however, as belong to the Christian 
 
488 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 church can be employed for this service ; hea- 
 thens, Jews, Mahommedans, and others who 
 are not members of the Christian church may 
 be present at the rite, but not as valid sponsors. 
 
 (5) The subjects of baptism must renounce 
 Satan. This denoted originally an entire renun- 
 ciation on their part of heathenism and of hea- 
 then superstitions, and also of the entire dispo- 
 sition which had before prevailed within them, 
 as far as it was opposed to Christianity. 
 
 (6) Exorcism. The first traces of this prac- 
 tice appear in Africa, in the third century, as we 
 learn from Cyprian's letter, although a founda- 
 tion for it was laid as early as the second cen- 
 tury. It had its rise in various opinions, in a 
 great measure superstitious, respecting the phy- 
 sical agency of the devil upon men, and in the 
 idea that evil spirits may be driven off by the 
 use of formulas and certain charmed words. It 
 was at first practised only at the baptism of hea- 
 then, who were regarded as persons possessed 
 by the devil ; but it came afterwards to be em- 
 ployed at the baptism of the children of Chris- 
 tian parents. Vide Kraft, Ausfurhliche Historic 
 des Exorcismus ; Hamburg, 1750. Concern- 
 ing the oiher usages in baptism, vide, besides 
 the ancient authors, (e. g., Vosii Disertatt. cf. 
 s. 137, I. 1,) Calixtus, Diss. de Antiq. Ritibus 
 Bapt.; Helmstiidt, 1650; Noesselt's historical 
 investigation and illustration of the usages com- 
 mon in baptism, published in the weekly " An- 
 zeiger" at Halle, 1764, No. 2832. 
 
 Note. The rite of exorcism has been pro- 
 perly abandoned in most places in the protestant 
 church. Although it is well explained in the 
 Lutheran church, as a confession of the natural 
 corruption of indwelling sin and of redemption 
 from it, and in various other ways, still it is cal- 
 culated to promote superstition and serious error 
 in the community at large; and, what is most 
 important, to excite contempt among the lightly 
 disposed. Morus gives the same opinion, (p. 
 257, note 3.) 
 
 It may be remarked, in general, that some of 
 the usages common in many places at infant 
 baptism are not at all suitable to children, and 
 have been transferred, without much judgment, 
 to their baptism, from that of adult persons. 
 Among these inappropriate services we may 
 place the confession of faith, and the renunciation 
 of the devil. Instead of these, it would be more 
 appropriate and profitable to have a sincere 
 prayer, in which the new member of the Chris- 
 tian church should be commended to the care 
 and blessing of God ; and at the same time a 
 feeling exhortation to parents and other specta- 
 tors, in which they should be impressively re- 
 minded of the duties which they owe as Chris- 
 tians to their children, and those entrusted to 
 their watchful care. Much depends in things 
 of this nature upon the teacher, who, even where 
 
 the rites are not exactly suitable, can obviat 
 mistake and remove ignorance by proper expl 
 nations. Even the best formulary in baptU 
 will affect spectators but little if they see th< 
 the teacher uses it without any emotion, and re- 
 peats it with a heartless voice and manner. The 
 teacher needs to be on his guard against per- 
 forming the duties of his office especially those 
 which frequently recur, as the Lord's Supper and 
 baptism in a merely mechanical way. When 
 he performs religious services with a cold heart, 
 it cannot be expected that others present should, 
 engage in them with warm devotion. A teacher 
 who discharges his duties in this manner must 
 lose in the good opinion of his hearers ; and the 
 blame is his own if he at last becomes con- 
 temptible in their view. 
 
 SECTION CXL. 
 
 OBJECT, USES, AND EFFECTS OF CHRISTIAN 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 THE uses and effects of baptism are divided, 
 as in the sacraments in general, into internal 
 and external. 
 
 I. External Advantages and Effects of Baptism. 
 
 By means of this rite we are received as mem- 
 bers of the visible Christian society, and conse- 
 quently become partakers of all the privileges 
 belonging to Christians. It is therefore, consi- 
 dered in this light, the solemn initiatory rite of 
 admission into the Christian church, (sacra- 
 mentum initiationis.'] This is mentioned ex- 
 pressly in the New Testament as the design 
 and object of baptism. As soon as a person 
 was baptized he was considered as a member 
 of the church, (aytoj, pa^yrr^, rtus-ttwv,') Acts, 
 ii. 41, 44, and entitled to all the rights of other 
 Christians. 1 Cor. xii. 13, " Whether we be 
 Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or 
 free ; sis ev crw^a Ipouttia&qpfv" i. e., we are 
 united by baptism into one church, and have, 
 as members of it, equal rights. Vide ver. 12, 
 27. Whence Paul says, Eph. iv. 4, 5, there 
 is sv pdrttiapa, (one common baptism,) and IV 
 
 tia, (one church,) and jiuaJtott's of Christians; 
 and Gal. iii. 27, "As many of you as have been 
 baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" i. e., 
 are Christians, belong to the school of Christ, 
 and are therefore obligated to confess him for 
 your Lord and Master, to obey him, and to fol- 
 low his example. 
 
 II. The Internal Advantages and Effects of 
 Baptism. 
 
 (1) In the old ecclesiastical writers we find 
 many extravagant and unscriptural assertions re- 
 specting the effect of baptism, especially in the 
 instructions which they gave to catechumens and 
 new converts e. g., in Gregory of Nazianzen, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 489 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, and even earlier, in Irenaeus 
 and Tertullian. Cyril of Alexandria went so 
 far as to say that the water became changed 
 (juttustMzeww&w,'), by the divine power of the 
 Holy Spirit, into an entirely different element. 
 All this, indeed, admits of being explained ac 
 cording to scripture; but it is still apparent that 
 Christians began very early to attribute to bap 
 tism a magical efficacy, by which it produces its 
 effect through its own inherent virtue, and inde- 
 pendently of the use of the word of God, and by 
 which it acts, not only upon the soul, but upon 
 the body also. Hence they made use of it in 
 order to heal sicknesses, to banish evil spirits, 
 &c. During the middle ages, these superstitious 
 notions prevailed more and more, and were even 
 adopted by the schoolmen into their systems. 
 We find, e. g., in Thomas Aquinas, the doctrine 
 that a character indelibilis is acquired in baptism 
 an opinion which Augustine had before held ; 
 also the scholastic doctrine that by baptism na- 
 tive depravity is so far done away that only con- 
 cupiscentia remains, and that even this loses the 
 form of sin. Protestants have in every way 
 endeavoured to separate the scriptural doctrine 
 from these superstitious notions; yet there are 
 not wanting incautious expressions on this sub- 
 ject even among some protestant theologians. 
 
 (2) In the New Testament this magical effect 
 is nowhere ascribed to baptism, as if faith were 
 imparted to man by baptism without his being 
 himself active in obtaining it; as if he received, 
 through this external rite, the forgiveness of sins, 
 readiness in good works, and eternal salvation. 
 Neither has Luther taught such a doctrine. On 
 an adult person, who has no knowledge of the 
 word of God or of the Christian doctrine, baptism 
 can have no efficacy simply as an opus operatum. 
 Its effect on adults depends on their being in- 
 structed in the divine word, and the connexion 
 of baptism with this instruction. To this divine 
 word, and the divine efficacy connected with it, 
 (s. 130, 131,) does the power properly belong 
 to renew the heart of man, and to make it sus- 
 ceptible of the benefits and privileges which 
 Christianity promises, and not the mere exter- 
 nal rite of baptism. This we are distinctly 
 taught in the holy scriptures. So Peter (Acts, 
 ii. 38) exhorts his hearers to suffer themselves 
 to be baptized EI$ afyrjnw d / uapr'twv, but he ex- 
 pressly requires, as an essential condition, the 
 fjLfTfavoeiv, (which is effected by God through 
 the use of Christian doctrine;) and it is the 
 same in the baptism of John, Mark, i. 4, seq. 
 So, Acts, xxii. 16, Paul was called upon to be 
 baptized and to be washed from his sins; but 
 the condition was irtixahtad/j.svos ib ovop,a tov 
 Kuptou. Several texts relating to this point 
 should be here more particularly considered. 
 
 (a) John, iii. 5, " Whoever is not born of 
 water and of the Spirit cannot enter into the 
 62 
 
 kingdom of heaven" i. e., whoever does not 
 take upon himself the obligation to live in an 
 entirely altered and renewed temper of mind, 
 which is effected through baptism by the aid of 
 the Holy Spirit, has no part in the saving bless- 
 ings of Christ's spiritual kingdom, (forgiveness 
 of sins and eternal blessedness.) Vide s. 126, II. 
 (6) Titus, iii. 5, where Paul means to say, 
 God had bestowed salvation upon them (tauaiv) 
 by leading them to embrace Christianity. We 
 become participators in these Christian bless- 
 ings in a twofold way ; first, 8t,a hovtpov rtafay- 
 yzvsGiaf so baptism is called as far as one ex- 
 ternally receives it, and especially as far as he 
 is engaged, by means of it, to lead a new life, 
 and receives strength for this end : secondly, xal 
 8ia (ij/asau/atfecoj Hviv/j,ato$ ayiov i. e., through 
 that entire change and renovation of heart which 
 we owe to the Holy Spirit. This renewal he 
 effects through the Christian doctrine, s. 130, 
 131. The meaning is, "the renovation of our 
 hearts, which is effected by the Holy Spirit, is 
 bestowed upon us by the free and undeserved 
 grace of God. He assists us to obtain this 
 blessing by means of Christian baptism, in 
 which we become obligated to lead a new life, 
 and receive strength so to do, and also by the 
 entire renewal of our hearts, which we owe to 
 his Spirit." 
 
 (c) 1 Pet. iii. 21. It is said concerning bap- 
 tism, that it delivers or frees us from the pu- 
 nishment of our sins, (tjw^Et;) not, however, 
 as an external washing, but inasmuch as we 
 pledge ourselves in this rite, and are assisted 
 by it, to maintain a jgood conscience, and inas- 
 much as it is the means by which we receive 
 and appropriate to ourselves the gracious pro- 
 mise of the forgiveness of sins through Christ, 
 which is elsewhere called pftdvoia dyuocrvi^. 
 
 The scriptural doctrine of the internal advan- 
 tages and effects of baptism may be embraced 
 in the following points : 
 
 FIRST. When we are received by baptism 
 into the number of the followers of Jesus 
 Christ, we sacredly bind ourselves to believe 
 his doctrine in its whole extent, its commands, 
 and its promises; to embrace it as true, and 
 therefore punctually to obey it in all parts, to 
 live pious and godly lives, according to his pre- 
 cepts, and to imitate his example. For he only 
 who does this is worthy of the name of a Chris- 
 tian, and can lay claim to the blessedness pro-* 
 mised to believers. Vide 1 John, ii. 4 ; iii. 3. 
 Peter calls this, in his first epistle, chap. iii. 21, 
 
 * t)j(jco dya^j ETttpcoT^/ua E tj f ov, and makes 
 this one object of baptism. 'ETtEpw-r^a is pro- 
 perly stipulatio, and so denotes any solemn obli- 
 gation which one assumes (before God). Hence 
 the meaning here is : " By baptism we take 
 pon ourselves the sacred obligation^ in the 
 )resence of God, to maintain a good conscience, 
 
490 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 to be watchful against sin, and to strive after 
 holiness." The passage, Romans, vi. 3, 4, 
 seq., teaches the same thing, coll. Col. ii. 12, 
 13, "We are, like Christ, buried as dead per- 
 sons by baptism, and should arise, like him, to 
 a new life" i. e., by baptism we obtain the 
 assurance of the pardon of sin on account of the 
 death of Christ; and so, when we are baptized, 
 take upon ourselves the obligation to die to sin 
 in a spiritual manner, as Christ died and was 
 buried bodily, &c. The image is here taken 
 from baptized persons as they were immerged, 
 (buried,) and as they emerged, (rose again;) so 
 it was understood by Chrysostom. Since im- 
 mersion has been disused, the full significance 
 of this comparison is no longer perceived. So 
 then by baptism we profess to receive Christ as 
 our teacher, Saviour, and Lord i. e., we thus 
 bind ourselves to embrace and obey his doc- 
 trine, confidently to trust his promises, to ex- 
 pect from him all our spiritual blessedness, and 
 to render him a dutiful obedience. This is 
 what is meant in the New Testament by being 
 baptized in the name of Christ. Vide Moms, p. 
 216, s. 4. But since now all these blessings 
 which we owe to Jesus as Messiah, or Saviour 
 and Lord, are blessings which God bestows 
 blessings which, according to the Christian 
 doctrine, are derived from Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit,- so in baptism we bind ourselves to be- 
 lieve in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as our 
 God, to look for our salvation from them, and 
 to acknowledge and adore them as the only au- 
 thors of it. Hence the command of Jesus to 
 baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, is designed to express the reli- 
 gious connexion in which we stand to them, 
 and our duty to pay them religious homage. 
 
 SECONDLY. Through baptism we receive the 
 assurance that the divine blessings which the 
 Christian doctrine promises concern even us, 
 and that even we may participate in them ; or, 
 in other words, these blessings are by this rite 
 particularly applied to our own personal state, 
 and we learn in faith to appropriate them to 
 ourselves. As any one, on being formally ad- 
 mitted as a citizen of a town, in taking the oath 
 of citizenship, and in going through the other 
 rites of initiation, receives the confident assur- 
 ance that he has now a title to all the rights 
 and privileges of citizenship ; so it is with the 
 Christian in baptism. It is the same, in this 
 view, with baptism as with circumcision. This 
 Paul calls (Rom. iv. 11) a s^^fiov and <y<j>payt5a 
 for Abraham and his posterity i. e., a token 
 of assurance and a proof that God was favour- 
 ably disposed towards him, and justified him 
 on account of his faith. So baptism is to every 
 one the token of assurance that he may partake 
 in all those spiritual blessings which Christian- 
 ity promises. Whoever, therefore, is baptized 
 
 receives the assurance that his sins are forgiven 
 him for the sake of Christ that God, for the 
 sake of Christ, looks upon him with favour and 
 regards him as a child, and that he, in faithful 
 obedience to the commands of Jesus, (and by 
 enjoying the constant aid of the Holy Spirit 
 which is promised,) may securely expect eter- 
 nal blessedness; Acts, ii. 38; Gal. iii. 27; 
 Mark, xvi. 16. Hence Peter, in his first epis- 
 tle, chap. iii. 21, compares the water of baptism 
 to the water of the deluge, (as the Jews also- 
 called their washings and purifications spiritual 
 floods ; dvnVuTtoj, image, likeness.) Even as the 
 pious at the time of the deluge (ver. 20) were 
 bodily delivered ; so are those who are baptized 
 with water spiritually delivered from sin and 
 its penalty. 
 
 Conclusions from the foregoing, and some re- 
 marks designed to illustrate certain theological dis- 
 tinctions and terminologies respecting baptism. 
 
 (a) It is justly maintained that baptism tends 
 to awaken, enlarge, and confirm our faith, and 
 that by means of it we receive power and im- 
 pulse for a new spiritual life. This effect is 
 produced in regard to both the objects which 
 belong to Christian faith, the law and the gos- 
 pel. Still this is not wrought through any mi- 
 raculous or magical influence of baptism, or of 
 the Holy Spirit in baptism ; for, 
 
 (b) This effect of baptism depends upon the 
 W T ord of God united with baptism ; or the di- 
 vine truths of Christianity and the divine power 
 inherent in and connected with them. Cf. 
 Ephes. v. 26, " Christ purifies and sanctifies 
 the members of the church in baptism through 
 the Word" i. e., the whole gospel system in 
 its full extent, its precepts and promises. The 
 latter are made to us in baptism; and at the 
 same time we pledge ourselves to obey the for- 
 mer, and receive strength so to do. The means, 
 therefore, by which baptism produces these ef- 
 fects, or rather, God through baptism, is, the 
 Word. It is the same in the Lord's Supper. 
 It is accordingly rightly said that " God, or the 
 Holy Spirit, operates in baptism upon the hearts 
 of men;" excites good feelings, resolutions, 
 &c. namely, through the Word. Hence the 
 effect of baptism is properly an effect which 
 God produces through his word, or through the 
 contents of the Christian doctrine, which is visi- 
 bly set forth, represented, and appropriated to 
 us in baptism, for the sake of making a stronger 
 impression upon our heart. Baptism may be 
 thus called, verbum Dei visibile. Vide s. 137, 
 II. In the same manner, therefore, as God ope- 
 rates upon our hearts, through the Word and in 
 the use of it, when we hear or read it, does he 
 also operate in this visible presentation of the 
 same truth, by the external rites of baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper. And so we may apply to 
 this subject all which is said in the twelfth 
 
TATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 491 
 
 article respecting the operations of grace, both in 
 the statement of the Bihlical doctrine (s. 130, 
 131) and of the different theories of theologians 
 in the succeeding sections. But this effect is 
 not miraculous, not magical, not irresistible, but 
 suited to our moral nature. 
 
 (c) According to the ancient scholastic divi- 
 sion, two things must be considered in baptism, 
 materta (better, res) terrestris, that which strikes 
 the senses externally the ivater ; and materia 
 cnelestis, the invisible thing which is represented 
 by the visible sign, and conveyed through it. 
 This is the Holy Spirit, and his power and 
 agency; or, more definitely, it is that which in 
 baptism is effected in us by God, or by the 
 Holy Spirit, through the divine Word. 
 
 Note. Augustine expresses himself very 
 justly concerning the efficacy and power of 
 baptism, (De Bapt. i. 13, 18,) "It has indeed 
 the power to effect regeneration (change of 
 heart) in men ; but it does nothing for man's 
 salvation, if there is in him any hindrance, (ob- 
 staculum.)" Luther too follows him in this, 
 and says, very appropriately and justly, espe- 
 cially in his large catechism, "that the divine 
 word and instruction must not be separated from 
 baptism, and that without the former, and faith 
 in it, the water is nothing but water, and can in 
 nowise benefit the subject." Vide Morus, p. 
 250, n. 4. 
 
 (c?) Baptism is frequently represented as a 
 tovenant which is established between God and 
 men; hence the expression, to stand in his cove- 
 nant of baptism, and others of the same kind. 
 This name is derived from circumcision, and the 
 covenant of God with Abraham established by 
 it; also from 1 Peter, iii. 21, where Eytspwi'^/ia 
 is translated covenant by Luther. Cf. Heb. 
 viii. 10, seq. The thing intended by this name 
 is true, if it is rightly understood. God so- 
 lemnly promises to men, in baptism, the enjoy- 
 ment of all the blessings which are promised in 
 the Christian doctrine ; and man solemnly binds 
 himself in the same rite to yield obedience to 
 God and the Christian doctrine; and in order 
 to this, receives strength and assistance from 
 God. Any one, therefore, who has not broken 
 this engagement, or forfeited this gracious as- 
 sistance which is promised, stands still in the 
 covenant of baptism. For baptism is the testi- 
 mony, the assurance of pardon the pledge and 
 proof of this and all other Christian blessings. 
 
 SECTION CXLI. 
 
 OF THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM, AND WHETHER 
 IT MAY BE REPEATED. 
 
 I. Tfie Necessity of Baptism. 
 
 (1) AN internal and absolute necessity of 
 baptism cannot be affirmed. For the water of 
 
 baptism, in and of itself, and the rite itself, as 
 an external act, have no power to renew or save 
 men. This effect depends solely upon the 
 agency of God, through the Christian doctrine, 
 united with baptism. Since, then, it is one of 
 the positive rites established by Christ, and has 
 no internal or essential efficacy, it is no other- 
 wise necessary than because it has been com- 
 manded (necessilas prsecepti.) But Christ has 
 commanded that all who would be his disciples 
 should be baptized. Any one, therefore, who 
 acknowledges Jesus Christ as a divine messen- 
 ger, and regards his authority, is under obliga- 
 tion to obey his precept. Christ brought a 
 charge against the Pharisees, (Luke, vii. 30,) 
 that they had rejected the divine appointment 
 ()3oi>x?7 v) concerning the baptism of John. 
 He required baptism of Nicodemus, (John, iii. 
 3, 5, 7,) and commanded the apostles to baptize 
 all whom they would make his disciples, (Matt, 
 xxviii. ; Mark, xvi.) 
 
 It would be false, however, to assert that 
 baptism is absolutely essential to each and every 
 man in order to salvation. Theologians there- 
 fore hold, with truth, that if a man is deprived 
 of baptism without any fault of his own, his 
 salvation is not endangered by this omission. 
 Even that familiar passage, Mark, xvi. 16, 
 " Whoever believes and is baptized is saved, 
 but he that believes not is punished," is not 
 against, but in favour of this view. For punish- 
 ment is here threatened only to the unbelieving, 
 who wilfully reject Christian truth, and not to 
 those who, without their own fault, remain un- 
 baptized ; hence |3a*ft'c0&et$ is not repeated in 
 the second member. For an unbeliever should 
 not be baptized ; and even if he should be, it 
 could do him no good. Just so it is in John, 
 iii., where yevvrjots tx jtvmpatos is represented 
 as the principal thing (ver. 6 8), and the ys v - 
 vrivis tx aJSowoj as useful only so far as it tends 
 to promote the former. 
 
 (2) Sketch of the history of this doctrine. The 
 most opposite opinions have prevailed from the 
 earliest times respecting the necessity of bap- 
 tism. 
 
 (a) Already in the second century some de- 
 nied that baptism is necessary for every Chris- 
 tian, and that it is the will of Christ that each 
 and every one should be baptized. They main- 
 tained, that those who have otherwise sufficient 
 faith have no need of baptism. Of these Ter- 
 tullian speaks, (De Bapt. ch. 12 14.) Some 
 Socinians agreed with these, and maintained 
 that baptism is not properly applied to such as 
 are born of Christian parents, but that it is an 
 external rite of initiation, by which those of 
 other religions are to be introduced into the 
 Christian church an opinion to which many 
 who are of a Pelagian way of thinking assent. 
 It is true, indeed, that there is an entire want 
 
492 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 of express testimony and evidence from the 
 apostolical age concerning the baptism of those 
 born of Christian parents. This inquiry has 
 been lately revived ; and Teller (Excurs. i. on 
 Burnet, " De fide et officiis") is of the opinion 
 that those descended of Christian parents were 
 not baptized, but were considered as born with- 
 in the lap of the church. That this, however, 
 was done, is implied in the whole design of 
 baptism, as expressed by Jesus and the apos- 
 tles, s. 140, and may also be concluded from 
 the analogy of circumcision, and the uniform 
 practice of the ancient church after the aposto- 
 lical times. There is a work, in which, with 
 a boldness not to be found elsewhere, the entire 
 needlessness of baptism is maintained, its esta- 
 blishment by Christ denied, and the whole thing 
 given out as an invention of Peter, for the sake 
 of making himself pleasing to the Jews ; it is 
 entitled, "Die Taufe der Christen, ein ehrwiir- 
 diger Gebrauch, und kein Gesetz Christi," pub- 
 lished 1774. The author was C. C. Reiche. 
 An answer to this was written by J. E. Tro- 
 schel, "Die Wassertaufe ein Gesetz Christi;" 
 Berlin, 1774. 
 
 (6) Among the old catholic fathers in the 
 Christian church there always prevailed very 
 high ideas respecting the necessity and advan- 
 tages of baptism. They were accustomed, how- 
 ever, to defer baptism as long as possible (jpro- 
 crastinare) ; and this is recommended even by 
 Tertullian, De Bapt. c. 18;) and many would 
 not be baptized until just before their death e. 
 g., Constantino the Great. They supposed that 
 baptism removes, in a kind of miraculous way, 
 all the sins previously committed ; while, on 
 the other hand, the sins committed subsequently 
 to baptism could be forgiven only with great 
 difficulty, or not at all ; and so they imagined 
 that one baptized shortly before death, or one 
 who dies a martyr, (for martyrdom, in their 
 view, has the same efficacy,) goes out of the 
 world as a man without sin, and is saved. They 
 therefore delayed very much the baptism of new 
 converts, and prevented them from the enjoy- 
 ment of this sacrament, entirely contrary to the 
 appointment and meaning of the apostles, who 
 baptized new converts immediately, and often 
 many thousands in one day, respecting whose 
 conduct and integrity they could not possibly 
 have been thoroughly informed before; Acts, 
 ii. 41; xvi. 15, 33, coll. Acts, viii. 13. Vide 
 Baumgarten, De procrastinatione baptismi apud 
 veteres; Halle, 1747. 
 
 (c) When now the position, extra ecclesiam visi- 
 bilem non dari salutem, with all its consequences, 
 become more and more prevalent, especially af- 
 ter the time of Augustine, and in the Western 
 church (vide s. 128, II. and 135, 1.), they began 
 to maintain the doctrine of the absolute neces- 
 sity of baptism in order to salvation ; because 
 
 baptism is the appointed rite of initiation or' 
 reception into the church ; and they gave out, 
 that whoever is not baptized, and so is not a 
 member of the visible church, could not become 
 partaker of eternal happiness. So Augustine 
 had before judged, not only respecting the hea- 
 then and the children of heathen parents, but 
 also the children of Christian parents who die 
 before baptism. He was followed by the school- 
 men. After this time they began very much to 
 hasten the baptism of children ; and now, for 
 the first time, the so-called baptism of necessity 
 (administered when a child was thought in dan- 
 ger of dying) became common. It happened 
 also not unfrequently, that the children of un- 
 christian parents (e. g., of Jews) were forcibly 
 baptized against their own and their parents* 
 will, on the ground that they were thus put into 
 the way of salvation; of this we find many ex- 
 amples in earlier times. That this is contrary 
 to the sense and spirit of the holy scriptures 
 may be seen from this, that circumcision was 
 appointed on the eighth day, and one who died 
 before was not considered, on this account, as 
 shut out from the people of God. 
 
 II. Is Christian Baptism to be Repeated? 
 
 (1) The doctrine now prevalent in the church 
 is entirely just, that baptism is not to be repeat- 
 ed when one passes over from one Christian sect 
 or particular communion to another. For, 
 
 (a) Baptism, considered as an external reli- 
 gious rite, is the rite of initiation and solemn 
 reception into the Christian church in general. 
 The subject of baptism pledges himself to the 
 profession and to the obedience of the doctrine 
 of Jesus in general, and not to any one particu- 
 lar church. No one of these particular commu- 
 nions (such as they have always been) is in 
 exclusive possession of the truth (vide. s. 134, 
 II, 2) ; but in this all agree, that they hold them- 
 selves pledged to profess the pure Christian 
 doctrine (i. e., what they, according to their 
 views, understand as such.) Every sect binds 
 its own baptized to this ; and hence it is, in this 
 view, the same thing, wherever and by whom- 
 soever one is baptized. And Paul taught the 
 same thing when he said, 1 Cor. i. 12, seq., 
 that one is not pledged by baptism to any man 
 or to any sect, but to the profession of Christ. 
 
 (6) The power or efficacy of baptism depends 
 not upon the sect or the man by whom it is ad- 
 ministered ; man can neither increase nor dimi- 
 nish this efficacy. Vide I Cor. i. 12. 
 
 (c) We find no example during the times of 
 Christ or the apostles to prove that proper Chris- 
 tian baptism was ever repeated; although we 
 find some examples, even at that time, of great 
 sinners and of persons excommunicated. 
 
 (e?) We do not even find that the baptism of 
 John was repeated, (although, at the present 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 403 
 
 time, the Sabeans in the East yearly repeat it;) 
 and the same is true of Jewish proselyte bap- 
 tism. The examples Acts ii. and xix. do not 
 bear upon this point. Vide s. 138, IV. 
 
 (e) Finally, the uniform phraseology of the 
 holy scriptures teaches clearly the same thing, 
 since it is always said concerning Christians 
 who were received into the church, that they had 
 been baptized (baptizatos esse), because it took 
 place once for all ; not merely that they were bap- 
 tized (baptizari ,) Rom. vi. 31 ; Gal. iii. 27. It 
 is a thing which had been performed. It is 
 different with the Lord's Supper: this is a rite 
 to be repeated ; 1 Cor. xi. 25, seq. Therefore, 
 only when an essential mistake has been com- 
 mitted when, e. g., anything belonging to the 
 essentials of baptism, as the use of water, or 
 proper instruction concerning the object of this 
 rite, has been neglected or altered, or if it has 
 been administered by one not a Christian ; vide 
 Acts ii. and xix., s. 138, IV. ; in such cases only 
 must it be renewed, as baptism then ceases to 
 be true Christian baptism. 
 
 (2) The opinions respecting repeating bap- 
 tism were different even in the ancient Chris- 
 tian church. Already in the second century 
 they were accustomed in Africa (as appears 
 from Tertullian, De Pudic. c. 19; De Bapt. c. 
 15,) to rebaptize heretics, and the same was 
 done in many provinces of the East. This 
 was not the case, on the other hand, in Rome, 
 and in the other European churches ; here 
 they simply laid hands upon those who were 
 restored, when they were received back ; and 
 appealed for this to the apostolic tradition, that 
 whoever has been baptized according to the 
 command of Christ is rightly baptized, although 
 it may have been done even by a heretic. In 
 the third century there arose a vehement con- 
 troversy on this point between Stephanus, Bi- 
 shop of Rome, and the African party, whose 
 usage Cyprian zealously defended. But they 
 could not agree, and each party still adhered to 
 its previous usage. These opinions, however, 
 were abandoned by degrees in the African 
 church, as in most others; they were, however, 
 revived in the fourth century by the Donatists, 
 and other fanatics of the succeeding century, 
 who would acknowledge no baptism as valid 
 which was administered by a heretic, or any 
 teacher who did not stand in fellowship with 
 them. The same opinion was revived by the 
 enthusiastic sect known by the name ofJlnabap- 
 tisis, in the sixteenth century. They, however, 
 altered their theory afterwards to this, that they 
 merely rejected infant baptism, and admitted 
 only adult persons to baptism ; and this is still 
 the doctrine of the Mennonites and the other 
 Anabaptists; hence they rebaptize those who 
 were baptized in infancy, because infant baptism 
 is not regarded by them as valid, and those bap- 
 
 tized in this way only are considered by them 
 as not baptized. They therefore reject the name 
 of Anabaptists, (Wiedertaufer.} The opinions 
 of all Anabaptists of ancient and modern times 
 flow partly from unjust ideas of the power and 
 efficacy of baptism, and partly from erroneous 
 opinions respecting the church. It is true, in- 
 deed, that many who have denied that baptism 
 should be repeated have held these same erro- 
 neous opinions, but they would not admit the 
 consequences which naturally result from them. 
 
 (a) The Africans of the second and third 
 centuries held this point in common with their 
 opponents, that forgiveness of sin and eternal 
 happiness are obtained by means of baptism, 
 and the Holy Ghost by means of the laying on 
 of the hands of the bishop ; and indeed both 
 imagined that a sort of magic or miraculous in- 
 fluence belongs to these rites. Vide s. 139, 
 IV. The Africans concluded now, that as 
 heretics do not hold the true Christian doctrine 
 they are not to be considered as Christians, 
 and consequently that their baptism is not 
 Christian baptism, and that they, therefore, like 
 unchristian persons, are not susceptible of the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 (6) The Donatists, now, maintained plainly 
 and decidedly that the church can consist only 
 of holy and pious persons, and that this genuine 
 Christian church could be found only among 
 themselves, (vide s. 135,11.;) wherefore they, 
 rebaptized all who came over to their sect. For 
 they maintained that the gratia baptismi does 
 not exist among heretics; that the ordination of 
 teachers out of their own communion is invalid ; 
 that others have not the Holy Ghost, and can- 
 not therefore baptize in a valid manner; in 
 short, it was their opinion that the efficacy of- 
 the ordinances depends on the worthiness of 
 him who administers them. 
 
 (c) The Anabaptists of the sixteenth century 
 proceeded from the same position, that the 
 church is a community of mere saints and re- 
 generated persons. They and their followers 
 therefore rejected infant baptism, as it could not 
 be known as yet concerning children whether 
 they would live pious or ungodly lives; nor 
 could children promise the church that they 
 would live righteously. Adults only, in their 
 view, might therefore be baptized. Cf. the work 
 written by an Anabaptist, entitled " Ueber die 
 moralischen Zwecke und Verpflichtungen der 
 Taufe," which, aside from this point, contains 
 much which is good ; translated from the Eng- 
 lish ; Leipzig, 1775 8. Vide also D. A. J. 
 Stark, Geschichte der Taufe und der Taufge- 
 sinnten; Leipzig, 1789, 8vo. 
 
 [Note. On the general subject of baptism, 
 cf. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 672, ff. 
 Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 566, s. 122, ff. The litera- 
 ture of this doctrine is here very fully exhibited. 
 2T 
 
494 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 For the early history of this doctrine, cf. Nean- 
 der, K. Gesch. b. i. Abth. ii. s. 53363 ; also 
 b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 682, ff. ; for the more recent 
 history, cf. Plank, Gesch. der protest. Lehrb. 
 b. v. th. 1. TB.] 
 
 SECTION CXLII. 
 
 OF THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS. 
 
 MANY of the ancients and moderns have dis- 
 approved of infant baptism. It was first ex- 
 pressly dissuaded by Tertullian (De Bapt. c. 
 18), although he does not entirely reject it, as 
 it was at that time in common use. But it was 
 also quite common then to delay baptism ; and 
 those who approved of this could not at the same 
 time approve of infant baptism. Vide s. 141, 1. 
 Infant baptism was also rejected by the Anabap- 
 tists of the sixteenth century, and their follow- 
 ers, for reasons mentioned in s. 141, ad finem. 
 Mich. Servetus, too, in the sixteenth century, 
 would have no one baptized under thirty years 
 of age. There is no decisive example of this 
 practice in the New Testament; for it may be 
 objected against those passages where the bap- 
 tism of whole families is mentioned viz., Acts, 
 x. 42, 48; xvi. 15, 33 ; 1 Cor. i. 16, that it is 
 doubtful whether there were any children in 
 these families, and if there were, whether they 
 were then baptized. From the passage Matt, 
 xxviii. 19, it does not necessarily follow that 
 Christ commanded infant baptism; (the jua^- 
 rfvtiv is neither for nor against;) nor does this 
 follow any more from John, iii. 5, and Mark, 
 x. 14, 16. There is therefore no express com- 
 mand for infant baptism found in the New Tes- 
 ment; as Morns (p. 215, s. 12) justly concedes. 
 Infant baptism has been often defended on very 
 unsatisfactory a priori grounds e. g., the ne- 
 cessity of it has been contended for, in order 
 that children may obtain by it the faith which 
 is necessary to salvation, &c. It is sufficient to 
 shew, (1) That infant baptism was not forbid- 
 den by Christ, and is not opposed to his will 
 and the principles of his religion, but entirely 
 suited to both. (2) That it was probably prac- 
 tised even in the apostolic church. (3) That 
 it is not without advantages. 
 
 I. Proofs of the Lawfulness and Antiquity of 
 Infant Baptism. 
 
 (1) That infant baptism, considered as a 
 solemn rite of initiation into the church, cannot 
 be opposed to the design and will of Christ, 
 may be concluded from his own declaration, 
 Matt. x. 14, "Suffer little children to come unto 
 me and forbid them not, T'WJ/ yap foiovifuv ts-tiv 
 ri fiatjifoia TOU sou." This is indeed no com- 
 mand for infant baptism; but if children may 
 and ought to have a share in the Christian 
 church, and in all Christian privileges (,3a< 
 
 j?ov), it cannot be improper to introduce them) 
 into the Christian church by this solemn rite of| 
 initiation. Indeed, if it is according to the dw 
 sign of Christ that children should have a shard 
 in the rites and privileges of Christians from 
 their earliest youth up, it must also be agreeable 
 to his will solemnly to introduce them, by this 
 rite of initiation, into the nursery of his people] 
 Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 14. 
 
 (2) Christian baptism is so far similar to cirj 
 cumcision as that the one was the rite of initial 
 tion into the ancient church, the other into th^ 
 new; s. 137, II. ad finem, and Morus, p. 253 
 note. But Christian baptism represents ane 
 imparts far greater spiritual benefits than cir-1 
 cumcision. Now we know that the sons ofj 
 Jews and proselytes, according to divine coraw 
 mand, were circumcised on the eighth day, when 
 they certainly had as yet no idea of the intenf 
 and meaning of this religious rite. Accord] 
 ing to this analogy, children among Christians! 
 may be baptized, even during those years wherj 
 they cannot as yet understand anything of the 
 design of the rite, or make any profession or 
 their faith. At least, this analogy must havj 
 been very clear to the first Christians, and to th 
 apostles, who themselves were Jews. Whei 
 therefore in the times of the apostles a wholj 
 family was baptized, would not the children bj 
 baptized too? And did not Paul say withod 
 limitation that all were baptized, at a time whe 
 there were those grown up in the Christian 
 society who were born of Christian parents 
 Vide 1 Cor. i. and xii., and Gal. iii. Again 
 were it entirely decided that Jewish proselyt 
 baptism was common during the life of Chris! 
 this circumstance would establish the positio 
 still more; for the children of proselytes wer 
 also baptized. But even if proselyte baptisr 
 was not introduced until the end of the secon 
 or beginning of the third century, and was the) 
 adopted in imitation of Christian baptism, evel 
 in this case it might still be concluded that A 
 that time the baptism of infants must have bee 
 common among Christians. 
 
 (3) The most decisive reason is the follow! 
 ing: Christ did not indeed ordain infant ban 
 tism expressly; but if, in his command to ban 
 tize a//, he had wished children to be exceptecj 
 he must have expressly said this ; Matt, xxviii 
 Since the first disciples of Christ, as nativi 
 Jews, never doubted that children were to a 
 introduced into the Israelitish church by circuoi 
 cision, it was natural that they should includj 
 children also in baptism, if Christ did not e?i 
 pressly forbid it. Had he therefore wished thij 
 this should not be done, he would have said s! 
 in definite terms. 
 
 (4) That infant baptism was very commoi 
 shortly after the times of the apostles, both i 
 the Eastern and Western churches, admits of a 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 495 
 
 doubt, if all the historical data are compared. 
 Vide Morus, p. 251, not. ad s. 10. Some have 
 endeavoured to find evidence for this practice 
 even in the writings of Justin the Martyr and 
 Irenaeus ; but they are not sufficiently decisive 
 on this point.* The most weighty evidence 
 that can be produced, from the oldest church 
 fathers and from church history, is the follow- 
 ing viz., 
 
 (a) From Tertullian (De Bapt. c. 18) it is 
 clearly seen, that already in his time the bap- 
 I tism of infants was very customary in Africa 
 ! and elsewhere, although he himself does not 
 speak favourably of this practice. 
 
 (6) In the time of Cyprian, in the third cen- 
 tury, there arose a controversy concerning the 
 day when the child should be baptized, whether 
 before the eighth day. But there is no question 
 on the point whether children ought to be bap- 
 tized ; in this they were all unanimously agreed. 
 
 (c) Augustine calls infant baptism apostolica 
 traditio, and says, totam ecclesiam id traditum 
 tenere. 
 
 (d) But far more important is the testimony 
 of a much earlier, and therefore more valuable 
 witness viz., Origen, of the third century, who 
 says in his Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. vi., that the 
 church had received this as a tradition from the 
 apostles, (rtctpago<jt,$ artotffoTax?;.) Here it might 
 indeed be objected that the church fathers ap- 
 peal much too freely to apostolic tradition, for 
 the sake of giving to their own opinions and to 
 the appointments of the church the more autho- 
 rity. But if infant baptism was not practised 
 in the oldest church, it is hardly conceivable 
 how it should have become so general a short 
 time after, and this too without any controversy 
 or contradiction. When Origen was born, about 
 the year 185, it was universally prevalent in the 
 Christian church, and he was, as he says him- 
 self, a baptized child. If it was not customary 
 at the time of the apostles, we must suppose that 
 afterwards single individuals or churches began 
 to baptize children. But in those times in 
 which they adhered so strictly, even in the 
 smallest trifles, to ancient usage, such an inno- 
 vation could not possibly have taken place with- 
 out great excitement, controversy, contadiction, 
 and without occasioning many councils. These 
 effects were produced by some very insignificant 
 matters, but we cannot find the least trace of 
 opposition to the first practice of infant baptism. 
 There can, then, be no time mentioned in which 
 the baptism of infants was first introduced after 
 the death of the apostles. Therefore it must 
 have existed from the beginning. Neither Ter- 
 tullian nor Pelagius knew of a later origin of it, 
 
 * [The evidence from Irenaeus is thought valid and 
 incontrovertible by Neander ; vide K. Gesch. b. ii. 
 Abth. ii. s. 549, 550. Tn.] 
 
 when the former censured it, and the latter de- 
 nied that it is necessary to procure the forgive- 
 ness of sins for children. For the history of 
 infant baptism and its opponents, vide Guil. 
 Wall, Historia Baptismi Infan.tum, and John 
 Walch, Historia Padobaptismi, Saec. iv. pri- 
 orum; Jense, 1739. 
 
 II. The. Uses and Effects of In f ant Baptism. 
 
 Although children at the time of their bap- 
 tism know nothing respecting this rite, and are 
 not capable of any notion of it, and can make 
 no profession, (and these are the principal ob- 
 jections on the other side,) still it does not fol- 
 low that infant baptism is without advantages, 
 any more than that Jewish circumcision was. 
 It has twofold advantages: 
 
 (1) For the children themselves. The advan- 
 tages to them are both present and future. 
 
 (a) The present effect, as far as it appears 
 clearly to us, is principally this, that by this 
 means they are admitted into the nursery 
 of the church, and even while children en- 
 joy its rights and privileges, as far as they 
 are capable of so doing. This is sufficient; 
 and there is no need of adopting the doctrine 
 about a children's faith, so far at least as that 
 implies anything which can exist without com- 
 prehension and capability of using the under- 
 standing. Vide s. 121, II., and Morus, p. 249. 
 In the general position, that just as/ar as they 
 have subjective capacity, and as soon as they 
 have this, God will work in them that which is 
 good for their salvation, there is not only no- 
 thing unreasonable, but it is altogether rational 
 and scriptural. It is also certain that we can- 
 not surely tell how soon, or in what way and 
 by what means, this subjective capacity may 
 be shewn and developed. 
 
 (>) As soon as their mental powers begin to 
 unfold themselves in some degree, children are 
 capable of an obvious inward, moral effect of 
 baptism, or of God in and through baptism. In 
 the Christian instruction imparted to them they 
 must therefore be continually referred to this 
 event; it must be shewn them that they too 
 have obtained by baptism a share in all the 
 great and divine blessings and promises which 
 are given to Christians, and that they are so- 
 lemnly obligated by baptism, through God's 
 assistance and guidance, to fulfil all the condi- 
 tions on which Christians receive these great 
 promises. In the youthful age this means is 
 exceedingly efficacious in exciting pious re- 
 flections, and it operates upon the whole suc- 
 ceeding life. It is on this account (as Morus 
 well observes) a very suitable and commend- 
 able practice in the protestant church, that the 
 children, before they approach the Lord's Table 
 for the first time, are thoroughly instructed in 
 the doctrinal and practical truths of Christianity, 
 
496 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 to the acceptance and obedience of which 
 they are obligated by baptism. This is called 
 the confirmation, (of the covenant of baptism.) 
 It has upon many, as experience teaches, the 
 most salutary efficacy through their whole life, 
 and it is the duty of the evangelical teacher to 
 lay out all his strength upon this instruction, 
 and to make it, as far as he can, appropriate 
 and practical. And if in some the advantages 
 of it do not appear immediately, still in late 
 years they are often seen. The good seed sown 
 in the heart often lies a long time concealed be- 
 fore it comes up. Baptism cannot indeed exert 
 any compulsion upon children, any more than 
 when one is enrolled, as a child to a canonry, 
 or as an academic citizen. They must act ac- 
 cording to their own conscientious conviction, 
 choice, and determination, after they come to 
 the exercise of their understanding. 
 
 (2) For the parents, relatives, or guardians of 
 the children. To these, too, is the baptism of 
 infants eminently useful in many respects; and 
 it may be said that this advantage alone is a 
 sufficient reason for instituting infant baptism. 
 For (a) the assurance is given by this rite to 
 parents, in a solemn and impressive manner, 
 that the great privileges and promises bestowed 
 upon Christians will be imparted to their chil- 
 dren also, and thus religious feelings, pious 
 thoughts and resolutions, are awakened and 
 promoted in them. (6) By this rite they are 
 engaged and encouraged to educate their chil- 
 dren in a Christian manner, in order that their 
 children may receive the privileges bestowed 
 upon them, and attain one day to the actual ex- 
 ercise and enjoyment of them. These duties 
 should be urged upon parents by the Christian 
 teacher, especially at the time when their chil- 
 dren are baptized ; and he may find instruction 
 respecting the manner in which this should be 
 done in the passages above cited. Respecting 
 the usages properly connected with infant bap- 
 tism, vide s. 139, ad finem. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 SECTION CXLIII. 
 
 OF THE NAMES OF THE LORD'S SUPPER? AND THE 
 OCCASION AND OBJECT OF ITS INSTITUTION. 
 
 I. Names of the Lord's Supper. 
 (I) The scriptural names, (a) Kvpiaxov 8sljt- 
 vov, the festival which Christ appointed, and 
 which is held in his honour, and is commemo- 
 rative of him, 1 Cor. xi. 20. Hence the com- 
 mon appellations, the Lord's Supper, coena do- 
 
 mini, or sacra coena, because it was instituted at 
 supper time. Entirely synonymous with this ' 
 is the phrase (6) Tpartf^a Kvpt'oi;, 1 Cor. x. 21, 'j 
 where we also find the name jtotr^tov Krpt'ou 
 With these the term x?-doi$ T?OV ap-rov, Acts, ii. [ 
 42, is frequently mentioned. But this seems 
 rather to apply to the feasts of love, (Agapea,) 
 after which the sacrament of the Supper was] 
 frequently, though not always, administered in 
 the primitive church. Cf. ver. 46, /jLftaha, t u3d~ 
 vfiv T'po^j. The term 5wp?a fTtorpcwtoj, Heb. ! 
 vi. 4, is rendered by Michaelis heavenly manna, 
 and applied to the Lord's Supper. This term 
 seems, however, to denote more generally the j 
 unmerited divine favours conferred upon the! 
 primitive Christians. 
 
 (2) The ecclesiastical names of this sacrament. \ 
 These are very many : some of the principal are | 
 the following: 
 
 (a) KotvwWa, communio a festival in cora-j 
 mon. This name is borrowed from 1 Cor. x. j 
 16, where, however, it denotes the profession 
 which Christians make, by partaking in com 
 of the Supper, of their interest in Christ, of the 
 saving efficacy of his death for them, and thei 
 own actual enjoyment of its consequences 
 
 (6) Ei^aptcfT'tct and ivXoyta, (for these terms 
 are synonymous.) This sacrament is so called! 
 because it is designed to promote a thankful re-| 
 membrance of Christ, and of the divine favours) 
 bestowed upon us through him. He himself) 
 commenced the Supper by a prayer of thanks, \ 
 which has always been justly retained in admi-j 
 nistering this ordinance. The appellation eucha-\ 
 ristia (eucharist) was used even by Ignatius, j 
 Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.j 
 [This name seems also to be of scriptural ori- 
 gin, and to be taken from the phrase 7to-fr t ptov 
 fuTioyfctj 6 fuTioyovjitfv, used by Paul. IR.J 
 
 (c) XVI>OL$, avva%i$ oiyta. This signifies, pri- 
 marily, a collection , then, a collection for cele- 
 brating the Lord's Supper, and finally, the Lord's 
 Supper itself. This name was probably taken 
 from 1 Cor. xi. 18, 20, crvj^p^o^tisvcov I'^uwv. 
 
 (c?) AftT'ovpy/a [primarily, ministerium"], then, 
 the sacrament of the Supper, as the principal act 
 of religious service, especially on account of the 
 sacrifice of Christ which is there commemorated, 
 since fartovpyia signifies, by way of eminence,! 
 that part of religious service which consists in 
 sacrifice. 
 
 (e) Mvcrtrfiiov, coena mystica and missa ; so 
 this sacrament was called, because the catechu- 1 
 mens were excluded from it, and none who were, 
 not Christians could be present when it was ad-J 
 ministered. They were sent away by the dea-| 
 cons with the words, Ite, missa esl, (ecclesia.) 
 Missa signifies properly dismissio catechumeno- 
 rum et posnitentiiim. 
 
 (/) There are other names, which were taken 
 from sacrifices, and the offering of sacrifices 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 497 
 
 9. g., 7tpocr$opa, oblatio, uca'a, ^tvs 
 altare, sacramentum altaris, &c. Many such 
 names are found in the ancient liturgies. Vide 
 Moms, page 271, note 2. Christ instituted the 
 Supper chiefly in commemoration of his death, 
 or his offering up of himself for man; and he 
 employs in doing this the terms borrowed from 
 sacrifices. Now it was customary for the Chris- 
 tians who had most possessions to bring food 
 and drink to their love-festivals, and from the 
 remnants of these gifts (rtpo0<j>opa) they held the 
 i Supper in commemoration of the sacrifice of 
 | Christ. This gave the first occasion for com- 
 j paring this sacrament with an offering; and this 
 was done the more willingly by Christians, as 
 it was often objected against them, by Jews 
 and heathens, that they had no sacrifices. And 
 by degrees they became accustomed to regard 
 the Lord's Supper not merely as a festival in 
 memory of the sacrifice of Christ, but as an ac- 
 j tual repetition of this sacrifice an idea which 
 gave rise afterwards to the grossest errors. The 
 first traces of these opinions are found in Justin 
 the Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and still more 
 in Cyprian, Augustine, and others. Vide Er- 
 [ nesti in " Antimuratorius," in his " Opusc. 
 Theol." p. 80; and with respect to these eccle- 
 siastical names in general, Casaubon, Exerc. in 
 Baron, Ex. 16, p. 445. 
 
 II. Texts relating to the Lord's Supper, and the 
 occasion and object of its Institution. 
 
 (1) The institution of the Supper is described 
 in the following texts viz., Matt. xxvi. 26 28 ; 
 Mark, xiv. 22 24 ; Luke, xxii. 19, 20. Luke 
 is more full and distinct in his narrative than 
 the others; in John there is nothing said re- 
 specting it, since he presupposed it as already 
 well known. Paul, however, gives an account 
 of the institution of the Supper, and agrees most 
 nearly with Luke, 1 Cor. xi. 23 25. He is 
 speaking of the disorders which had crept into 
 the Corinthian church in their observance of the 
 Agapae, and of the Lord's Supper in connexion 
 with them ; and takes this opportunity to dis- 
 course at large (in the entire passage from ver. 
 17th to 34th) respecting the design and the effi- 
 cacy of the sacrament of the Supper, and the 
 proper nude of celebrating it. Cf. 1 Cor. x. 
 16, 17. Theologians are not agreed among 
 themselves whether the passage, John, vi. 50, 
 seq., where Christ speaks of the eating of his 
 flesh and drinking his blood, relates to this sacra- 
 ment. Vide Morus, p. 269, note D. As the 
 Reformed theologians often appealed to this 
 pass-age in behalf of their theory, the Lutherans 
 (e. g., even Ernesti) would not allow that it 
 could be used to explain the language in which 
 the Supper was instituted. So much is certain, 
 that not!. ing is said in this passage itself respect- 
 ing the Lord's Supper, since this was not yet in- 
 63 
 
 stituted. But the terms here used have a striking 
 resemblance with those employed at the institu- 
 tion of the Supper; and since this discourse of 
 Jesus produced at the time a great sensation on 
 account of its remarkable phraseology, it can 
 hardly be supposed that his disciples would for- 
 get it, or that it should not have occurred to their 
 minds when terms so similar were employed at 
 the institution of the Supper. They, doubtless, 
 could explain many things in this whole trans- 
 action from their recollections of this discourse. 
 This will appear the more probable if we con- 
 sider that these words of Jesus, recorded by John 
 (chap, vi.), were spoken shortly before the pass- 
 over, (ver. 4 ;) that the images employed by him 
 were taken from the custom of eating the flesh 
 of the victims at the festivals attending the sa- 
 crifices, and especially at the passover, the most 
 solemn of them all ; and that it was exactly at 
 the passover that the Supper was instituted by 
 Christ. But allowing that these words may be 
 used to illustrate those employed by Christ on 
 the latter occasion, the Lutheran opinion is not 
 invalidated. For every Lutheran will allow that 
 it was a great object in the establishment of the 
 Lord's Supper to remind us, in an impressive 
 manner, of the body of Jesus offered, and his 
 blood shed for us, and to exhibit and convey to 
 us the great blessings which we owe to him. 
 Now in John, capf and aipa XpiflTov plainly de- 
 note the doctrine of Jesus so far as he offered up 
 his body, and shed his blood for the good of 
 man. Vide John, vi. 51, 63. To eat and drink 
 of this body and blood, is the same as Tttcrfsi-ftv 
 t$ XpKjfov ^0T'avp(a J ivov. Vide ver. 47, 50, 51, 
 56. What food and drink are to the body, as 
 contributing to its nourishment and vigour, the 
 same is a living faith in this doctrine to the soul ; 
 spiritual nourishment, pabulum animi. This 
 language, then, is to be understood to denote 
 "the truth of Christ's sacrifice or atonement, 
 and the inward experience of its benefits." And 
 this was the very object of the Lord's Supper 
 viz., to preserve the memory of the death of 
 Christ, visibly to set it forth, and to convey its 
 benefits to those who partake of this sacrament. 
 It cannot, therefore, be denied that the passage 
 in John (so far as it is figurative and symbolical) 
 serves to illustrate the language in which the 
 Lord's Supper was instituted, and indeed the 
 whole nature of this ordinance. Cf. especially 
 Storr, Doctrinae Christianas pars theoretica, p. 
 314, seq. 
 
 (2) What was the occasion of Christ's institut- 
 ing this festival? What was the immediate cause 
 of his doing it? He was accustomed to take oc- 
 casion, from the circumstances by which he was 
 surrounded, to give instruction ; and at the pass- 
 over everything was symbolical, and the father 
 of the family (the character which Christ now 
 sustained among his disciples) referred every- 
 2x2 
 
498 
 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 thing back to the events in the life of the ances- 
 tors of the Jewish nation. It seems now that this 
 Jewish passover gave the first occasion to Christ 
 for instituting his Supper. 
 
 (a) Christ abolished the ancient dispensation, 
 (rtaXatai/ Sic&jjxjyj/;) consequently all the Jew- 
 ish festivals, sacrifices, and the solemnities con- 
 nected with them, were set aside, and among 
 these the passover, one of the principal festivals 
 of the Jewish church. This was done, as we 
 are taught everywhere in the New Testament, 
 by the death of Christ. Still it could not be 
 denied that this and other Jewish festivals had 
 many advantages, and that they tended to keep 
 alive a sense of the divine benefits, and to 
 awaken pious feelings. Vide s. 137, III. 1. 
 Besides, it was altogether customary, both 
 among the Jews and the heathen nations, to 
 have sacrificial festivals standing in immediate 
 connexion with religion; hence Paul objects to 
 it that Christians who drink from the cup of the 
 Lord, and eat at the table of the Lord, should 
 drink from the cup and eat from the table of 
 idols, 1 Cor. x. 15 21. Still it cannot be pro- 
 perly said that the common sacrificial festivals 
 among the Jews and heathen furnished Christ 
 the principal or only inducement to institute his 
 Supper, as was asserted by'Cudworth, in his 
 work, " De vera notione sacrae ccenae," which is 
 found in his " Systema Intellectuale," accom- 
 panied by Mosheim's remarks an opinion to 
 which VVarburton and others have acceded. It 
 is also false to assert that the Lord's Supper is 
 properly a sacrificial festival, like the Jewish 
 passover, although it is a coena religiosa, or sacra, 
 and although it may be compared, and is in fact 
 compared by Paul (1 Cor. x.,) with these fes- 
 tivals. Vide Morus, p. 261, note ; and p. 271, 
 note 2. It is more just to say that Christ merely 
 took occasion from the Jewish sacrificial festi- 
 vals, and especially from the passover, all of 
 which were now abolished, to institute this fes- 
 tival, to maintain among his followers the me- 
 mory of his offering up of himself. But in en- 
 tire conformity with the spirit of his religion, 
 and of all his other institutions, he left it unde- 
 termined at what times it should be held, and how 
 often it should be repeated. He simply said, 
 Do this, as oft as ye, do it, in remembrance of me, 
 1 Cor. xi. 25. 
 
 (6) The passover was designed to commemo- 
 rate the rescue of the Israelites from Egypt, and 
 their deliverance from many afflictions; and 
 was to be repeated by their descendants as an 
 occasion for thankful remembrance of the di- 
 vine favours. Vide Exodus, xiii. 9, coll. xii. 
 26, 27. It took its name from this circumstance 
 viz., na?, feast of deliverance, or rescue. In the 
 same way was the Christian festival designed to 
 promote the grateful remembrance of Christ, on 
 
 account of the deliverance from sin and its pu- 
 nishment, and all the other spiritual blessings 
 which we owe to him, and it was to be repeated, 
 ftj "tr\v i\n.Y\y avd/Avqaiv ; Luke, xxii. 19; 1 Cor.l 
 xi. 24, 26. Hence Paul says, 1 Cor. v. 7, to 
 rtda%a, ^jttuiv vrtsp ^ ( uu>i> efv&], Xpujfoj. He 
 does not, indeed, here mean the Lord's Supper 
 itself; but still it is very easy to see from this 
 passage the intimate connexion of these ideas. 
 The words, however, by which the Supper was 
 instituted, This is my body, &c., cannot be ex- 
 plained from the formula used at the celebration 
 of the passover, This is the bread of suffering 
 which our fathers ate, &c. ; for this formula was 
 not adopted until after the destruction of the se- 
 cond temple; neither can it be found in the 
 Talmud, as Schottgen has shewn, (Hor. Tal- 
 mud, ad Matt. xxvi. 26,) and also Deyling, 
 (Obs. Miscell. P. i. Exerc. iv. p. 221.) The 
 words of Christ on this occasion are rather to be 
 compared with the Mosaic formula employed at 
 the solemn sanctioning of the law, at which 
 time sacrifices were also offered ; Exod. xxiv. 8, 
 Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord 
 hath made with you. Cf. Morus, p. 260, note 2. 
 (c) Christ did not institute his Supper during 
 the continuance of the passover, but after it was 
 finished, in order to give his new ordinance an 
 additional solemnity from its connexion with the 
 passover, and at the same time to make it entirely 
 distinct from the latter. This example was so 
 far imitated by the ancient Christians, that while 
 they celebrated the sacrament of the Supper in 
 connexion with the jJgapx, or feasts of love, they 
 yet observed it as a separate festival, after the 
 former was ended. At the social festivals of the 
 Jews, at the passover, &c., a cup was passed 
 round, over which thanks were said, while the 
 cup was drank to the praise of God a custom 
 which we find in other ancient nations. Cf. 
 Psalm cxvi. 13; 1 Chron. xvi. 1, seq. ; also the 
 rtotr-pisov SaijU-ovuov, 1 Cor. x. 21. It was with 
 this ceremony that Christ concluded the pass- 
 over, Luke, xxii. 17. And now, after they had 
 eaten, (ta$i6vruv cwtav, according to Matthew 
 and Mark, or p-sra TO Sst'rti/^at, according to 
 Luke and Paul,) he again offered a prayer of 
 thanks, as was customary at the commencement 
 of a festival (fv^optfj-r'^cra?,) in order to distin- 
 guish this ordinance from the one which had pre- 
 ceded, and then distributed the bread and passed 
 round the cup the second time. He took the 
 materials for this sacrament from what remained 
 of bread and wine (as the ordinary drink of the 
 table) after they had eaten. And this was en- 
 tirely conformed to his design, that the rite com- 
 memorative of him should be as simple as pos- 
 sible, and such that it could be often observed, 
 and in any place, without much trouble or diffi- 
 culty. In this respect the Lord's Supper differs 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 499 
 
 widely from the Jewish passover, where every- 
 thing was complicated and circumstantially ar- 
 ranged. Vide Exod. xii. 3, seq. 
 
 jtfote. Christ recommended the observance 
 of the Supper, not merely to the apostles, but to 
 all Christians. Vide Moms, p. 259, s. 1, ad 
 finern. Nor was it his meaning that they should 
 merely sometimes remember him at their ordi- 
 nary social meals, and while they partook of the 
 bread and wine on the table, think of his death ; 
 on the contrary, the apostles understood the 
 rords, Do this in remembrance of me. to relate to 
 all Christians ; and they distinguished this fes- 
 tival from all other social festivals, and intro- 
 duced the observance of it into all the Christian 
 churches. This appears especially from 1 Cor. 
 xi. 23, 24, coll. x. 16, where it is also described 
 as an ordinance of Christ, and indeed as one 
 which Paul himself, as well as the other apos- 
 tles, had received immediately from Christ. It 
 is said expressly, ver. 26, that this ordinance 
 should be observed until the end of the world, 
 
 %pis ov kT&fi o Krptoj.) The Supper was de- 
 signed to be a perpetual sermon on the death of 
 Christ until he shall come again to bring his 
 followers into the kingdom of the blessed ; and 
 every one who partakes of it is supposed hereby 
 to profess that he believes Christ died even for 
 him. There have always, however, been some 
 who have supposed that this institution is need- 
 less, or that the precept to observe it does not 
 extend to all Christians : the Pauliciani, e. g., 
 supposed that bread and wine are here figurative 
 terms, denoting the doctrines of Christ, which 
 nourish the soul. So the Socinians, and seve- 
 ral fanatical sects. 
 
 (3) More particular explanation of the object 
 of Christ in instituting the sacrament of the Sup- 
 per. 
 
 (a} The chief object of Christ. From what has 
 been already said, it appears that this festival 
 was designed to be in commemoration of Christ, 
 of all the blessings for which we are indebted 
 to him, and especially of his death, from which 
 these other benefits all proceed. This is evident 
 from the very words in which this ordinance 
 was established, o&jjua vrttp vp.u>v 8i86/^.vov^ (or, 
 as Paul has it, xhufisvov, "or, lasdere, vulnerare, 
 to which the breaking of the bread alludes,) and 
 cup* vrtsp vjwwr, (or rtepi rfoM.wv, according to 
 Mark and Luke,) ix^wo^tvov^ fi^a^sciv a^uaprtwv. 
 Christ often repeated these words during the 
 eating and drinking of the Supper, and inter- 
 changed them with others of the same import ; 
 and hence we may account for the different 
 phraseology recorded by the different evange- 
 lists. The same thing is evident from the ex- 
 press declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 26, "So 
 often as ye partake of this festival, you profess 
 yourselves among the number of those who be- 
 lieve that Christ suffered death for their sukes," 
 
 (^aj/ar'ov Kupt'ov xatayylta-r'f.) Cf. 1 Cor. X. 16, 
 and also the fine paraphrase of this passage 
 given by Morus, p. 259, s. 3, n. 1. 
 
 But this needs more particular explanation. 
 On the day of Christ's death the ancient Mosaic 
 dispensation ceased, and the new covenant, or 
 the new dispensation instituted by God through 
 Christ for the salvation of men, commenced. 
 The memorable event of that day, which had 
 such vast consequences, he and his apostles 
 celebrated by this festival, and he commanded 
 them to continue to observe it in future time. 
 It is therefore the uniform doctrine of the apos- 
 tles that the new dispensation of God (xaivrj 
 SKX^XJ?) began with the death of Christ, and 
 was thereby solemnly consecrated. Cf. the 
 texts cited s. 118, II. I. Hence Paul says, Heb. 
 ix. 14, 15, that even as Judaism was inau- 
 gurated by sacrifices, so was Christianity also, 
 by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And now as 
 Moses, Exod. xxiv. 8, calls the blood of the sa- 
 crifice by which the Mosaic laws and the whole 
 Mosaic institute was consecrated and received a 
 solemn sanction, the blood of the covenant, so does 
 Christ, with a most indisputable reference to 
 this expression, denominate his death, his 
 blood which he shed, the blood of the new cove- 
 nant ; and the words T'O al.ua xcuvrjs Sia^x^s 
 (or, as Luke and Paul plainly have it, to rtotr- 
 ptov (fffT't) 7i xawri dia^rixr] iv -9 at j uat'{< juov) are 
 to be regarded as explanatory of the words Ttovto 
 (Sift, -to ffw,ua ^uov, T'O al/jid pov. 
 
 The meaning therefore is, " ye celebrate, while 
 ye eat this bread and drink this wine, the me- 
 mory of my body offered up, and of my blood 
 shed for you, by which the new covenant, the 
 new dispensation for the good of the world, 
 whose founder I am, is consecrated." The sa- 
 crament of the Supper is therefore a significant 
 sermon on the death of Jesus, and requires, in 
 order to a proper celebration of it, a personal 
 experience of the benefits of this death. 
 
 Christ says, "drink ye all of it; for it is my 
 blood." By this he means that they should so 
 divide the wine among themselves that each 
 should receive a portion of it. He himself did 
 not partake of the sacramental bread and wine ; 
 for his body was not offered, nor his blood shed, 
 for his own sake ; and those only for whom this 
 was done should eat and drink of it. The tov-to 
 toti <ju>;ua and al/*a refers, therefore, principally 
 to the act itself, like the following T'OVT'O rtot- 
 ci-r'f i. e., this act (which you shall hereafter 
 repeat) shall serve to impress your minds with 
 the great importance of my body offered up for 
 the good of men, and of my blood shed for their 
 sake, and shall remind you of all the salutary 
 consequences flowing from my death, and shall 
 convey these benefits to you personally. It is 
 not, therefore, the then present and living body 
 of Jesus which is here spoken of, but the body 
 

 500 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 which was sacrificed i. e., Christ, so far as he 
 died for us. This is illustrated by the formula 
 used by Moses respecting the passover, Exod. 
 xii. 11, 27, NCT ros i. e., by this act you 
 solemnly commemorate the deliverance from 
 Egypt. And as the passover was appointed 
 and first celebrated shortly before this deliver- 
 ance, so was the sacrament of the Supper insti- 
 tuted and celebrated just before the death of 
 Christ; and as the former was to be repeated in 
 commemoration of the great event on account 
 of which it was first instituted, and for the sake 
 of awakening grateful and religious feelings, so 
 it was also with the latter. This analogy seems 
 to have been perfectly understood by the apos- 
 tles, and hence they do not inquire of Christ, 
 as they were accustomed to do in other cases. 
 
 (6) But in connexion with this principal ob- 
 ject, Christ had also others in view, all of 
 which, however, are related to this, and depend 
 upon it. Especially does it appear to have been 
 an object with Christ in this ordinance to make 
 plain, and impressively to recommend to his dis- 
 ciples that great precept of his religion, Love 
 one another, as I also have loved you, 1 Cor. x. 
 17; xii. 13. He designed that by this symbol 
 his disciples should mutually pledge their cor- 
 dial love. It is a thing well known by old ex- 
 perience that friendships are founded, cherished, 
 and sustained by social festivals. Of this fact 
 many of the ancient legislators and the founders 
 of religions availed themselves in the appoint- 
 ment of festivals; and this was also done by 
 Moses. In many of the Oriental nations, there- 
 fore, the guest who had but once eaten with 
 them, even if it had been only bread and salt, 
 and who had drunken with them, was considered 
 as a pledged and unalterable friend ; and it was 
 in this way that the league of friendship and of 
 mutual service was contracted. 
 
 This noble custom was now made more ge- 
 neral, and, as it were, consecrated, by religion, 
 or the association of religious ideas. All the 
 followers of Christ were to unite in this cele- 
 bration, and to hold this festival in common, 
 and without any distinction, in memory of their 
 great benefactor and Saviour. For the follow- 
 ers of Christ were required to love each other 
 as brethren, and this/or Christ's sake i. e., be- 
 cause it is the will and the command of Christ, 
 their common Lord. Vide Joh. Gottlob Worb, 
 Ueber die Bundes-und Freundschaftssymbole 
 der MorgenlSinder; Sorau, 1792, 8vo. 
 
 But we must remember, in connexion with 
 this, the uniform doctrine of the New Testa- 
 ment, that Christ in his exalted state is as near 
 to all his followers, at all periods, even until 
 the end of the world, (Matt, xxviii. 20,) and 
 that he equally guides and supports them as 
 when he was with his disciples, by his visible 
 presence, upon the earth. Vide s. 98. He was 
 
 visibly present when he first held this festival 
 with his disciples then living, and he then took I 
 the lead. But while he commands all his fol- I 
 lowers to continue to observe this rite until his | 
 visible return, he gives them the assurance that 
 they stand equally under his inspection, and en- 
 joy equally his care, with those who lived with 
 him while he was upon the earth. Theologians 
 say truly, Christus prsesentiam suam suis in sacra 
 ccena declarat ADSPECTABILI pignore. So cer- 
 tainly as they see the bread and the wine, even 
 so certain should it be to them that he still 
 li/es, and that he is especially near to them, as 
 he was formerly to his disciples while upon 
 earth. 
 
 Note. From what has now been said, it ap- 
 pears (a) that the theory of the substantial pre- 
 sence of the body and blood of Christ in the 
 sacramental symbols is not essential, or is not 
 to be looked upon as the great point in this doc- 
 trine, and that it cannot be decisively proved 
 from the words of Christ. The reformed theo- 
 logians take stvai here in the sense of signify- 
 ing, shewing forth a sense in which it is indeed 
 often used e. g., Sept. Gen. xii. 26, 27; Gal. 
 iv. 24 ; Rev. i. 20. Christ himself uses i<sti in 
 a similar connexion, instead of cr^tuWi, John, 
 xv. 1. The objections to this explanation which 
 are of any weight may be seen in Storr's tk Doc- 
 trina Christiana," p. 305, seq. Cf. also s. 146. 
 This particular theory ought never to have been 
 made an article of faith, hut rather to have been 
 placed among theological problems. Vide s. 146. 
 
 It also appears from the foregoing that we are 
 not to suppose in the sacrament any actual of- 
 fering up of the body of Christ, repeated every 
 time the sacrament is observed. This false idea 
 became gradually prevalent in the Romish 
 church. Vide No. I. of this section, ad finem. 
 This sacrament may indeed be called, as it is 
 by the fathers, a sacrifice, but only in a figura- 
 tive sense. For Christ offered up himself once 
 for all, Heb. ix. 25 28 ; and the Lord's Supper 
 is the means of appropriating to each one the 
 benefits of this one sacrifice. It is taught, how- 
 ever, by the Romish church, that the priest of- 
 fers to God, as a literal atoning sacrifice, both 
 for the dead and the living, the sacramental 
 symbols, which become, by consecration and 
 transubstantiation, the real body and blood of 
 Christ. From this doctrine respecting masses 
 many other false ideas have originated. 
 
 SECTION CXLIV. 
 
 OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS ESSEN- 
 TIAL AND UNESSENTIAL IN THE CELEBRATION 
 OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE SUPPER. 
 
 SOME things pertaining to this ordinance are 
 essential i. e., of such a nature that without 
 them the whole act would not be the true Lord's 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 501 
 
 Supper; others are unessential, or contingent. The 
 latter depend upon the circumstances of time, 
 place, society, &c. ; and with regard to these 
 things we feel ourselves justified in deviating 
 even from that which was done on the first in- 
 stitution of the Supper, since these are regarded 
 as indifferent matters, Christ having given no 
 express precepts respecting them. Thus all 
 agree that the time of the day in which it is ob- 
 served is unessential, although Christ observed 
 it in the evening; the same as to the posture at 
 table, whether sitting or lying ; and with re- 
 spect to the place, whether it be a public or a 
 private house; and other things of the same 
 kind. 
 
 But on some points opinions are divided. In 
 the protestant church the use of the bread and 
 wine (materia, or res terrestris, elementa, symbo- 
 /) is reckoned among the essential things; and 
 the use of them too in such a way that each of 
 the elements shall be separately (separatim) 
 taken. Protestants, too, contend that none but 
 real Christians may partake of the Lord's Sup- 
 per. Other things are regarded by them as un- 
 essential. These points will now be briefly 
 considered, and illustrated by some historical 
 observations. 
 
 I. The use of Bread and Wine in the Lard's 
 Supper. 
 
 (1) With regard to the nature of the bread to 
 be employed in this sacrament, the opinions of 
 theologians have been diverse. 
 
 (a) It has been asked whether the bread 
 should be leavened or unleavened, or whether 
 this is a point of indifference. In the protestant 
 church the latter opinion is maintained, and 
 justly, since Christ left no precept respecting 
 this point. So much is beyond doubt, that at 
 the institution of the Supper Christ made use of 
 unleavened bread, because no other was brought 
 into the house during the celebration of the Jew- 
 ish passover, still less was any other kind eaten. 
 We have indeed no express information respect- 
 ing the custom of the primitive Christians in 
 this respect; but from all circumstances it ap- 
 pears that they regarded it as a matter of indif- 
 ferance whether leavened or unleavened bread 
 is employed. They came together almost daily 
 to partake of the Supper, and they carried with 
 them the bread and wine for this festival. In 
 this case they took the bread which was used 
 at common meals, and this was leavened bread. 
 Epiphanius (Hser. 30) notices it as something 
 peculiar in the Ebionites, that once in the year, 
 at the time of the passover, they celebrated the 
 Lord's Supper with unleavend bread. It was 
 customary at a subsequent period in the Oriental 
 church to make use of leavened bread, yet not 
 always and' in all places. In the Western 
 church, on the contrary, unleavened bread was 
 
 more commonly (though not always) employ- 
 ed ; and Rabanus Maurus, in the ninth century, 
 declares this to be an apostolical tradition in the 
 Romish church. There was, however, at this 
 time, no law upon the subject, either in the 
 Eastern or Western church. But in the ele- 
 venth century a controversy arose on this point 
 between the two churches, as the Patriarch of 
 Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, reproached 
 the Western church for the use of unleavened 
 bread, and made it heresy. After this period it 
 was contended in the Romish church that no 
 other than unleavened bread should be used, 
 and this was so established by many papal 
 decretals. The opposite ground was taken by 
 the Greek church, and is still maintained at the 
 present day. Vide Joh. Gottfried Herrmann, 
 Historia Concertationum de Pane Azymo et 
 Fermentato in Coana Domini; Leipzig, 1737, 
 8vo. 
 
 (6) Another thing which must be considered 
 unessential is the breaking of the bread, which 
 was done at the first institution of the Supper, 
 according to the custom of the Jews, who baked 
 the bread thin, and were accustomed therefore 
 to break, instead of cutting it. We see, how- 
 ever, from 1 Cor. xi. 24, (coll. x. 17, flj apr'oj, 
 from which pieces were broken off,} that this 
 custom was retained in the primitive Christian 
 church, and was regarded as emblematical of 
 the wounding and breaking of the body of 
 Jesus. It would have been better, therefore, to 
 have retained this custom afterwards, for the 
 same reason that the custom of immersion is 
 preferable in performing the rite of baptism. 
 Luther at first declared in favour of the breaking 
 of bread, though he afterwards altered his opi- 
 nion. It has been customary in the Romish 
 church, especially since the twelfth and thir- 
 teenth centuries, to cut the host or holy wafer 
 in a peculiar way, so as to represent upon it the 
 crucified Saviour, and to make the pieces more 
 and more small, that no one might receive too 
 much of this costly food. 
 
 (2) In respect to the wine, it has been com- 
 monly supposed that Christ used such, in the 
 institution of the Supper, as was mingled with 
 water. For it was very customary with the 
 orientalists to drink mingled wine at table, and 
 one was regarded as quite intemperate who 
 drank pure wine, (merwm.) Still this is very 
 uncertain, since water and wine were frequently 
 drunk separately at table. In the ancient church, 
 however, the custom prevailed in most places 
 of mingling water with the sacramental wine. 
 It was also determined how much wine should 
 be taken; though this was variously settled. 
 Diverse allegorical significations were given to 
 the mingling of these two elements. E. g., it 
 was said that the wine is the symbol of the 
 soul of Christ, and the water of the people who 
 
502 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 are united with him, &c. Such allegorizing is 
 seen even in the writings of Cyprian. Cle- 
 ment III. expressly enacted in the twelfth cen- 
 tury that the wine should be mingled with 
 water. This was not insisted upon by Luther, 
 on account of the superstition connected with 
 it. The colour of the wine is also indifferent, 
 nor is it certain that Christ used the red wine. 
 
 (3) In order to the right celebration of the 
 Lord's Supper, neither the bread nor the wine 
 must be taken without the other, but both must 
 be used, (communio sub utraque specie,) though 
 one separately from the other, (separatim.} 
 
 (a) As to the latter point, it is probable from 
 the institution of the Supper by Christ that he 
 distributed each of the elements separately to 
 his disciples. But we find that in some of the 
 Oriental churches an exception was made in 
 behalf of some sick persons, and that bread 
 merely dipped in wine was given them. The 
 same thing was done in the West, especially 
 during the tenth century, where, in some places, 
 the bread only was consecrated, and then dipped 
 in the wine, and so given to the communicants 
 a practice which was justly condemned. 
 
 (6) It is also a well-founded opinion, that the 
 cup should not be withholden from any who 
 partake of this sacrament. Vide Morus, p. 272, 
 n. 3. 
 
 From 1 Cor. xi. 26; x. 16, 21, it appears, 
 undeniably, that in the apostolic church all 
 Christians partook both of the bread and the 
 wine. And this was the practice throughout 
 the whole Christian church during the first ten 
 centuries. The Manicheans, who abstained 
 wholly from wine, did not use it even at the 
 Lord's Supper; but they were strongly opposed 
 by the teachers of all other parties e. g., Hie- 
 ronymus, Leo the Great, &c. Particularly im- 
 portant is a decree of Pope Gelasius I., of the 
 fifth century, against some sectarians, who 
 used only bread in the celebration of the Supper. 
 He calls their practice grande sacrilegium, and 
 is very strong in his opposition to it. 
 
 But when the doctrine of transubslantiation 
 began to prevail in the West, especially after 
 the eleventh century, the schoolmen suggested 
 the question whether, considering that the bread 
 is changed into the body of Christ, the blood is 
 not also there, and so, whether it is not enough 
 to partake merely of the bread 1 This question 
 was answered in the affirmative; and it was 
 suggested as an additional reason in behalf of 
 this opinion, that drink may be easily spilled, 
 and that it is more difficult to lose any portion 
 of the bread. This ground was taken even in 
 the twelfth century by Hugo of St. Victor and 
 Peter of Lombardy, and in the thirteenth cen- 
 tury was defended with great zeal by Thomas 
 Aquinas. Some churches in the West began, 
 therefore, to introduce the custom of withholding 
 
 the cup from the laity, and giving it only to the 
 clergy. The first examples of this occurred in 
 some English churches about the middle of the 
 twelfth century. The scarcity and dearness of 
 wine in northern Europe during this period may 
 have furnished an additional motive for this 
 practice. It was not until the thirteenth centuiy 
 that these examples were followed in France 
 and Italy. Still this observance did not become 
 universal either in this or the following century, 
 although it was becoming more and more pre- 
 valent in the churches in the West. This doc- 
 trine de communione sub una was zealously op- 
 posed by Wickliffand Huss and their adherents; 
 and this led the Council at Costnitz, 1415, 
 wholly to interdict the use of the cup by the 
 laity. It was established by that Council, 
 "that in each of the two elements the whole 
 body of Christ is truly contained." This doc- 
 trine has been maintained in the Romish 
 church ever since this period, although many 
 theologians, and even some of the popes, have 
 objected to it. Luther and Zuingle adopted the 
 principles of Wickliff and Huss, and introduced 
 again the general use of the cup into their 
 churches, and hence the decisions of the Coun- 
 cil at Costnitz were re-enacted by the Council 
 at Trent in the sixteenth century. Besides the 
 older works of Leo Allatius, Schrnid, Calixtus, 
 on this subject, cf. Spittler, Geschichte des 
 Kelch's im Abendmahl; Lemgo, 1780, 8vo. 
 
 II. By whom should the Lord's Supper be observed? 
 who should administer it ? and may it be cele- 
 brated in the Private Dwellings of Christians ? 
 These questions come under the general in- 
 quiry respecting what is essential and not es- 
 sential in the observance of the Lord's Supper. 
 ( 1 ) None but actual members of the Christian 
 church can take part in the Lord's Supper; 
 those who are not Christians are excluded from 
 it. On this point there has been an universal 
 agreement. For by this rite we profess our 
 interest in the Christian church, and our belief 
 in Christ. Vide 1 Cor. x. 17; xi. 26. The 
 passage, Heb. xiii. 20, seems also to belong in 
 this connexion. Every actual member of the 
 church may therefore be admitted to the enjoy- 
 ment of this ordinance, without distinction of 
 regenerate and unregenerate persons, (though 
 this is denied by some.) This is evident from 
 the fact that it is the object of the Supper to 
 make an external profession of Christian faith, 
 (vide s. 145, I.;) and because it may be, and 
 is designed to be, a means of promoting a change 
 of heart, and often produces this effect. As un- 
 regenerate persons are not excluded from hear- 
 ing the divine word, neither should they be from 
 partaking of this sacrament. Nor do we find 
 that persons who gave no evidence of a regene- 
 rate mind, and who were yet members of the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 503 
 
 i visible church, were excluded from the sacra- 
 j ment in the primitive Christian church ; although 
 such persons were advised to abstain from the 
 1 sacrament, so long as their hearts were not in a 
 | proper frame, still it was left to their own con- 
 j sciences. Since, therefore, a mixed multitude 
 ' of good and evil must be allowed in the visible 
 ! church, it is the same as to the Lord's Supper. 
 } Christ himself admitted Judas to the first cele- 
 i bration of this ordinance; and thus taught us 
 our duty with regard to this subject. Many 
 i have indeed denied that Judas, the betrayer of 
 ! Christ, partook of this sacrament with the other 
 i disciples ; but from Luke, xxii. 20 22, the fact 
 appears too plain to be denied. This is admit- 
 ted even by Augustine on the third Psalm. 
 This fact is important, since many conscientious 
 Christians, and even teachers, have had great 
 t doubts as to uniting with unconverted men in 
 this ordinance, and have become separatists. 
 
 In respect to children, however, it is main- 
 tained that they are excluded from partaking 
 of the Lord's Supper. It was common in Africa, 
 in Cyprian's time i. e., in the third century to 
 give the sacramental elements even to children ; 
 and this custom was gradually introduced into 
 other churches. But in the twelfth century this 
 practice fell into disuse in the West, although 
 in the East it continues to the present day. 
 The passage, John, vi. 53, is appealed to in be- 
 half of this practice. Vide Peter Zorn, Historia 
 Eucharistise Infantium ; Berlin, 1736, 8vo. It 
 cannot he said that the exclusion of children is 
 expressly commanded by Christ, because there 
 is nothing about this subject in the New Tes- 
 tament, nor do we read that in the apostolic 
 church they were excluded from the sacrament. 
 (The children of the Israelites were not ex- 
 cluded from the feast of the passover.) Yet as 
 children were not admitted during the first cen- 
 turies of the Christian church, (except in Africa 
 in the third century,) we judge that they cannot 
 have been admitted in the apostolic church ; for 
 in that case this practice would not certainly 
 have been disused in all the churches. The 
 cause of the exclusion of children is, plainly, 
 that they cannot as yet understand the import- 
 ance of the transaction, and must be unable to 
 distinguish this religious festival from a com- 
 mon meal ; I Cor. xi. 29. It would thus be- 
 come to them a merely formal and customary 
 thing, and make no salutary impression. 
 
 (2) By whom should the Lord's Supper be ad- 
 ministered? As the administration of the other 
 religious rites of the church is entrusted to the 
 teachers of religion, it is proper and according 
 to good order that this also should be adminis- 
 tered by them. This, however, is by no means 
 their right exclusively and necessarily, but only 
 ordinis et decori causa, as Morus well observes, 
 p. 272, ad fin. In extreme cases, therefore, 
 
 where no regular teachers can be obtained, this 
 sacrament may be administered by other Chris- 
 tians to whom this duty is committed by the 
 church. Vide s. 136, II. 2 ; s. 139, III. This 
 has been uniformly maintained by Luther and 
 other protestant theologians. In the ancient 
 Christian church it was as regularly adminis- 
 tered by the teachers as baptism. Justin the 
 Martyr (Apol. i. 85, seq.) says that the rfpo- 
 eetMtes consecrated and distributed the ele- 
 ments; and Tertullian (De Cor. Mil.) says, 
 nee dt aliorum manu quam PR^ESIDENTIUM sumi- 
 mus. 
 
 (3) The question has been asked, Whether 
 private communions (e. g., in the case of sick 
 persons) may be permitted, and whether they 
 accord with the objects of the Lord's Supper] 
 This has been denied by some modern writers, 
 particularly by Less, in his " Praktische Dog- 
 matik," and by Schulze of Neustadt, " Ueber 
 die Krankencommunion;" 1794. Cf. the work 
 " Ueber die Krankencommunion, mit besonderer 
 Hinsicht auf ihren Missbrauch und ihre Schad- 
 lichkeit;" Leipzig, 1803, 8vo; in which, how- 
 ever, the practice is not wholly rejected. These 
 writers have been led to make their objections 
 by seeing the frequent abuse of private commu- 
 nions, by knowing that they are frequently re- 
 sorted to from pride, or from some superstitious 
 ideas with regard to their efficacy. Hence they 
 have been led to maintain that it is essential, 
 in .order to a right celebration of the Lord's 
 Supper, that it should be held in common by 
 the mixed society of Christians constituting a 
 church, and that private communions cannot be 
 regarded as constituting the Lord's Supper. 
 
 This opinion, however, has been justly re- 
 jected by many theologians e. g., by Doeder- 
 lein. The following reasons have been urged 
 against it viz., 
 
 (a) It is doubtless true that in the apostolic 
 church the Lord's Supper was commonly and 
 regularly celebrated in the public assemblies of 
 Christians; 1 Cor. xi. 20 34. And this must 
 always remain the rule, from which there can 
 be no exception in respect to those Christians 
 who are able to attend the public meetings, but 
 who refuse so to do, either from pride or self- 
 will. There may, however, be an exception 
 made in behalf of Christians who are neces- 
 sarily detained from attending on the public or- 
 dinances of divine service e. g., in the case 
 of sick persons. And it would be, as Morus 
 well remarks, inconsistent with the rule of 
 love, which is one of the chief commands of 
 Christ, if sick persons should be prevented from 
 partaking of the Lord's Supper in their own 
 houses. 
 
 (I)} A public place cannot be made essential to 
 the proper observance of the Lord's Supper, for 
 it was held at its first institution in a private 
 
504 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 house; nor is the number of Christians present 
 at all important, since it was first celebrated 
 only by a select few of the five hundred disci- 
 ples of Christ then living; but everything de- 
 pends upon the feelings and character of the 
 communicants. The Christian who in this act 
 commemorates the death of Jesus, professes his 
 relation to the church, and forms pious resolves 
 and purposes he truly celebrates the Lord's 
 Supper whether he performs this act in public 
 or private. 
 
 (c) Even in a private dwelling a profession 
 may be made, by this act of faith in the death 
 of Christ, before the teacher and others present, 
 1 Cor. xi. ; and persons not present still learn 
 that such a profession has been made. This 
 object of the Lord's Supper is therefore attained 
 even by the private celebration of it. There 
 was a regulation among the Bohemian brethren 
 in the fifteenth century, (about the year 14G1,) 
 that when a sick person desired the Lord's 
 Supper, other members of the church should 
 partake of it with him, in order that it might be 
 a true communion an example which is worthy 
 of imitation! And even among us this might 
 be done without great notoriety, by admitting 
 the near relations, acquaintances, or friends of 
 the sick person, or those occupying the same 
 house; and they, too, might perhaps receive a 
 salutary impression from such a celebration of 
 this ordinance. The assertion of Less, that pri- 
 vate communions were unheard of in earlier 
 Christian antiquity, is not true. Justin the 
 Martyr says (Apol. 2), " that the deacons first 
 distributed bread and wine to those present, and 
 then carried it to the absent." 
 
 III. Unessential Rites in the Administration of 
 the Supper. 
 
 It is important that the Lord's Supper, so far 
 as it is an external rite, should be so adminis- 
 tered as to distinguish it from common and or- 
 dinary repasts, as a special festival in comme- 
 moration of Christ. This is called by Paul, 2 
 Cor. xi. 19, diaxpi'vEtv -to ffw^ua -tov Kvptou. This 
 may indeed be done without any external cere- 
 monies ; and it cannot therefore be said that 
 such external rites and usages are essential to 
 the ordinance. Still it is wise, and adapted to 
 promote the ends for which the Supper was in- 
 stituted, to employ such external solemnities as 
 will remind the communicants of the great ob- 
 ject of this festival, and give it an obvious and 
 marked distinction from other meals. Here, 
 however, caution must be used, lest supersti- 
 tion should be encouraged by the introduction 
 of these ceremonies, and they thould be sup- 
 posed to possess some special power. 
 
 Christ distinguished this ordinance from the 
 passover, which immediately preceded, by of- 
 fering up a prayer of thanks, (fv^apKjrjJffaj, or 
 
 which was probably one of the brief 
 thanksgivings common among the Jews, as 
 neither of the evangelists have thought neces- 
 sary to record the words. He then stated briefly 
 the object of this ordinance. In both of these 
 particulars, the example of Christ is properly 
 followed in the administration of the Supper. 
 It is customary to offer thanks to God, briefly 
 to state the object of this ordinance, and thus 
 solemnly set apart the bread and wine to this 
 sacred use. Vide 1 Cor. x. 16, jto-tr^ov tvXo- 
 ytaj, 6 fvXoyov/tsv i. e., the wine in the cup, 
 which we consecrate to this use by the prayer 
 of thanks. It is also said elsewhere respecting 
 those who thank God for the enjoyment of other 
 food, that they partake of it pet' evJtoyJaj, 1 
 Tim. iv. 5; Luke, ix. 16. 
 
 This solemn opening of the Supper withj 
 prayer and reference to the command of Jesus, 
 is called consecration, and is proper and accord- 
 ing to the will of Christ. Consecration, there- 
 fore, in the Lord's Supper, consists properly in 
 a solemn reference to the object of the Supper, 
 and in the devout prayer accompanying this, 
 and not in the repetition of the words, this is 
 my body and this is my blood. These words are 
 uttered merely in order to make the nature and 
 object of the ordinance then to be celebrated 
 properly understood; so our symbolical books 
 uniformly teach. Hence these words were fre- 
 quently repeated by Christ during the celebra- 
 tion of the ordinance, and were used alternately 
 with other expressions. This consecration is 
 not to be supposed to possess any magical or 
 miraculous power. Nothing like this was at- 
 tributed to this rite by the older church fathers, 
 who used consecrare as synonymous with oyta- 
 EM/ and sanctifaare, to set apart from a common, 
 and consecrate to a sacred use. By degrees, how- 
 ever, a magical effect was attributed to conse- 
 cration, and it was supposed to possess a pecu- 
 liar power. This was the case even with Au- 
 gustine. And when afterwards the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation prevailed in the Romish 
 church, it was supposed that the change in the 
 elements was effected by pronouncing over them 
 the blessing, and especially the words of Christ, 
 this is my body, &c. 
 
 Besides this, there are various other contin- 
 gent and arbitrary usages, some of which are 
 good, and adapted to promote the ends of this 
 ordinance, and others are extremely liable to i 
 become perverted into means of superstition. 
 More full information on this point may be ob- ; 
 tained from Christian Antiquities. Many of ! 
 the rites introduced by the Romish church have I 
 been retained in the Lutheran church, such as i 
 the singing of the words of consecration, the j 
 marking of the bread and wine with the cross, i 
 the holding a cloth beneath, &c. These and 
 other usages originated for the most part in the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 505 
 
 octrine of transubstantiation, and the extrava- 
 t opinions respecting the external holiness 
 if the symbols resulting from this doctrine. 
 They admit, however, of a good explanation; 
 md where they are customary, and must be re- 
 ained, they ought to be so explained by the 
 eligious teacher. Marking with the cross, e. 
 r., should remind us that this ordinance is held 
 n commemoration of Christ crucified, &c. 
 
 SECTION CXLV. 
 
 F THE USES AND THE EFFICACY OF THE LORD'S 
 
 SUPPER; AND INFERENCES FROM THESE. 
 
 WE must here presuppose much of what was 
 aid, s. 140, respecting baptism. The uses and 
 fficacy of the Lord's Supper, as of baptism, are 
 wofold viz., external and internal, and may 
 e easily deduced from the design of this ordi- 
 lance, as stated s. 143. 
 
 take of the Lord's Supper, tov $dvatov Krpt'ov 
 xcwayy&tet's," i. e., you thus profess your- 
 selves to be of the number of those who believe 
 that Christ died for the salvation of man. 
 
 II. Internal Uses and Efficacy. 
 
 (1) W T ith regard to the effects of the Lord's 
 Supper, as well as of baptism, there were vari- 
 ous mistakes, even among the earlier fathers. 
 Vide s. 140, II. The opinion is very ancient, 
 that the holy spirit so unites himself with the 
 symbols when they are consecrated, that they are 
 transmuted (pctaa'toixfiovoSaii trans-elementari^) 
 into an entirely different element, become the 
 body and blood of Christ, and possess a power 
 and efficacy which cannot be expected from mere 
 bread and wine. These thoughts occur even 
 in the Apostolic Constitutions, in Irenaeus, Cyril 
 of Jerusalem, Basilius the Great, Ambrosius, 
 and others. It was on this account that the 
 invocation (IrttajXy/otj) of the Holy Spirit was 
 introduced in many places before the holding of 
 the Supper. Vide Morus, p. 202, n. 2,6. They 
 say also that the bread and wine, through the in- 
 vocation of the name of Christ, and by the power 
 of the same, are sanctified, so that they no more 
 continue what they were, but receive a special 
 spiritual and divine power. So say, e. g., Theo- 
 dotus, (as quoted by Clemens of Alexandria,) 
 Tertullian, and others. Hence we often find in 
 the ancient liturgies, both oriental and occi- 
 dental, frequent invocations of the Holy Spirit 
 of God and of Christ, in which they were en- 
 treated to unite themselves with the bread and 
 wine, and to communicate to them this power. 
 
 At a very early period, therefore, a kind of 
 magical and miraculous effect was ascribed to 
 this ordinance, and it was supposed that as an 
 external act it has a mechanical agency, not 
 only upon the soul for the remission of guilt and 
 punishment, but also upon the body. It is very 
 often said by some of the fathers after the fourth 
 century, in conformity with this latter opinion, 
 that this sacrament has power to heal the sick, 
 to secure one against magical arts and the as- 
 saults of the devil, and even to effect the salva- 
 tion of the souls of those who are dead. Hence 
 originated the missse pro defunctis, and innu- 
 merable other superstitious opinions and prac- 
 tices, which fruitfully multiplied, especially in 
 the Western church, during the dark ages, and 
 which were then brought by the schoolmen into 
 a formal system. 
 
 (2) This magical or mechanical efficacy is 
 never ascribed in the New Testament to the 
 Lord's Supper. The opinion that man obtains 
 faith, remission of sin, and new spiritual power, 
 merely by the external celebration of this ordi- 
 nance, as an opus operatum, and by an external 
 participation in the sacramental symbols, with- 
 out being himself active in repentance and faith, 
 
 2U 
 
506 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 receives no countenance from the sacred writers. 
 The same is true respecting baptism and the 
 other means of grace. The efficacy of the Lord's 
 Supper upon the human heart stands in intimate 
 connexion with the divine word, and with the 
 power inherent in the truths of the Christian 
 doctrine. Without the knowledge and the pro- 
 per use of the word of God, this ordinance, in 
 itself considered, and as an external rite, has no 
 efficacy. And so the effect which the Lord's 
 Supper has upon the human heart is not ma- 
 gical, miraculous, and irresistible, but in ac- 
 cordance with our moral nature; exactly as we 
 have represented it to be with baptism, s. 140, 
 coll. Art. xii. s. 133. 
 
 It is therefore truly said that the Holy Spirit 
 acts upon the hearts of men through the Supper, 
 or through the bread and wine, and that he by 
 this means produces faith and pious dispositions. 
 But he produces this effect through the word, 
 or through the truths of Christianity exhibited 
 before us and presented to us in this ordinance. 
 The effect of the Lord's Supper is, therefore, an 
 an effect which is produced by God and Christ, 
 through his word, or the truths of his doctrine, 
 and the use of the same. In the sacrament of the 
 Supper the most important truths of Christian- 
 ity, which we commonly only hear or read, are 
 visibly set before us, made cognizable to the 
 senses, and exhibited in such a way as power- 
 fully to move the feelings, and make an indeli- 
 ble impression on the memory. Hence this sa- 
 crament is justly called verbum Dei VISIBILE. 
 Some of the most weighty doctrines of religion 
 which are commonly taught us by audible words, 
 through the outward ear, are here inculcated by 
 external visible signs and actions. 
 
 Among the doctrines more especially exhi- 
 bited in the Lord's Supper is the doctrine of the 
 redemption of man by the death of Christ, and 
 the universal love of God shining forth from this 
 event, (Romans, viii. 32; John, iii. 16,) and all 
 the duties both to Christ and our fellow-men 
 which result from it. The contemplation and 
 application of these important truths, to which 
 we are excited by the Lord's Supper, awaken in 
 the hearts of pious Christians the deepest love 
 and gratitude to God and Christ, and a readiness 
 to comply cordially with their requirements. 
 And it is only when we possess this disposition 
 and this temper of mind that we are truly sus- 
 ceptible of the influences of divine grace through 
 the word, s. 130, 131 ; it is then only that we 
 can expect to enjoy that special presence and 
 aid of Christ which he has promised at his Sup- 
 per. Vide s. 143, ad finem. These are the 
 things which, according to the scriptures, are 
 essential to the proper efficacy of the Lord's Sup- 
 per; and we need not trouble ourselves with in- 
 quiries respecting the manner of the presence of 
 the body and blood of Christ in the symbols. 
 
 Hence it appears that the internal efficacy of the 
 Lord's Supper, or of the word of God through the 
 Supper, is twofold. 
 
 FIRST. This ordinance is the means of exciting 
 and strengthening the faith of one who worthily 
 celebrates it, so far as he refers to the divine 
 promises, and stands firm in the conviction of 
 their certain fulfilment. Vide s. 123. For we 
 are reminded by this ordinance, 
 
 (a) Of the death of Christ. He instituted this 
 ordinance on the day of his death, and the break- 
 ing of the bread and pouring out of the wine 
 represent the violence done to his body and the 
 shedding of his Hood. Vide s. 144, I. 1. 
 
 (6) Of the causes and the salutary results of 
 his death the founding of a new dispensation, 
 the forgiveness of sins, and our title to everlast- 
 ing happiness. Vide Heb. viii. 6, seq. 
 
 (c) Of the special guidance and assistance 
 which Christ has promised to his disciples until 
 the end of the world. Vide s. 143, ad finem. 
 
 (rf) Any one who from the heart believes these 
 great truths of Christianity, obtains in the Lord's 
 Supper the personal appropriation of these be- 
 nefits procured through Christ's death i. e., he 
 receives in the Lord's Supper the most solemn 
 assurance and pledge that Christ shed his blood 
 for him and on his account, and that he therefore 
 may participate in all the salutary results of his 
 death. 
 
 This is the xowtAvla, afyto/r'of and ffiojuafoj 
 Xpttftoij, 1 Cor. x. 16, or the spiritual enjoyment 
 of the body and blood of Christ. It should be as 
 certain to us as that we see the bread and wine, 
 that Christ died for us, and that he still cares for 
 us, as he did formerly for his disciples while he 
 was upon the earth, and still promotes our 
 eternal welfare. This is the true inward enjoy- 
 ment which may be experienced at the table of 
 the Lord. 
 
 SECONDLY. In this way does this ordinance 
 contribute to maintain and promote piety among 
 believers. The contemplation of the death of 
 Christ, of its causes, and the great and beneficial 
 results which flow from it, fills our hearts with, 
 gratitude and love to God and Christ, and makes 
 us disposed and ready to obey his precepts. In 
 this frame we are prepared to enjoy those divine 
 influences upon our hearts, and that assistance 
 of Christ, which it is promised we shall enjoy 
 at the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Again; Christ inculcates the love of God and 
 the love of our neighbour as the two great pre- 
 cepts of his doctrine. Of both these duties we 
 are reminded by this sacred rite, and derive from 
 it new motives to perform them. All Christians 
 without distinction are required to participate in 
 this rite high and low, rich and poor, to eat in 
 common of one bread and drink of one cup. As 
 followers of Jesus they are all brethren, and 
 all equal, and mutually bound to live in peace, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 507 
 
 friendship, and brotherly love. All share equally 
 in the rights which Christ purchased for them. 
 Christ is the Lord and Master of them all, and 
 is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Cf. 
 1 Cor. x. 17; xii. 13, " For whether we be Jews 
 or Greeks, bond or free, we are all baptized into 
 one body, and made to drink into one spirit (eito- 
 ^^fi')" i. e., we partake of one festival, so 
 that we compose but one church (ei$ ev <jw/ia), 
 and are mutually obligated to cherish the most 
 cordial brotherly love and harmony of feeling, 
 ev fvi jtyEv/iatoj. Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 17; Ephes. iv. 
 3, 4. It was one object even of the Mosaic sa- 
 crificial feasts to bind more strongly the band 
 of friendship and brotherly love among the Is- 
 raelites. But here we have xpeittoves ErtayysTu-'at. 
 Vide s. 143, I. 3. 
 
 From these remarks respecting the object and 
 efficacy of the Lord's Supper, several important 
 practical consequences may be derived. 
 
 (1) Whoever partakes of the Lord's Supper 
 takes upon himself the sacred obligation to live 
 in all respects conformably to the rule given in 
 the gospel, and there made the condition of en- 
 joying the salutary consequences of the atoning 
 death of Jesus. Theologians therefore say that 
 in enjoying the Lord's Supper a covenant is made 
 with God, since man engages, on his side, to 
 yield obedience to the divine precepts, and God, 
 on his part, promises, assures, and actually im- 
 parts to men his benefits ; as it is in baptism, s. 
 140, ad finem. 
 
 (2) Since the uses and the effects of the Lord's 
 Supper are not magical, miraculous, or irresisti- 
 ble, but entirely adapted to the moral nature of 
 man, he only can derive the proper benefits from 
 this rite who falls in with the moral order above 
 mentioned. Therefore, 
 
 (3) Whoever devoutly contemplates the great 
 truths of salvation represented and made present 
 to us in the Lord's Supper, and suffers himself 
 to be excited by these means to feelings of lively 
 gratitude to God, to diligence in the pursuit of 
 holiness, and to a truly Christian temper in all 
 respects, he fulfils, on his part, the design of 
 this rite. It follows from this, of course, that 
 this festival in commemoration of the death of 
 Christ can be properly celebrated only in the 
 exercise of a grateful heart, and of pious rever- 
 ence. 
 
 But, on the other side, the communicant must 
 endeavour to remove from his mind all supersti- 
 tious fear and scrupulous anxiety about this ordi- 
 nance. These fears are often cherished by the 
 incautious expressions which religious teachers 
 sometimes use ; and even by theologians has this 
 rite been called TREMENDUM MYSTERIUM. Re- 
 verence and love for God do indeed go together ; 
 and in this sense such representations are proper. 
 But anxiety and slavish fear are inconsistent 
 with love, 1 John, iv. 19, <j>6/3o? ovx htw Iv 
 
 The celebration of this festival should 
 rather be a cheerful occasion; and it should pro- 
 mote pious and thankful joy, since it brings to 
 our mind an event so fraught with happy conse- 
 quences for us. 
 
 W T hat Paul says on this subject, 1 Cor. xi. 
 27 29, and 34, is very true, but often misunder- 
 stood. He speaks here of the external conduct 
 of the communicants, so far as it indicates his 
 internal disposition or state of heart. Many of 
 the Corinthians partook of the Lord's Supper 
 without thinking at all of its great object. They 
 did not regard it as a religious rite, but rather as 
 a common meal, (jiwj 8Lo.xpivovt$ (jco^ua K^ptou, 
 ver. 29.) They permitted themselves those 
 disorders and excesses in which many think it 
 right to indulge at common meals, quarrels, 
 gluttony, drunkenness, &c. ; ver. 17 22. This 
 is called by Paul dj>a|t'ttSc&tWi> xal rtwtiv i. e., 
 indecore, in an unbecoming, improper manner, so 
 as to shew by one's conduct an irreligious dis- 
 position, an indifference with regard to this im- 
 portant rite, and a contempt for it. Paul pro- 
 nounces this to be in the highest degree wrong, 
 and therefore deserving of punishment, tvo%os 
 t<rtat ctupatos xal al'^aTfo^ Kuptov, ver. 27 i. e., 
 worthy of punishment on account of the body 
 and blood of Christ undervalued by him ; and 
 ver. 29, (coll. ver. 34,) xpipa savtc* ta^sc xal 
 rtivsi, he draws upon himself divine judgments 
 on account of his improper observance of this 
 ordinance. 
 
 (4) The observance of the Lord's Supper does 
 not require, therefore, in the pious Christian, any 
 severe and anxious preparation ; he may partake 
 of it at any time with advantage, as he may at 
 any time die happily. And the unconverted man 
 has no other exercises and preparations to go 
 through than those which in general he must go 
 through in order to his conversion, (/urai/ota.) 
 It is with reason, however, that Paul makes it 
 the duty of every Christian carefully to examine 
 his feelings and his conduct before approaching 
 the table of Christ. 1 Cor. xi. 28, SoxipaZ&u 
 di^pcoTtoj tavtbv, xo.1 oiVcoj) i. e., after he has 
 examined himself) 1% tov aprou to^uVw cf. ver. 
 31. The meaning is, " Let him examine him- 
 self, to see whether he approaches the Lord's 
 Supper with pious feelings, really designing to , 
 do what this action implies" viz., make a pro- 
 fession of the death of Christ in the fullest sense 
 of this term. 
 
 Note. Times for confession, or rather, for^re- 
 paration for the Lord's Supper, may and should 
 be employed for the purpose of this personal 
 self-examination. These occasions should also 
 be improved for the purpose of shewing the 
 evils which result from a thoughtless partaking 
 of the sacramental Supper, according to 1 Cor. 
 xi. It must not, however, be said that every 
 unconverted man receives the Lord's Supper to 
 
508 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 his own eternal condemnation. This is not a 
 scriptural doctrine. Vide 1 Cor. xi. 32. Nor 
 does it belong to the teacher to exclude any one 
 from this ordinance because he regards him as 
 unconverted, even supposing him to have power 
 so to do. Vide s. 144, II. It is his duty, how- 
 ever, to warn such a person, and represent to him 
 his case, as Paul does, 1 Cor. xi. 
 
 (5) How often should the Lord's Supper be cele- 
 brated? Christ gave no definite precepts on this 
 point, and this was very wise. Everything me- 
 chanical, confined to a particular time or a parti- 
 cular place, is contrary to the spirit of Chris- 
 tianity. Christ has therefore left it for every 
 Christian to determine, according to his con- 
 scientious conviction and judgment, how often he 
 will freely repeat this solemn observance. And 
 thus in this respect also does this Christian ordi- 
 nance differ from the passover and other religious 
 ceremonies of the Israelites. It is to be expected 
 of every sincere Christian that, finding how salu- 
 tary these communion seasons are in their influ- 
 ence upon him, he will welcome their return, and 
 wish them to be often repeated. But to the 
 question, how if ten? no answer, from the nature 
 of the case, can be given which will apply to 
 every individual. In the early Christian church 
 they were accustomed to celebrate the Lord's 
 Supper almost daily. But the too frequent repe- 
 tition of this ordinance will be apt to produce 
 coldness and indifference with regard to it. This 
 perhaps had been the case in Corinth ; cf. 1 Cor. 
 xi. 20 30. The zeal with which this ordinance 
 was first observed gradually abated, and for this 
 reason, among others, that but few good fruits 
 were seen to result from it. At the time of 
 Chrysostom and Augustine, the observance of 
 the Supper had become far less frequent. Be- 
 tween the sixth and eighth centuries it was cus- 
 tomary, especially in the Western church, for 
 every Christian to commune at least three times 
 during the year ; and this was even established 
 as a rule by many ecclesiastical councils. In 
 the protestant church no laws have been passed 
 on this subject; and this is as it should be. 
 
 SECTION CXLVI. 
 
 THE VARIOUS OPINIONS AND FORMS OF DOCTRINE 
 RESPECTING THE PRESENCE OF THE BODY AND 
 BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE LORD'S SUPPER HISTO- 
 RICALLY EXPLAINED ; AND ALSO A CRITIQUE RE 
 SPECTING THEM. 
 
 I. History of Opinions respecting the Presence of th 
 Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. 
 
 (1) IT may be remarked, in general, that the 
 opinions of the ancients on this subject, from the 
 first establishment of the Christian church until 
 the eighth century, were very diverse. After the 
 
 eighth century there were some controversies 
 'especting the mode and manner of this presence 
 of Christ; and in the thirteenth century, one of 
 the many theories on this subject was established 
 as orthodox. The church fathers in the first 
 centuries agreed on many points relating to this 
 natter, and on other points differed, without, 
 however, mutually casting upon each other the | 
 reproach of heterodoxy. 
 
 The first germs of the Roman-catholic, the | 
 Lutheran, and the Calvinistic theories, are found I 
 already in their writings ; but it was not until a 
 later period that they were developed, and new 
 consequences deduced from them. We cannot 
 therefore conclude, when we meet with expres- j 
 sions in the ancient fathers which sound like I 
 those which are used in our own times, that they | 
 adopted the whole theory of one or the other mo- j 
 dern party. Their ideas are so vague, their ex- 
 pressions so indefinite and unsettled, that each of 
 the dissenting parties in modern times may fre- 
 quently discover passages, even in the same 
 father, which seem to favour its own particular 
 theory. 
 
 In the sixteenth century, when the catholics, 
 Lutherans, and the reformed theologians were in 
 controversy with each other on this point, each 
 party collected passages from the fathers, in order 
 to shew the antiquity of its own theory; thus 
 Melancthon in opposition to (Ecolampadius, and 
 the latter against the former. In the seventeenth 
 century, many controversial books passed back 
 and forth between the learned Roman-catholic 
 theologians of France and the reformed theolo- 
 gians of France and the Netherlands, in which 
 Nicole, Arnaud, and others, endeavoured to 
 prove, on one side, the antiquity of the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation; and Albertinus, Claude, 
 Blondell, Laroque, and others, attempted, on the 
 other side, to secure the authority of the ancients 
 in behalf of the doctrine of the reformed church. 
 Ernesti also, in his Jlntimuratorius, (Opus. 
 Theol. p. 1, seq:,) has collected many passages 
 from the ancients in behalf of the Lutheran the- 
 ory, and in opposition to transubstantiation, &c. ; 
 also in his " Brevis Repetitio et Assertio Sen- 
 tentiae Lutheranae de Praesentia Corporis et 
 Sanguinis Christi in Sacra Cosna," (Opus. 
 Theol. p. 135, seq.,) which is one of the most 
 important modern works on the Lutheran side. 
 It was called forth by Heumann's " Proof that 
 the Doctrine of the Reformed Church respect- 
 ing the Lord's Supper is correct and true;" 
 Eisleben, 1764. It is a very easy matter, how- 
 ever, for any one to find his own ideas express- 
 ed in the vague and indefinite phraseology of 
 the fathers. The testimony of the sacred writers 
 in favour of the essential part of the doc- 
 trine of the Lutheran church has been exhibited 
 partly by Ernesti, and partly by Storr, in a 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 509 
 
 i very plain and lucid, though brief manner, in 
 his " Doctrines Christianas pars Theoretica," p. 
 305318. 
 
 [The later works of most value on this de- 
 partment of historical theology are, Phil. Mar- 
 heinecke, Sanctorum Patrum de Praesentia 
 Christi in Ccena Domini, Sententia Triplex; 
 Heidelberg, 1811, 4to. Neander, Kirch. Ges- 
 chichte, b. i. Abth. ii. s. 577596; Abth. Hi. 
 s. 1084 ; b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 697712 ; Abth. iii. 
 s. 1394. Cf. Gieseler, b. i. s. 96 ; b. ii. s. 15, 
 17. A full account of the literature of this doc- 
 trine, in all periods, may be found in Harm's 
 Lehrbuch, s. 570, if.; also in Bretschneider's 
 Syst. Entw. s. 728, rT. TR.] 
 
 (2) Sketch of the history of this doctrine from 
 the second to the ninth century. 
 
 (a) The fathers of the second century pro- 
 ceeded on the principle, which is in itself true, 
 that the Lord's Supper must be considered as 
 entirely different from an ordinary repast. Jus- 
 tin the Martyr says, (Apol. i. 66,) ov xoivbs 
 aptoj, ov xoivbv rcop-a,. They, however, enter- 
 tained, even at that early period, many ideas 
 respecting this ordinance which have no scrip- 
 tural authority. Neither in the writings of the 
 apostles, nor in the words of Christ, is there 
 any trace of the opinion that a certain superna- 
 tural and divine power is imparted, in a mira- 
 culous and magical way, to the symbols, and 
 that in this manner the Lord's Supper exerts an 
 agency upon men. But this opinion (which 
 resembles that entertained by many respecting 
 the water in baptism) is found very frequently 
 in the writings of Justin, Irenaeus, (iv. 34,) 
 Clemens of Alexandria, and other fathers even 
 of the second and third centuries ; and it is entire- 
 ly in accordance with the spirit and taste of that 
 age, which beheld everywhere something ma- 
 gical and mysterious, and could not be contented 
 unless it found something surpassing compre- 
 hension. In order to express their opinion that 
 the bread and wine are changed by the divine 
 power, or by the Holy Spirit, and thus obtain 
 a new virtue and efficacy, totally different from 
 that which naturally belongs to them, they used 
 
 Still they did not suppose any such change 
 in the elements, that they cease to be bread and 
 wine i. e., they did not believe in transubstan- 
 tiation, in the proper sense of the term ; neither 
 does the Grecian church, which employs these 
 terms, especially ^ffajSoTu?, but still opposes the 
 doctrine of the Romish church. Some of the 
 fathers understood these terms in a perfectly 
 just sense, and meant only to say that the 
 bread and wine cease, by consecration, to be 
 common bread and wine. 
 
 (6) Again ; it was maintained that the Word 
 
 of God (Aoyoj JOT}) is added to the bread and 
 wine thus ennobled and endowed with divine 
 power. If by the Word of God is meant the 
 Christian doctrine, it is very true that the effi- 
 acy of the Lord's Supper is connected with it, 
 and depends upon it. Vide s. 145. So it was 
 understood by many of the ancient fathers, 
 . g., Irenaeus. But some of them understood 
 by 6 Aoyoj, the divine nature of Christ. And 
 from the fact that this Logos was united with 
 the man Jesus and his human body, they were 
 led to the idea, that after the same manner he 
 is united with the bread and wine in the Lord's 
 Supper. And they endeavoured to illustrate 
 this union of Christ with the sacramental bread 
 and wine, from the union of the two natures in 
 his person. 
 
 In this comparison, which was made by Jus- 
 tin the Martyr, we find the true origin of the 
 doctrine concerning the real presence of the 
 body and blood of Christ in the elements on his 
 table. Vide Morus, p. 263, n. 4. According 
 to this view, Christ is present in a supernatural 
 way in the symbols, and in an entirely different 
 manner from that in which, according to his 
 promise, he is everywhere present with his 
 disciples, until the end of the world. 
 
 (c) After this period the idea became more 
 and more current that communicants in partak- 
 ing of the visible bread and wine also partake 
 of the invisible body and blood of Christ. Es- 
 pecially did this idea prevail after the fourth 
 century. Thus, e. g., Gregory of Nyssa affirms, 
 "that as the body of Christ, by his union with 
 the Logos, was so changed and transformed as 
 to become participator in his divine glory, so 
 also the sacramental bread si$ tfwjwa T'OV sov 
 Aoyov l itT'a7totT'cH." Chrysostom and Cyril of 
 Jerusalem also say that we must believe the 
 divine declaration, that we receive the body 
 and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, 
 although this may seem to be opposed to the 
 evidence of our senses. 
 
 But although this doctrine seems to approach 
 very nearly to transubstantiation, these fathers 
 did not yet teach that there is any change of the 
 elements by which they lose their own nature, 
 and cease to be bread and wine ; on the con- 
 trary, they often taught in other passages that 
 the elements retain their own natural properties, 
 that when partaken of by us they become assi- 
 milated to the nature of our bodies, that in the 
 Supper we do not receive the natural body of 
 Christ, but only the significant signs of it, that 
 we ought not to stop short with the mere sign, 
 but to turn our thoughts to that which is signi- 
 fied and imparted by it. There are many pas- 
 sages of this import in the writings of Origen, 
 of Augustine, Theodoret, and others. 
 
 But in subsequent periods, the conceptions 
 which prevailed on this subject, even in the 
 2u2 
 
510 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Grecian church, became more and more gross 
 and sensual ; as appears from the writings of 
 John of Damascus in the eighth century, and 
 others. Still the opinion that the consecrated 
 bread and wine lose their substance was not re- 
 ceived in the Greek church ; nor is it known 
 among them to the present day, although they 
 employ the term ^jrcu3o>.7j to denote the change. 
 Vide Riesling, Hist. Concertationum Graecor. 
 et Latinor. de Transubst.; Leip. 1754. 
 
 (3) History of this doctrine from the ninth to 
 the sixteenth century in the Western church. 
 
 It is known from Beda Venerabilis, that during 
 the eighth century there were violent contests in 
 the Western church respecting the manner of 
 the presence of the body and blood of Christ in 
 the Lord's Supper, and on the question how 
 the elements are changed. And even at that 
 time they began to give various explanations 
 of the passages found in the writings of the 
 earlier Latin and Greek fathers on this subject. 
 After the ninth century, the tone and taste 
 which began to prevail made it certain that of 
 different theories on any theological point, that 
 which is the most gross and material would 
 gain the predominance. 
 
 It is no wonder, therefore, that the following 
 opinion, first distinctly advocated by Paschasius 
 Radbertus, a monk at Corvey, in the ninth cen- 
 tury, should have received so general approba- 
 tion viz., "that after the consecration of the 
 bread and wine nothing but their form remains, 
 their substance being wholly changed, so that 
 they are no longer bread and wine, but the body 
 and blood of Christ. Their form continues, that 
 no one may take offence at seeing Christians 
 eating human flesh and blood." 
 
 This doctrine was not, indeed, current at that 
 time, for it caused much commotion, and was 
 strongly opposed by the monk Ratramnus, and 
 John Scotus Erigena, and many others. They 
 did not deny the presence of the body and blood 
 of Christ ; but they taught that this conversio or 
 im.mutatio of the bread and wine is not of a car- 
 nal but a spiritual nature; that these elements 
 are not transmuted into the real body and blood 
 of Christ, but are signs or symbols of them. In 
 many points they approximated to the opinion 
 of the Reformed theologians. 
 
 As yet the councils and popes had determined 
 nothing on this subject. In the meanwhile the 
 doctrine of Paschasius became more and more 
 general during the tenth and eleventh centuries. 
 When therefore Berengarius of Tours, in the 
 eleventh century, attacked this doctrine, he was 
 strongly resisted, and obliged to take back his 
 opinion. He denied any transmutation of the 
 elements; but maintained that the bread and 
 wine are more than mere symbols, and that the 
 body and blood of Christ are really present in 
 
 the Lord's Supper. In short, he took a middle 
 course between Paschasius and Scotus, and 
 came very near, in the main points of his doe- 
 trine, to the Lutheran hypothesis. Vide Les- | 
 sing's work, Berengarius von Tours; Braun-i, 
 schweig, 1770, 4to. 
 
 After the twelfth century the theory of Pas- 
 chasius was further developed by the school- 
 men, and carried out into its results. Even 
 Peter of Lombardy, in the twelfth century, 
 declared himself in behalf of this opinion, al-i 
 though he still speaks somewhat doubtfully 
 respecting it. The inventor of the word tran- 
 substantiatio is supposed to be Hildebert, Bishop 
 of Mans, in the eleventh century. Before him, 
 however, the phrase commutatio pants in sub- 
 stantiam Christi had been used by Fulbert,j 
 Bishop of Chartres. This term became current! 
 in the twelfth century through the influence of 
 Peter of Blois. It was not, however, until the I 
 thirteenth century that this dogma became uni-j 
 versally prevalent in the Romish church. At 
 the IV. Concilium Lateranense, 1215, under 
 Pope Innocent III., it was established as the! 
 doctrine of the church, and confirmed by the 
 Council at Trent, in the sixteenth century, in; 
 opposition to the protestants. According to this 
 doctrine, this transmutation is produced by the 
 sacerdotal consecration. Vide Calixtus, De Tran- 
 substantiatione ; Helmstadt, 1675. 
 
 (4) Principal opinions respecting the manner 
 of the presence of the body and blood of Christ 
 in the sacramental elements, among the protestant 
 theologians^ since the Reformation. 
 
 There were three forms of doctrine on this 
 subject which for many centuries had prevailed | 
 in the Western church viz., (a) the theory of 
 transubstantiation, advanced by Paschasius Rad- 
 bertus, which afterwards became the prevailing 
 doctrine of the church ; (6) the theory, that thei 
 bread and wine are merely symbols of the body 
 and blood of Christ, advocated principally by 
 Job. Scotus Erigena; (c) a theory which takes 
 a middle course between the other two, main- 
 taining that the body and blood of Christ are 
 actually present in the sacramental elements, 
 but without any transmutation of their sub- 
 stance; supported by Berengarius in the ele- 
 venth century. These theories continued, though 
 under various modifications, after the sixteenth 
 century, and were designated by the character- j 
 istic words, transubstantiatio,figura, unio. The} 
 Greek church still adhered to its old word' 
 
 Both the German and Swiss reformers werej 
 agreed in rejecting the doctrine of transubstan-j 
 tiation as wholly unfounded. In this too they: 
 were agreed, that the body and blood of Christ! 
 are really present in the sacramental elements, j 
 and are imparted to the communicant when he j 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 511 
 
 partakes of the bread and wine ; since Christ is 
 near to all whom he counts his own, imparts 
 himself to them, counsels and guides them. 
 
 But in explaining the manner of this presence 
 they differed from each other. Luther had a 
 great attachment to many of the scholastic 
 opinions and distinctions, and at first entertain- 
 ed a very high idea of clerical power and the 
 pre-eminence of the priesthood. He therefore 
 retained the doctrine of the schoolmen, de pras- 
 sentia reali et substantially in such a way, how- 
 ever, as to exclude transubstantiation. His 
 doctrine at first was, that "?'n, with, and under 
 (in, cum, and sub, terms which he took from 
 Bernhard) the consecrated bread and wine, the 
 true and essential body and blood of Christ are 
 imparted to the communicant, and are received 
 by him, although in a manner inexplicable by 
 us, and altogether mysterious." He held, there- 
 fore, that the body of Christ, which in its very 
 essence is present in the sacred symbols, is re- 
 ceived by the 'communicant, not spiritually 
 merely, but (and here is the point of difference 
 between him and the Swiss Reformers) realiter 
 et substantialiter ; so that both believing and 
 unbelieving communicants partake of the real, 
 substantial body and blood of Christ; the for- 
 mer to their salvation, the latter to their con- 
 demnation. The bread and wine are visibly 
 and naturally received, the body and blood of 
 Christ invisibly and supernaturally ; and this is 
 the unto sacramentalis, such as takes place only 
 in this sacrament. In one passage he explains 
 this unio sacramentalis by the image of heated 
 iron ; and in employing this illustration, borders 
 close upon the error of Cunsubstantiation. He 
 says also that what the bread and wine do or 
 suffer, the same is done or suffered by the body 
 and blood of Christ they are broken, distri- 
 buted, poured out, &c. By degrees, however, 
 he abandoned these views, and was content 
 with affirming the real presence of the body and 
 blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, 
 and with an indefinite manduca/ione orali. 
 
 The doctrine of the Swiss theologians, on the 
 contrary, as exhibited by Calvin, who in some 
 respects modified the view of Zuingle, was this : 
 "The body and blood of Christ are not, as to 
 their substance, present in the sacramental ele- 
 ments, but only as to power and effect; they are 
 vere et efficaciter represented under the bread and 
 wine; dari non substantiam corporis Christi in 
 sacra coena, sed omnia qux, in suo corpore nobis 
 btncficia prxstitit" Accordingly the body and 
 blood of Chrjst are not present in space, and are 
 not orally received by communicants, but spiri- 
 tually, with a kind of manducatio spiri.tualis. 
 Zuingle, however, maintained that the bread 
 and wine are mere symbols of the body and 
 blood of Christ, and seemed wholly to reject 
 the idea of his real presence in these symbols. 
 
 Many of the Reformed theologians did not, 
 therefore, at first assent to Calvin's doctrine, 
 and many, even subsequently, adhered to that 
 of Zuingle. 
 
 Calvin, then, designed to take a middle course 
 between Luther and Zuingle. Luther appealed 
 to the words in which this rite was instituted, 
 especially to loti. He referred also to the di- 
 vine omnipotence, by which the body of Christ 
 might be made substantially present in many 
 places at once. Cf. Morus, p. 266, s. 8. This 
 was wholly denied by the Swiss theologians, 
 as being contradictory. They contended, also, 
 that there is no occasion or use for this substan- 
 tial presence and communication of the body 
 and blood of Christ, since it cannot contribute 
 to make one more virtuous, pious, or holy. 
 With regard to iati they remarked that, accord- 
 ing to common use, even in the New Testa- 
 ment, it often means to signify, shew forth, 
 (vide s. 143 ;) and the subject here requires 
 that it should be so understood, since otherwise 
 Christ is made to say what is untrue. 
 
 Luther, however, adhered to his opinion, es- 
 pecially after it became the subject of contro- 
 versy. Melancthon was more calm and impar- 
 tial, and wished to promote peace between the 
 two parties. He therefore took the ground, es- 
 pecially after Luther's death, that it is better 
 merely to affirm the presence and agency of 
 Christ in the sacred symbols, without attempt- 
 ing minutely to define and limit the manner of 
 this presence. He was not favourable either to 
 the prsesentia corporalis Christi, or to the man- 
 ducatio oralis, but only affirmed prsesentiam rf- 
 alem et efficacem Christi in sacra co3na. He 
 therefore chose a middle way between Luther 
 and Zuingle, and very nearly agreed with Cal- 
 vin, who also pursued this middle course. 
 
 Many of the more moderate Lutheran theolo- 
 gians agreed with Melancthon, and seemed with 
 him to incline to the side of Calvin. On the 
 other hand, the zealots for the Lutheran theory 
 insisted upon all the distinctions which Luther 
 adopted, and even on some points went further 
 than Luther himself. But in the electorate of 
 Saxony the party of Melancthon became more 
 and more numerous, and after his death the 
 dreadful Crypto-Calvinistic controversies and 
 persecutions broke out, (A. D. 1571.) 
 
 These and other controversies and disorders 
 in the Lutheran church, and the necessity of 
 doing something to establish the Lutheran form 
 of doctrine, led to the adoption of the Formula 
 of Concord, in the year 1577, which was then 
 made a standard of faith, and adopted as an au- 
 thorized symbol. In this the most minute 
 boundary lines are drawn between the theories 
 of the Lutheran and the Reformed church, by 
 applying the new distinctions introduced into 
 the doctrine of the union of the two natures in 
 
512 
 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Christ, and the communicatio idiomatum. Vide 
 s. 103, II., and s. 104. The Lutheran theolo- 
 gians of that period, especially Andrea, Chern- 
 nitz, and their followers, endeavoured to shew, 
 by the theory of the intimate union of the two 
 natures in Christ, and the communicatio idioma- 
 tum resulting from it, how Christ, as God-man, 
 might be everywhere present, even as to his 
 bodily nature, and that therefore he might be 
 present at the sacrament of the Supper, and 
 might unite himself with the elements, and 
 through them with the communicants, and thus 
 act upon them. This doctrine was called ubi- 
 quitatem corporis Christi, and the advocates of 
 it were named contemptuously by their oppo- 
 nents Ubiquitistse. The manner of the union of 
 the body of Christ with the bread and wine was 
 declared to be a mystery, (mysterium unionis 
 sacramentalis.} And on this account the framers 
 of the Formula of Concord would not decide po- 
 sitively of what nature it is, but only negatively, 
 what it is not. It is not a personal union, as it 
 is explained to be by many of the older fathers, 
 (vide No. 2,) nor is it consubstantiatio ; still less 
 is it a union in which a change of the substance 
 is effected, (transubstantiatio ,) nor is it a union 
 in which the body and blood of Christ are in- 
 cluded in the bread and wine, (impanatio ,) but 
 of an entirely different nature from any of these 
 mentioned, and one which exists only in this sa- 
 crament, and therefore called sacramentalis. Cf. 
 Plank, Geschichte des Protestantischen Lehrbe- 
 grifFs bis zur Einfiihrung der Concordienformel. 
 But these fine distinctions established in the 
 Formula of Concord were never universally 
 adopted in the Lutheran church. And espe- 
 cially in those places where this formula had 
 no symbolic authority were its subtleties re- 
 jected. Many of the Lutheran theologians are 
 more inclined to the moderate theory of Melanc- 
 thon, or rather, have approximated towards it. 
 Morus truly remarks (p. 268, n. A.) that the 
 whole theory established in the Formula of 
 Concord respecting the omnipresence of the hu- 
 man nature of Christ, from the union of natures 
 in his person, isjusto subtilior. 
 
 II. Critical Remarks on these different Hypotheses. 
 
 (1) All the different theories here stated are 
 attended with difficulties. Transubstantiation 
 contradicts the testimony of our senses, and has 
 no scriptural authority, since these symbols are 
 called in the scriptures bread and wine, and are 
 therefore supposed to have the substance of bread 
 and wine. 
 
 With regard to Luther's theory, there is the 
 difficulty above mentioned, that there appears to 
 be no object or use in the substantial or corpo- 
 real presence of Christ; though this objection 
 in itself is by no means decisive, since there are 
 
 manv t.hinas whoso ntilit.v we>. p.annnt nnHpr. 
 
 stand which are yet useful. But besides this,! 
 there are other objections to the Lutheran theory. ! 
 If the substantial body and blood of Christ arei 
 present in the sacramental elements, and are! 
 received by the communicants, how, it might be! 
 asked, 
 
 (a) Could Christ, at the institution of the 
 Supper, give his real body to his disciples to be 
 eaten by them, and his real blood to be drunken 
 by them, while they saw this body before their 
 eyes, and he, yet alive, sat with them at table ? 
 
 (6) How can the body of Christ be present, 
 as to its very substance, in more than one place! 
 at the same time] and what object is answeredl 
 by such a supposition 1 ? The conclusions de-j 
 duced from the doctrine of the union of natures? 
 afford no satisfactory answer to these questions.! 
 
 (c) How can the theory of the substantial! 
 presence of the body and blood of Christ, and of i 
 their being eaten and drunken by communicants,i 
 be reconciled with the words in which this sup-! 
 per was instituted? For Christ did not speak 
 of his body then living upon the earth, which 
 they saw before their eyes, and of the bloodi 
 flowing in it; still less of his glorified body in 
 heaven, but of his body slain on the cross, (vrt^p 
 vfjLw 8t,86fji,fvov,} and of his blood there shed, 
 (a^ua ixxwo/Asvov.} If, therefore, the substan- 
 tial and corporeal presence of Christ were meant, 
 it must be the substance of that martyred bodyf 
 and of that perishable blood. But in this case 
 we cannot understand how either of these can 
 be still present, and imparted to communicants. 
 
 Difficulties of this nature induced Melancthon, 
 as has been before remarked, to modify the Lu 
 theran doctrine, and to adopt a theory less repul 
 sive. But the theory of Calvin, though it ap-j 
 pears to be so easy and natural, is also attended 
 with difficulties; for even he admits of the pren 
 sence of the body and blood of Christ, only noc 
 as to their substance, but, according to his view.' 
 believers alone receive the body and blood of) 
 Christ. But as soon as I admit that the body 
 of Christ is present to believers only, this canno 
 be reconciled with 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29, as the op- 
 ponents of Calvin have always remarked. 
 
 The better way, therefore, in exhibiting eithei 
 the Lutheran or Calvinistic doctrine, is, to avoic 
 these subtleties, and merely take the genera 
 position, that Christ, as man and as the Son oj 
 God, may exert his agency, may act wherever 
 and in whatever manner he pleases. He therefore 
 may exert his power at his table as well as else-; 
 where. This is perfectly scriptural, (vide s. 9j 
 and s. 143, ad finem;) and it is a|^o the sensfi 
 and spirit of the protestant theory. And thi\ 
 doctrine respecting the nearness of Christ, %his! 
 assistance and strengthening injluence, in his pre; 
 sent exalted state, secures eminently that propel 
 inward enjoyment which Lutheran and Reform 
 
 prl (Christians, and P.VPTI r.at.hnlics. with all thei' 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 513 
 
 diversity of speculation on this point, may have 
 alike in the Lord's Supper. Christ, when he was 
 about to leave the world, no more to be seen by 
 his followers with the mortal eye, left them this 
 Supper as a visible pledge of his presence, his 
 protection, and love. 
 
 (2) There are some theologians who think that 
 the whole doctrine respecting the presence of 
 Christ is destitute of proof, and is derived merely 
 from the misunderstanding of the passage, 1 
 Cor. xi., and from the false interpretation of it 
 given by the fathers. Their hypotheses, it is 
 said, have not been sufficiently examined, but 
 have been too credulously admitted, and other 
 theories have been built upon them, after they 
 had been previously assumed as true. This opi- 
 nion might be called the Pelagian theory ; not 
 because it can be shewn that it was held by Pe- 
 lagius himself, but because it has been usually 
 adopted by those who are of the Pelagian way 
 of thinking respecting the influences of grace. 
 On this subject, vide Art. xii. They contend 
 that in partaking of the Lord's Supper we are 
 merely reminded of Christ, especially of his body 
 offered and his blood shed on our account. Ac- 
 cording to this view, his body and his blood, 
 while we thus commemorate his death, are pre- 
 sent to our thoughts, in the same figurative way 
 as the body of a deceased friend or benefactor 
 may be present to our minds when we are think- 
 ing of him. This view is contrary to the New 
 Testament; for it comes to nothing more than a 
 mere remembrance of Christ, and an assistance 
 from him, improperly so called. Vide s. 98. 
 
 They go on to say that Paul, indeed, in 1 Cor. 
 xi. 27, 29, uses the words dw/tct xo.1 al^a Xpttfr'ov 
 with reference to this ordinance ; but that he does 
 not affirm that the communicant eats the body or 
 drinks the blood of Christ, but merely the bread 
 and wine, ver. 28 ; and that although the ancient 
 Christians sometimes spoke as if the body and 
 blood of Christ were really received by commu- 
 nicants, (as was very natural, in accordance with 
 John, vi.,) yet the same is true here which was 
 spoken by Cicero, (Nat. Deor. iii. 16,) Cum 
 fruges CEREREM, vinum LIBERUM dicimus, (pa- 
 nem, corpus Christi, vinum, sanguinem Christi,) 
 genere nus quidem sermonis utimur usitato ; sed 
 quern tarn amentem esseputas, qui illud, quo vcsca- 
 tur, De.um (corpus Christi) credat esse? 
 
 The difficulties in the way of this Pelagian 
 theory, which leaves the Lord's Supper a mere 
 ceremony, are stated by Morus, p. 267, note 5. 
 He shews very clearly that this theory is not in 
 the spirit of the other Christian ordinances. Cf. 
 Storr on this article, in his System. The attempts 
 of many modern writers who have discussed this 
 point (those, e. g., cited by Morus, p. 266, s. 7, 
 in the note) come to the same thing ; for to many 
 of them the doctrine of the nearness of Christ 
 and his assistance i. e., of his uninterrupted 
 65 
 
 activity in behalf of his followers, is extremely 
 repugnant, because they do not see how they 
 can reconcile it with their philosophical hypo- 
 theses, which, however, are wholly baseless. 
 But this doctrine is clearly taught in the holy 
 scriptures, and is one of the fundamental truths 
 of apostolical antiquity. 
 
 (3) Many moderate protestant theologians are 
 now of opinion that nothing was plainly and de- 
 finitely settled by Jesus and the apostles respect- 
 ing the manner of the presence of the body and 
 blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, and 
 that this doctrine cannot therefore be regarded as 
 essential, but rather as problematical. Formerly 
 this doctrine, relating merely to the manner of 
 this presence, was regarded as a fundamental 
 article of faith ; hence each of the contending 
 parties adhered zealously to its own theory, re- 
 garding it as the only scriptural one, and looking 
 upon all who thought differently as heretics. 
 This was the cause of that unhappy and lasting 
 division which took place in the sixteenth century 
 between two churches which agreed on funda- 
 mental doctrines, and which ought mutually to 
 have tolerated their disagreement on this parti- 
 cular point. So judged Melancthon, and disap- 
 proved of the violent controversies of his age. 
 Even in his learned writings he passed briefly 
 over topics of this nature, and assigns as the 
 reason of his not going more deeply into them, 
 " ut a quaestionibus illis juventutem abducerem." 
 
 Speculations respecting the manner of the pre- 
 sence of the body and blood of Christ have not 
 the least influence upon the nature or the efficacy 
 of the Lord's Supper. What the Christian needs 
 to know is, the object and the uses of this rite, 
 and to act accordingly. Vide s. 145. He must 
 therefore believe from the heart that Christ died 
 for him ; that now in his exalted state he is still 
 active in providing for his welfare ; and that hence 
 it becomes him to approach the Lord's table with 
 feelings of the deepest reverence and most grate- 
 ful love to God and to Christ. Upon this every- 
 thing depends, and this makes the ordinance 
 truly edifying and comforting in its influence. 
 These benefits may be derived from this ordi- 
 nance by all Christians; and to all who have 
 true faith, or who allow this ordinance to have 
 its proper effect in awakening attention to the 
 great truths which it exhibits, it is a powerful, 
 divinely-appointed means of grace, whatever 
 theory respecting it they may adopt, the Lu- 
 theran, Calvinistic, or even the Roman-catholic 
 transubstantiation, gross as this error is. 
 
 It is obvious, then, that all subtle speculation 
 respecting the manner of the presence of the body 
 and blood of Christ should have no place in po- 
 pular instruction, but should be confined to 
 learned and scientific theology. In the present 
 state of things, however, these disputed points 
 cannot be wholly omitted in public teaching. 
 
514 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 But the wise teacher will skilfully shew that he 
 does not regard these as the principal points in 
 this doctrine, according to the views just given ; 
 in such a way, however, that even the weak will 
 not be offended. It will be best for teachers, in 
 the practical exhibition of the theory of the Lu- 
 theran and Reformed churches, to proceed on the 
 principle before laid down viz., " that Christ, 
 in his present state of exaltation, as God and man, 
 can exert his power when and where he pleases ; 
 and that, as he has promised to grant his presence, 
 his gracious nearness and assistance to his true 
 followers till the end of the world, they may 
 rejoice in the belief that it will be especially 
 vouchsafed to them during this solemn festival 
 in commemoration of him." This principle is 
 wholly scriptural. 
 
 ARTICLE XV. 
 
 ON DEATH, AND THE CONTINUANCE AND DES- 
 TINY OF MEN AFTER DEATH; OR THE DOC- 
 TRINE RESPECTING THE LAST THINGS. 
 
 SECTION CXLVII. 
 
 OF DEATH. 
 
 I. Different Descriptions and Names of Death. 
 
 (1) No logical definition of death has been 
 generally agreed upon. This point was much 
 contested in the seventeenth century by the Car- 
 tesian and other theologians and philosophers. 
 Since death can be regarded in various points of 
 view, the descriptions of it must necessarily vary. 
 If we consider the state of a dead man, as it 
 strikes the senses, death is the cessation of natural 
 life. If we consider the cause of death, we may 
 place it in that permanent and entire cessation 
 of the feeling and motion of the body which re- 
 sults from the destruction of the body. Among 
 theologians, death is commonly said to consist 
 in the separation of soul and body, implying that 
 the soul still exists when the body perishes. 
 Among the ecclesiastical fathers, Tertullian (De 
 Anima, c. 27) gives this definition : Mors dis- 
 junctio corporis animxque ; vita conjunctio cor- 
 poris animaeque. Cicero (Tusc. i.) defines death, 
 discessus animi a corporc. The passage, Heb. 
 iv. 12, is sometimes cited on this subject, but 
 has nothing to do with it. Death does not con- 
 sist in this separation, but this separation is the 
 consequence of death. As soon as the body 
 loses feeling and motion, it is henceforth use- 
 less to the soul, which is therefore separated 
 from it. 
 
 (2) Scriptural representations, names, and 
 modes of speech respecting death. 
 
 (a) One of the most common in the Old Tes- 
 tament is, to return to the dust, or to the earth, j 
 Hence the phrase, the dust of death. It is 
 founded on the description, Gen. ii. 7, and iii. j 
 19, and has been explained in s. 52, 75. The 
 phraseology denotes the dissolution and destruc- 
 tion of the body. Hence the sentiment in Eccles. 
 xii. 7, "The body returns to the earth, the spirit 
 to God." 
 
 (i) A withdrawing exhalation, or removal of 
 the breath of life. Vide Ps. civ. 29. Hence 
 the common terms, afyqxs, jtapiSuxe to jtvs tyio, 
 reddidit animam, iffrtvfvcfv, exspiravit, &c. 
 
 (c) A removal from the body, a being absent 
 from the body, a departure from it, &c. This 
 description is founded on the comparison of the 
 body with a tent or lodgment in which the soul 
 dwells during this life. Death destroys this tent 
 or house, and commands us to travel on. Vide 
 Job, iv. 21 ; Is. xxxviii. 12 ; Ps. Iii. 7, where see 
 my Notes. Whence Paul says, 2 Cor. v. 1, the 
 
 'yftoj jyjwwj/ oLxia, t ov 6xi]vovs will be de- 
 stroyed ; and Peter calls death artc&fstj tfov 
 
 ^uatos, 2 Pet. i. 13, 14. Classical writers 
 speak of the soul in the same manner, as xara<j- 
 xr t vovv Iv T'Q (juytart. They call the body axr t vos 
 So Hippocrates and ./Eschines. 2 Cor. v. 8, 9, 
 txty/jLT-aai, ix fov Otojua-r'os. 
 
 (d) Paul likewise uses the term txovfG^ai in 
 reference to death, 2 Cor. v. 3, 4 ; because the 
 body is represented as the garment of the soul, 
 as Plato calls it. The soul, therefore, as long 
 as it is in the body, is clothed ; and as soon as 
 it is disembodied, is naked. 
 
 (e) The terms which denote sleep are applied 
 frequently in the Bible, as everywhere else, to 
 death. Ps. Ixxvi. 7; Jer. li. 39; John, xi. 13, 
 et seq. Nor is this language used exclusively 
 for the death of the pious, as some pretend, 
 though this is its prevailing use. Homer calls 
 sleep and death twin brothers, Iliad, xvi. 672. 
 The terms also which signify to lie down, to 
 rest, (e. g, 22" ; , occumbere^ also denote death. 
 
 (/) Death is frequently compared with and 
 named from a departure, a going away. Hence 
 the verba eundi, abeundi, discedendi, signify, to 
 die ; Job, x. 21 ; Ps. xxxix. 4. The case is the 
 same with vrtayco and Ttopfvcywu in the New 
 Testament, Matt. xxvi. 24, and even among 
 the classics. In this connexion we may men- 
 tion the terms ava&viiv and dva>.vff(., Phil. i. 
 23 ; 2 Tim. iv. 6, which do not mean dissolution, 
 but discessus. Cf. Luke, xii. 36. Vide Wet- 
 stein on Phil. 1. 
 
 A~ote We have before remarked, in the Ar- 
 ticle respecting Sin, that death, when personi- 
 fied, is described as a ruler and tyrant, having 
 vast power and a great kingdom, over which 
 he reigns. But the ancients ako represented it 
 under some figures, which are not common 
 among us. We represent it as a man with a 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 515 
 
 iscythe, or as a skeleton, &c. ; but the Jews 
 ijefore the exile frequently represented death as 
 hunter, who lays snares for men ; Ps. xviii. 
 5, 6 ; xci. 3. After the exile they represented 
 iim as a man, or sometimes as an angel, (the 
 ingel of death,) with a cup of poison, which he 
 reaches to men. From this representation ap- 
 pears to have arisen the phrase, which occurs 
 n the New Testament, to taste death, Matt. xvi. 
 28; Heb. ii. 9; which, however, in common 
 speech, signifies merely to die, without remind- 
 ng one of the origin of the phrase. The case 
 s the same with the phrase to see death, Ps. 
 xxxix. 49 ; Luke, ii. 26. 
 
 I. Scriptural senses of the words " death" and " to 
 die;" and the Theological distinctions to which 
 they have given rise. 
 
 (1) Death frequently denotes the end or the 
 Instruction of everything. It is therefore applied 
 o countries and cities which perish. The inha- 
 )itants of them are compared with dead men. 
 The restoration of them is compared with resur- 
 ection from the dead. So Isaiah, xxvi. 19, 20; 
 Szek. iii. 7, seq. 
 
 (2) Hence arise the figurative modes of 
 peech, to be dead to anything, as to the law, to 
 in, &c. ; Gal. ii. 19 ; Rom. vi. 2, 5, &c. 
 
 (3) But this term is used with great frequency 
 n a moral sense e. g., to be dead to all good- 
 ness, to be dead to sin i. e., to be disqualified 
 'or all goodness by the sin reigning within us, 
 Sphes. ii. 1, 5; v. 14. Likewise the opposite, 
 o live, to be alive for goodness i. e., to be active 
 n virtue and capable of performing it. (Mors 
 3t vita spiritualis et moralis.) 
 
 (4) Death is conceived to be the substance 
 md sum of all misery; and the punishment of 
 leath as the severest punishment. Accordingly, 
 
 death denotes (a) every unhappy condition in 
 which human beings are placed, as to body and 
 soul. The opposite, life, denotes welfare, prospe- 
 rity, Ezek. xviii. 32 ; xxxiii. 11; Rom. vii. 10, 13. 
 Punishments, as the unhappy consequences 
 )f the transgression of the law. In this sense, 
 is frequently used in Syriac and Chaldee, 
 and death in the New Testament ; Rom. i. 32 ; 
 
 John, iii. 14 ; James, v. 20. (e) The Jews 
 called the punishments of the lost in hell the 
 second death i. e., the death of the soul, which 
 follows that of the body. Traces of this use 
 are found in Philo, in the Chaldaic paraphrases 
 )f the Old Testament, and very frequently among 
 the Rabbins. In this sense is 6 fovffpoj ^tdvatos 
 
 :d in Rev. ii. 11; xx. 6, 14; xxi. 8. Vide 
 Wetstein on Rev. ii. So, too, ota^poj, artwtata, 
 x. -t. X. 
 
 From these various senses of the word death 
 theologians have taken occasion to introduce the 
 division of death into temporal or bodily, spiri- 
 tual, (by which is meant a state of sin and in- 
 
 capacity for virtue,) and eternal, (the punish- 
 ments of eternity.) The latter is what is other- 
 wise called the second death, mors secunda, cujus 
 nulla est finis, as Augustine remarks. Vide s. 
 79, No. 2. The Bible, too, gives the name of 
 death (mors spiritualis} to the state of sin, inas- 
 much as it is (a) an unhappy state, and (6) a 
 state which incapacitates sinners for all good- 
 ness. Hence sinners are said, Ephes. ii. 5; 
 Col. ii. 13, to be vfxpol fa rtopcwtT'uytaot, partly 
 because they are unhappy in consequence of 
 sin, (vide the opposite,) and partly because 
 they are dead to all goodness, or are incapaci- 
 tated for it. Hence, too, those sinners who are 
 secure, ignorant, and regardless of the misery 
 and danger of their situation, are said to sleep, 
 or to dream, Jude, ver. 8, (i 
 
 III. The, Universality or Unavoidableness of Death ; 
 also a Consideration of the Question, whether 
 Death is the Punishment of Sin, and how far it 
 is so. 
 
 (1) Death is universal and inevitable. None 
 in the present state are excepted. This is the 
 uniform declaration of scripture. Ps. xlix. 
 812 ; Ixxxix. 49 ; Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; 
 Heb. ix. 27. Christ himself was not excepted 
 from this general lot of mortality, (though he 
 submitted to it of his own accord,) John, x. 17, 
 18; since Paul declares, Heb. ii, 14, seq., that 
 he became man, that he might be able to die for 
 our good. 
 
 Some exceptions to this general lot are men- 
 tioned in scripture, (a) In ancient times, 
 Enoch, of whom it was said, Gen. v. 24, that 
 God took him, because he led a pious life. Some 
 of the fathers incorrectly understood this pas- 
 sage to mean, that he died. Cf. Heb. xi. 5. 
 Elias is another exception, 2 Kings, ii. 11. Si- 
 milar narratives are found among the Greeks 
 and Romans, from which we learn that it was 
 a common notion among the ancient people that 
 men who were especially beloved by the Deity 
 were removed from earth to heaven alive, or 
 after their death. (6) In future times. Those 
 who are alive at the day of judgment, according 
 to Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 51, coll. 1 Thess. iv. 15, 
 shall not die, (xo^^rjffoi/T'at,) but shall be 
 changed (dxxoy^cjox'T'at) i. e., their body, with- 
 out previous dissolution, (death,) shall be en- 
 nobled by a simple renovation or change ; since 
 this mortal body is incapable of the enjoyment 
 of heavenly blessedness ; ver. 50, 53, 54, coll. 
 2 Cor. v. 2 4, trfEt'Sraaa^at, oix-fr^iov E| ovpavov, 
 (to be clothed.) 
 
 (2) The mortality of the human body is ex- 
 pressly derived in the record of Moses, Gen. ii. 
 17, also chap, iii., from the taste of the forbid- 
 den fruit, or of the poisonous tree. It was by 
 this means that our first parents themselves be- 
 came mortal, and thus propagated their disor- 
 
516 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 dered and dying bodies to all their posterity. 
 Vide s. 74, 75, 78. The universality and un- 
 avoidableness of death is therefore, according 
 to the scriptures, the result and consequence of 
 the transgression of the first parents of the hu- 
 man race. And so, in all cases, the Bible de- 
 rives death from the sin of the first man. Rom. 
 v. 12, "Through one man came sin into the 
 world, and death by sin, and so death became 
 universal among men, (sis rtdvto,$ dw^pwtoDj 
 Snjje.)" 1 Cor. xv. 21. 
 
 Here the question is thrown out, whether the 
 death of the posterity of Mam is to be regarded 
 as the punishment of his sin ? To this the an- 
 swer commonly given by theologians is, that 
 with regard to the wicked, death is to be re- 
 garded in the light of a punishment, but not with 
 regard to the pious, but that to them, on the 
 contrary, it is a benefit. Since as the latter are, 
 by means of death, translated into a more happy 
 condition, it must be looked upon as a benefit 
 as far as they are concerned ; and so the scrip- 
 ture represents it. Vide s. 148. Still (a] death 
 does not cease to be a great evil, in itself consi- 
 dered, to the whole human race, and even to the 
 pious. Hence Paul denominates it 6 e>poj, 1 
 Cor. xv. 26; and considers it one of the cala- 
 mities befalling our race, with regard to which 
 even the pious man cannot be indifferent. He 
 says expressly, 2 Cor. v. 4, that even to the 
 Christian it is no pleasant thing to be unclothed 
 i. e., stripped of his body by death ; but that 
 he would rather be clothed upon i. e., be in- 
 vested with his heavenly body immediately, 
 without the intervention of death. (6) When 
 it is said that death, in the posterity of Adam, 
 is the punishment which they must undergo on 
 account of his transgression, the term punish- 
 ment is used in that general sense in which it 
 is employed in common life, and often in the 
 scriptures. But if it be taken in the strict phi- 
 losophical sense, (in which punishment always 
 presupposes persona/ guilt,) death can be proper- 
 ly called the punishment of sin only in reference 
 to our first parents themselves ; with regard to 
 others, it is indeed the consequence and result of 
 the sin of our first parents, but not properly its 
 punishment. Vide s. 76, III., s. 78, III. 3, &c. 
 This was remarked by many of the church fa- 
 thers, especially before the time of Augustine ; 
 and they therefore objected to calling the death 
 of the posterity of Adam the punishment of sin. 
 Vide s. 79, No. 1, 2. (c) When it is said of 
 Christ that he frees or redeems men from (bo- 
 dily) death, the meaning is, that men owe it to 
 him, in general, that the terrors of death are 
 mitigated with regard to those who believe on 
 him; and in particular, that our bodies are re- 
 stored at the resurrection. Cf. John, xi. 25, 
 26. This is what is meant by the redcmtio a 
 morte corporalipcr Christum, s. 120, coll. s. Ill, 
 
 II. 1. From the necessity itself of dying we 
 could not be freed, unless God should produce 
 an entirely new race of men. Cf. Cotta, Theses 
 Theologicee de Novissimis, Speciatim de Morte 
 Naturali; Tubingen, 1762. [Also the treatise 
 of Dr. Wm. Bates, " On the Four Last Things," 
 and particularly on Death," chap. iii. and iv. 
 TR.] 
 
 SECTION CXLVIII. 
 
 OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE CONTINU- 
 ANCE OF THE HUMAN SOUL, AND ITS STATE 
 AFTER DEATH. 
 
 IT is the doctrine of Christ that the life of 
 man is not bounded by this earthly state, but 
 that, although he does not exist solely for the 
 future, his life extends into eternity. The ge- 
 neral doctrine of the Bible respecting the desti- 
 nation of man, as a rational and moral being, 
 has been already exhibited in the Article on the 
 Creation of Man, s. 51, II.; and it was there 
 shewn to be holiness, and temporal and eternal 
 happiness standing in the most intimate con- 
 nexion with it. The superiority of our know- 
 ledge of the state of man after death, in compa- 
 rison with that possessed by the ancient world, 
 is not to be ascribed so much to the progress of 
 science as to the work of Christ, and the influ- 
 ence of the Christian doctrine. Those who 
 lived before Christ were not indeed wholly des- 
 titute of knowledge respecting this important 
 truth ; indeed, many heathens, both before and 
 after the time of Christ, suggested very import- 
 ant arguments in behalf of immortality ; still 
 they were unable to attain to anything more 
 than a high degree of probability on this subject. 
 Vide s. 149. Every impartial man must concede 
 that Christ has high claims to gratitude for what 
 he has done in relation to this subject, even if he 
 does not allow that he has disclosed anything 
 new with regard to the future state of man. 
 
 (1) He has connected this truth most inti- 
 mately with the other practical truths of religion, 
 and referred all the rest to this in such a man- 
 ner as no teacher before him ever did. And 
 now, any one who acknowledges the divine 
 authority of Christ, and of the Christian reli- 
 gion, obtains a satisfactory certainty respecting 
 this doctrine, which at best can be rendered only 
 highly probable by the light of nature. And 
 from believing this doctrine, all religion comes 
 to possess for him a new interest; and he finds 
 in it the greatest consolation in sufferings and 
 hardships of all kinds the most effectual en- 
 couragement to holiness, and the greatest dis- 
 suasive from sin. 
 
 Note. The strongest philosophical proofs in 
 behalf of immortality are derived from the im- 
 possibility of reconciling the destruction of the 
 whole man with the object of his existence, and 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 517 
 
 with the divine attributes. Vide s. 149. But 
 a satisfactory certainty on this subject, and a 
 conviction of the truth of immortality raised 
 above all doubt, cannot be attained in this way. 
 For the simple fact that we, by our reason, can- 
 not reconcile any two things, does not prove 
 that they are irreconcilable; nor can we con- 
 clude as to the reality of anything, merely from 
 the fact that it is to be wished for by us. Cf. 
 Seneca, who says, Ep. 102, Philosophi rem 
 hanc gratissimam PROMITTUNT, magis quam 
 
 PROBANT. 
 
 (2) By the plain instruction which Christ 
 has given respecting this subject, and the obvi- 
 ous reasons he has adduced for it, he has made 
 it universally intelligible, and in a very high 
 degree comprehensible, even by the great mass 
 of mankind. He has done this especially by 
 the connexion in which he has placed it with 
 the history of his own person, by which every- 
 thing is rendered more obvious, and receives a 
 greater and more lively interest. Vide s. 120. 
 rlence the remark of Paul, 2 Tim. i. 10, is very 
 rue, that Christ by his doctrine has taken away 
 he power of death, so that it is no more to be 
 feared ; he has made us certain of blessedness, 
 and for the first time placed the doctrine of eter- 
 nal life (co; xa,i cw^optfu*) in a clear light (<j>wn- 
 . Cf. Einiges, Ueber das Verdienst der 
 christlichen Religion urn die Lehre von der 
 Jnsterblichkeit der Seele ; Flensburg und Leip- 
 zig, 1788, 8vo. 
 
 The following are the chief points of Chris- 
 ian instruction respecting the life of the soul 
 after death : 
 
 I. Scripture Proof of Immortality, and what is 
 implied in it. 
 
 In death, the body only dies ; but the soul 
 survives the body, and lives on uninterruptedly, 
 and is immortal. Here belongs the text, Matt. 
 x. 28, where Christ says that tyrants and per-' 
 secutors have power only over the body, and 
 can kill that only, but have no power to kill the 
 soul, over which God alone has rule and power. 
 Again, Luke, xvi. 19, the parable of the rich 
 man and Lazarus, ver. 22, 23, seq. ; Luke, xx. 
 38, " God is not a God of the dead, but of the 
 iving." Also many passages in John, in which 
 fesus promises an immortality, and that too of 
 >lessedness, to his true followers, and assures 
 hem that in death their souls shall not perish 
 ?. g., John, v. 24 ; viii. 51 ; chap. xi. ; xii. 24 
 26 ; xiv. 2, 3, where he says that in his father's 
 louse there are many mansions, and that, he 
 was going to prepare a place for them, and to 
 >ring them thither unto himself, (by death.) 
 /f. the promise given to the malefactor on the 
 cross, Luke, xxiii. 43. 
 
 But he always connects this doctrine with 
 that respecting his own person. He it is to 
 
 whom we are indebted for this truth ; without 
 him we should not have had it. He is the pur- 
 chaser and the giver of life, and of a blessed 
 immortality ; whoever believes in him, although 
 he may die, yet lives ; John, xi. 25, 26. With 
 this the doctrine of the apostles agrees. Vide 
 2 Cor. v. 110; 2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 13, 
 seq.; Phil. i. 23; 1 Pet. iv. 6, departed Chris- 
 tians (vExpot) are regarded by men as evil-doers, 
 and as miserable persons, who have been justly 
 persecuted and punished; but their spirit is 
 introduced by God into a happy life. So Matt. 
 x. 28. 
 
 It pertains essentially to the immortality of 
 the soul that our self-consciousness will remain, 
 and that we shall then have the conviction that 
 our state after death is the consequence of the 
 life that now is; as the parable, Luke, xvi. 22, 
 seq., plainly shews. Cf. Luke, xx. 27, and 
 John, viii. 56, 'AjSpaa^ fibs trp> rjpspav trjv 
 >^v, xai e%dpy. C/. also 2 Cor. v. 8, 9, and 
 the other texts cited by Morus, s. 2, note. 
 
 The doctrine respecting the. sleep of the soul 
 does not agree with the declarations of Christ, 
 and is directly opposed to them. Some have 
 maintained that the soul after death remains, for 
 a time at least, in a state of insensibility and 
 unconsciousness, which they compare with 
 sleep. Vide s. 150, where some of the texts to 
 which they appeal are examined. "They sup- 
 pose that it is first awakened from this sleep at 
 the last day, when it is reunited to the body. 
 The state in which they suppose the soul to be 
 in the meantime is called lethargus, and those 
 who hold this doctrine are called vrtvo^vwtal, 
 and those who wholly deny the immortality of 
 the soul, ^vzoftawvxrtai,. They support their 
 doctrine in part by an appeal to some figurative 
 representations in the holy scriptures respecting 
 the kingdom of the dead, by which it is set forth 
 as the land of silence, darkness, and forgetful- 
 ness; and in part by the common experience 
 that our souls do not feel and receive sensations 
 except through the body and the organs of sense, 
 and that when the brain is injured, conscious- 
 ness and memory often wholly disappear. To 
 this it is justly objected, that it is impossible to 
 conclude, without the greatest fallacy, merely 
 from the present constitution of man, in which 
 soul and body are intimately connected, how it 
 will be hereafter, when the soul and body shall 
 have been entirely separated. 
 
 Christ and the apostles held no principles 
 that could lead to the doctrine of the sleep of the 
 soul. They rather regarded the earthly body 
 which we inherit as the nearest spring and 
 source of human depravity, and of the sins aris- 
 ing from it, and of all consequent pain and mi- 
 sery. Vide s. 77, II. According to this doc- 
 trine we obtain by death a release from many 
 sufferings; the disembodied spirit can exert its 
 2X 
 
518 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 energies more freely than before, and enters 
 upon a far greater and wider sphere of action. 
 Cf. Rom. viii. 23, arto^v'fpua^ tov utOjii.aT'of, 
 Rom. vii. 5, 18, 23, 24, cfw^a $avdtov, 1 John, 
 iii. 2. Vigilantius, in the fifth century, was ac- 
 cused, though unjustly, by Hieronymus, of 
 holding this opinion respecting the sleep of the 
 soul. In the twelfth century it was condemned 
 by Innocent III. In the sixteenth century it 
 was advocated again by some anabaptists and 
 Socinians, and in the seventeenth and eighteenth 
 centuries, by Christopher Artobe, John Heyn, 
 and others. 
 
 II. T/ie Connexion of the Life to Come with the 
 Present. 
 
 On this point, Christ and the apostles teach, 
 
 (1) That the life after death is an immediate 
 continuation of the present life. The soul is 
 not altered in death, but takes along with it its 
 dispositions, its habits, and whole tendency, 
 into the future world. The life to come, taken 
 in connexion with the present, make together 
 one whole, even as manhood is only the conti- 
 nuation of youth. Morus justly observes, tenore 
 continue nectifinem vitx et initia futurae sortis. 
 
 (2) That the life to come is to be regarded as 
 the consequence of the present, since the conse- 
 quences of all our present dispositions, inclina- 
 tions, and actions, continue there. Death de- 
 termines the destiny of men in the future world. 
 It is here that man lays the foundation either 
 for his future happiness or misery ; this is the 
 state of probation, that of retribution. All this 
 is taught in the New Testament, sometimes 
 literally, and at other times figuratively e. g., 
 it is sometimes represented under the image of 
 sowing and reaping, a contest, and the crowning, 
 &c. Vide Luke, xvi. 25; Hebrews, ix. 27; 
 Rom. ii. 512; 2 Cor. iv. 7; v. 10; 1 Tim. 
 vi. 18, 19; Gal. vi. 7, 10, "What a man sows, 
 that shall he also reap; he that follows his 
 carnal appetites shall reap $&opav; the pious 
 Christian, 
 
 III. The Intermediate State between Death and the 
 Judgment. 
 
 The restoration of the body (the raising of 
 the dead) will not take place until the end of 
 the world, the last day of the present constitu- 
 tion of things a period which no one knows 
 beforehand. Vide s. 151, seq. And then will 
 every one, for the first time, receive the full 
 measure of reward or punishment allotted him, 
 according to his conduct in the present life. 
 Vide Luke, x. 12; Rom. ii. 16 ; 2 Cor. v. 10. 
 
 Before this time shall arrive, the disembodied 
 spirit will be in a certain intermediate state. 
 The exact nature of this state is not indeed par- 
 ticularly described to us, and we are unable 
 
 even to conceive of it distinctly; but so much ! 
 the Bible plainly teaches, that immediately J 
 after death the soul passes into that state for 
 which, from the nature of its previous life, it is i 
 prepared, immediately after death, retribution ! 
 begins ; the pious are happy, and the wicked , 
 miserable, each in exact proportion to his feel- ' 
 ings and actions. Vide Luke, xvi. 22 25, ! 
 (the parable respecting Lazarus.) This truth, j 
 too, is always placed by Christ himself and his ' 
 apostles in intimate connexion with his own ! 
 person e. g., Luke, xxiii. 43, To day shalt 
 thou be with me in paradise." Phil. i. 23, 
 xai ovv XptST^ slvcu ; 2 Cor. v. 8, Ix- 
 EX Hov ffoyiaT'oj, xai Ev8fyiq6ai jtpoj -fbv 
 Kvptoi/. 
 
 In what the rewards and punishments of this ' 
 intermediate state will consist cannot be deter- 
 mined, nor whether, in addition to those which 
 are natural the necessary consequences of ac- 
 tion and feeling, there will also be, even then, 
 those which are positive and result from the free 
 appointment of God. As to those who are lost, i 
 the Bible teaches us only this, that their pu- i 
 nishment their whole state of misery will | 
 commence immediately after death ; Luke, xvi. 
 22, seq. And for this we have the analogy of 
 what the New Testament teaches respecting 
 the miserable intermediate state of the evil spi- 
 rits, which will last until the day of judgment, i 
 2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude, 7. Vide s. 63. For the fate i 
 of lost men is described as one and the same 
 with that of evil spirits. Vide Matthew, xxv. \ 
 41. On the other hand, the happy intermediate | 
 state of the pious commences also immediately 
 after death. The texts in proof of this are cited 
 by Morus, p. 289, s. 1, note 2. Their blessed- 
 ness is likened to that of the holy angels ; hence 
 they are called by Jesus himself t(jayyf7.ot, | 
 Luke, xx. 36. 
 
 Since, now, the destiny of man is decided im- 
 mediately after death, and since among men I 
 such a decision is usually made by a judgment j 
 and sentence, there is no more proper way of re- j 
 presenting this arrangement of God with re- 
 spect to the future destiny of men than by com- 
 paring it with a judgment, since it has the 
 same effect as a formal judgment. This has 
 given occasion to the division of judgment into 
 particular or preceding (judicium particulare, 
 or antecedens") , which denotes nothing more 
 than the determining of the fate of men imme- 
 diately after death ; and universal or subsequent, ' 
 (judicium universale, or consequens.) It is re- : 
 specting the former that Paul speaks, Heb. ix. i 
 27, " It is appointed to all men once to die, ! 
 ^ra 8s tovto *p<W i' e., then follows the | 
 determination of their destiny, whether it shall ' 
 be happy or miserable. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 10. The ; 
 Pharisees also, according to Josephus, (Antiq. | 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 519 
 
 xviii. 2,) taught that the soul is immortal, and 
 after death is judged under the earth, and re- 
 warded or punished according 1 to its works. 
 
 According to the doctrine of the New Testa- 
 ment, therefore, there is no third place, or me- 
 dium, between heaven and hell, or between 
 being happy and miserable, although there are 
 very different degrees both of the one and of the 
 other. The intermediate condition of which 
 we have spoken must not be understood to im- 
 ply anything like this. Still an opinion like 
 this got footing very early in the Christian 
 church. Vide s. 150. And this gave rise to the 
 custom of praying for the dead, since men were 
 foolish enough to imagine that there is room to 
 obtain an alteration in the yet undecided destiny 
 of departed spirits, while in truth their destiny 
 must depend solely upon their own actions 
 during the present life. This custom had be- 
 come very general in the fourth century, and 
 was at that time opposed by Aerius, presbyter 
 of Pontus, as we learn from the testimony of 
 Epiphanius, (Haer. 75,) who is very indignant 
 against him on this account. It was also op- 
 posed by the Spanish presbyter, Vigilantius, in 
 the fifth century, in reply to whom Hieronymus 
 wrote a violent book. This doctrine was after- 
 wards brought into connexion with that respect- 
 ing purgatory, (vide s. 150 ;) and then followed 
 masses for souls, as sacrifices for the departed. 
 There are also some traces of prayers for the 
 dead even among the Grecian Jews e. g., 2 
 Mace. xii. 43 46, vrtep vixpwv jtpoasv%ka^tat. 
 
 Note. From what has now been said, it ap- 
 pears that death, so far as it is the transition to 
 a higher and more perfect life, and the means 
 of bringing us to the enjoyment of it, ought not 
 to be terrible to us, but should rather be regard- 
 ed as a benefit. Those only, however, can re- 
 gard it in this light who have lived here accord- 
 ing to their destination, who have obtained the 
 forgiveness of their sins (Stxatov/ifyot), and who 
 go out of the world with pious and godly dis- 
 positions. Vide 2 Cor. v. 610; Phil. i. 21, 
 23; John, xiv. 14; 1 John, iii. 2, 3; 1 Peter, 
 i. 4, 5, &c. 
 
 SECTION CXLIX. 
 
 HISTORICAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE VARIOUS OPI- 
 NIONS WHICH HAVE PREVAILED IN ANCIENT 
 AND MODERN TIMES RESPECTING THE CONTI- 
 NUANCE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH ; AND THE 
 PROOFS DRAWN FROM REASON IN FAVOUR OF IT. 
 
 I. Ideas of Rude Nations. 
 
 THE ideas of most rude heathen nations re- 
 specting the state of man after death are indeed 
 dark and obscure, as well as their ideas respect- 
 ing the nature of the soul itself, which they re- 
 gard as a kind of aerial substance, resembling 
 
 the body, though of a finer material. Vide s. 
 51, I. 3. Still it is found that the greater part 
 of mankind, even of those who are entirely un- 
 cultivated, though they may be incapable of the 
 higher philosophical idea of the immortality of 
 the soul, are yet inclined to believe that the soul 
 survives the body, and continues either for ever, 
 or at least for a long time. Their susceptibility 
 for this faith, and their inclination to it, depend 
 upon the following circumstances viz., 
 
 (1) Upon the love of life., which is deeply 
 planted in the human breast, and operates pow- 
 erfully, and leads to the wish and hope that life 
 will be continued even beyond the grave. 
 
 (2) Besides the traditions in behalf of this 
 faith which uncultivated nations received trans- 
 mitted from their fathers, they often had dreams, 
 in which the dead appeared to them speaking 
 and acting; and in this way they found their 
 wishes, and the traditions they had received 
 from their fathers, confirmed anew, so that the 
 hope of immortality was always sustained in 
 them, and never extinguished. Thus Homer 
 represents (II. xxiii. 103, seq.,) that Achilles 
 first became convinced that souls and shadowy 
 forms have a real existence in the kingdom of 
 shades, by the appearance to him of the depart- 
 ed Patroclus in a dream. So too it is repre- 
 sented in the parable of Christ, Luke, xvi. 27, 
 where the rich man wished that Lazarus might 
 be sent to appear before his living brethren, 
 since if one of the dead should teach them re- 
 specting the state and destiny of the dead, they 
 would believe. Moreover, these visions were 
 often regarded as divine, orap tx A^s taft, II. 
 i. 63. 
 
 But we find that many heathen nations, long 
 before they had any philosophy, or enjoyed the 
 light of revelation, or before they endeavoured 
 to prove the immortality of the soul by argu- 
 ments drawn from reason, still possessed a firm 
 belief of the continuance of the soul. So it was 
 with the Egyptians, the Indians, the Thracians, 
 the Celtae, the ancient Germans, the ancient 
 Greeks and Romans, and so it is with many of 
 the rude heathen nations of our times. Vide 
 Meiners, Geschichte aller Religionem, s. 174, f. 
 Hence we find necromancy practised among the 
 most barbarous people of all ages ; (vide s. 66 ;) 
 and the prevalence of this presupposes, of 
 course, a belief in the existence of the soul be- 
 yond the grave. Vide Scripta Varii Argumenti, 
 Number iii., " Origo opinionum de immortali- 
 tate animorum apud nationes barbaras atque a 
 cultu veri Dei alienas." 
 
 II. Ideas of the Jewish Nation. 
 
 (1) Many have maintained that the doctrine 
 of the immortality of the soul is not taught in 
 the Old Testament. This was especially main- 
 tained by many Socinian writers of the sixteenth 
 
520 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 and seventeenth centuries. Others have gone 
 so far as to construe the supposed silence of the 
 Old-Testament writers on this subject into a 
 formal denial of the doctrine, and have attempt- 
 ed to justify their opinion by some texts in 
 which it seems to be said that all is over with 
 man at his death e. g., Eccl. iii. 19. seq. ; Is. 
 xxxviii. 18; Ps. vi. 6; xxx. 10; Ixxxviii. 11; 
 cxv. 17; Job, vii. 7 10; x. 20 22; xiv. 
 712; xv. 22. The Fragmentist of Wolfen- 
 biittel attacked the divine authority of the Jew- 
 ish religion in the most odious manner by these 
 objections. Cf. the fourth Fragment from Les- 
 sing's Beytriigen zur Geschichte und Literatur 
 aus der wolfentiittel'schen Bibliothek, th. iv. s. 
 484, f. On the other hand, Warburton (Divine 
 Legation of Moses) derived one of his main 
 proofs of the divine mission of Moses from this 
 his supposed silence on the subject of immorta- 
 lity. Moses, he argues, being sustained in his 
 legislation and government by immediate divine 
 authority, had not the same necessity that other 
 teachers have for making use of threatenings 
 and punishments drawn from the future world, 
 in order to furnish motives to obedience. 
 
 (2) But even if it were true that there is no 
 text, either in the books of Moses or the writ- 
 ings of a subsequent period, in which the im- 
 mortality of the soul is distinctly mentioned, it 
 would by no means follow that this idea was at 
 that time wholly unknown among the Israelites. 
 Even from this supposition we must draw the 
 contrary conclusion. For, not to mention that 
 the Israelites and their ancestors were in Egypt, 
 where this faith was very ancient, (according 
 to Herodotus, ii. 123, the Egyptians were the 
 first who entertained it,) it is proved that the 
 Jews held this doctrine (a) From the laws of 
 Moses against necromancy, or the invocation of 
 the dead, which was very commonly practised 
 by the Canaanites also, (Deut. xviii. 9 12,) 
 and which, notwithstanding these laws, was 
 for a long time afterwards retained among the 
 Israelites, as appears from 1 Sam. xxviii., and 
 the prophets, (i) From the appropriate ancient 
 Hebrew name for the kingdom of the dead Sisir 
 (a8>?s), which so often occurs in Moses and the 
 other books of the Old Testament. That Moses 
 did not in his laws hold up the punishments 
 of the future world to the terror of transgressors, 
 is a circumstance which redounds to his praise, 
 and cannot be alleged against him as a matter 
 of reproach, since other legislators have been re- 
 proached with being either deluded, or them- 
 selves impostors for doing this very thing. And 
 Moses did not design to give a system of theo- 
 logy in his laws. 
 
 (3) But from passages in his writings it may 
 be seen that this doctrine was not unknown to 
 him. These passages have been collected by 
 different writers with different success. Vide 
 
 Michaelis, Argumenta pro Immortalitate Animi 
 e Mose Collecta, in Syntagm. Comment, t. i. ; 
 Gottingen, 1759. Liiderwald, Untersuchung 
 von der Kenntniss eines kiinftigen Lebens im 
 Alten Testamente ; Helmstadt, 1781. Semler, 
 BeantwortungderFragendeswolfenbiittel'schen 
 Ungenannten. Seiler, Obserr, ad psychologiam 
 sacram; Erlangen, 1779. 
 
 The following texts from the writings of 
 Moses may be regarded as indications of the 
 doctrine of immortality viz., Gen. v. 22, 24, 
 where it is said respecting Enoch, that because 
 he lived a pious life, God took him, so that he was 
 no more among men. This was designed to be 
 the reward and consequence of his pious life, 
 and it points to an invisible life with God, to 
 which he attained without previously suffering 
 death. Vide s. 147, iii. 1. Gen. xxxvii. 35, 
 Jacob says, "I will go down into SifXtf unto my 
 son." We have here distinctly exhibited the 
 idea of a place where the dead dwell connected 
 together in a society ; vide s. 150. In conformity 
 with this idea we must explain the phrase to go 
 to his fathers, Gen. xv. 15; or, to be gathered to 
 his people, (more correctly, to enter into their 
 habitation or abode,} Gen. xxv. 8, xxxv. 29; 
 Num. xx. 24, &c. In the same way many of the 
 tribes of North- American savages express their 
 expectation of an immortality beyond the grave, 
 by saying respecting one who is dead, that he 
 will now see his father, grandfather, great- 
 grandfather, &c. 
 
 Paul argues from the text, Gen. xlvii. 9, and 
 similar passages, where Jacob calls his life a 
 journey, that the patriarchs expected a life after 
 death, Heb. xi. 13 16. Only he says, very 
 truly, rtdjj/jco^fv Ibovtfs TO.J irtayytfaus- In 
 Matt. xxii. 23, Christ refers, in arguing against 
 the Sadducees, to Ex. iii. 6, where Jehovah calls 
 himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 (i. e., their protector and the object of their 
 worship,) long after their death. It could not be 
 that their ashes and their dust should worship 
 God ; hence he concludes that they themselves 
 could not have ceased to exist, but that, as to 
 their souls, they still lived. Cf. Heb. xi. 1317. 
 And this passage was interpreted in the same 
 way by the Jews after the time of Christ. Vide 
 Wetstein, ad. h. 1. 
 
 In t>e subsequent books of the Old Testa- 
 ment the texts of this nature are far more nu- 
 merous. Still more definite descriptions are 
 given of SiSv : , and the condition of the departed 
 there; e. g., Is. xiv. 9, seq., also in the Psalms 
 and in Job. Vide s. 150. Even in these texts, 
 however, the doctrine of the reward of the right- 
 eous and the punishment of the wicked in the 
 kingdom of the dead is not so clearly developed 
 as it is in the New Testament; this is true even 
 of the book of Job. Vide s. 151. All that we 
 find here with respect to this point is only 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 521 
 
 bscure intimation, so that the Pauline ytbpfa&sv 
 VTSS is applicable, in relation to this doctrine, 
 the other books of the Old Testament as well 
 s to those of Moses. In the Psalms there are 
 ome plain allusions to the expectation of reward 
 nd punishment after death, particularly Ps. xvii. 
 5;xlix. 15, 16; Ixxiii. 24. There are some pas- 
 ages in the prophets where a revimcation of the 
 ead is spoken of, as Is. xxvi. 19 ; Dan. xii. 2 ; 
 ]zek. xxvii. But although these do not teach 
 literal resurrection of the dead, but rather re- 
 er to the restoration of the nation and land, still 
 lese and all such figurative representations 
 resuppose the proper idea that an invisible part 
 f man survives the body, and will be hereafter 
 nited to it. Very clear is also the passage 
 ccl. xii. 7, "The body must return to the earth 
 om whence it was taken, but the spirit to God 
 ho gave it," evidently alluding to Gen. iii. 19. 
 From all this we draw the conclusion that the 
 octrine of the immortality of the soul was not 
 nknown to the Jews before the Babylonian 
 xile. This appears also from the fact that a ge- 
 eral expectation existed of rewards and punish- 
 ents in the future world; although, in corri- 
 arison with what was afterwards taught on this 
 oint, there was at that time very little definitely 
 nown respecting it, and the doctrine, therefore, 
 ood by no means in that near relation to reli- 
 on and morality into which it was afterwards 
 rought, as we see to be the fact often in other 
 holly uncultivated nations. Hence this doe- 
 ine is not so often used by the prophets as a 
 motive to righteousness, or to deter men from 
 evil, or to console them in the midst of suffering. 
 But on this very account the piety of these an- 
 cient saints deserves the more regard and admi- 
 ration. It was in a high degree unpretending 
 and disinterested. And although the prospect 
 of what lies beyond the grave was very indis- 
 tinct in their view, and although, as Paul said, 
 they saw the promised blessings only from afar, 
 they yet had pious dispositions, and trusted God. 
 They held merely to the general promise, that 
 God their Father would cause it to be well with 
 them even after death. Psalm Ixxiii. 26, 28, 
 "When my strength and my heart faileth, God 
 will be the strength of my heart, and my portion 
 for ever." 
 
 But it was not until after the Babylonian cap- 
 tivity that the ideas of the Jews on this subject 
 appear to have become enlarged, and that this 
 doctrine was brought by the prophets, under the 
 divine guidance, into a more immediate con- 
 nexion with religion. This result becomes very 
 apparent after the reign of the Grecian kings 
 over Syria and Egypt, and their persecutions of 
 the Jews. The prophets and teachers living at 
 that time (of whose writings, however, nothing 
 has come down to us) must therefore have given 
 to their nation, time after time, more instruction 
 66 
 
 upon this subject, and must have explained and 
 unfolded the allusions to it in the earlier pro- 
 phets. And so we find that after this time, more 
 frequently than before, the Jews sought and 
 found in this doctrine of immortality and of fu- 
 ture retribution, consolation and encouragement 
 under their trials, and a motive to piety. Such 
 discourses were therefore frequently put in the 
 mouths of the martyrs in the second Book of 
 Maccabees e. g., vi. 26; vii. 9, seq., coll. xii. 
 4345. Cf. also the Book of Wisdom, ii. 1, 
 seq.; and especially iii. 1, seq., and the other 
 apocryphal books of the Old Testament. 
 
 At the time of Christ and afterwards this doc- 
 trine was universally received and taught by the 
 Pharisees, and was indeed the prevailing belief 
 among the Jews; as is well known from the 
 testimony of the New Testament, of Joseph us, 
 and also of Philo. Tacitus also notices this 
 firm belief of the Jews in the immortality of the 
 soul. In his history (ver. 5) he says, animas 
 prcclio aut suppliciis peremptorum aeternaspulant. 
 Cf. an Essay comparing the ideas of the Apo- 
 cryphal books of the Old Testament on the sub- 
 jects of immortality, resurrection, judgment, 
 and retribution, with those of the New Testa- 
 ment, written by Frisch, in Eichhorn's Biblio- 
 thek der Biblischen Literatur, b. iv. ; Ziegler's 
 Theol. Abhand., th. ii. No. 4. Flugge, Ges- 
 chichte des Glaubens an Unsterblichkeit, u. s. 
 w., th. i. But the Sadducees, and they only, 
 boasting a great attachment to the Old Testa- 
 ment, and especially to the books of Mose-s, 
 denied this doctrine, and, at the same time, the 
 existence of the soul as distinct from the body. 
 
 But Christ did more to illustrate and confirm 
 this consoling doctrine than had been before done 
 among the Jews or any other people; and he 
 first gave to it that high practical interest which 
 it now possesses. Vide s. 148, at the beginning. 
 
 III. Philosophical Arguments. 
 
 As soon as they began in heathen nations to 
 philosophize, and to investigate more closely the 
 doctrines relating to God and the nature and des- 
 tination of man, they saw the importance and 
 great practical interest of the doctrine of the 
 immortality of the soul. It was found to exist 
 already as a popular belief, but they now endea- 
 voured to give it philosophical proof and de- 
 monstration. Here, as in other things, the 
 Greeks distinguished themselves above other 
 nations. They laid the first ground of those phi- 
 losophical proofs which were afterwards en- 
 forced anew by Christian philosophers, and cor- 
 rected and further developed. In the varied web 
 of proof in our modern philosophical schools, 
 the chief threads, and, as it were, the entire ma- 
 terial, are of Grecian origin. According to the 
 testimony of Cicero, the first Grecian philoso- 
 pher who investigated this subject was Phere- 
 2x2 
 
522 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 cydes; but according to Diogenes Laertius, it 
 was Thdles. The followers of Socrates, how- 
 ever, did the most for this doctrine, and espe- 
 cially Plato, in his Phaedon. The Platonic ar- 
 guments are found collected in the Tusculan 
 Questions of Cicero (i. 23), and also briefly 
 stated in his Treatise, De Senectute, c. 21, seq. 
 With regard to these proofs, it is difficult for us, 
 with our present ideas, to see how the soul, se- 
 parated from the body, could maintain its own 
 subsistence or personality, since, according to 
 Plato, it is only a part of the soul of the world, 
 to which, after death, it will return. 
 
 There were, however, some among the Gre- 
 cians who denied, or at least doubted, the im- 
 mortality of the soul. Among these was Epi- 
 curus. The stoics contended, indeed, for the 
 continuance of the soul after death, but not for 
 its absolute immortality, with regard to which 
 they were accustomed to speak doubtfully; as, 
 for example, Seneca often does in his epistles. 
 The opinions of Aristotle on this subject are 
 doubtful ; many of his disciples have concluded 
 from his principles that the soul is not immor- 
 tal e. g., among his old followers, Dicaearchus ; 
 among the later Aristotelians, Averrhoes, in the 
 twelfth century, and Peter Pomponatius, in the 
 fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in his book, 
 " De Animi Immortalitate," edited anew by 
 Prof. Christi. Gottfr. Bardili ; Tubingen, 1791, 
 8vo. He endeavours in this work to shew that, 
 according to the principles of the Averrhoistic- 
 Aristotelian philosophy, the immortality of the 
 soul cannot be demonstrated on natural grounds. 
 
 Even among Christians there have been some 
 who have denied the immortality of the soul. 
 There was, for example, an Arabian teacher, in 
 the third century, against whom Origen wrote, 
 who maintained that the soul dies with the 
 body, but is again raised with it at the last day ; 
 an opinion which was revived in the seventeenth 
 century by William Coward, a London physi- 
 cian. Still more strange is the opinion of H. 
 Dodwell, who, in a work published in London, 
 1706, contended that souls are naturally mortal, 
 but become immortal only by means of Chris- 
 tian baptism. 
 
 The opinions of some of the grosser materi- 
 alists of modern times are well known e. g., 
 of Toland, Helvetius, de la Mettrie, and the 
 author of the Systeme de la Nature, who were 
 followed in this by many of the so-called philo- 
 sophers who wrote during the French Revolu- 
 tion; also many of the sceptics, who thought 
 nothing could be determined on this subject 
 e. g., Hume. 
 
 A few words respecting these philosophic ar- 
 guments themselves. It has been justly re- 
 marked by philosophers of modern times, espe- 
 cially by Wolf, that three things are involved 
 in the immortality of the soul : (a) the uninter- 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 523 
 
 cities for ever increasing 1 moral improvement, 
 and we feel a longing after immortality, in order 
 to make higher advances in that moral and spi- 
 ritual perfection in which the attainments of the 
 best during the present life are so imperfect. 
 These capacities and this longing are to be re- 
 garded as promises from the Creator. For 
 were they never to be satisfied, he would not 
 have placed them in the soul, as it could not 
 have been his design to deceive us. If our 
 souls are not immortal, then the beasts, which 
 have merely an animal nature, and no rational 
 and moral part, are far better in their condition 
 than we, to whom a higher destination has 
 plainly been given; for they can develop their 
 constitutional capacities, and can satisfy the 
 innate propensities of their natures. And shall 
 not we, the nobler creation of God, be able to 
 develop the far more perfect spiritual and moral 
 powers which he has given us, and to satisfy 
 our spiritual wants 1 
 
 The whole system of the rights and duties of 
 moral beings would appear to be a web of incon- 
 gruities if the present life were the only one. 
 And, in fine, the disorder and injustice which 
 are obvious in the destiny of men in their earthly 
 life almost irresistibly compel us to admit this 
 doctrine to be true, and to console ourselves in 
 the midst of these disorders by the belief of it. 
 The manifest disorders of the present state oc- 
 casioned great difficulty to all thinking men of 
 former times, who did not fully and distinctly 
 admit the truth of a future life and future retri- 
 bution. Vide Job, xxiv. 1, seq. ; Eccles. viii. 
 10, 11, 14; ix. 13. Vide s. 71, especially 
 No. VI. ad finem. Cf. L. H. Jacob, Beweis 
 fur die Unsterblichkeit der Seele aus dem Be- 
 griffe der Pflicht; Zullichau, 1790, 8vo. This 
 proof is drawn out on the principles of the Kant- 
 ian philosophy, and was written in answer to 
 the prize-question proposed by the Stolpic In- 
 stitute at Leiden, "Whether there are any du- 
 ties which, on grounds of reason, a man would 
 feel himself bound to perform if he did not be- 
 lieve the soul to be immortal ?" 
 
 Note. The following are some of the princi- 
 pal modern writers on the immortality of the 
 soul : Clark, Sherlock, Addison, Reinbeck, 
 Cans, Reimarus, Vornehmste Wahrheiten der 
 rmtiirlichen Religion, 10 Abhand. Spalding, 
 Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Jerusalem, 
 Betrachtungen iiber die Wahrheiten der Reli- 
 gion, th. 1, 6 Beytr. Noesselt, Vertheidigung 
 der christlichen Religion. Mendelsohn, Phae- 
 don. Villette, Unterredungen iiber die Gluck- 
 seligkeit des kunftino-en Lebens. Kant, Kri- 
 tik der praktischen Vernunft, and the work of 
 Jacob above cited. The history of this doctrine 
 has been given by Oporin, Franz, Cotta, Hen- 
 nings, and Flugge, with which cf. Struvius, 
 Historia Doctr. Graecor et Romanorum Philos. 
 
 de Statu Animarum post Mortem ; Alten, 1803, 
 8vo. Simon, Geschichte des Glaubens an die 
 Fortdauer der Seele nach dem Tode, an Ges- 
 penster, u. s. w; Heilbronu, 1804, 8vo. Nic. 
 Aug. Herrich, Sylloge Scriptorum de Spiritibus 
 Puris et Animabus Humanis Earumque Mate- 
 rialitate, Immortalitate, et Statu post Mortem, 
 deque AnimaBestiarum;Regensburg, 1790,8vo. 
 [Matth. Claudius. Wandsbecker, Bote, th. 
 v. Hahn, Lehrbuch. s. 634, ff., and his history 
 of this doctrine, s. 641, ff. TR.] 
 
 SECTION CL. 
 
 OF SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE VARI- 
 OUS OPINIONS RESPECTING THE PLACE OF DE- 
 PARTED SOULS, AND THEIR CONDITION THERE. 
 
 I. The Place of their Abode. 
 
 (1) AMONG many rude nations, and also 
 among some which are cultivated, (e. g., in 
 America, Thibet, and Hindostan,) the opinion 
 is found to prevail that the soul passes from one 
 body into another, sometimes another human 
 body, sometimes .that of beasts, or even into 
 plants and trees. This was called fist f^v^offtj, 
 by Pliny, transfiguratio. Originally this trans- 
 migration of souls was not regarded as a matter 
 of retribution, or as a means of purification. 
 This turn was not given to the doctrine until a 
 period of higher cultivation. It came to be un- 
 derstood in this light, for example, by Pytha- 
 goras and Plato among the Greeks. The belief 
 in this doctrine seems rather to have rested, at 
 first, upon a certain supposed analogy in nature, 
 where one body is observed always to pass into 
 another, and even when it seems to perish only 
 alters its form and returns in a different shape. 
 This belief may have also sprung in part from 
 the almost universal idea that every thing in 
 the whole creation is animated by a soul, espe- 
 cially everything possessing an internal life and 
 power of motion e. g., plants. 
 
 This doctrine of the transmigration of souls 
 has also been held in modern times by many of 
 the Jews. Vide Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Ju- 
 denthum, th. ii. c. 61. It cannot, however, be 
 shewn that this opinion prevailed among the 
 Jews at the time of Christ, particularly among 
 the Pharisees, either by the passages of the 
 New Testament cited in favour of it, or by those 
 from Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 
 
 Among Christians, this notion has met with 
 but little favour ; and it has without reason been 
 ascribed to the Gnostics, Manicheans, and even 
 to Origen. The reason of its being ascribed to 
 the latter was his belief in the pre-existence of 
 the soul (vide s. 57, II. 1) a belief which in 
 some philosophical systems is intimately con- 
 nected with the doctrine of the transmigration 
 of the soul. Since the seventeenth century this 
 
524 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 has been again regarded as a probable doctrine, 
 on account of some analogy in the material 
 world, and has been again advocated by Hel- 
 mont, Edelmann, Lessing, (Erziehung des Men- 
 schengeschlechts.) 
 
 [Note. The doctrine of the transmigration 
 of souls has received new light from the inves- 
 tigations which have been made of late in East- 
 ern literature. A deeply interesting exhibition 
 of this subject is given by Fred. Schlegel in his 
 " Philosophic der Geschichte," b. i. s. 147. He 
 there shews that this is one of the most funda- 
 mental doctrines of faith in the Eastern world 
 that it rests upon a religious basis, and even in 
 the earliest periods was connected with the idea 
 of retribution and sanctification. The soul, it 
 is supposed, after having been soiled and cor- 
 rupted by its contact with the body and the 
 world, must expiate its sins by wandering, for 
 an appointed cycle, through various forms of 
 J *Y uncongenial matter. By enduring these penal 
 sufferings for a long time it becomes purified, 
 and prepared to mingle again in the original, 
 pure fountain from which it proceeded. At the 
 bottom of this whole belief Jies the deep and 
 just feeling, that after man has wandered so far 
 from God, in order to approach him again he 
 must travel with great labour through a long 
 and dreary way ; and also the conviction, that 
 nothing which is imperfect or stained with sin 
 can enter into the pure world of blessed spirits, 
 or be for ever united with God. TR.] 
 
 (2) Far more general was the opinion among 
 the ancient nations that the abode of departed 
 spirits is under the earth ,- because the dead are 
 laid beneath the ground, and their body returns 
 to the dust. The souls there separated from 
 their bodies were regarded as a sort of aerial 
 beings, or shades, (si'SwTia, umbrae.) Vide s. 66, 
 II. coll. s. 59, 1. Taken as a whole, the ancient 
 Eastern nations and the Greeks agreed in this 
 point; while still it is not necessary to suppose 
 that the latter borrowed their ideas from the 
 former. 
 
 This place was denominated by the Hebrews 
 S*E>, by the Greeks, aS^j the word by which 
 the LXX. always translate h^i?. The term 
 q8-/i$ is explained by Plutarch (De Is. et Osir.) 
 by daiSfj, doparov, dark, where one sees nothing. 
 It is allegorically explained by Plato, in his 
 Cratylus, as the invisible world, because the 
 place is unseen. Neither of these terms is used 
 in the scriptures to signify exactly the grave, 
 still less the place of the damned,- nor are they 
 used in this sense by any of the fathers in the 
 first three centuries. Vide s. 96, I. The same 
 place is called among the Hebrews ?>*n ni>nnn, 
 as in Homer, vrtb ycuav, vrtb xfv$<u youac, and 
 the entrance to it is placed by the Greeks in the 
 extreme west. Where the snn goes down, and 
 his light and fire are extinguished, there, it was 
 
 naturally supposed, is the place where all things 
 perish, and where darkness reigns. 
 
 Both the Hebrews and Greeks describe this 
 under-world as a great kingdom, and both use 
 the phrase, gates of death, or Hades. C f. H omer. 
 Here, according to the ideas of men in the ear- 
 liest ages, the shades of the good and the bad 
 dwell together, without any distinction or any 
 marked separation. Thus it is where Sixty is 
 introduced in the Old Testament e. g., Is. xiv., 
 where there is a kind of distinction of rank, and 
 kings sit upon thrones ; but where nothing de- 
 finite and clear is said respecting a distinction 
 in the places of the pious and the wicked. Thus 
 in Homer, too, even those who are punished are 
 in the same place with the other shades, Odys. 
 xi. 575, seq. 
 
 But after, a time these places in the lower 
 world were divided, and the residences of the 
 righteous and the wicked were conceived of as 
 separate. Thus Tartarus among the Greeks, 
 which, during the time of Homer and Hesiod, 
 was regarded merely as the prison of the Titans, 
 became gradually the universal abode of the 
 damnrd. So it is with Plato and others, who 
 are followed by Virgil, JEn. vi. In the same 
 way did the conceptions of the Jews on this 
 subject become more developed in later periods. 
 According to Luke, xvi. 23 26, both the rich 
 man and Lazarus are in Hades, but a wide gulf, 
 (^cifyta jus'ya,) as it is figuratively represented 
 in the parable, separates the fields of the blessed 
 from the place of the damned ; no one may or 
 can pass from the one to the other. The Jews 
 too, in imitation of the Greeks, called the place 
 of punishment, where wicked men and angels 
 are reserved unto the day of judgment, Taptapoj. 
 Vide Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 7; 2Pet.il. 4; where 
 Taprapow appears. Cf. s. 63, II. 
 
 From this it appears that the sacred writers 
 retained the- phraseology common among their 
 contemporaries, in order to be more easily un- 
 derstood by them, and to make a stronger im- 
 pression upon their minds. They, however, 
 used all this only in the way of figure and figu- 
 rative representation, by which they designed 
 to set forth the most important truths with re- 
 gard to the state of departed spirits; as any one 
 may see from Luke, xvi., 2 Pet. ii., &c. 
 
 The whole kingdom of the dead is described 
 by the ancients in a threefold method viz., (a) 
 as a dark, desolate, silent region, the land of 
 forgetful ness, rest, and inactivity; since the 
 dead rest silently in the grave under the earth, 
 and are cut off from all connexion with the liv- 
 ing world. Cf". the texts cited from the Old 
 Testament, s. 149, II. (in init.) This gave 
 rise to the idea respecting the sleep of the soul 
 in after times. (>) Again it was described as 
 a kingdom full of motion and activity, and as 
 resembling as nearly as possible the present 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 525 
 
 world. Cf. Isaiah, xiv. (c) But in process of 
 time these two representations were connected 
 together in a great variety of ways. 
 
 Now the sacred writers, and Christ himself, 
 often make use of figurative expressions, bor- 
 rowed from these ideas, though they also fre- 
 quently exchange them for others which are 
 more literal. Thus what Christ represents in 
 Luke, xxi., under the image of a steep walled 
 grave, he describes elsewhere without a figure 
 viz., that the states of men in the future world 
 will be very diverse, but exactly apportioned, 
 both as to happiness and misery, according to 
 their conduct in this life; and that it will not 
 depend upon the choice of men to pass from 
 one state to the other. Cf. Matt. xxv. The 
 hindrances here are as great and insurmountable 
 as a deep chasm is to one who would pass from 
 one place to another. Cf. s. 148, I. 
 
 The ancient languages were still more defi- 
 cient than those of the present day in philoso- 
 phically definite expressions for objects beyond 
 the cognizance of the senses. Indeed, many 
 things could not be so much as conceived of 
 without a symbolical representation; hence 
 such are often found even in the writings of 
 Plato, and other Grecian philosophers. Ac- 
 cording to this metnod, one could not indeed 
 teach in so exact and definite a manner; but he 
 would make a stronger impression upon the 
 feelings and desires, and succeed better in 
 awakening religious dispositions among those 
 who were unacquainted with philosophical lan- 
 guage. This hint is very important for the re- 
 ligious teacher. If he follows the method of 
 instruction pursued in schools of philosophy, 
 and adopts their phraseology, he will accom- 
 plish but little, and often be entirely unintelli- 
 gible to his hearers. He must follow the ex- 
 ample of the Bible, and make use alternately 
 of figurative and literal representations. In fact, 
 the whole representation of the invisible world 
 must be figurative and symbolical, even when 
 we make use of the most literal expressions in 
 our power. It is all a mere comparison of the 
 invisible world with something like it in the 
 world of sense. For what the apostle said, 
 "eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard," &c., 
 is literally true in application to this subject. 
 
 With regard to Orcus, and the different views 
 entertained on this subject among Christians, 
 cf. Cotta, De Inferno ejusque Sede; Tubingen, 
 1775. As to the ideas of the Hebrews, cf. the 
 works of Ziegler and Ammon, Ueber das Tod- 
 tenreich der Hebraeer; Erlangen, 1792. Cf. 
 also, an Excursus of Heyne on the fourth 
 jEneid, and other works cited below. 
 
 Note. To any unprejudiced observer it can- 
 not but appear a great excellence in the Bible, 
 and especially in the New Testament, that it 
 takes no part in the absurd conceptions which 
 
 have often prevailed on this subject, and from 
 which the greatest philosophers are not alto- 
 gether free e. g., Plato. And, on the other 
 hand, the Bible is equally deserving of praise 
 for not exhibiting pure truths in metaphysical 
 language, and making them the object of dry 
 and curious speculation, but, on the contrary, 
 in the highest degree intelligible, so that their 
 practical application is obvious to every one. 
 
 (3) But many believed that departed souls 
 remain in or about the graves or dwellings of 
 the dead, either for ever, or for a long time. So 
 many nations of different degrees of cultivation. 
 The opinion was formerly very widely diffused, 
 that departed spirits linger for a long time 
 around the dead body, or at least sometimes 
 return to it from the kingdom of the dead ; and 
 hence, in part, the belief in spectres, s. 66, II. 
 These ideas prevailed to some extent among 
 the Jews and many Christians ; and even at the 
 Concil. Iliberit. in the year 313, it is forbidden 
 to kindle a light in burying-grounds, lest the 
 spirits of the saints should be disturbed. 
 
 II. Opinions respecting the state of Departed Souls. 
 
 (1) It is apparent from what has been said, 
 that, according to the ideas of the ancients, the 
 employments, the state and life of departed 
 souls, resemble the life of men in this upper 
 world an idea in which many germs of truth 
 are involved. We find nothing said respecting 
 the sleep of the soul either in the Old or New 
 Testaments, nor in the earliest monuments of 
 other nations. Vide s. 148. Quite as foreign 
 from the conceptions of the earliest periods is. 
 the idea that the dead have no recollection of 
 their earthly life, and take no interest in human 
 affairs. The opposite of this is clear from the 
 earliest records e. g., from Homer (Odys. xi. 
 coll. II. xxii. 389, 390), and from the holy 
 scriptures, (Is. xiv., Luke, xvi.) It was for 
 this reason that so many nations believed that 
 the dead sometimes return, appear to men, and 
 have personal intercourse with the living. And 
 hence too the error of invoking the saints. These 
 superstitious conclusions, however, are not fa- 
 voured by the doctrine of Christ. Vide Luke, 
 xvi. 2731. 
 
 It was very natural, even for nations having 
 no direct revelation, to come to the thought that 
 the shades in Hades recognise each other, have 
 mutual intercourse, and perpetuate the friend- 
 ship begun in the present life. This idea 
 might, indeed, like many others, have been 
 abstracted from the mere phantoms of a dream* 
 For in dreams our departed friends appear to 
 be cognizable, as Patroclus did to Achilles, 
 even as to his eyes, voice, and stature, II. xxiiL 
 G6, seq. 107. This may be justified also by an 
 appeal to scripture, Luke, xvi.; Heb. xii. 23, 
 and Revelation. The soul, indeed, is no longer 
 
526 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 regarded as a fine material substance, as it often 
 was in ancient times ; but these delightful views 
 lose nothing on this account, as some have most 
 unphilosophically supposed. For one may be 
 recognised otherwise than by his body, and 
 may be loved, too, otherwise than corporeally. 
 Why then should not departed souls recognise 
 each other, even when they no longer possess 
 bodies'? 
 
 (2) In the childhood of nations, the ideas of 
 men have been commonly very vague and inde- 
 finite with regard to the happy or miserable state 
 of departed souls. Of. Meiners, Geschichte der 
 Religionen, s. 174178. With regard to what 
 the Israelites in the earliest times knew on this 
 subject, while they yet saw the promises in an 
 obscure distance, cf. s. 149, II. Many of the 
 heathen nations represented the state of the 
 dead, not indeed as wholly miserable; still they 
 regarded it as not altogether desirable, and often 
 as rather worse than better, in comparison with 
 their state in this world. Achilles in Hades 
 does not speak of death very favourably, but 
 would rather till the field on earth, as a day 
 labourer, than rule all the hosts of the shades; 
 Odys. xi. 487. For the Elysium in Homer is 
 not as yet the residence of the departed souls of 
 men, but only the abode of heroes or demigods. 
 
 But by degrees they advanced to more en- 
 larged and correct conceptions. The Greeks 
 then supposed that good men participate here- 
 after in the joys of Elysium, and that crimes 
 are punished in Hades. At first, however, only 
 the grosser offences were supposed liable to 
 punishment there, and in Homer, one offence 
 only perjury ,- II. iii. 278 ; xix. 259, 260. This 
 indicates the great simplicity and the very de- 
 fective ideas on moral subjects which still pre- 
 vailed, since only the very grossest crimes were 
 regarded as worthy of punishment. After- 
 wards, in the greater advance of cultivation, and 
 the higher perfection of moral ideas, the number 
 of crimes punished in Hades was very much 
 increased ; and at length it was believed that 
 every virtue is there rewarded and every vice 
 punished. So it is represented by Plato, and 
 other Grecian philosophers; so also, in imita- 
 tion of them, by Virgil, ^Eneid, vi. Vide Heyne, 
 Excurs. 1 and 8. 
 
 A gradual development of ideas is also no- 
 ticed among the Israelites. In general, the 
 great multitude among them, as among other 
 people, formed very gross conceptions respect- 
 ing the joys and pains following death, and re- 
 garded them as merely corporeal, since they 
 were unable to conceive of any other. Many 
 understood literally the expressions, to be in 
 Abraham's bosom, to sit down at table with Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob; the more enlightened, 
 however, used them only as figurative expres- 
 sions, as Christ himself always understood and 
 
 explained them in his instructions e. g., Luke, 
 xvi. 
 
 (3) The doctrine respecting an intermediate 
 state of departed souls, and respecting purga- 
 tory. Cf. s. 148, III., and Morus, p. 290. 
 Such a state, in which the fate of men is unde- 
 cided until the day of judgment a state which 
 is neither heaven nor hell, neither being blessed 
 nor damned, was supposed by many of the 
 church fathers e. g., Justin the Martyr, Ire- 
 nseus, and Tertullian. Only some eminent 
 saints and martyrs, it was supposed, come at 
 once into heaven; and only the grossest sinners 
 go at once into hell. This intermediate state 
 they call, taking the appellation from Luke, 
 xvi., Sinum Abrahami. To this they referred 
 the text, 1 Pet. iii. 19, ta ev fyvhaxy rCviv/taTta,. 
 Vide s. 96. Thither Christ went, and rescued 
 from thence the patriarchs and other pious men 
 who had died before his atonement was made. 
 This place was afterwards called limbus (supe- 
 rior or exterior pars inferni) patrum , and a lim- 
 bus infantium was also supposed (and is still 
 believed by the Romish church) into which 
 children go, because they are not actually con- 
 demned, having committed no peccata aclualia, 
 while still, in consequence of original sin, they 
 are unable to attain to the blessed vision of 
 God. 
 
 The foundation for the doctrine of purgatory 
 is found even in the second and third centuries. 
 Its origin may be traced back to the Pythago- 
 rean or Platonic philosophy. Souls, according 
 to Plato, are a part of the divine nature, which, 
 however, are confined in the body, as in a pri- 
 son. Vide s. 74, 1. ad finem. Now, even after 
 the soul of man is disembodied, there still 
 cleaves to it much sin and impurity, acquired 
 from its contact with the body, and this im- 
 purity is regarded by Plato as a natural sick- 
 ness. It cannot therefore, immediately on leav- 
 ing the body, return again to its original source. 
 With some, the disorder is incurable, and these 
 are the lost, who go at once to Tartarus ; with 
 others, it is curable, and these are purged and 
 purified in Hades. This process Plato com- 
 pared with purification (xc&apcnj) by water, air, 
 and fire; and represented this state as an inter- 
 mediate one. Vide Plato, Phaedon, c. 62; and 
 Virgil, ^Eneid, vi. 735 751, and Heyne, Ex- 
 cur, xiii. 
 
 This, with many other Platonic doctrines and 
 fables, was early transferred to Christianity. 
 We find traces of it among the Gnostics, (ac-j 
 cording to the testimony of Irenaeus, ii. 51, seq.,) j 
 in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, in the I 
 second century, and of Origen, in the third. Butj 
 after the fourth century it was more widely dif-i 
 fused through the Latin church. It is found; 
 in Hieronymus, Lactantius, Ambrosius, andj 
 even Augustine; the latter of whom, however, 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 527 
 
 though he speaks of ignis purgatorius, regards 
 the subject as doubtful. In the sixth century 
 this doctrine was taught by Gregory the Great, 
 in the eighth by Beda, Boniface, and others. It 
 was supposed that those Christians only who 
 commit no deliberate sin after baptism are ex- 
 empt from this punishment, or such as become 
 martyrs, or who, by assuming the monastic life, 
 have made atonement for their sins. Gross of- 
 fenders those who, according to Plato, are 
 irrecoverably disordered, pass immediately after 
 death into hell. Those who have not sinned so 
 grossly, (who are recoverable,) or whose repent- 
 ance commences in the present life, but remains 
 imperfect, although they are not eternally con- 
 demned, yet do not attain at once to the enjoy- 
 ment of God. Such persons, it was supposed, 
 need to be purified and to make expiation for 
 their sins by the endurance of certain penalties 
 appointed by God, conceived of under the image 
 of purifying by fire. The advocates of this view 
 endeavoured to support it by such texts of scrip- 
 ture as the following viz., 1 Cor. iii. 13, (as 
 by fire ;) Jude, ver. 23 ; Malachi, iii. 2 ; 2 Mace, 
 xii. 39. 
 
 This doctrine became connected with many 
 opinions and practices equally unscriptural, es- 
 pecially with offering prayer for the dead, and 
 making satisfaction to relieve them from punish- 
 ment; and also with the doctrine of the Lord's 
 Supper as a sacrifice for the dead a doctrine 
 which prevailed during the eleventh and twelfth 
 centuries ; at which time, also, masses offered 
 in order to free souls from purgatory became 
 common. As early as the eleventh century, the 
 feast of all souls was appointed by Pope John 
 XVIII. This doctrine was now adopted by the 
 schoolmen into their systems e. g., by Peter 
 of Lombardy, Thomas Aquinas, and others. 
 The most frightful representations were given 
 of purgatory, founded upon stories of the appa- 
 rition of souls from thence, &c. The theolo- 
 gians, too, contended respecting the place, man- 
 ner, and duration of this punishment. And the 
 council at Florence, in 1439, gave this doctrine 
 the authority of a formal article of faith. As 
 such, it still continues in the Romish church, 
 and was re-established by the council at Trent. 
 
 This doctrine, however, of the Romish church 
 respecting purgatory, as it has been gradually 
 developed by the schoolmen, and as it was es- 
 tablished by the council at Florence, differs in 
 two essential points from the old Platonic no- 
 tion which was adopted by Origen and other 
 church fathers viz., (a) According to Origen 
 and the Platonists, all without exception are 
 subjected to this purification, although some 
 need it more, and others less. But according 
 to the opinion of the Romish church, those only 
 go into purgatory who, though they have been 
 baptized and believe, are not of perfect virtue. 
 
 (6) According to Origen and the Platonic idea, 
 the whole design of this suffering is to promote 
 the moral improvement and perfection of men ; 
 but according to the conception of the Romish 
 church, it is designed to make atonement and 
 expiation for sin. 
 
 Note. Works on this subject, (a) Histori- 
 cal: Jac. Windet, Stpupa'tfvs ijtia-tofaxos de 
 Vita Functorum Statu ex Hebraeorum et Grae- 
 corum comparatis Sententiis concinnatus; Lon- 
 dini, 1663 64. Systeme des Anciens et des 
 Modernes sur 1'Etat des Ames separees de 
 Corps ; & Londres, 1757, 2 torn. 8vo. Thorn. 
 Burnet, De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium ; 
 London, 1757; against which, and in behalf of 
 the Romish doctrine, there were treatises writ- 
 ten by Muratori, Columna, and others. Baum- 
 garten, Hist. Doctrinae de Statu Animarum se- 
 paratarum; Halae, 1754. Gotta, Recentiores 
 quaedarn Controversies de Statu Animi post 
 Mortem; Tubingen, 1758. (6) Philosophical 
 and doctrinal works : Wernsdorf, De Animarurn 
 separatarum Statu, earumdemque cum Vivis 
 commercio, in his "Collec. Disputt." torn. i. 
 No. 15. The best and latest works on the state 
 of the soul after death are collected by Loscher, , 
 Dresden, 1735. Meier, Phibsophische Be- 
 trachtung vom Zustande der Seele nach dem 
 Tode; Halle, 1769. J. E. Schubert, Gedanken 
 vom ewigen Leben, und Zustand der Seele nach 
 dem Tode; Jena, 1747. J. C. Lavater, Aus- 
 sichten in die Ewigkeit; Zurich, 1773, 3 th. 
 8vo. Other works are cited s. 160. 
 
 SECTION CLI. 
 
 WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE "RESURRECTION 
 OF THE DEAD ;" THE MEANING OF THE WORD 
 " RESURRECTION ;" AND WHAT IS TAUGHT RE- 
 SPECTING IT BY THE JEWS. 
 
 I. What is understood by the Resurrection of the 
 Dead. 
 
 BY this is meant, the revivification of the hu- 
 man body after' it has been forsaken by the 
 soul, or, the reunion of the soul hereafter with 
 the body which it had occupied in the present 
 world. Death was compared with sleep, and 
 the dead body with a sleeping person, D-ODI^, 
 xoifi^evess, s. 147, 1. Hence the terms which 
 literally signify to awake, to rise up, to rise out 
 of sleep, are also used to denote the resurrection 
 of the lifeless body e. g., in Hebrew, the 
 terms op, DV?n, and in Hellenistic Greek, dia- 
 dvajTT'cwij, (with the Rabbins, npp^), 
 and e'yj-ptftj ix vfxpuv. Of the literal 
 sense of these terms, examples may he found 
 everywhere; cases of the derived signification 
 occur where these terms are used with the qua- 
 lification tx vsxpuv e. g., where the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ is spoken of, and that of others 
 
528 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 whose body is to be restored like his. Vide 
 John, v. 21, 28; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4, 20, 53. 
 
 The Jews were also accustomed to speak of 
 the resurrection of the dead under the image of 
 a new or second birth, to which they were led 
 by the passage Is. xxvi. 19, "The earth will 
 again bring forth her dead." Vide Michaelis's 
 Commentary on Heb. i. 5. Again, avifrtrjfu, 
 was used even by the ancient classical Greeks 
 to denote the returning of the dead to life. So 
 it was in Homer, II. xxi. 54, seq., where 
 Achilles says, " What a wonder ! all the Tro- 
 jans slain by me shall again arise from the 
 kingdom of the dead, (avafffjjcroi/T'at.)" Cf. II. 
 xxiv. 756. Cicero and Livy designate this idea 
 by the phrase ah inferis exsistere. In ^Eschy- 
 lus, the term avdotaais is used for the same 
 thing. 
 
 But the same terms which signify arising, 
 and the being awakened from sleep, also denote 
 figuratively, (1) a restoration to a more happy 
 condition, in opposition to a state of fall and 
 prostration. In this general sense they are used 
 in two ways viz., physically e. g., a sick 
 man rising from his bed and recovering his 
 health is said ai/acr^i/cu,, Is. xxxviii. 9 ; and 
 again in a moral sense, used with reference to 
 the reformation of a man who rises from his fall. 
 And so (2) the terms resurrection from the dead, 
 and being raised from the dead, denote, figura- 
 tively, (a) external and physical restoration to 
 a happy condition, death being the representa- 
 tive of misery, and life of happiness e. g., Is. 
 xxvi. 19, 20; Ezek. xxxvii.; where the subject 
 is the restoration of the Jews after a long and 
 terrible persecution, and the reward of the vir- 
 tuous. Cf. Dathe, a. 1. (6) A moral restora- 
 tion or renovation of men e. g., Eph. v. 14, 
 ytpf .... avaata ix vfxpwv, coll. i. 19, 20, and 
 Rom. viii. 10, &c. 
 
 II. Doctrine of the Jews respecting the Resurrec- 
 tion of the Dead. 
 
 (1) There are obvious traces of the doctrine 
 that the soul will survive the body, even in the 
 oldest Jewish writings, (vide s. 149, II.;) but 
 of the doctrine, that the body will hereafter be 
 raised to life and the whole man be restored, 
 there are no very clear intimations in the ear- 
 liest writings. There is nothing in these writ- 
 ings which is inconsistent with such a doctrine, 
 or opposed to it; but neither, on the other hand, 
 was there, in those early ages, any distinct in- 
 formation or revelation communicated on this 
 subject. The passage, Job, xix. 25, seq., is in- 
 deed cited in behalf of this opinion, and such a 
 construction of this passage is strenuously vin- 
 dicated by Michaelis and Schultens. Accord- 
 ing to the Vulgate, which Luther for the most 
 part follows, this passage very clearly teaches 
 this doctrine ; and many persons, having been 
 
 accustomed to this rendering from their youth, 
 are startled by any doubts with respect to it. 
 But, 
 
 (a) It is remarkable, that neither the ancient 
 Jewish teachers, nor Christ or his apostles, ever i 
 appealed to this passage which appears so plain ' 
 to us. This explanation, therefore, appears to 
 have been unknown to them, nor can there be 
 found any trace of it in the Septuagint. 
 
 (6) It is not in itself probable that this doc- 
 trine should have been at once so clearly re- 
 vealed in so ancient a writing. This would be 
 contrary to all analogy. For knowledge of this 
 kind has always been gradually developed, and 
 the revelations made to man follow in regular 
 gradation one after another. 
 
 (c) If Job had such distinct expectations andj 
 hopes, it is hard to account for it that he did not! 
 earlier express them, that he did not oftener' 
 console himself with them, and that he con- 
 stantly recurs to his old complaints and doubts, 
 which would have been entirely set aside and an- 
 swered by the knowledge of any such doctrine. 
 
 (rf) Nor can it be accounted for that his! 
 friends should have replied nothing to the state- 
 ment of such a doctrine as this, since they take 
 up, one by one, all his remarks, his complaints, 
 and his consolations, and refute them. Would 
 they, now, have passed by unnoticed this most 
 important of all his arguments'? 
 
 (e) From many passages in the book of Job 
 it is clear that he was indeed acquainted with aj 
 life after death (he speaks of Sxir) ; but therej 
 is no satisfactory evidence that he believed in a 
 state of retribution beyond the grave. Vide 
 ch. xiv. 7 12; vii. 6; ix. 25; xvii. 11 16; 
 xvi. 22, seq. 
 
 (/) The common translation of this passage, 
 according to which it is made to teach so plainly) 
 the doctrine of the resurrection, does violence toj 
 the words of the original, and is contrary to the 
 whole usus loquendi of the Bible. This Mi4 
 chaelis perceived. He therefore alters the text, 
 and, by a comparison with the ancient dialects, 
 makes out an artificial rendering, according to 
 which the passage treats of the resurrection. 
 
 The most natural construction of this passage 
 is, to understand it as relating to Job's restoraJ 
 tion to health and recovery from sickness, which| 
 he so ardently wished and hoped for. Vide! 
 Morns, p. 293. This text would then be illus4 
 trated by one still more plain in the same bookj 
 viz., ch. xlii. 25. He refutes the national preju-j 
 dice which his friends were continually object-; 
 ing against him, that sickness and other externalj 
 calamities are always to be regarded as the con-| 
 sequence of sins committed by the sufferer. Hej 
 pleads that even piety and rectitude are not al-j 
 ways exempt from these calamities. It is onj 
 this account that he cherishes the hope, which 
 he elsewhere expresses, that God will justify) 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 529 
 
 him in the view of his enemies and accusers, by 
 an entire restoration; and this hope becomes 
 here so strong that it leads him to look upon his 
 recovery as certain. Cf. Eichhorn's Essay, 
 Hiob's Hoffnungen, in his " Allgemeinen Bibli- 
 othek. der biblischen Literatur," b. i. s. 367 ; also 
 Henke, Narratio Crilica de Interpretatione loci, 
 Job, xix. 25, 27, in Antiqua Ecclesia, Helmst. 
 1783, 4to., (in his "Opusc.") 
 
 According to this view, the text may be trans- 
 lated as follows: "I know that my Redeemer 
 lives. And ere long, he, who now lies in the 
 dust, will arise, (he who is deeply bowed down 
 by sickness and pain will recover;) although 
 my skin is consumed, I shall yet in this body see 
 God, (i. e., have in him a gracious God, be 
 blessed and restored by him;) as a friend shall 
 I see him, and no more as an adversary. I wait, 
 full of longing desire, for his help. Then shall 
 ye say, when my innocence is clear, why did 
 we persecute this man]" Ilgen, in his work, 
 *'Jobi antiquissimi carminis Hebraici natura 
 atque virtutes," p. 161, seq., thus translates: 
 " Vivit, scio enim, causae mess patronus. Qui 
 contemtus in pulvere jacet, victor caput attolet. 
 Haerebo adhuc in cute, dira hac vi contusa : ex 
 hac cuticula videbo Deum. Quern ego mihi 
 videbo propitium, quern hisce oculis cernam 
 animo non alienatum. quam enecat renes 
 desiderii ardor !" 
 
 There are no distinct intimations of the doc- 
 trine of the resurrection of the body in the writ- 
 ings of Moses, or in the Psalms ; for Ps. xlix. 
 15, does not relate to this subject, still less does 
 Ps. civ. 29, 30, though cited by Theodoret as 
 one of the proof-texts of this doctrine. Isaiah 
 is the first writer who compares the restoration 
 of the Jewish people and state with a resurrec- 
 tion from the dead; ch. xxvi. 19, 20. In this 
 he was followed by Ezekiel at the time of the 
 exile, ch. xxxvii. From these passages, we must 
 conclude that something respecting this doctrine 
 was known at that time among the Israelites ; 
 still they do not seem to have seen it in that 
 clear light in which it was afterwards revealed; 
 since in that case the prophets would probably 
 have mentioned it oftener and more distinctly in 
 their writings. But the text, Dan. xii. 2, leads 
 very plainly to this doctrine, for here is some- 
 thing more than a mere civil restoration. " Those 
 who lie asleep under the earth will awake ; some 
 to eternal life, others to everlasting shame and 
 contempt." 
 
 Judging then from the writings of the Jews, 
 they appear to have been destitute of any com- 
 plete knowledge of this doctrine until the exile, 
 and indeed for a considerable period after. Still, 
 there is nothing in the Old Testament which 
 contradicts this doctrine, it is only not plainly 
 revealed. For where it is said, (e. g., Psalm 
 Ixxxviii. 10,) "that the dead shall not rise again 
 67 
 
 and praise God," it is plainly meant that they 
 will never return to this upper world, and into 
 the society of men living upon the earth ; they 
 can never again, in company with us, and in the 
 circle of the living, praise God. Cf. Ps. vi. 6, 
 xxx. 10; Is. xxxviii. 18, coll. ver. 20. 
 
 (2) It was not, then, until the Babylonian 
 exile, and more especially after this period, that 
 this doctrine was developed and diffused among 
 the Jews. We are not acquainted with the more 
 particular occasion which led to this develop- 
 ment, or what prophets or teachers after Daniel 
 were employed in giving this doctrine a wider 
 circulation. For just in this place there is a 
 great gap in the doctrinal history of the Jews, 
 since no writings of the prophets or teachers of 
 this period have come down to us. So much 
 only is known on this subject from the informa- 
 tion which has come down to us viz., 
 
 (a) About the time when the Jews came under 
 the Grecian dominion, the doctrine of a future 
 retribution was more developed among them 
 than it had before been, and was employed by 
 them in a practical way, as a means of consola- 
 tion under suffering and persecution. Vide s. 
 149, II. 
 
 (6) It is known also, that even at that time 
 the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was 
 most intimately connected with the doctrine of 
 retribution. It was then taught that the perfect 
 and happy condition of man would first com- 
 mence, when his soul should be hereafter united 
 again to his body. They did not therefore com- 
 monly separate these two things in their concep- 
 tions, but always connected the thought of the 
 continuance of the soul after death with the idea 
 of its future union with the body; indeed, they 
 supposed that the blessedness of man could not 
 be complete until his soul should be reunited to 
 his body. Hence they comprehend under the 
 term OVOCTT'CKUJ, the entire future condition of 
 man. For according to the doctrine of the Jews, 
 with which the holy scriptures accord, man is 
 not merely in this life a being compounded of 
 sense and reason, but he will continue the same 
 in the life to come, except only that, in the case 
 of the good, there will be none of that prepon- 
 derance of sense over reason which has its foun- 
 dation in our earthly bodies. Cf. the Essay, 
 " De nexu resurrectionis J. C. e mortuis et mor- 
 tuorum," in Scripta Varii Argument!, Num. ix. 
 
 Thus we find it, for the first time, in the se- 
 cond book of Maccabees, where the martyrs are 
 made to expresss the hope, by which they were 
 consoled, of a coming resurrection e. g., vii. 9, 
 ftj cu'wrtov cwafiiucsiv w?j ^aj cU/acr-r^im, 
 and ver. 14, jtOKiv dvatf-r'^tffc&cu vrio tov, and 
 dvacyrcKHs ftj ^COTJV, also verses 23, 29, 36, but 
 especially chap. xii. 43 45, where it is said it 
 would be foolish to pray for the dead if they did 
 not rise again. And so we find, both among the 
 2 Y 
 
530 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 
 later Jewish and earlier Christian writers, that 
 there is no distinction made between immortality 
 and the resurrection, but that both are considered 
 as the same thing. Vide the passages from the 
 Rabbins cited in Schottgen's Hor. Heb. ad Joh. 
 v. It is the same frequently in the New Testa- 
 ment e. g., Matt. xxii. 31, where the avda-taais 
 vsxpuv is argued from the fact, that God calls 
 himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 even after their death ; although, according to 
 our present usage, in which resurrection and 
 immortality are distinguished, this fact would 
 only prove the continuance of the soul after 
 death. Again, 1 Cor. xv. 32, el vtxpoi ovx 
 tytCpovtai, tydyupsv xai rtitofiEV, x. (. X-. But 
 wherever avdataais of Q ^u a T* o 5, or (japxoj is 
 spoken of, the resurrection of the body and its 
 connexion with the soul are alone intended. 
 
 The Jews, therefore, would regard the resto- 
 ration of man as incomplete unless his body 
 were restored. They believed the latter essential 
 to the entire restitution of man, because in the 
 present life he consists of both soul and body. 
 And as the body here participates in our virtues 
 and vices, and their consequences, so they sup- 
 posed it would hereafter participate in our re- 
 ward or punishment. Hence they represent the 
 intermediate state in which the soul exists with- 
 out the body, as an imperfect state. It is com- 
 pared by them to nakedness, (and the same is 
 done by Plato,} e. g., in the Chaldaic para- 
 phrases, Job, xxxviii. 14, &c. So Paul, o-O 
 yvpvoi tvp^^aof/Lf^a, 2 Cor. v. 2 4. 
 
 The greater part of the Jews formed very 
 gross conceptions respecting the rewards and 
 enjoyments of the blessed in the future state, and 
 many of them perverted the doctrine of the re- 
 surrection of the body to suit these conceptions. 
 For they were for the most part better acquainted 
 with the grosser corporeal pleasures than with 
 the higher spiritual joys, for which indeed they 
 had but little taste or capacity. They thus pic- 
 tured to themselves the future life as entirely 
 resembling the present, except in being exempt 
 from all sufferings and unpleasant sensations. 
 They believjed that men would eat and drink, 
 and satisfy their other animal appetites, in the 
 same way there as here. Doctrines like these 
 were taught by many of the most distinguished 
 Rabbins who lived after the time of Christ, and 
 even by Maimonides. It is said in Rev. ii. 7, 
 and xxii. 2, 14, that the tree of life is placed in 
 heaven, and its fruit is there eaten, as the means 
 of obtaining immortality. This representation 
 is figurative; but many of the Jews understood 
 such descriptions literally, and believed in a 
 kind of food for angels or gods, like nectar and 
 ambrosia. It was against such gross material 
 representations, which have no necessary con- 
 nexion with this doctrine, but which were often 
 associated with it, that the Sadducees directed 
 
 their wit; and they made these incongruities 
 ridiculous. This was their object when they 
 proposed to Jesus the case of the woman who 
 had several brothers, one after another in suc- 
 cession, for husbands, Matthew, xxii. 24, seq. 
 
 Others, better instructed, separated from their 
 conceptions of the future state these grosser in- 
 dulgences, and thus escaped this ridicule. They 
 taught that we shall hereafter possess a more 
 refined body, which will not be dependent for its 
 nourishment upon food, and which will not pro- 
 pagate the race. This was the opinion of most 
 of the Pharisees at the time of Christ, and the 
 same was afterwards maintained by most of the 
 Jewish teachers. For when Christ said that 
 " the risen saints would not marry, but be as the 
 angels of God," the Pharisees entirely assented, 
 Matt. xxii. 30, coll. Luke, xx. 39, and the texts 
 cited from the Rabbins in Wetstein on Matt. 
 xxii. 30. With regard to the use of food, Paul 
 says expressly that it will entirely cease in the 
 future world, tb$ xoifaav xal J3pw/*cwa xafapyj^f & 
 i. e., he will take them away, and enable us 
 to do without them. 
 
 The doctrine of the resurrection of the body 
 was therefore common among the Jews at the 
 time of Christ and the apostles. Vide Matt. 
 xxii. ; Luke, xx. ; Acts, xxiii. G 8. So, in 
 John, xi. 24, the Jewess Martha speaks of the 
 resurrection of the dead as a thing well known 
 and undoubted. Josephus indeed (Ant. xviii. 
 2) expresses himself doubtfully with regard to 
 the Pharisees " they believe that the soul is 
 immortal, and can easily return to life (drajSuo- 
 cjcu) ;" and again, (Bell. Jud. ii. 7,) "they 
 maintain that the souls of the pious pass into 
 other bodies, (pstapaivsiv tig tttpov (jc^ua.)" 
 Here Josephus, in his usual manner, so repre- 
 sents designedly the Jewish doctrine, that the 
 Greeks and Romans, to whom the resurrection 
 of the body appeared absurd, should suppose 
 the transmigration of souls to be intended, while 
 at the same time the Jews should understand 
 that the resurrection of the dead was spoken of. 
 But from the texts cited from the New Testa- 
 ment, it appears that the Pharisees, like the 
 other Jews, believed in a resurrection. 
 
 There were some among the Jews of the 
 opinion that the wicked would not receive a 
 body in the future world. Josephus says, in the 
 passage cited, that even the Pharisees believed 
 that the souls of the wicked would not pass into 
 other bodies, (i. e., that the wicked would not 
 rise again,) but that they would be eternally 
 punished. It may perhaps be that this was 
 taught by some at the time of Josephus; but 
 during the first century it was the more prevail- 
 ing belief, even among the Pharisees, that both 
 the righteous and the wicked would share in 
 the coming resurrection. For in Acts, xxiv. 
 15, Paul says expressly that he agrees with the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 
 
 531 
 
 Pharisees and other Jews (in opposition to the 
 Sadducees) in maintaining the drnfffaotv, and 
 that not only of the righteous, but also of the 
 wicked (Stxauov *ts xai dSi-Wv.) But frequent 
 traces of this opinion are to be found in the 
 Chaldaic Paraphrases, and in the writings of 
 the Rabbins after the time of Christ, although 
 it never became general among the Jews. This 
 opinion came naturally from the idea that the 
 happiness of the good would be incomplete 
 without the body ; and so it was made a part 
 of the wretchedness of the wicked not to come 
 again into possession of a body. Another cause 
 of this opinion is the allegorical explanation 
 which they gave to some passages in the Old 
 Testament e. g., Ps. i. 5, nw 1 } w;?^s6, Sept. 
 ovx avaatrfiovtat, ol aaej3i$. Indeed, many main- 
 tained the entire annihilation of the wicked, 
 I both as to soul and body. Vide Theod. Das- 
 sovii Dissert, qua Judaeor. de resqrrectione mor- 
 tuorum sententia explicatur, c. 4 ; also Menasse 
 ben Israel, De Resur. Mort., 1. iii. ; Amst. 1636, 
 where many of the Jewish fancies respecting 
 the resurrection of the dead are collected toge- 
 ther. This opinion respecting the non-resur- 
 rection of the wicked has found advocates even 
 among Christian writers, especially of the Soci- 
 nian party. 
 
 Note. The term uvdcrtqvfu ex vsxpuv is used 
 once in the New Testament to denote the return 
 of a departed soul to the world, and its re-ap- 
 pearance in its supposed body of shade viz., 
 Luke, xvi. 31, coll. ver. 27,28,30; like the 
 sense in which the phrase ab inferis exsistere is 
 sometimes used. 
 
 (3) Since the doctrine of the future resurrec- 
 tion of the body was not very plainly taught in 
 the books of Moses, or elsewhere in the Old 
 Testament, (as it seems not to have been fully 
 revealed in those earlier ages,) it is not to be 
 wondered at that some of the Jews took occa- 
 sion, or derived a pretext from this, either to 
 deny this doctrine, or to doubt respecting it. 
 This was done not merely by the Sadducees, 
 who denied in general that the soul of man is 
 of a nature different from his body, and that it 
 can continue after death, (vide Acts, xxiii. 8, 
 seq., and Josephus, in the passage before cited,) 
 on the ground that this doctrine is not taught 
 by Moses, or in all the Old Testament; but also 
 by other Jews, especially those, it seems, who 
 had imbibed the Grecian (the Pythagorean or 
 Platonic) philosophy, or who at any rate enter- 
 tained ideas respecting the body similar to those 
 taught in this philosophy, making it ^prison for 
 the soul, from which it is freed by death when 
 it returns to God. 
 
 Thus, according to Josephus, (Bell. Jud. ii. 
 7,) did the Essenes believe. They seem, there- 
 fore, not to have maintained the resurrection of 
 the body, although they believed in the immor- 
 
 tality of the soul. Even Josephus carefully 
 avoids the words avdataais and aviatr^i, when 
 he describes the doctrines of the Pharisees and 
 Sadducees, and expresses himself ambiguously, 
 in order not to displease the Greeks and Ro- 
 mans, for whom he principally wrote, and to 
 whom the doctrine of the resurrection of the 
 body would appear not only new, but, according 
 to the principles of the philosophy prevailing 
 among them, offensive and absurd. And so 
 Paul was ridiculed at Athens by the Grecian 
 philosophers when he taught the resurrection 
 of the dead, Acts, xvii. 32, coll. xxvi. 6 8, 
 and ver. 23, 24. At a later period, Lucian and 
 Celsus employed their wit against the same 
 doctrine in Origen and others ; and Pliny says, 
 (Hist. Nat. ii. 7,) that if it is impossible for 
 God to destroy himself, it is equally impossible 
 for him, mortales seternitate donare, et in vitam 
 revocare defunctos. There have always been 
 some among the modern Jews who have been 
 inclined to the doctrine of the Sadducees, and 
 who have frequently been opposed by the Rab- 
 bins. Vide Wetstein on Matt. xxii. 
 
 SECTION CLII. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE RE- 
 SURRECTION OF THE BODY. 
 
 I. What Christ and the Apostles have done for this 
 Doctrine, and respecting the Doubts of some 
 Christians. 
 
 AT the time of Christ and the apostles this 
 doctrine had already become prevalent among 
 the Jews, s. 151, II., although it was not 
 clearly revealed in their older religious books. 
 Through Christ it was now for the first time 
 distinctly established anew, and revealed on 
 divine authority. In those very discourses of 
 our Saviour in which he designs to prove him- 
 self divine in the highest sense, he plainly and 
 definitely brings forward this doctrine as a con- 
 stituent part of his religious system e. g., 
 Matthew, xxii.; John, v., viii., xi. Without 
 this explanation and positive assurance on his 
 part and that of his disciples, this doctrine 
 would still have been doubtful. But those who 
 regard Christ and his apostles as being what 
 they profess to be, ought not and cannot be any 
 longer in doubt. 
 
 Christ and his apostles, however, corrected 
 the false notions on this subject, which at that 
 time prevailed among at least a large portion of 
 the Jews, and made the whole matter more ob- 
 vious and intelligible. But this doctrine has 
 derived a special interest and demonstration 
 from the fact that it is placed in the most inti- 
 mate connexion with the history of the person 
 of Christ, and that he is represented as the one 
 to whom we are indebted for this benefit. It is 
 
532 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 most intimately connected with his death, his 
 resurrection, and his exalted state in heaven. 
 Vide s. 119, ad finem, and s. 120, I. The 
 apostles rested the doctrine of our resurrection 
 mainly upon that of Christ, (cf. 1 Cor. xv. ; 1 
 Thess. iv. 14;) they preached through Jesus 
 (ev f 9 'Irjuov) the resurrection of the dead, Acts, 
 iv. 2 ; and hence they call him the first that rose 
 from the dead ; Acts, xxvi. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 20, 
 et alibi. And from this Paul argues that if it is 
 acknowledged that Christ rose from the dead, 
 there can be no reason to deny or think it impos- 
 sible that there should be a general resurrection 
 of all men, 1 Cor. xv. 12, seq. Cf. Mosheim, 
 Diss. " Qua docetur Christum Resurrectionem 
 Mortuorum Corporum, Qualem Christian! Cre- 
 dunt, e Tenebris in Lucem Revocasse et De- 
 monstrasse," in his Dissertations "Ad Hist. 
 Eccl. Pertinent," vol. ii. p. 586. Cf. also the 
 Essay, "De Nexu Resurrectionis Christi e 
 Mortuis et Mortuorum," in "Scripta Varii Ar- 
 gumentii," Num. ix. 
 
 But this doctrine has been doubted or denied 
 by many Christians in modern times. 
 
 (1) It appears from 1 Cor. xv. and 2 Timo- 
 thy, ii. 18, that even during the life of the apos- 
 tles there were Christians to whom this doctrine 
 seemed doubtful, if they did not wholly deny 
 it, because it did not accord with their precon- 
 ceived opinions, although it cannot be shewn 
 that they at the same time denied the immorta- 
 lity of the soul. These may have been either 
 Gentile converts (for this doctrine was pecu- 
 liarly offensive to the heathen, vide s. 151, ad 
 finem,) or converts from Judaism, who had 
 agreed on this point with the Essenes or the 
 Sadducees. To the latter class belong Hyme- 
 naeus and Philetus, xlyovi'sj tvjv avdotadiv ^8tj 
 ysyovsrai. They probably understood the term 
 avast aortj, as used in the Old Testament and by 
 Christ, to signify the introduction of a person into 
 a better state, or improvement of life. Vide s. 
 151, I. This they supposed was already ac- 
 complished by Christ, and that a resurrection 
 in the literal sense is not to be looked for. 
 Hence Paul endeavours (1 Cor. xv.) in part to 
 obviate the objections of the Sadducees and 
 Gentiles, and in part to separate and distinguish 
 the true doctrine from the gross and earthly 
 conceptions of many of the Jews. 
 
 Still the opinion that there will be no restora- 
 tion of the body has always found place among 
 some Christians, especially among the Gnos- 
 tics, who were led to reject this doctrine by 
 their views respecting matter, and by their 
 method of interpreting scripture. So thought 
 Manes, in the third century, and his numerous 
 followers in after times; also the Priscillianists 
 in Spain; likewise Hierax at the commence- 
 ment of the fourth century, who would allow 
 of only a spiritual resurrection, or a resurrection 
 
 of the soul. And so in all succeeding ages 
 there have always been those among Christians 
 who have either secretly doubted or openly reject- 
 ed this doctrine. Cf. Dr. Hammer, Mortuorum 
 in Vitam Revocatio, Sermonibus Christi Histori- 
 cse Interpretations ope Vindicata ; Lips. 1794. 
 
 (2) In modern times, many protestant theo- 
 logians e. g., Eckermann, Henke, Ammon, 
 &c. have endeavoured to explain away from 
 the New Testament the doctrine of the resur- 
 rection of the dead., notwithstanding the many 
 clear passages by which it is supported. They 
 have maintained that this dogma is no part of 
 the Christian system. It was, in their view, 
 through mere condescension to the prevailing 
 opinions of the Jews that Christ and the apos- 
 tles employed the common language on this 
 point, which must accordingly be understood 
 in a different sense viz., a sense agreeing with 
 the philosophical ideas prevailing in the nine- 
 teenth century. There is not, however, the 
 remotest hint, in all the words of Christ and 
 the apostles, that they meant to be understood 
 figuratively ; and if this method of interpretation 
 were adopted, nothing of the Christian system 
 would be left behind. That the words of Christ 
 and the apostles are to be understood literally 
 on this subject is plain from this, that it is af- 
 firmed of Christ that he himself now possesses 
 a body in his heavenly state in the kingdom of 
 the blessed, and that we shall hereafter resem- 
 ble him in this respect, and possess a body 
 which will be like his glorious body, s. 153. 
 
 II. Biblical Representation. 
 
 The principal texts of scripture which relate 
 to this subject are, John, v. 21 29 ; vi. 39, 
 40 ; Matthew, xxii. 23, seq. ; 1 Cor. xv. ; Acts, 
 xxiv. 14,;15; 1 Thess. iv. 13; Phil. iii. 21. 
 With regard to the principal points taught in 
 these passages, we remark, 
 
 (1) The raising of the dead is ascribed ex- 
 pressly to Christ, and it is represented as the 
 last work which will be undertaken by him for 
 the salvation of man. Paul says, 1 Cor. xv. 
 22, seq., " As through Adam all die, so through 
 Christ shall all be made alive ; through him 
 shall death, the last enemy, be conquered ; and 
 then shall his work as Messiah be completed, 
 and he will lay down his government." Christ 
 himself said that he had received power for this 
 purpose from the Father; John, v. 21, "'The 
 dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and 
 live. For as the Father ^w^v *# h twee? (i. 
 e., is the original source of all life, and pos- 
 sesses, as Creator, all-quickening power) he 
 hath given to the Son also power to quicken the 
 dead." And in John, xi. 25, where he is about 
 to raise the lifeless body of Lazarus, he says 
 respecting himself, that he is ^ wuaiaais xai i\ 
 co>j, the one who would raise the body, and 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 533 
 
 give life to the dead. Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 14, and 
 Rev. i. 18, t^et xtei$ TOV a.8ov xai, tov a,vatov. 
 
 (2) Jill the dead will hereafter be raised, with- 
 out respect to age, rank, or moral character in 
 this world. So the New Testament teaches 
 throughout; especially in opposition to the opi- 
 nions of some Jews, s. 151, II. 2, ad finem, 
 coll. s. 120, I. 2, note. So 1 Cor. xv. 22, iv 
 
 t,, to which is opposed 
 t. Acts, xxiv. 
 15, amffr'atftf vexp&v Stxaiuv tie xai aSixczv. And 
 Christ himself says, John, v. 28, 29, " All who 
 are in their graves shall hear the voice of the 
 Son of man, and those who have done well 
 IJ avdafaaiv co^$, (i. e., ct's coji>,) 
 those who have done evil, ct$ awdrstaaw xptojcoj. 
 This was a common mode of speech among the 
 Fews, (vide Mace. vii. 14, coll. xii. 43, avdataai$ 
 which is obviously taken from Dan. 
 xii. 2. 
 
 (3) The resurrection of the body, however, 
 will not take place before the end of the world, 
 or the general judgment. This, too, was the 
 common doctrine of the Jews at the time of 
 
 !hrist; hence Martha says, John, xi. 24, "that 
 she knows her brother will rise at the last day, 
 -ty <3%d<ty ^uspa.)" And this opinion is 
 everywhere confirmed by Christ. In John, v. 
 21, he not only connects the resurrection and 
 judgment most intimately together, but in John, 
 vi. 39, 40, he expressly promises his followers, 
 iv tfij foxafff g^utpa. And 
 so in 1 Cor. xv. 22 28, the resurrection is 
 slaced in obvious connexion with the rtapouca'a 
 of Christ, after which the end of the world 
 will immediately come; and in 1 Thess. iv. 15, 
 t is said that those who survive the jtapovaiav 
 of Christ will not attain either sooner or later to 
 the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness than 
 ; but that the dead and living will 
 meet Christ at the same time, that they may be 
 forever with him. Cf. Rev. xx. 11, seq. The 
 resurrection of the dead, then, will take place 
 when the Christian church on earth shall cease ; 
 but this, according to the clear declarations of 
 Christ, shall last until the end of the world. 
 
 This cannot be reconciled with the hypothe- 
 sis of Priestley, who attempts to shew that the 
 resurrection will take place immediately after 
 death. The same hypothesis has been advo- 
 cated in a work entitled, " Auferstehung der 
 Todten nach der eigentlichen Lehre Jesu 
 
 !hristi," by Job. Fr. des Cotes, court preacher 
 at Nassau ; and still better in the Beytragen 
 zur Beforderung des verniinftigen Denkens in 
 der Religion," 2tes, Heft, s. 76, f., and 3tes, 
 Heft, s. 39, f. It is indeed true that the disem- 
 bodied existence of the soul beyond the grave 
 is comprehended in the writings of the Jews 
 and of the New Testament, under the term 
 but this is not all which is comprised 
 
 in this term ; and the avdotasif will not be com- 
 plete and perfect until the body also is raised. 
 Vide s. 151, II. 2. 
 
 Again; these Pauline texts are opposed to 
 the opinion of the Chiliasts, that there is a two- 
 fold resurrection; an earlier, that of the pious, 
 and a later, that of the wicked, or of the hea- 
 then. An avdataait rtpurty is, indeed, mentioned 
 in Rev. xx. 5, 6, but the phrase admits easily 
 of another interpretation. 
 
 (4) As to the manner in which the resurrec- 
 tion will take place, the New Testament gives 
 us no definite information by which our curio- 
 sity can be wholly satisfied ; and this, doubt- 
 less, because such information could be neither 
 intelligible to us nor of any use. The whole 
 matter lies beyond the sphere of our knowledge. 
 In speaking on this subject, Christ and the 
 apostles sometimes make use of expressions 
 which are figurative, (and of such there were 
 many current among the Jews,) and sometimes 
 they content themselves with proving the possi- 
 bility and intelligibleness of the thing, in oppo- 
 sition to doubters and scoffers, and with making 
 it plain by examples. 
 
 (a) Among the more figurative representa- 
 tions and expressions, at least among those in 
 which there is some intermixture of what is 
 figurative, the representation contained in John, 
 v., is commonly reckoned viz., the representa- 
 tion that the voice of Christ will penetrate the 
 graves in order to awaken the dead. The image 
 is here that of a sleeper who is aroused by a 
 loud call ; and some understand the representa- 
 tion as so entirely figurative that they exclude 
 any audible or perceptible sound. It cannot, 
 however, be shewn that Christ meant to ex- 
 clude these. For in the resurrection of Laza- 
 rus, of the young man at Nain, and the daugh- 
 ter of Jairus, the voice of Christ was heard by 
 them, and was the means of raising them to 
 life. Still the voice, merely as such, is not the 
 efficient cause of the work, but the almighty 
 power accompanying it ; and so it is said of 
 God, when he produces any effect by his cre- 
 ative power, that he speaks, his voice sounds forth. 
 
 The Jews supposed that the dead would be 
 awakened by the sound of a trumpet. Traces 
 of this opinion are to be found in the Chaldaic 
 paraphrasts. At first this representation be- 
 longed only to the figurative phraseology of 
 prophecy; for the people were commonly as- 
 sembled by the sound of the trumpet, as was 
 the case in the assembling at Sinai; and, in 
 general, a trumpet was used to give signs and 
 signals e. g., for an onset in battle, &c. Af- 
 terwards, this representation was literally un- 
 derstood, and the size of the trumpet was sup- 
 posed to be a thousand yards, and that it was 
 blown seven times. Vide Wetstein and Sem- 
 ler on 1 Cor. xv. 52. In this passage Paul uses 
 2 v2 
 
534 
 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 the term tv taxd-tv] adMiyyi 
 j'Fxpofc $ytp$r ( (foirt(u,. The same poetic phrase- 
 ology is employed in 1 Thess. iv. 16, "Christ 
 will come with a shout, with the voice of the 
 archangel, and iv odhrtiyyi, EOV (the trump 
 given him by God), xal ol vixpoi d^acrT'^fTovt'at." 
 
 In this representation there is much, indeed, 
 which is figurative, and which belongs to the 
 prophetic imagery, (as in Matt. xxiv. and in 
 the Apocalypse,) and we are not now able to 
 determine the meaning of all the particular traits 
 in this picture. But the great thought which 
 we must hold fast is very obvious viz., Christ 
 will solemnly and visibly appear in his majesty, 
 and by his divine power raise all the dead. In 
 other passages this truth is literally expressed 
 e. g., Phil. iii. 21, where it is said that Christ 
 will do this by the power by which he is able 
 to subdue all things to himself i. e., by his 
 si'f'pyfta, his omnipotence, which surmounts all 
 difficulties and hindrances, and brings to pass 
 what appears to men impossible. 
 
 (6) The possibility of the resurrection of the 
 dead is illustrated by Paul, in opposition to 
 those who regarded it as impossible or contra- 
 dictory, 1 Cor. xv. 35, seq., by comparing it 
 with events of common occurrence in the natu- 
 ral world, which seem to us less wonderful 
 only because they are common. " How is it 
 possible," it was asked, " that the dead should 
 be raised ?" (rtw$ tysipov-tat, vexpoi.) He re- 
 plies: "The grain of corn cast into the ground 
 cannot rise (^wortotsfrfat) until it die," (drto^ai^, 
 vide John, xii. 24.) This appears unintelligi- 
 ble; and we should regard it as impossible if 
 we did not see it actually accomplished. Why 
 then should not God be able to raise men, and 
 from their present bodies to produce others? 
 This is a fine comparison to illustrate the pos- 
 sibility of this event. Again ; he shews, by the 
 example of Christ, that the dead can be raised, 
 ver. 12 14. And so the apostles always e. 
 g., Acts, iv. 2, xa-fayysM^i,v iv -tip 'IrjSov t1jv 
 avdtrt&rtw j/fxpwv. Cf. Morus, Diss. Inaug. ad 
 1 Cor. xv. 35 55; Lipsiae, 1782. 
 
 Note. Many modern writers also have en- 
 deavoured in various other ways to shew the 
 possibility of the resurrection, and in this have 
 availed themselves of the observations of natu- 
 ralists. The common fault with these compa- 
 risons is, that either the alleged facts are untrue 
 and imaginary, or have nothing resembling the 
 resurrection. It must be considered a fault of 
 the first kind, to endeavour, as Fecht, Von 
 Frankenau, and others, have done, to illustrate 
 the resurrection by the alleged palingenesia of 
 plants, or their restoration from their ashes, by 
 means of a chemical process, which, in fact, is 
 nothing more than an exhibition of the image 
 of the plant. Vide Wiegleb, Natiirliche Magie. 
 
 It is a fault of the other class to apply to this 
 subject the observation, that there is only one 
 mass of matter upon the earth, and that nothing 
 is lost, nothing perishes, but still reviyes again, 
 only under forms which are ever new. But 
 this revivification is very different from the re- 
 surrection of the dead; for in the former case 
 there is no consciousness of the previous state. 
 The inanimate body of a man may furnish nour- 
 ishment to a beast of prey or to a vegetable, 
 so that its parts will become incorporated with 
 those of the beast or the plant, and contribute 
 to their nourishment and growth ; but is this re- 
 surrection ? The principal thing in the resur- 
 rection is the reunion of the soul with the body. 
 But if these attempts have not succeeded, it 
 is equally vain to attempt, by reasons a priori^ 
 to prove the impossibility of the restoration of 
 the body. Respecting the question, whether 
 our souls will remain after death without a 
 body, nothing can be definitely determined by 
 philosophy ; but the negative opinion is not 
 only liable to no philosophical objection, but has 
 in its favour this fact, which is universally ob- 
 served, that the different species of beings are 
 not essentially altered, or as it were made anew, 
 through all the changes to which they are sub- 
 ject, but still preserve their peculiar and cha- 
 racteristic features ; so that the wonderful gra- 
 dation in the works of God is preserved unbroken. 
 Thus there are beings wholly spiritual, (as the 
 angels are described to be in the scriptures ;) 
 there are beings composed of reason and sense, 
 (as men, and perhaps many in other worlds;) 
 and, finally, there are animate beings, consist- 
 ing wholly of sense, and having no moral na- 
 ture, (such as the beasts.) Since, now, the 
 latter class subsists by itself, and is so separate 
 from the foregoing that there is no example of 
 a mere animal becoming a rational being, it may 
 from this analogy be expected that it will be the 
 same with man, and that, even in the future 
 world, he will not become a merely spiritual 
 being, but remain, as now, compounded of spirit 
 and matter, and consequently will hereafter be- 
 come again possessed of a body. 
 
 SECTION CLIII. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RESPECTING 
 THE NATURE OF THE BODY WHICH WE SHALL 
 RECEIVE AT THE RESURRECTION; AND THE OPI- 
 NIONS OF THEOLOGIANS ON THIS POINT. 
 
 I. Difference of the Future Body from the Present. 
 THAT there is a difference between the two 
 in respect to their entire constitution and the 
 objects of their existence, we are taught by the 
 New Testament. The body received at the re- 
 surrection will be immortal, and is designed for 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 535 
 
 an entirely different world from the present. 
 The chief characteristic of the resurrection-body 
 is placed by the New Testament in its d^op- 
 , and its other excellences are derived from 
 this. Vide the texts cited by Morus, p. 292, 
 note 8. It cannot therefore be wholly consti- 
 tuted like our present body, which is designed 
 only for this world. 
 
 One of the most important texts on this sub- 
 ject is 1 Cor. XV. 50, crapf xai al/ia jSaut^ftar 
 v x7^r^ovop.tiv ov Svj/a-rcu, i. e., man, in the 
 present imperfect state of his body, (Theodoret 
 well says, q SvtjtJi <}>t><jtj,) is incapable of hea- 
 venly bliss. For the mortal body (<jopa i. 
 e., OMfia (j^aptfdv,) cannot partake of eternal 
 life, (duj^opat'a, immortality.) Blood, according 
 to the conception of the whole ancient world, 
 is found only among men and other animals 
 who are nourished by the food of our earth, and 
 not among the immortals, who do not taste of 
 this food. The gods, therefore, in the opinion 
 of the ancient Greeks, had no blood, (they were 
 ipovs $,) and were immortal, because they ate 
 no bread and drank no wine. 
 
 In Homer, (II. v. 341, seq., vi. 142,) men arc 
 called, in opposition to the gods, jSporW, those 
 who eat the fruit of the field. The body of the 
 gods was regarded by them as a true body, and 
 in human form, but only framed more perfectly, 
 and from a finer material ; it was by no means 
 that shadowy body ascribed to departed souls. 
 Vide s. 150, s. 66, II. And so was the body of 
 those raised up at the last day conceived of, as 
 no mere shadowy form, but as a true body, 
 though without flesh and blood. 
 
 The Greeks supposed that their gods ate a 
 food peculiar to themselves, nectar and ambro- 
 sia,- and so the great multitude of the Jews 
 supposed that those who are raised to be inha- 
 bitants of heaven partake of a kind of heavenly 
 food. Vide s. 151, II. 2, and s. 59, II., respect- 
 ing angels. There have always been Chris- 
 tians who have maintained the same thing; and 
 even in modern times some have expressed 
 themselves at least doubtfully on this point e. 
 g., Michaelis. But the passage, 1 Cor. vi. 13, 
 (already cited, s. 151,) teaches exactly the con- 
 trary. The gods of the Greeks were supposed 
 to marry and to indulge in the sexual propensi- 
 ties ; and some Jews imagined the same thing 
 with regard to the angels and those raised from 
 the dead; but this idea is rejected by Christ, 
 Matt. xxii. 30. Cf. the sections before cited. 
 
 Here, then, is a separation between what is 
 true and false in the prevailing popular concep- 
 tions, which is worthy of notice. In these con- 
 ceptions, there is often much which is true, and 
 the germ of truth, which is fully developed. But 
 the learned often mistake in rejecting certain 
 ideas merely because they are the common con- 
 
 ceptions of the people. Not so Christ ; he only 
 distinguishes between what is false and true in 
 these conceptions. 
 
 Respecting the nature of the heavenly body, 
 and its difference from the earthly, Paul ex- 
 presses himself very fully in 1 Cor. xv. 35, seq., 
 7toi<p tfctytcwt epxovtaAj sc. e sepulcris. (a) He 
 takes a comparison from a grain of wheat, from 
 which an entirely new body is developed, whose 
 form and properties are very different from 
 those of the seed sown. (5) God makes mate- 
 rial things in very different forms and with dif- 
 ferent constitutions, on account of their differ- 
 ent destination. The body of fishes, of birds, 
 and of beasts, is not the same; their nature and 
 attributes are wholly different, ver. 39 41. 
 And so must our heavenly body be organized 
 differently from the earthly, because it has a 
 different end. (c) The heavenly body will have 
 great pre-eminence over the earthly. Ver. 42, 
 seq., tfjtf/psr'tu (i. e., sepelitur, sc. oft^ua) ev 
 $opa i. e., ty^aptov, perishable. The sequel 
 is to be explained in the same way : for Iv 
 afi^ta read dt't^of, deformed, disfigured , aa^svs j, 
 feeble, powerless ; ^VXLXO, carnal, animal; be- 
 cause in this life the animal propensities must 
 be indulged. But when it is raised it will be 
 a body sv oQfripctia i. e., d$dapfo9>, immortal, 
 indestructible ; ivo%6v, beautified, glorious ,- 8v- 
 vatov, strong and mighty ,- and rtvt vp-aiUxov, spi- 
 ritual, exempt from everything which is imper- 
 fect in the material body ; in short, our earthly 
 body is, like Adam's, from the earth, (tx yijj, 
 Xo'Cxw ;.) the future body will, like that which 
 Christ now possesses, be a heavenly body, (i| 
 
 And here Paul makes the observation, that 
 Christ had not at first (rtpZitov, while he here 
 lived upon the earth,) that more perfect spiri- 
 tual body, (jtvfvpatixov,') but that which was 
 natural (^vzixov,) and afterwards (erttrta, after 
 his ascent to heaven) that which was spiritual. 
 Therefore he did not possess it immediately 
 after his resurrection, while he was yet upon 
 the earth, for he then ate and drank, John, xxi., 
 but he first received it when he passed into the 
 heavens. Cf. s. 97, II. 
 
 That our body will be like that of Christ is 
 plainly taught, ver. 49 ; fyopseofjuv fvjv eixova tov 
 irtovpaviov [Xptffr'ov] ; and still more plainly, 
 Phil. iii. 21, "Christ will transform ((jLctaazq- 
 Hortiati) our earthly perishable body (sw^a fa- 
 rt? tvQUfwj) into the resemblance of his heavenly 
 body, (crwiua 8o|^.) Cf. Rom. vi. 9. This 
 heavenly body is commonly called glorified, for 
 so SfSofiatyuW is translated. This translation, 
 however, may give occasion to unfounded ac- 
 cessory conceptions with regard to the splen- 
 dour &c. of the heavenly body. The simple 
 idea conveyed by this expression is, glorious t 
 
536 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 excellent, perfected, ennobled. Vide Morus, p. 
 292, n. 8. 
 
 Those who are alive at the last day will not 
 indeed die, like other men, s. 147, II. Still, 
 according to the doctrine of Paul, their bodies 
 must undergo a change, like that which it was 
 necessary for the earthly body of Christ to ex- 
 perience before it entered the heavens. Vide 
 1 Cor. xv. 51, Ttayffj ^1; ov (non sollicitanda 
 lectio,) xotyi^Jtyffo/tf^ct, rtdvfis 8s aM.ay^ffo^s^a 
 i. e., their bodies must.be changed, in order 
 that they may be adapted to their future desti- 
 nation and abode, and be no more perishable 
 and destructible. For the mortal body must 
 become immortal, ver. 53, coll. 2 Cor. v. 4; 
 1 Thess. iv. 15, seq. In Phil. iii. 21, this 
 change is expressed by the word fitt 'aiszyuat v 
 av. Some of the Jews also appear to have 
 maintained that such a change would take place 
 with those alive at the last day. Vide Wetstein 
 on 1 Cor. xv. 54. 
 
 Such is the doctrine which we are plainly 
 taught in the New Testament respecting the 
 constitution of our future body. Let not, there- 
 fore, the Christian doctrine be charged with all 
 the absurdities and fancies which dreaming 
 heads have suggested respecting the nature, 
 form, size, and uses of the spiritual body, nor 
 with the fictions even of some theologians re- 
 specting corpore pellucido, penetranti, illocali, 
 inviaibili, prxfulgido, impalpabili, &c. From 
 the texts already cited, as well as from others, 
 it is plain that the more perfect body which we 
 shall hereafter receive will contribute very much 
 to our heavenly blessedness, as, on the other 
 hand, out present frail body greatly conduces 
 to our present suffering and imperfection. But 
 how far our glorified body will affect our future 
 blessedness cannot be definitely determined 
 from the holy scriptures. Vide Morus, p. 299, 
 300, s. 10. 
 
 Note. The Bible says indeed plainly, that 
 the bodies even of the wicked will be again 
 raised, but it nowhere informs us particularly 
 what their nature and state will be. The first 
 Christian teachers, however, imagined without 
 doubt that their state would be such as to ag- 
 gravate the sufferings of the wicked ; as they 
 supposed, on the other hand, that the body 
 which the ri-ghteous would receive would con- 
 tribute to the heightening of their joys and 
 blessedness. 
 
 II. Identity of the Future with the Present Body. 
 Notwithstanding the difference between the 
 body which we now have and that which we 
 shall possess hereafter, it is still taught in the 
 schools of theology that our future body will 
 be, in substance, the same with the present. 
 Vide Morus, p. 291, seq., s. 3, note 6. This, 
 
 however, is denied by some, who maintain that 
 the body which believers will receive at the re- 
 surrection will be entirely new, of a totally dif- 
 ferent kind, and not having a particle of the 
 present body belonging to it. So in modern 
 times have some Socinian theologians taught ; 
 also Burnet in his work, De Statu Mortuorum 
 et Resur gentium, c. 9; likewise Less, in his 
 "Praktische Dogrnatik," and others. They 
 ground their opinion upon the fact that the parts 
 of oar body in the process of time, and in the 
 ordinary course of nature, became incorporated 
 with many thousand other human bodies. To 
 which, therefore, they ask, of all these thou- 
 sand, do they appropriately belong 1 ? And if 
 every human body should again receive all the 
 parts which ever belonged to it, it would be a 
 monster. 
 
 In order to obviate these difficulties, it is justly 
 remarked by others, that there is no reason to 
 suppose that each and every part of the earthly 
 body will be hereafter raised, but only that its 
 finer elementary materials will be restored. For 
 the grosser parts of the body, which appear to 
 exist only for the filling out of the whole, and 
 for holding it together, (like the stones for fill- 
 ing up in a building,) are in constant flux, and 
 fall off from the body while yet it cannot be said 
 that we have lost our body or received a new 
 one. In respect to these grosser parts, our body 
 in early childhood was totally different from our 
 present body, and in old age it will be different 
 from that which we now have. Still we call it, 
 through these different period's, our body, and 
 regard it as being the same. In common language, 
 we say, with our eyes we have seen, or with these 
 hands we have done, what took place twenty or 
 thirty years ago. In this way we may speak 
 of identity in a more general and popular sense, 
 and, understood in this sense, the identity of the 
 body through all the periods of its existence 
 may be spoken of without impropriety. It is 
 not implied in this that the body will be here- 
 after constituted of precisely the same materials 
 which it here possesses, nor that it will again 
 have the same form, limbs, and organs, which it 
 now has, but that, from all the parts of which 
 our present body is composed, the most fit and 
 the most noble will be chosen by God, and of 
 these the heavenly body will be constructed. 
 
 What conceptions the first Christian teachers 
 formed as to the manner of this, we cannot 
 clearly ascertain; nor is it possible that, while 
 we remain upon the earth, we should be able to 
 understand this matter fully. So much, how- 
 ever, is plain, that the inspired teachers did not 
 believe that an entirely new body would be 
 hereafter created for us, but that there would be 
 a kind of identity, in the popular sense of the 
 term, between the heavenly and earthly body. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 537 
 
 Such is the implication of the terms so often 
 employed by them, to awaken or call forth the 
 dead from their graves, (vide John, v. 28, 29;) 
 also of the representation that the sea and Sheol 
 should give up their dead, Rev. xx. 13, seq. ; 
 and especially of the passage, 1 Cor. xv. 35 38. 
 It is here plainly implied, that the present mor- 
 tal body contains the germ of the heavenly body, 
 in the same way as the germ of the plant lies in 
 the seed, from which, after it is dissolved and 
 dead in the earth, the plant is developed, and, 
 as it were, raised to life. Hence, according to 
 Paul, the future body has at least as much in 
 common with the present as a plant has with 
 the seed from which it springs. It will be still 
 the same body which we shall hereafter possess, 
 only beautified and ennobled (/t'ctazwMf<o? 
 ptvovj Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 42, 52, 53. This 
 is thus expressed by theologians : there will be 
 a renovation of one and the same substance, 
 and not the production of a wholly new mate- 
 rial. Vide Morus, p. 291, 292, note 6, ad s. 3. 
 Some modern writers have endeavoured to illus- 
 trate this matter by the application to it of the 
 whole of Bonnet's Theory of Development; 
 but this is not contained in the words of Paul, 
 although his doctrine bears some resemblance 
 to it. 
 
 The church-fathers are not entirely unanimous 
 in their opinions respecting the identity of the 
 body. The earlier fathers gave no very definite 
 opinion on the subject, but contented themselves 
 with saying in general that we should receive 
 again the same body ; so Justin the Martyr, and 
 Athenagoras, and Tertullian, in their books, De 
 Resurrectione. They appear, however, to have 
 had rather gross conceptions on this subject. 
 Origen, in the third century, was the first who 
 philosophized with regard to the heavenly body, 
 and undertook to determine accurately respecting 
 its nature. He defended the resurrection of the 
 body against those who denied it, and taught at 
 the same time that the substance of the human 
 body the essential and characteristic form by 
 which it is to be discerned and distinguished 
 from others remains unaltered. He also con- 
 troverted the opinion of some who supposed that 
 those who are raised will again be invested with 
 the same gross, material body as before. It was 
 his opinion that the grosser parts will be sepa- 
 rated, and that only the germ or fundamental 
 material -for the new body will be furnished by 
 the old. He and others expressed their views 
 by the following formula viz., we shall here- 
 after have tfwjtia lov-to (idem} plv, aM,' ov toiov-to 
 (ejusmodi,') De Prin. ii. 10. 
 
 But such a statement was far from being satis- 
 factory to many at that period, and especially to 
 the gross Chiliasts. They wished to keep alive 
 the hope of having still the same flesh as at pre- 
 
 sent, in order to their eating, drinking, &e. So 
 Nepos, Methodius, Theophilus of Alexandria, 
 and others. With these Hieronymus, in the 
 fourth century, agreed, and opposed the opinion 
 of Origen, contending that the same body would 
 be raised, with the same limbs and nerves, and 
 with flesh and blood in the proper sense, and 
 even with distinction of sex, although he did not, 
 indeed, affirm that the animal and sexual appe- 
 tites would be indulged in the heavenly world. 
 Epiphanius, however, who was a declared oppo- 
 nent of Origen, says expressly that the bodies 
 of the raised must have teeth, since otherwise 
 they could not eat. What kind of food they 
 would have he did not pretend to say, but left 
 for God to determine. 
 
 The opinion of Origen was adopted, in the 
 fourth century, by Gregory of Nazianzen, Basi- 
 lius, Chrysostom, and all the opponents of the 
 Chiliasts. Those who maintained the resurrec- 
 tion of the body in its grosser parts were all, 
 with the exception of Hieronymus, Chiliasts. 
 The opponents of Origen, among the Greeks and 
 Latins, began now to insist, that not merely the 
 resurrection of the body (corporis) should be 
 taught, but also carnis (crassse.} The older fa- 
 thers used corpus and caro interchangeably (as 
 was also done in the older symbols), and in- 
 tended by the use of these terms to denote only 
 that there would be no new creation of a body, 
 since both of these terms, according to the He- 
 brew usus loquendi, are synonymes ; as when we 
 speak, in reference to the Lord's Supper, of the 
 CORPUS and CARO Christi. But since the term 
 caro implies, according to the same idiom, the 
 associated idea of weakness and mortality, it was 
 abandoned by many who wished to use language 
 with more precision, and instead of it, the phrase 
 resurrectio corporis was adopted. It was on this 
 account that the Chiliasts insisted so much the 
 more urgently upon retaining the terms crap! 
 and caro. 
 
 Note. Works on this subject, Gotta, Theses 
 Theol. de Novissimis, in Specie de Resurrec- 
 tione Mortuorum ; Tub. 1762. Hermann, Pflug, 
 Beweiss der Moglichkeit und Gewissheit der 
 Auferstehung der Todten, 1738. On the history 
 of this doctrine, besides the works of Hody and 
 Burnet, cf. Ge. Calixtus, De Immortalitate 
 Animi et Resurrectione Carnis, and especially, 
 W. A. Teller, Fidei Dogmatis de Resurrectione 
 Carnis, per quartuor priora saecula enarratio ; 
 Halle and Helmstadt, 1766, 8vo; with which, 
 however, the student should compare the addi- 
 tions and corrections made by Ernesti in his 
 " Neues Theol. Bibliothek," b. ix. s. 221244. 
 [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 658, s. 152. Nean- 
 der, All. K. Geschichte, b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1088, 
 and especially 1096; also b. ii. Abth. iii. 8. 
 1404 1410. TR.] 
 
 68 
 
538 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 SECTION CLIV. 
 
 OF THE LAST APPEARING OF CHRIST BEFORE THE 
 
 END OF THE WORLD ; THE VARIOUS OPENIONS ON 
 THIS SUBJECT; ALSO RESPECTING THE MILLEN- 
 NIAL KINGDOM, AND THE UNIVERSAL CONVER- 
 SION OF JEWS AND GENTILES. 
 
 I. The. Last Appearing of Christ. 
 
 CHRIST often spoke of his future coming (rta- 
 poucua), using this phrase in different senses. 
 It sometimes denotes figuratively the destruction 
 of the Jewish state, and the consequences of 
 this event, particularly the advantages which 
 would result from it to the Christian doctrine 
 and church ; as the spiritual kingdom of Christ 
 could not be truly established in the earth until 
 this event should take place ; Matt. xxiv. and 
 xvi. 27, 28. Again, it denotes his visible appear- 
 ing to judge the world; Matt. xxv. 31, seq. 
 When Jesus spoke of his appearing, his disciples 
 during his life commonly conceived at once of his 
 coming to establish an earthly kingdom. And 
 when he spoke of his coming at the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, they supposed that he would then, 
 with his followers, destroy the hostile Jerusa- 
 lem, triumph over his opponents, and commence 
 his new earthly kingdom. 
 
 The 24th of Matt, was for the most part under- 
 stood in this way by many at that time. With 
 this they then connected the idea that the end of 
 the world was near at hand, because, according 
 to the opinion of the Jews, Jerusalem and the 
 temple would stand until the end of the world. 
 Vide s. 98, II. 3. Hence in the passage, Matt. 
 xxiv. 3, the disciples of Jesus connect the two 
 questions, when will the temple be destroyed? and, 
 what are the signs of the end of time? In what 
 Christ said, Matt, xxiv., he referred to the dif- 
 fusion of his new religion, the establishment 
 and confirmation of his spiritual and moral 
 kingdom, on which the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem would have a favourable influence. Vide 
 Matt. x. 23 ; Luke, xii. 40. But he said this in 
 part in the style of prophetic imagery, as in 
 Matt. xvi. xxiv. To these questions Christ re- 
 plied with great wisdom and forecast to the 
 first, in Matt. xxiv. 4 25, 30 ; and to the se- 
 cond, Matt. xxv. 3146. He taught them 
 plainly only so much as it was needful for 
 them to know at that time. The rest he taught 
 them in prophetic figures, which were not as 
 yet entirely intelligible to them, and the mean- 
 ing of which they afterwards learned. Their 
 false expectations were not therefore cherished 
 and approved, but neither were they prema- 
 turely contradicted. Full information on this 
 subject was among those things which they 
 were not then able to bear, and respecting 
 which they were to receive more full informa- 
 tion after the ascension of Christ to heaven; 
 
 John, xvi. 12. And this more full information 
 they actually received. For from that time they 
 abandoned their expectations of a Jewish king- 
 dom, and thenceforward looked for no other 
 coming of Christ than that at the general judg- 
 ment. As to what Christ and his apostles 
 taught respecting the nature and extent of his 
 spiritual and heavenly kingdom, vide s. 97 99. 
 
 II. The Belief of a Millennial Kingdom of Christ 
 upon the Earth, or Chiliasm. 
 
 (1) Origin of this belief. The Jews supposed 
 that the Messiah at his coming would reign as 
 king upon the earth, and would reside at Jeru- 
 salem, the ancient royal city. The period of his 
 reign they supposed would be very long, and 
 therefore put it down at a thousand years, which 
 was at first understood only as a round number. 
 Respecting the Jewish ideas of the Messianic 
 kingdom, cf. s. 89, and s. 118, I., together with 
 Wetstein's selections from Jewish authors on 
 Rev. xx. 2. This period was conceived of by 
 the Jews as the return of the golden age to the 
 earth, and each one formed to himself such a 
 picture of it as agreed best with his own dispo- 
 sition, and that degree of moral and intellectual 
 culture to which he had attained. Many anti- 
 cipated nothing more than merely sensual de- 
 lights, others entertained better and more pure 
 conceptions, &c. 
 
 The same remark applies to many of the Ju- 
 daizing Christians. Although Jesus had not 
 yet appeared as an earthly king, yet these per- 
 sons were unwilling to abandon an expectation 
 which to them was so important. They hoped, 
 therefore, for a second coming of Christ to es- 
 tablish an earthly kingdom, and transferred to 
 this kingdom everything which the Jews had 
 expected of the first. The apostles wholly 
 abandoned this opinion after the ascension of 
 Christ, and expected no other coming than that 
 at the judgment of the world, 1 Cor. xv., and 
 elsewhere. The fact, however, that these Jew- 
 ish ideas had taken deep root in the minds of 
 many Christians in the apostolic age, may be 
 argued from 1 Thess. iv. 13, seq., ch. v., and 
 2 Thess. ii. 
 
 Many have endeavoured to find this idea even 
 in the Apocalypse, especially xx. 1 8. But 
 John does not there speak of Christ reigning 
 visibly and bodily on the earth, but of his spi- 
 ritual dominion, resulting from the influence of 
 Christianity, when it shall at length be univer- 
 sally diffused through the earth a kingdom 
 which will last a thousand years, used as a 
 round number to denote many centuries, or a 
 long period. Thus does it appear that even 
 during the first century there were many opi- 
 nions upon this subject among Christians which 
 deviated widely from the doctrine of the apos- 
 tles. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 539 
 
 [Note. The scriptural ideas upon which the 
 belief in a millennium rested are more specifi- 
 cally stated by Neander, Kirchengesch. b. i. 
 Abth. iii. s. 1089. As the world was made in 
 six days, and, according to Ps. xc. 4, a thou- 
 sand years is in the sight of God as one day, so 
 it was thought the world would continue in the 
 state in which it had hitherto been, for six thou- 
 sand years; and as the Sabbath is a day of rest, 
 so will the seventh period of a thousand years 
 consist of this millennial kingdom as the close 
 of the whole earthly state. TR.] 
 
 (2) In the second century, the doctrine of the 
 future earthly kingdom of Christ became more 
 and more widely diffused, and in a large portion 
 of the Christian world it was finally predomi- 
 nant. Its first zealous advocate was Papias, in 
 the second century; and he was followed by 
 Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, and most of the 
 Montanists. This doctrine was also adopted by 
 some of the heretics e. g., by Cerinthus. It 
 was not, however, held by all in the same man- 
 ner. Most taught that the church would have 
 to suffer much from Anti-christ (the seducer and 
 persecutor) ; and that Christ would then visibly 
 return and destroy his power ; 2 Thess. ii. Then, 
 it was supposed, all worldly power would cease, 
 the pious be raised from the dead (rtptotfj? cwaG'ta,- 
 (jtj), assemble in Jerusalem, and standing under 
 Christ, iheir king, would reign with him a thou- 
 sand years. 
 
 As to the pleasures then to be enjoyed, the 
 conceptions of some were very gross, those of 
 others more chastened. In forming their pictures 
 of this period they drew largely from the Apo- 
 calypse, which they interpreted in many different 
 ways. Origen, in the third century, was the 
 first who wrote in opposition to this doctrine, and 
 who gave a different interpretation to the texts 
 of scripture to which appeal was made by the 
 Chiliasts. On this account, this doctrine fell 
 into disesteem among the learned. In the third 
 century, Dionysius, Bishop at Alexandria, wrote 
 against Chiliasm in opposition to Nepos, Bishop 
 in Egypt, and in his work denied that John 
 wrote the Apocalypse, because his opponents 
 were accustomed to derive their doctrine princi- 
 pally from this book. 
 
 [Note. It was in Phrygia, the seat of the 
 spirit of religious enthusiasm, that Chiliasm 
 chiefly prevailed; and from thence it spread. 
 Here belonged Papias, Irenseus, Justin the Mar- 
 tyr, &c. Two causes contributed to prevent 
 this doctrine from becoming more universally 
 prevalent in the early church viz., opposition 
 to Montanism, and the influence of the school at 
 Alexandria. The visionary conceptions which 
 the Montanists entertained and inculcated re- 
 specting what would take place in the millen- 
 nium, brought the whole doctrine into disrepute ; 
 and all the opponents of Montanism opposed 
 
 these gross Chiliastic conceptions as belonging 
 essentially to that scheme. The allegorizing me- 
 thod of interpretation adopted by the teachers of 
 the Alexandrine school enabled them to avoid 
 the gross conceptions of the millennium to which 
 those who adopted the literal mode of interpre- 
 tation were led. By applying this principle to 
 the interpretation of the Apocalypse, they could 
 take away the support which the Chiliasts de- 
 rived from it without excluding the book from 
 the sacred canon. TR.] 
 
 (3) The seed of the doctrine of gross Chili- 
 asm has always remained in the Christian 
 church. This doctrine, however, has shewn 
 itself in different forms, and has be-en taught 
 sometimes in a more visionary manner, and at 
 other times less so. Respecting the time when 
 this millennial kingdom will commence, there 
 has been no general agreement of opinion. 
 Many suppose it will take place before the re- 
 surrection; others, not until afterwards. 
 
 At the time of the Reformation this belief in 
 a millennial, earthly kingdom of Christ was re- 
 vived and widely spread by the enthusiastic ana- 
 baptists, Thomas Miinzer and his adherents. 
 They themselves wished to establish this king- 
 dom of Christ with fire and sword, and to put 
 an end to all worldly power ; they encouraged 
 rebellion. Hence Luther and Melancthon set 
 themselves against this doctrine with great zeal 
 and earnestness. Vide Augsb. Conf. Art. xviii. 
 It shewed itself again, however, in the protest- 
 ant church. 
 
 In the seventeenth and eighteenth century 
 Spener was charged with teaching Chiliasm ; but 
 he was far removed from this. He only expressed 
 frequently the hope that the spiritual kingdom 
 of Christ would not only continue in the world, 
 but would be much more widely diffused than it 
 now is, and hereafter would become absolutely 
 universal. And this expectation (spes meliorum 
 temporum) is perfectly accordant with the holy 
 scriptures. This is the point to which all the 
 middle part of the Apocalypse refers viz., from 
 chap. xii. 18 to xx. 10, the victory of Christ over 
 heathenism, and all sin and corruption on the 
 earth, and the general diffusion of Christianity ; 
 after which the end of the world and the kingdom 
 of the saints will follow, chap. xx. 11 xxii. 5. 
 This, one might call (if he wished) Biblical 
 Chiliasm; in this there is nothing of enthusiasm ; 
 and even for those who do not live to see this 
 period the anticipation of it is consoling and 
 animating. 
 
 But Petersen, who came from the school of 
 Spener, at the end of the seventeenth and com- 
 mencement of the eighteenth century, inculcated 
 in his writings various enthusiastic ideas on this 
 subject. The same doctrine was taken into fa- 
 vour about the same time by Burnet, in England, 
 in his work, " De Statu Mort. et Resurg." At 
 
540 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 a later period, Bengal, in Germany, went a great 
 deal too far in many points in his interpretation 
 of the Apocalypse. So, many theologians of 
 Wurtemberg, Crusius and his disciples, and La- 
 vater in Switzerland. 
 
 A good development of the history of this doc- 
 trine is contained in Corrodi's " Kritische Ge- 
 schichte des Chiliasmus;" Frankfort und Leip- 
 zig, 1781 1783. It was principally occasioned 
 by Lavater's views on this subject. 
 
 [Note. Neander, in his history of this doc- 
 trine, (b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1090,) suggests the im- 
 portant caution that we should not allow our- 
 selves, through disgust at the extravagant visions 
 of enthusiasts about the millennium, to decide 
 against what we are really justified in hoping and 
 expecting as to the future extension of the king- 
 dom of Christ. As the Old Testament contains 
 an intimation of the things of the New, so 
 Christianity contains an intimation of a higher 
 order of things hereafter, which it will be the 
 means of introducing; but faith must necessa- 
 rily come before sight. The divine revelations 
 enable us to see but a little, now and then, of 
 this higher order, and not enough to form a 
 complete picture. As prophecy is always ob- 
 scure until its fulfilment, so must be also the 
 last predictions of Christ respecting the destiny 
 of his church, until the entrance of that higher 
 order. 
 
 There are three degrees in the manner of 
 holding this doctrine, described as crassus, sub- 
 tilis, subtilissimus, according to the proportion 
 in which enthusiastic and visionary conceptions 
 are mingled with the scriptural idea of the 
 future kingdom of the Messiah. The lowest 
 kind is characterized by the belief of the visible 
 appearance and reign of Christ upon the earth, 
 a resurrection of the saints before the general 
 judgment, and their living with Christ in the 
 enjoyment of worldly splendour and luxury for 
 a thousand years. In this form it was held by 
 many of the ancient Montanists, and by the 
 anabaptists in the sixteenth century. The more 
 refined and scriptural doctrine of the millen- 
 nium, as held by Spener, Vitringa, and others, 
 excludes the idea of the visible appearance of 
 Christ, and does not insist upon the definite 
 period of a thousand years, but only holds to 
 the future universal extension of the spiritual 
 kingdom of Christ. Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 
 665. -TR.] 
 
 III. Future Conversion of Jews and Gentiles. 
 
 The doctrine of the universal conversion of 
 the Gentiles, and especially of the Jews, to be 
 hoped-for hereafter, has been for the most part 
 taught by the advocates of the grosser kind of 
 Chiliasm. Still the former doctrine stands in 
 no necessary connexion with the latter. And 
 many protestant theologians, who are far from 
 
 assenting to any unscriptural views of the mil- 
 lennium, have adopted this doctrine e. g., Mi- 
 chaelis, Kopp.e, and others still more lately. 
 But some theologians connected with both of 
 these doctrines other opinions which do not en- 
 tirely accord with scripture, or which at least 
 are not in all parts clearly demonstrable from 
 scripture e. g., Burnet, Bengel, Crusius. 
 Hence Ernesti and his whole school were very 
 much opposed to this doctrine, and would not 
 at all allow that even the remotest hope of the 
 conversion of the Jews is authorized by the 
 New Testament. 
 
 It has happened with regard to this subject, 
 as it often does in all the departments of human 
 knowledge, that opinions in which there has 
 been an intermixture of what is erroneous and 
 incapable of proof have been on this account 
 entirely rejected, instead of being carefully 
 sifted, in order to separate the true from the 
 false, that which may be proved from that 
 which is incapable of demonstration. The doc- 
 trine itself of the future conversion of the Jews 
 involves nothing questionable or enthusiastic, 
 if it be understood only to imply that the apos- 
 tles believed and taught that the Jews would 
 hereafter abandon their prejudices and their 
 hardness of heart, possess a taste and suscepti- 
 bility for Christianity, and cordially unite them- 
 selves with the Christian church. When this 
 will take place, and by what means it will be 
 brought about, the apostles determine nothing; 
 and with regard to these points nothing is 
 known. But an expectation of this event is 
 found in their writings. 
 
 Two things on this subject are certain viz., 
 (1) That it was always a current doctrine among 
 the Jews that all the Gentiles would at last be- 
 come incorporated in the kingdom of the Mes- 
 siah ; and with reference to this event they ex- 
 plained many passages in their prophets, which, 
 when read impartially, plainly teach this very 
 thing e. g., Ps. xxii. 28; Is. ii., xii., xl. Ixvi.; 
 Zech. xiv. 9, 16, coll. Rev. xv. 4. And this 
 same hope is clearly expressed by Paul, espe- 
 cially in Rom. xi. 
 
 (2) The Jews, at the time of the apostles and 
 afterwards, explained many passages in their 
 prophets as referring to the future restoration 
 of their people at the time of the Messiah, 
 (Deut. xxx. ;) and these passages are refer- 
 red in the New Testament, and by Paul, to 
 the same event; from whence it is clear that 
 the apostles taught and inculcated the same 
 thing with the ancient prophets e. g., Isaiah, 
 x. 21; lix. 20; Jer. xxxi. 1, seq. ; Hosea, iii. 
 5 ; Zech. xiv. 6 ; ix. 10. These passages, in- 
 deed, have all been differently interpreted in 
 modern times. Cf. Doederlein's work, " Giebt 
 uns die Bible Hoffnung zu einer allgemeinen 
 JudenbekehrungT' But the Jews understood 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 541 
 
 these passages to refer to the restoration of 
 their nation, and the New Testament gives 
 them the same explanation. This is histori- 
 cally certain ; and upon this everything de- 
 pends, when the question is, Whether the New 
 Testament teaches this doctrine ? Vide Schottgen, 
 in the book, "Jesus, der wahre Messias;" 
 Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum ; and 
 Koppe on Rom. xi. 
 
 We may come now more easily to the exa- 
 mination of the celebrated passage, Romans, 
 xi. 25, seq. Ernesti and others understand the 
 rtaj 'itfpcMj*. tfco^cte tfac. thus : all " Israel can be 
 delivered ;" but this does not accord with ver. 
 31, 'iva ojv-tol itej^wcfc, and ver. 32, tov$ rtdvtas, 
 tterfiy. We cannot render these clauses, in 
 order that God CAN have pity ; no, he will ac- 
 tually have mercy upon them. Nor can we see 
 any reason, according to this interpretation, why 
 Paul should adopt such a high and elevated tone 
 with regard to a matter which is self-evident, or 
 how he could call this fiv<rtr$iov. It is also 
 equally unintelligible, if this were all, what 
 should have induced Paul so solemnly to cele- 
 brate and magnify the divine wisdom, ver. 33 
 36. But everything is plain and consistent if 
 Paul is understood here to speak the language 
 of prophecy. He proceeds on the ground of the 
 expectation universally prevalent among his 
 countrymen, and authorized by the ancient pro- 
 phets ; he rectifies their ideas with regard to 
 their future restoration, discards their false con- 
 ceptions, their hopes of earthly good, and then 
 says, with great Assurance, that all Israel will 
 hereafter be converted to Christ, as all the Gen- 
 tiles will come to worship him ; although, when 
 he wrote, there was no human probability of 
 either of these events. But in all this he does 
 not give the least countenance to the enthusi- 
 astic conceptions frequently entertained on this 
 subject. He does not fix any definite time. But 
 theologians have often been unwilling to allow 
 that Paul affirmed the final conversion of the 
 Jews, because enthusiastic ideas have often 
 been connected with this doctrine, or because 
 they have regarded this event as either impos- 
 sible or improbable, since after the lapse of 
 eighteen centuries there are no signs of its ac- 
 complishment. 
 
 The sentiment of this passage is as follows : 
 I must propose one other important subject for 
 your (i. e., the Gentile converts) consideration 
 a subject with which you have been hitherto un- 
 acquainted, and which has therefore been disre- 
 garded by you in order that you may not be 
 proud of your advantages over the unbelieving 
 Jews : namely, some of the Jews will continue 
 unbelieving until all the Gentiles who are 
 chosen by God (rttojpcojua s^i/wj/) shall have 
 believed in Christ. (This will therefore first 
 take place.) But when this is first brought 
 
 about (x&i oi>Vco for xal tote or erteita, vide 
 Koppe) i. e., when all the Gentiles have first 
 become believers, (now follows the j wu(jt'^ptov,) 
 then will the nation of the Israelites also experi- 
 ence salvation, (ao^df-r'ac,) by embracing the 
 Christian faith. For thus it is said in the scrip- 
 tures, The Deliverer (Messiah) will come out 
 of Zion (David's line), and then will I free 
 Jacob from his sins, (Is. xlix.)" Cf. Koppe 
 on this passage. Paul here quotes the same 
 passages of the Old Testament from which the 
 Jews had always proved that an entire restora- 
 tion of their nation was predicted by the pro- 
 phets ; though he did not understand them, as 
 they often did, to refer to an external, civil re- 
 storation. 
 
 SECTION CLV. 
 
 OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT, AND THE END OP 
 THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD. 
 
 I. The General Judgment. 
 
 THE following texts may be considered as the 
 most important relating to the last judgment 
 viz., Matt. xxv. 31; John, v. ; 2 Thess. i. 7 
 10; 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17; 2 Pet. iii. 713; 1 
 Cor. xv. ; and Rev. xx. 11. In illustration of 
 this doctrine, it may be observed, 
 
 (1) According to the uniform doctrine of the 
 scriptures, the judgment of the world will fol- 
 low immediately after the general resurrection ; 
 and then will be the end of the world, or of its 
 present constitution. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 (2) This doctrine of a general judgment of 
 the world was also prevalent among the Jews 
 at the time of Christ and the apostles ; although 
 they frequently associated with it many incor- 
 rect notions. This doctrine, as well as that of 
 future retribution and resurrection, was, without 
 doubt, more and more developed and illustrated, 
 under the divine guidance and direction, by the 
 prophets and teachers of the Jewish nation who 
 lived after the exile. Vide s. 149, II. 2. This 
 was done more particularly at the same period 
 of time in which those other doctrines were de- 
 veloped. But there are also passages in Daniel 
 which allude to this event e. g., chap. xii. 
 
 Before the exile the doctrine of the judgment 
 as a solemn, formal transaction at the end of the 
 world, was not clearly taught. At that time the 
 Jews held only the general truth, that God is 
 the righteous Judge of the world, who in his 
 own time would pronounce righteous sentence 
 upon all men, according to their deserts, and 
 bring all their works, even the most secret, to 
 light. Vide Ps. ix. 59 ; Eccles. ix. 9 ; xii. 13, 
 14. The doctrine which was afterwards deve- 
 loped among the Jews, and in the form in which 
 it existed among them at the time of Christ, 
 was expressly authorized and confirmed by him 
 2Z 
 
542 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 as true, and as constituting a part of his reli- 
 gious system ; in such a way, however, as to ex- 
 clude the false additions of the Jewish teachers. 
 
 (3) The holding of this judgment as well as 
 the raising of the dead is commonly ascribed in 
 the New Testament to Christ, and represented 
 as a commission or plenipotentiary power, which 
 the Father had given to the man Jesus as Mes- 
 siah. Thus it is said, Rom. ii. 16, 0a6j (cf. ver. 
 6) xpwti tfa xpvrt-ta, di^pwrtcov 6ta 'irjaov, and 
 Christ himself says, John, v. 22, 25, xplaw 
 ftdsav SfSwxf fo viy. Vide Matthew, xvi. 27; 
 Acts, x. 42; x'vii. 31. Cf. s. 98, II. 3, and 
 Morus, page 294, note 8 ; and page 296, note 3. 
 Christ himself assigns it as the reason why God 
 had entrusted to him the holding of this judg- 
 ment, that he is a man, (utoj ob^pwrtoi; ;) John, 
 v. 27, coll. Acts, xvii. 31, CM/J?P. God has con- 
 stituted him the Judge of men, because he is 
 man, and knows from his own experience all 
 the sufferings and infirmities to which our na- 
 ture is exposed, and can therefore be compas- 
 sionate and indulgent; Heb. ii. 14 17, coll. 1 
 Timothy, ii. 5. 
 
 (4) Names given in the scriptures to the last 
 judgment. The time of this judgment, and the 
 judgment itself, are called in the passages al- 
 ready cited, ^iif'pa (DV) Kupt-'ov or 'Irjaov, Xptcr- 
 tov, x. -t. X. ; also jfluapa ufydhq (Svu oi>), Jude, 
 ver. 6 ; xpt'tftj (sometimes written xaraxptorts), 
 xptjtia, Ttaporfli-a XptOT'ov, 1 Thess. iv. 15; 2 
 Thess. ii. 1 ; ts^d-f^ ^Ipa, John, vi. 39, 40, 44. 
 Hence the ecclesiastical name of this transac- 
 tion, judicium extremum, or novissimum, the last 
 judgment, because it will take place at the end 
 of the world that now is. The term, the last 
 judgment, is not used, however, in the New 
 Testament. Nor are the phrases ia%a,tr} yfispa 
 and to G%di?ov T'WV j^uspcov used exclusively with 
 reference to the end of the world. They often 
 designate merely the future, coming days e. g., 
 2 Timothy, iii. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 3 ; like D->p>n nnrw, 
 Genesis, xlix. 1. They sometimes also denote 
 the last period of the world, or the times of the 
 Messiah e. g., Heb. i. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 20, like ti^ 
 euwvwv, aiuv yusXTuov, Heb. ton oSiy. 
 
 (5) The time of the judgment, or of the end of 
 the world, and its signs or precursors. Vide 
 Morus, p. 304, s. 13. According to the assur- 
 ance of the apostles this time is unknown. Yet 
 many of the Jewish Christians at the times of 
 the apostles supposed that it would take place 
 immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem 
 and of the Jewish state, because the Jews be- 
 lieved that their temple and city would stand 
 until the end of the world. Vide s. 98, II. 3. 
 But the apostles never affirmed this ; they never 
 pretended to the knowledge of a divine revelation 
 respecting the time, but contented themselves 
 with saying, that it would come suddenly and 
 unexpectedly, like a thief in the night; 1 Thess. 
 
 v. 2 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10. In the first of these texts, 
 Paul shews that this event was not so near as 
 some at that time supposed ; and in the second, 
 Peter shews that the actual coming of this event 
 could not be doubted, merely because it seemed 
 to some to be long delayed. In 2 Cor. iv. 14, 
 Paul considers himself and his contemporaries as 
 being among those whom God would raise from the 
 dead through Christ; he did not therefore expect 
 himself to survive the judgment of the world, 
 although from other passages it might seem that 
 he at least wished he might. It is not by chance 
 that the declaration of the apostles that they 
 could not determine the time and the hour of 
 this event, is so clearly preserved to us. Were 
 there any reason to charge them with the oppo- 
 site, to what contempt would their doctrine be 
 exposed ! 
 
 As to the signs and precursors of this event 
 nothing can be very definitely determined from 
 the New Testament; nothing certainly by 
 which we can draw conclusions with any 
 safety with regard to the precise time of its oc- 
 currence. No indications pointing definitely to 
 the day and hour can be expected, especially 
 for this reason, that the coming of this event is 
 always described as sudden and unexpected. 
 Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 10. Even with regard to the far 
 less important revolution among the Jewish 
 people, in the overthrow of their state, it is said 
 (Matt. xiii. 32) that the exact time when it 
 would take place no one but God knew, not 
 even the angels, nor the Son of man in his hu- 
 miliation. And yet there have never at any 
 period been wanting persons who have under- 
 taken to determine definitely the time and hour 
 of this event. They have commonly reasoned 
 from some, and often very arbitrary, explana- 
 tions of the Apocalypse, and from calculations 
 drawn from the same. This ingenious search 
 after the time and hour of the fulfilment of the 
 divine predictions is not according to the mind 
 and will of Christ, since it usually leads to the 
 neglect of what is more important; and besides, 
 nothing is gained by it. Vide Acts, i. 7. 
 
 In the earliest age of the church many sup- 
 posed that the end of the world would follow 
 immediately upon the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 When this event was past, other calculations 
 were made. In the tenth century the opinion 
 was very prevalent in the Western church that 
 the end of the world was near at hand, because, 
 according to Rev. xx. 3, 4, the millennial king- 
 dom should commence after a thousand years. 
 This belief had the effect, upon the multitudes 
 who adopted it, to render them inactive ; they 
 squandered and consumed their goods ; they 
 suffered their houses to go to ruin ; and many 
 families were reduced to want. Hence, in the 
 eleventh century there was more building and 
 repairing done than at any other period. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 543 
 
 From this we may conclude that the way to 
 promote the conversion of men is not, as it were, 
 to compel them to it by the fear of the proximity 
 of the last day. Even in modern times many 
 theologians, and those too of some celebrity, 
 
 1 have entered into calculations of this kind, 
 drawn chiefly from the Apocalypse e. g., 
 Bengal, Crusius, and others. 
 
 What we are definitely taught on this subject 
 in the New Testament may be stated as fol- 
 lows : The Christian church will hereafter be 
 subjected to great temptation from heathen pro- 
 faneness, from false, delusive doctrine, and ex- 
 treme moral corruption, and will seem for a 
 time to be ready to perish from these causes; 
 but then Christ will appear, and, according to 
 his promise, triumph over this opposition; and 
 then, and not till then, will the end of the world 
 come ; Christ will visibly appear and hold the 
 general judgment, and conduct the pious into the 
 kingdom of the blessed. This is the distinctdoc- 
 trine of Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 3 12, and is taught 
 throughout the Apocalypse, xii. 18 xxii. 5, 
 and this is sufficient for our instruction, warn- 
 ing, and comfort. 
 
 (6) As to the nature of the general judgment, 
 and the manner in which it will be conducted 
 by Christ, we can state on scriptural authority 
 only the following particulars : 
 
 (a) That Christ will pronounce sentence upon 
 all men, even on those who have lived in pa- 
 ganism, Rom. ii. 6, seq.; Acts, xvri. 71. Vide 
 s. 98, II. 3. Final sentence will then, too, be 
 pronounced upon the evil spirits, Jude, ver. 6 ; 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 4; Matt. xxv. 41. For other texts, 
 cf. Morus, p. 294, not. 1 and 3. 
 
 (6) This sentence will be righteous and im- 
 partial, 2 Tim. iv. 8. Every one will be judged 
 according to the light he has enjoyed, and the 
 use he has made of it. Those who have had 
 the written law will be judged according to 
 that; the heathen, according to the light of na- 
 ture, Rom. ii. 13 16. Those who have had 
 greater knowledge, and more opportunities and 
 powers for doing good than others, and yet have 
 neglected or abused them, will receive a severer 
 sentence, &c.; Matthew, x. 15, 11, 23, 24; 
 2 Thess. i. 5. Morus, p. 294, note 4. 
 
 (c) This will be the final and irrevocable sen- 
 tence, by which rewards will be bestowed upon 
 the righteous, and punishments allotted to the 
 wicked, for their good and evil actions, and the 
 thoughts of the heart; Matt. xxv. 31 46; 2 
 Cor. v. 10 ; 1 Cor. iv. 5 ; Rom. ii. 6, 16. 
 
 Note. It has for a long time been disputed 
 among theologians, whether the judgment of the 
 world will be an external, visible, formal trans- 
 action, or whether the mere decision respecting 
 the destiny of man, the actual taking effect of 
 retribution, is represented under the image of a 
 judicial proceeding, like what is now common 
 
 among men? The reasons alleged on both 
 sides of this question are stated by Gerhard in 
 his Loci Theologici. Cf. Morus, p. 295, note 
 1. The latter opinion is adopted by many the- 
 ologians at the present time e. g., Eckermann, 
 Henke, and others, who contend that this whole 
 representation was intended by Christ and the 
 apostles to be merely figurative, and should be 
 so understood. It is clear, however, from the 
 New Testament, unless its language is arbitra- 
 rily interpreted and explained away, that the 
 first Christian teachers everywhere represent 
 the judgment of the world as a solemn, visible 
 transaction, distinct from retribution ,- though 
 its more particular nature cannot be distinctly 
 determined or made plain to us ; and is therefore 
 described in the New Testament, for the most 
 part, by figures. This is very well expressed 
 by Morus, p. 295, s. 6. If the New Testament 
 taught the contrary opinion, its doctrines would 
 not be consistent with each other. For, accord- 
 ing to the New Testament, man will possess 
 a body, even in the future life, and continue 
 to be, as he now is, a being composed both of 
 sense and reason ,- and so there, as well as here, 
 he will have the want of something cognizable 
 by the senses. 
 
 With regard to this subject, as well as many 
 others, the Bible is accustomed to connect figu- 
 rative and literal phraseology together, and to 
 use these modes of speech interchangeably, in 
 order to render clear and impressive to our 
 minds many things which could not otherwise 
 be represented plainly and forcibly enough. 
 Thus it is, for example, in the discourses of 
 Christ on this subject, Matt. xvi. 27, seq., and 
 chap. xxv. By all which he has there said in 
 a figurative style, the idea should be impressed 
 that Christ will visibly appear in a majestic 
 manner, pronounce some innocent and others 
 guilty, and treat them accordingly. In the 
 courts of the ancients it was a custom to place 
 the former on the right hand, the latter on the 
 left , and every one who heard this discourse of 
 Christ knew what he meant by this representa- 
 tion. He taught the same truth without a 
 figure, when he declared that some should be 
 pardoned and made happy, and others pro- 
 nounced guilty and punished. 
 
 II. Scriptural Doctrine respecting the End of the 
 
 World. 
 
 (1) Even the anci&nt Hebrews believed that 
 as the world had a beginning it would also have 
 an end ; and so their prophets speak of the grow- 
 ing old of the heavens and the earth. They 
 teach that hereafter the whole material creation 
 will become unfit for its purposes, and useless 
 to its inhabitants, and that God will then lay 
 by the aged heavens, like an old, worn-out gar- 
 ment, and create a new heaven and a new earth. 
 
544 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 Vide Ps. cii. 10 12, where this is described, 
 in opposition to the eternity and unchangeable- 
 ness of God. Cf. Heb. i. 1012. 
 
 Our seeing the constant fluctuations and 
 changes of all things, the wasting and falling 
 away of the hardest rocks, and other observa- 
 tions of a similar nature, may lead to the same 
 thought, and give it confirmation. 
 
 Hence we find, even in the Old Testament, 
 such expressions as the following: until the 
 heavens are no more, until the sun and the moon 
 are no more e. g., Job, xiv. 12. So in Ps. 
 Ixxii. 5, 7, 17, where a time far removed is ex- 
 pressed by this phraseology; for this period 
 was naturally conceived of as far distant, since 
 changes of this nature are found by experience to 
 require along time. Moreover, in the prophets, 
 such expressions as the destruction of the heavens 
 and of the earth, the growing pale and darkening 
 of the sun and moon, are often used figuratively, to 
 denote great changes in the world, the calamity 
 and downfall of particular states and countries, 
 &c. e. g., Is. xiii. (respecting Babel ; chap, 
 xxxiv. ; Ezek. xxii. ; Rev. vi. ; Matt. xxiv. 29, 
 seq. On the contrary, the phrases new heavens, 
 new earth, the clear shining sun, &c., are used 
 to denote the welfare and returning prosperity 
 of states e. g., Isaiah, Ixv. 17; Ixvi. 22 ; xiii. 
 10, et passim. But these very figurative ex- 
 pressions presuppose the literal idea. 
 
 (2) From these more general ideas and ex- 
 pectations respecting great changes hereafter to 
 take place in the universe, there was developed 
 among the Jews and other nations the more de- 
 finite idea of the future destruction of the world, 
 and especially of our earth. Everything, it was 
 supposed, would be hereafter shattered and de- 
 stroyed, but not annihilated ; since from the 
 ruins of the ancient structure there would come 
 forth again a renewed and beautified creation. 
 Philo says, (De Vita Mosis, torn. ii. p. 144, 
 ed. Mangey,) vta avafyaivsTfai, q yyj, pf.ta xcfeap- 
 GW, the earth shall appear new again, after its 
 purification, even as it was after its first creation. 
 He calls this renovation rtafayyevsaiav, vsutepia- 
 pbv ifMv <rtot,%iuv, x. f. h. ; as the Greeks also 
 denominated the same thing, rtahiyyeveaiav tfwv 
 ofMv an expression used by the stoics with 
 reference to this subject. This end of the 
 world was not then described as its entire de- 
 struction or annihilation. 
 
 Now Christ and the apostles taught the doc- 
 trine of the end of the world very distinctly and 
 plainly, and sanctioned what was previously 
 known on this subject by their ow r n authority. 
 Vide Matt. v. !8; Luke, xxi. 33; 2 Pet. iii. ; 
 1 Cor. xv. ; Rev. xx. 1 1 , et passim. But among 
 the Jews and some others the doctrine prevailed 
 that this change would be effected by a general 
 conflagration. This belief in such a conflagra- 
 tion did not at first rest upon any arguments 
 
 drawn from a profound knowledge of natural 
 philosophy ; such, for example, as the supposi- 
 tion of a fire burning in the centre of the earth, 
 or the approximation of a cornet, as many mo- 
 dern writers have thought, but they were first 
 led to this belief, and afterwards confirmed in 
 it, by thoughts like the following : Water and 
 Jire are the two most powerful and efficient ele- 
 ments, by which the most violent changes are 
 produced in the earth, and by which desolations 
 and renovations are effected. Now we find tra- 
 ditions among all nations respecting great floods 
 of water, and the desolations occasioned by them 
 in the earliest times. According to Moses, the 
 water originally covered the whole earth, and 
 the dry land issued from thence, and then fol- 
 lowed Noah's flood. It was now the expecta- 
 tion that hereafter the other still more fearful 
 element the Jire, which even now often causes 
 such terrible desolations, would effect a still 
 more amazing and universal revolution than 
 that effected by the water, and that by this 
 means the earth would be renewed and beau- 
 tified. 
 
 It was by such analogies as these that this 
 traditionary belief was confirmed and illustrated 
 among the heathen nations where it prevailed. 
 It was afterwards adopted by many philoso- 
 phers into their systems, and advocated by them 
 on grounds of natural philosophy. Thus, for 
 example, Heraclitus among the Greeks con- 
 tended for such a conflagration and regenera- 
 tion of the earth by means of fire; and so after 
 him the stoics. Cf. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii, 
 46 ; and Seneca, Quaest. Nat. ii. 2830. 
 
 This doctrine of the perishing of the world by 
 fire was unquestionably prevalent among the 
 Jews at the time of Christ and the apostles, al- 
 though Philo does not accede to it in his book 
 Ilept oK}aptfux$ xotipov. The arguments which 
 he there brings against it are, however, ex- 
 tremely meagre, built partly upon arbitrary me- 
 taphysical reasoning and partly upon a play on 
 the word #6cr/*oj. 
 
 In one passage of the New Testament this 
 doctrine is very distinctly stated, 2 Pet. iii. 
 7 13. It cannot be thought that what is here 
 said respecting the burning of the world is to be 
 understood figuratively, as Wetstein supposes; 
 because the fire is here too directly opposed to 
 the literal water of the flood to be so understood. 
 It is the object of Peter to refute the boast of 
 scoffers, that all things had remained unchanged 
 from the beginning, and that therefore no day 
 of judgment and no end of the world could be 
 expected. And so he says that originally, at the 
 time of the creation, the whole earth was cover- 
 ed and overflowed with water, (Gen. i.,) and 
 that from hence the dry land appeared ; and the 
 same was true at the time of Noah's flood. But 
 there is yet to come a great fire-revolution. The 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 5-15 
 
 heavens and the earth (the earth with its atmo- 
 sphere) are reserved, or kept in store, for the 
 fire until the day of judgment; ver. 10, at that 
 time the heavens will pass away (rtapf'p^scr^cu,) 
 with a great noise, the elements will be dissolved 
 by fervent heat, and everything upon the earth 
 will be burnt up. The same thing is taught in 
 ver. 12. But in ver. 13, Peter gives the design of 
 this revolution; it will not be an annihilation, 
 but " we expect a new heaven, and a new earth, 
 wherein dwelleth righteousness" i. e., an en- 
 tirely new, altered, and beautified abode for man, 
 to be built from the ruins of his former dwell- 
 ing-place, as the future habitation of the pious. 
 Cf. Rev. xxi. 1, seq. This will he very much 
 in the same way as a more perfect and an im- 
 mortal body will be reared from the body which 
 we now possess. The passage, Rom. viii. 19, 
 seq., also treats of this renovation and beauti- 
 fying of the world. Vide Morus, p. 303, note 5. 
 Cf., with regard to the subjects here discussed, 
 Siiskind's "Magazin fiir christliche Dogmatik 
 und Moral," lOtes St. No. 2, respecting the 
 Jewish ideas of the Messiah as the governor of 
 the world and the raiser of the dead ; and No. 3, 
 the declarations of Jesus, in which he ascribes 
 to himself the raising of the dead, the judging 
 of the world, and a kingdom at the end of the 
 world. 
 
 SECTION CLVI. 
 
 OF THE PUNISHMENTS OF HELL, OR ETERNAL 
 CONDEMNATION. 
 
 I. Scriptural Names and Representations of these 
 Punishments, and of the Place where they will 
 be inflicted. 
 
 ACCORDING to the doctrine of the Jewish na- 
 tion at the time of Christ a doctrine which he 
 himself receives as true, and expressly author- 
 izes and confirms the wicked are miserable, 
 and the righteous happy, even immediately 
 after death. Cf. what was said respecting the 
 intermediate state s. 150. Still it is not until 
 after the day of judgment that the perfect bless- 
 edness of the righteous or the entire misery of 
 the wicked will properly commence, and they 
 enter upon the state of full retribution. The 
 former will then go to an abode of joy, the latter 
 to a place of sorrow. Vide Wetstein on Matt. 
 xxv. 46. The condition of wicked men and of 
 the fallen angels before the day of judgment is 
 described by the sacred writers as like that of 
 malefactors while yet in prison, before the final 
 judicial sentence is pronounced upon them. 
 
 The place in which they are confined is pro- 
 perly called Taptapoj, and it is a part of Hades 
 the invisible world in which bad angels and 
 ungodly men are reserved until the day of judg- 
 ment. Vide s. 150, I. 1. This place is also 
 
 called o(j>of, or axotos, in the epistle of Jude and 
 in 2 Pet. ii., and $vhaxrj in 1 Pet. iii. 19. Even 
 in this place the wicked are represented as in- 
 deed unhappy, but their complete misery will 
 not commence until after judicial sentence has 
 been pronounced upon them. 
 
 The place of punishment of ter judgment is not 
 revealed in the scriptures, nor is it known dis- 
 tinctly whether the Jews conceived of it as under 
 the earth, or as entirely beyond the boundaries 
 of our planet. The term aSqs is not used in the 
 scriptures to designate specifically this place, 
 for Sixty and a>? are the names given to the 
 kingdom of the dead, where the righteous and 
 the wicked both abide after death. Vide s. 
 150, I. The more appropriate designations of 
 this place are xt/u^ *vp6$ xai siov ; Rev. xx. 
 10, 15; and yiiwa, Matt. x. 28; v. 22; on 
 which place cf. Wetstein. 
 
 The names given to these punishments them- 
 selves, both before and after judgment, are in 
 part figurative, and many terms which were 
 commonly applied by the Jews to this subject 
 are retained in the New Testament. These 
 images are taken from death, capital punish- 
 ment, tortures, prisons, &c. ; and it is the design 
 of the sacred writers, in using such figures, to 
 awaken the idea of something terrible and fear- 
 ful ; future punishment, they mean to teach, will 
 awaken in men the same feelings of distress as 
 are produced by the objects employed to repre- 
 sent it. Some of the more general and literal 
 names of this punishment are oto^poj <uwvio?, 
 2 Thess. i. 9 ; 6py^ fiiM.ovoa, Matt. iii. 7; xoha- 
 fftj cuwvtoj, Matt. xxv. 46 ; fidaav oc, Luke, xvi. 
 24, 25. The more figurative names are ^avaroj, 
 John, viii. 51 ; xi. 26; dvatos Sfitffpoj, Rev. 
 xx. 6, &c. Vide s. 147, II. ; <sx6no$ and o<j>o 
 tov axotovs, Matt. xxv. ; Jude, ver. 6, seq. ; ?tup 
 cuwvtov, $x6| rtupoj, Matt. xxv. 41; xviii. 8; 
 2, Thess. i. 9; the worm which dies not, Mark, 
 ix. 44, where the comparison is taken from 
 Isaiah, Ixvi. 24 ; rtoptvea^ai drto eov, in oppo- 
 sition to beholding th? countenance of God, Matt. 
 xxv. 41 ; having no rest day nor night, Rev. 
 xiv. 11, &c. 
 
 Many of the Jews, and some even of the 
 church fathers, took these terms in an entirely 
 literal sense, and supposed there would be literal 
 fire &c. in hell. But nothing more can be in- 
 ferred with certainty from the words of Christ 
 and the apostles than that they meant by these 
 images to describe great and unending misery. 
 The name adopted by the schoolmen, damnatio 
 seterna, is founded upon Heb. vi. 2, where we 
 find xpifia, (i. e., xatdxpi.pa) atcovtov. Cf. 
 2 Thess. i. 9. 
 
 II. Nature of Future Punishments. 
 
 It is certain from the plainest declaration of 
 the holy scriptures (cf. s. 155), and may also 
 
546 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 be proved on grounds of reason, that the happi- 
 ness or misery of the future world stands in 
 most intimate connexion with the present life. 
 The rewards and blessedness of the world to 
 ome are to be regarded as the salutary and hap- 
 py consequences of the present life a,nd conduct 
 of men ; and, on the contrary, the punishments 
 there to be endured, and future misery, as the 
 sad and fatal consequences of their character 
 and actions in this world. Our future good or 
 evil estate is dependent upon our present life 
 and character. 
 
 The divine punishments are divided into na- 
 tural and positive, or arbitrary, and both these 
 kinds belong to future punishment. Vide s. 31, 
 86, 87. 
 
 (1) Among natural punishments we may 
 reckon the following viz., 
 
 (a) The loss or deprivation of eternal happi- 
 ness, pccna damni, Matt. vii. 21 23, artoxcopti-ts 
 a*' spov. Matt. xxii. 13; xxv. 41 : in all of 
 these texts the representation is figurative. Cf. 
 2 Thess. i. 9, Si/'x^v tiaovaw dwto 7tpo<ju>7toi) "fov 
 KvpJov i. e., removed from Christ, and from 
 the happiness which he enjoys. 
 
 (6) The painful sensations which are the na- 
 tural consequence of committing sin, and of an 
 impenitent heart, pvena sensus. These punish- 
 ments are inevitable, and connected as closely 
 and inseparably with sin as any effect with its 
 cause. From the consciousness of being guilty 
 of sin arise regret, sorrow, and remorse of con- 
 science, and it is these inward pangs which are 
 the most grievous and tormenting. The con- 
 science of man is a stern accuser, which cannot 
 be refuted or bribed, and the more its voice is 
 disregarded or suppressed here upon earth, the 
 more loudly will it speak hereafter. For man 
 will then be no longer surrounded, as he is in 
 this world, with external circumstances, which 
 distract the mind, and prevent him from seeing 
 the heinousness of sin, and from reflecting on 
 bis unhappy situation. He will pass at once 
 from the noise and tumult of the things of sense 
 into the stillness of the future world, and will 
 there awake to reflection. He will then see 
 how he has neglected the means of improvement 
 and salvation, and to what irreparable injury he 
 has thus exposed himself. 
 
 Add to this, that the propensity to sin, the 
 passions and evil desires which in this world 
 occupy the human heart, are carried along into 
 the next. For it cannot be supposed that they 
 will be suddenly eradicated as by a miracle ; and 
 this is not promised. But these desires and 
 propensities can no longer find satisfaction in 
 the future world, where man will be placed in 
 an entirely different situation, and surrounded 
 by a circle of objects entirely new; hence they 
 will become the more inflamed. From the very 
 nature of the case it is plain, therefore, that the 
 
 state of such a man hereafter must necessarily 
 be miserable. Shame, regret, remorse, hope- 
 lessness, and absolute despair, are the natural, 
 inevitable, and extremely dreadful consequences 
 of the sins committed in this life. 
 
 (2) But there are also, according to the most 
 incontrovertible declarations of the scriptures, 
 positive or arbitrary punishments i. e., such as- 
 stand in no natural and necessary connexion, 
 with sin. Vide Morus, p. 297, note 2. This. 
 is, indeed, denied by those who will not allow 
 that God inflicts any arbitrary punishments. 
 Vide s. 31, 36, 87. But even if they suppose 
 they can make their opinion appear probable on 
 philosophical grounds, they ought not still to- 
 assert that the doctrine of positive punishments 
 is not taught in the Bible. All the ancient na- 
 tions who believed in the punishments of hell 
 regarded these punishments, at least the most 
 severe and terrible of them, as positive or arbi- 
 trary i. e., as depending on the will of the 
 Legislator; as, on the other band, they regard- 
 ed the rewards of the pious as not merely natu- 
 ral, but principally arbitrary. 
 
 There are, in fact, but few men in such a state; 
 that the merely natural punishments of sin will 
 appear to them terrible enough to deter them, 
 from the commission of it; and so, for this rea- 
 son, if for no other, the doctrine of positive pu- 
 nishments should be retained in popular instruc- 
 tion. Experience also shews that to threaten 
 positive punishment has far more effect, as well 
 upon the cultivated as the uncultivated, in de- 
 terring them from crime, than to announce and 
 lead men to expect the merely natural conse- 
 quences of sin, be they ever so terrible. Hence 1 
 we may see why it is that the New Testament 
 says little of natural punishments, (although 
 these beyond a question await the wicked,) and 
 makes mention of them in particular far less 
 frequently than of positive punishments; and 
 why, in those passages which treat of the pu- 
 nishments of hell, such expressions and images 
 are almost always employed as suggest and 
 confirm the idea of positive punishments. Cf. 
 No. I. of this section ad finem. 
 
 Those, therefore, who consider Jesus to be 
 a teacher of truth, in whose mouth there was no 
 guile, must necessarily believe also his often 
 repeated declarations on this subject. It is very 
 inconsistent in some modern philosophers and 
 theologians to admit of positive rewards for the 
 pious, and yet deny positive punishments for the 
 wicked. We are, indeed, compelled to admit 
 positive rewards, because those which are merely 
 natural are not sufficient to complete the mea- 
 sure of our happiness. If the positive rewards 
 are probable on grounds of reason, how can it 
 be said that positive punishments are impossible 
 and contradictory ? It was, moreover, the pre- 
 vailing doctrine among the Jews at the time of 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 547 
 
 Christ, that punishments are for the most part 
 positive, and that they affect even the body. 
 Hence the words of Christ, drtota'crai ^v%^v xai 
 tjwua, Matt. x. 28. For since the impenitent 
 will be again clothed with a body at the resur- 
 rection, this body must participate in their pu- 
 nishment, as the body of the righteous will par- 
 ticipate in their reward. 
 
 As to the question, In what these positive or 
 corporeal punishments will consist ? no definite 
 answer can be drawn from the Bible, because 
 it is plainly intended that all the representations 
 made of this subject should be understood figu- 
 ratively and by way of comparison i. e., these 
 punishments will consist of pains like those, 
 ft. g., arising from fire or from a gnawing worm. 
 We are so little acquainted with the state in 
 which we shall be hereafter, and with the na- 
 ture of our future body, that no strictly literal 
 representation of future punishments could be 
 made intelligible to us. Even the place in 
 which the wicked are confined will contribute 
 much to their misery, also the company of other 
 sinners, and of evil spirits a circumstance 
 particularly mentioned in Matt. xxv. 41. 
 
 Note. The efforts of those who have endea- 
 voured to persuade even the common people 
 and the young that no positive divine punish- 
 ments are to be expected in the world to come, 
 have ever had a most injurious tendency, as 
 the history of all ages will shew. For the 
 deep-rooted expectation of such punishments 
 among all nations has always been a check 
 upon the more gross outbreakings of sin. It 
 was from this expectation that the oath derived 
 its sacred ness and inviolableness. It is often 
 said by Cicero and others, that all philosophers, 
 both Greek and Roman, are agreed in this, that 
 the gods do not punish, dcos non nocere. But 
 as soon as this opinion of the philosophers be- 
 gan to prevail among the people, it produced, 
 according to the testimony of all the Roman 
 writers, the most disastrous consequences, 
 which lasted for centuries. No subsequent ef- 
 forts could ever succeed in awakening a fear 
 of divine punishments in the minds of the great 
 multitude. Hence resulted the deplorable de- 
 generacy of the Roman empire. Truth and 
 faith ceased, chastity became contemptible, 
 perjury was practised without shame, and 
 every species of luxurious excess and of cruelty 
 was indulged. To this corruption no philoso- 
 pher was able to oppose any effectual resist- 
 ance; until at length its course was arrested 
 by Christianity. 
 
 Among Christians themselves such efforts 
 have always been followed by similar disastrous 
 consequences. 
 
 (1) The papal sale of indulgences, which be- 
 came general during the twelfth and the suc- 
 ceeding centuries, and especially after the cru- 
 
 sades, had a tendency, in the same way, to 
 diminish the fear of positive divine punishments, 
 because it was supposed one might purchase 
 exemption from them. The result of this delu- 
 sion was equally deplorable in this case as in 
 the one before mentioned; the greatest immo- 
 ralities prevailed throughout Christian lands; 
 until this evil was arrested by the reformation, 
 and the fear and the love of God were both 
 awakened anew in the hearts of Christians. 
 
 (2) A similar result took place in England in 
 the latter half of the seventeenth century, when 
 some rationalist philosophers, during the reign 
 of Charles II., undertook to emancipate the 
 minds of men from the fear of positive divine 
 punishments. The effect of their efforts is well 
 known from history. Frivolity of spirit, im- 
 morality, sins of impurity, and all the dreadful 
 consequences of forgetting God, suddenly pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 (3) The principles of these English philoso- 
 phers were gradually diffused through France 
 by the writings of Voltaire, Diderot, and others; 
 and after 1740, they were also adopted and dis- 
 seminated by some even in Germany. The 
 history of our own times shews us sufficiently 
 what has been the result of these principles here. 
 
 It is agreeable to the gospel it is, indeed the 
 very spirit of the gospel, to represent God as 
 Love. It is also right for the evangelical teacher, 
 indeed, it is his duty, to preach respecting the 
 infinite love of God, especially as it is manifested 
 in Jesus Christ. In this his whole heart should 
 live. But he must never forget to teach in what 
 order and on what conditions alone man becomes 
 susceptible of these proofs of the divine favour. 
 The gospel itself, though at a loss for words 
 sufficiently to magnify the infinite love of God, 
 represents also his penal justice in a light ex- 
 tremely terrifying to all who do not fall in with 
 this prescribed order, and threatens them with 
 the most severe and inevitable punishments in 
 the world to come. Both of these views should 
 therefore be connected together. Cf. the small 
 work written by Jacobi, Was soil ich zur Beru- 
 higung meiner Seele glauben ? Was soil ich hoffen 
 bey den mannichfaltigen Meinungen der Gelehr- 
 ten?" 1790; s. 8396. 
 
 III. The Justice and Necessity of the Punishments 
 of Hell,' the Sins which being Condemnation in 
 their train ; and the different Degrees of Punish- 
 ment. 
 
 (1) That there will be punishments in the 
 future state has been believed by nearly all men 
 who have reflected impartially upon the world, 
 the destiny of man as a moral being, and upon 
 the attributes of God. It is obvious to every 
 one that the earth is not the theatre of the divine 
 justice, and that the lot of man here below is 
 not justly apportioned to his moral conduct. 
 
548 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 The greatest criminal often goes unpunished, 
 and lives, perhaps, in external peace and pros- 
 perity; and the pious, good man is often unre- 
 warded, lives in adverse external circumstances, 
 and frequently is severely persecuted. All this, 
 now, appears to contradict our ideas of the di- 
 vine justice, goodness, and wisdom, and makes 
 the destination of man an inexplicable riddle. 
 
 As soon, therefore, as men came to believe in 
 a future life, and began to reflect upon the dis- 
 proportion which now exists between the moral 
 character and the happiness of men, the thought 
 would naturally suggest itself to their minds 
 that the proper theatre of divine justice will be 
 first opened in the world to come, and that the 
 punishment of the sinner there may be as confi- 
 dently expected as the reward of the righteous, 
 since in this way only can either the justice or 
 goodness of God be vindicated. Vide the Arti- 
 cle on Providence, especially s. 71, VI., ad 
 finem. Also Michaelis, Ueber die Lehre von 
 der Siinde, s. 314. Such, accordingly, is the 
 uniform representation of the New Testament. 
 Vide 2 Thess. i. 5, seq. ; Rorn. ii. 6, seq. 
 
 (2) Causes of condemnation. According to the 
 conceptions of men possessing only a very limited 
 and imperfect knowledge of moral things, it is 
 only a few of the grosser crimes which are 
 punished after death. In proportion as their 
 ideas on moral subjects become enlarged and 
 perfected, the number of offences which they re- 
 gard as liable to punishment is increased, and 
 they come at length to the just result that every 
 sin must be punished. Vide s. 150, II. 2. And 
 so, according to the express doctrine of the New 
 Testament, all irreligiousness (an ungodly dis- 
 position, forgetfulness of God, dcr^ta), every 
 transgression of the divine precepts, all kinds 
 of vice and moral corruption, will be inevitably 
 punished in the future world ; and this punish- 
 ment will be inflicted not only upon those who, 
 like Jews and Christians, have the express 
 written law of God, but also upon the heathen, 
 who have merely the law of nature. Vide Rom. 
 ii. 6 16; Gal. iv. 8; Matt. xxv. 41, seq.; 1 
 Cor. vi. 9 ; 2 Pet. ii. 13. 
 
 Especially is art^la, or artsfeua represented 
 as a cause of condemnation. So Mark, xvi. IG, 
 "he that believeth not is condemned." John, 
 iii. 18, and- ver. 36, o aris^Mv vi<? ovx o^/ffat 
 ^w^v, &M.' 37 6py>7 fov p^vst, trt avT'ov. By this 
 unbelief is meant, the deliberate rejection of the 
 doctrine of Christ, and disobedience to his pre- 
 cepts, against one's better conviction. It in- 
 cludes also apostasy from the Christian doctrine 
 when it has been once received and acknowledged 
 as true; Hebrews, x. 26, 39. Everything there- 
 fore which draws after it punishment in the fu- 
 ture world may be comprehended under arao'tCo, 
 and cU-Ojiu'a a criminal disbelief and transgres- 
 sion of the divine precepts. Whoever, then, is 
 
 or dvo^oj, will be unhappy hereafter, 
 however different the degrees of unhappiness 
 may be. On the contrary, rtiWi$ and twopos 
 j3t'oj (ftw'fJfia) will be followed by blessedness, 
 however great the difference in degree may be. 
 It will be understood, of course, that among the 
 unbelieving who will be punished those are not 
 included who have no opportunity to become 
 acquainted with the divine will or with the 
 Christian doctrine, or who are naturally incapa- 
 citated for this; in short, those who do not be- 
 lieve without any fault of their own e. g., 
 children and many of the heathen. Vide s. 121. 
 
 Note. As to the number of those who will be 
 saved and lost, the Bible says nothing definitely. 
 When, on a certain occasion, the question was 
 proposed to Christ, Whether the number of the 
 saved would be small? he gave an answer, ac- 
 cording to Luke, xiii. 23, seq., of the following 
 import: "Ask not such questions from an idle 
 curiosity, but act as if thou wert alone among 
 many thousands." There are, indeed, many 
 who will be saved, (cf. ver. 28, 29, and Rev. 
 vii. 9,) but among them there will be many 
 whose lot it was supposed would be different; 
 and not all of those who account themselves the 
 heirs of salvation, and are so esteemed by others, 
 will be found in this number, ver. 29, 30. It 
 is often distinctly affirmed by Christ, that among 
 those who profess his name there are many 
 who will not obtain eternal life, although he de- 
 sires to lead all to salvation. E. g., Matt. xx. 16 ; 
 xxii. 14, " many are called, but few are chosen" 
 i. e., many who hear me suffer themselves 
 to be instructed in my doctrine, and become ex- 
 ternally professors of my religion (x^rot) ; but 
 few, however, belong to the number of the 
 chosen saints, the elect, those who are well- 
 pleasing in the sight of God, who do that which 
 is commanded them, who are what they should 
 be. It is the same as to Matt. vii. 13, 14, where 
 Christ shews that the way in which many 
 teachers lead the people is not the right way for 
 attaining salvation i. e., their instruction is not 
 true and salutary, although followed by the ma- 
 jority of men (latavia}; the right and sure way 
 which he points out meets with less approbation 
 (it is narrow and forsaken, trodden by few), be- 
 cause it is more difficult and requires many sa- 
 crifices. For there were at that time but few 
 who believed on him, and kept his command- 
 ments with the whole heart. 
 
 (3) As there are future punishments, they 
 must be different in degree. Vide Morus, p. 298, 
 s. 9. This might be concluded a priori, and 
 might be reasonably expected from the justice 
 of God; for there are different degrees in sin, 
 and one is greater than another; (vide s. 81, 
 II. ;) and hence punishments, both natural and 
 positive, must he proportionately varied. Now 
 this is ike uniform doctrine of Jesus and the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 549 
 
 apostles. The more knowledge of the divine 
 will a man has, the more opportunity and in- 
 ducement to avoid sin, the greater the incentives 
 to faith and virtue which are held up before him, 
 by so much is his responsibility increased, and 
 the greater will be his punishment if he does not 
 make a faithful use of his advantages. "The 
 servant who knows his Lord's will, and does it 
 not, deserves to be beaten with many stripes." 
 " To whom much is given, of him will much be 
 required." Matt. x. 15; xxiii. 15; Luke, xii. 
 46. Hence Paul says that the heathen who act 
 against the law of nature will be punished ; but 
 that the Jews will be punished more than they, 
 because they had more knowledge, and more was 
 given to them. 
 
 But we can go no further than this general 
 rule, that this difference of degree will be ap- 
 portioned xata lyvuGiv, rtiWt-v, and i'pya. For 
 God alone is able rightly to appoint punish- 
 ments, and to fix their degree, since he alone is 
 able by his omniscience to determine infallibly 
 the degree of sin and its ill desert. It may 
 therefore be, that many whom we regard as ut- 
 terly damnable may not in God's judgment de- 
 serve damnation, or not that degree of it which 
 we award them. Others, on the contrary, to 
 whom we might adjudge reward, may appear 
 in the eyes of God to deserve severe punish- 
 ment. 
 
 SECTION CLVII. 
 
 DURATION OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS ; REASONS 
 FOR AND AGAINST THEIR ETERNAL DURATION. 
 
 Reasons in favour of the Eternal Duration of Fu- 
 ture Punishments, and what is, or may be, ob- 
 jected against these Reasons. 
 
 (1) From the holy scriptures. In the New 
 Testament, the punishments of hell are ex- 
 pressly described as eternal. In Matt. xxv. 41, 
 46, we find rtvp <uu>vtoj> and xoTiastj atcovtoj op- 
 posed to w7 atuvto;* in both of these sentences, 
 therefore, must attonoj be taken in the same 
 sense, per legern disjunctions. And so, if in 
 connexion with ^, it means unending, eternal, 
 it must mean the same in connexion with itvp. 
 In accordance with this must other texts be ex- 
 plained ; as where it is said respecting the fallen 
 angels, that they are bound in Stcr/tot diStoi, 
 Jude, ver. 6, coll. 2 Pet. ii. 4; Rev. xiv. 11 ; 
 oto^po? cwavtoj, 2 Thess. i. 9 ; Mark, ix. 44, 46 ; 
 Rev. xx. 10. So in John, iii. 36, where it is 
 said respecting unbelievers, (JLSVSI % 6py^ eov 
 ovx o^cfot W]v. In Matt. xxvi. 24, Christ 
 says respecting Judas, "that it would have 
 been better for him never to have been born." 
 
 With regard to these texts we shall here sub- 
 join some observations. 
 
 (a) On the texts in which ouwv and cutoff 
 are used. These are regarded by some as not 
 decisive. For D*?IJ? and <uwi> are used to denote 
 any long duration or period of time. Sometimes 
 they refer to the past, and denote ages gone by, 
 ancient days, antiquity , thus, rtvhai atu>pta, Ps. 
 xxiv. 7, 9 ; Itrj at an a, years of antiquity, Ps. 
 Ixxvii. 5; ^povot atapuu, Rom. xvi. 25; a*' 
 atwvoj, Acts, iii. 21. Sometimes they refer to 
 future time, and are applied to everything 
 which lasts long, although in time it may come 
 to an end, or has come to it already. For the 
 Hebrews and other ancient people have no one 
 word for expressing the precise idea of eternity. 
 Cf. s. 20, III., respecting the eternity of God. 
 Thus Paul, 2 Cor. iv. 18, opposes aioviov to 
 Ttpotfxcupor. Thus Sia^x"/] atunoj is used with 
 reference to the Mosaic institute, although it 
 came to an end, Ex. xxxi. 16 ; the same as to 
 ispateia ativwj, Num. XXV. 13. 
 
 From this, as some suppose, it follows, that 
 jco^acrt? atai'toj may mean either the pain and 
 condemnation ordained by God of old (as Christ 
 says, with regard to the blessedness opposed to 
 it, that it was ftpo^toLfiau^sv^, Matt. xxv. 34, 
 41), or misery and happiness long continued, 
 lasting for ages, without yet designating a dura- 
 tion absolutely endless; or both of these senses 
 may be comprehended under this expression. In 
 the invisible world, everything is aiovtov and 
 dtStov. There, according to the conceptions of 
 all nations, time is not measured by years and 
 short human periods, as it is here in the world, 
 but by long periods, by ages. 
 
 To this some add the remark, that rtrp and 
 xohaais aiavtoj properly denote the place, the 
 kingdom, the residence of the lost the state of 
 condemnation; as {3aat,teia tov and u>r] atai/toj 
 denote the place, the abode of the blessed. 
 This place, they say, may be eternal, because 
 it will never be without occupants, or persons 
 who endure punishment on account of sin. 
 There will always be two different kingdoms, 
 one of happiness, the other of misery, the dis- 
 tinction between which will never be removed, 
 and which can never be united. But from this 
 it does not follow that every person who has 
 once been there, or suffered punishment, will 
 remain there for ever. 
 
 (5) As to the phrase, their worm dieth not, 
 &c., Mark, ix., this, it is said, occurs also in 
 Is. Ixvi. 24, with reference to the unhappy fate 
 of the idolatrous Israelites, and is transferred 
 here to the punishments of hell. Since, how- 
 ever, in the former case it does not denote an 
 absolute eternity of suffering, but only its 
 dreadfulness and long continuance, so it is at 
 least possible it may mean the same here. And 
 as to the term pivsi in John, iii., the idea of 
 eternity is still less implied in this. As used 
 
550 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 by John, it may stand for ilvtu, and denote only 
 the certainty and inevitablenesss of future pu- 
 nishments. 
 
 (c) In the passage with regard to Judas, 
 Matt, xxvi., the language employed, it is said, 
 may be proverb! aland popular, not admitting of 
 a strict construction. It is as much as to say, 
 *' such an one makes himself extremely misera- 
 ble; well would it be for him had he never 
 been born !" 
 
 But those texts in which there is a clear con- 
 trast between <o^ cuoi/toj and xo^afftj ouaz/toj, 
 cannot be so easily explained away as some 
 suppose. And if any one considers them im- 
 partially, and without attempting to prevent 
 their obvious meaning, he will not fail to de- 
 rive from them, as Morus justly observes, (p. 
 300, ad finem,) "idea sempiternitatis, non autem 
 longi temporis," For since ^wj? atcmoj in all 
 the other discourses of Jesus is understood, 
 without contradiction, to denote a blessed life 
 lasting for ever, there is no reason >r under- 
 standing it differently here. And if ^^ cuivcof 
 here means eternal life, then, per legem disjunc- 
 tionis, must xoXatftj <HQI>IOJ denote eternal, un- 
 ending punishment. And the other texts relat- 
 ing to this subject must now be explained in 
 accordance with these. 
 
 (2) Other arguments a priori have been em- 
 ployed in behalf of the eternity of future punish- 
 ments. 
 
 (a) The guilt (culpa, reatus') of sin, it is said, 
 is infinite, and its punishment must therefore be 
 the same. The injured majesty of the law- 
 giver is infinite, and hence punishment for the 
 injury must be infinite too. This argument 
 was employed by many of the schoolmen 
 e. g., Thomas Aquinas, and has also been urged 
 by Mosheim, and other modern theologians. 
 
 Answer. There is no infinitus reatus peccato- 
 rum, nor can the object against which sin is 
 committed be made in every case the measure 
 of its criminality or ill desert; certainly this 
 cannot be done with regard to God. Vide s. 
 81, ad finem. 
 
 (6) Every sin is followed, to all eternity, by 
 injurious consequences to him who commits it; 
 as every virtue or good action is followed by 
 good consequences. The wicked, therefbre, 
 must be miserable to all eternity, and endure 
 the punishment of their sins. 
 
 Answer. This is very true, as far as natural 
 punishments, or the natural evil consequences 
 of sin, are spoken of. And if these are meant 
 when the eternity of future punishments is 
 mentioned, then indeed must they be called 
 eternal, since something will always be de- 
 tracted from the happiness of the sinner for his 
 having sinned, even if he repents, and all posi- 
 tive punishments are removed from him or re- 
 
 pealed, as it cannot be otherwise than that the 
 natural consequences of sin should always re- 
 main. Those who have sinned will always 
 stand proportionably below others in point of 
 happiness, as there are degrees both of blessed- 
 ness and misery. 
 
 Here, however, two things should be remark- 
 ed viz., first, all the consequences of our ac- 
 tions cannot be imputed to us, and so all the 
 evil consequences of our actions cannot be re- 
 garded as punishment, especially in case it was 
 impossible for us to foresee these consequences, 
 or when we sinned unintentionally. Secondly. 
 Divine Providence has wisely ordered it, that 
 good and useful consequences shall often result 
 even from the sins of men, and these conse- 
 quences are equally unending e. g., through 
 the unbelief of the Jews the heathen are saved, 
 according to Paul, Rom. xi. This now should 
 be taken into consideration, in mitigation of the 
 guilt and punishableness of many sins. 
 
 (c) Another argument in behalf of the eter- 
 nity of future punishments is drawn from the 
 scientia media Dei. Vide s. 22, 1. With regard 
 to some men, God foresaw that if they conti- 
 nued here upon the earth they would sin with- 
 out cessation. Since now these persons are 
 such, as to their whole constitution and dispo- 
 sition, that they would go on for ever to sin, 
 they are justly punished for ever. This argu- 
 ment was employed by Fulgentius and Gregory 
 the great; and it has been again used of late by 
 Drexel, Baumgarten, Troschel, and others. 
 
 Answer. It cannot be reconciled with our 
 ideas of justice that sins which were never ac- 
 tually committed should be punished as if they 
 had been committed. If a human ruler should 
 punish an individual for crimes of which he was 
 never actually guilty, but which he knew with 
 certainty he would perpetrate if he had means, 
 time, and opportunity, it would doubtless be 
 pronounced unjust and tyrannical. The fact, 
 too, is very questionable, whether there are any 
 men who would go to sin without interruption, 
 in every possible situation and under all cir- 
 cumstances in which they might be placed in 
 this world. Nothing like this is taught us in 
 the Christian doctrine. According to this, God 
 punishes only ta i'pya, or a iTtpaffv f'xatyroj. 
 Rom. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 10. 
 
 (e?) The eternity of the punishments of hell 
 is inferred by others from the bias to sin, which 
 will continually acquire strength in those who 
 are lost, and finally make repentance impossible. 
 It is often seen, even here upon the earth, how 
 deeply this propensity to sin takes root when it 
 is long indulged, and how difficult, and indeed 
 impossible, repentance becomes. Besides, the 
 use of the means of grace is confined to the pre- 
 sent life. Hereafter there will be no preaching 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 551 
 
 of the word of God, and no sacraments, and the 
 grace of God will no longer be there given to 
 bring men to repentance. 
 
 Answer. In these statements there is much 
 which is vague and incapable of proof. 
 
 First. The state of things in the future world 
 is very different from the state here. The rea- 
 son why the bias to sin takes such deep root, 
 and why reformation is so difficult in the pre- 
 sent world, often lies in the external circum- 
 stances by which man is surrounded, and which 
 make an irresistible impression upon his senses. 
 As soon as these objects can be removed, or the 
 impression which they make upon the senses 
 can be weakened, it is seen that reformation 
 becomes more easy. But now in the future 
 world the spirits of lost men will no longer be 
 surrounded by these external objects, which 
 prove so exciting to the senses; so that, even 
 if the impression before made upon them by 
 these objects should for awhile remain, they 
 must still, from the very nature of the human 
 soul, become weaker and weaker in the absence 
 of these excitements. It would seem, there- 
 fore, that sometimes, at least, the propensity to 
 sin must gradually decrease in the future world, 
 especially when we consider that those, who are 
 lost, being no longer deceived by external and 
 sensible objects, and being no longer withdrawn 
 from reflection as when upon the earth, will 
 now see and deeply feel the evil consequences 
 of sin. 
 
 Secondly. From hence we may conclude, if 
 the use of reason is not wholly denied to the 
 damned, and if their moral nature is not wholly 
 destroyed, that it is not improbable that even in 
 hell they may possibly conceive an abhorrence of 
 sin, and renounce their love for it, although the 
 word of God is not there preached, nor the sacra- 
 ments there administered. Morus, p. 301. The 
 knowledge which they will carry with them 
 from this life into the next cannot be entirely 
 obliterated ; nor can it be supposed that God 
 will compel them to sin, or so entirely withhold 
 from them his grace that they will not be able 
 to come to the knowledge of their sins, and to 
 renounce the prejudice and wickedness cherish- 
 ed during the present life. For God to do this 
 would be to punish sin with sin, and to be him- 
 self the author of new offences. It may be 
 asked, then, whether the end of the divine pu- 
 nishments, to promote the actual reformation of 
 those upon whom they are inflicted, may not be 
 attained even in the case of those who will 
 hereafter be condemned 1 
 
 Thirdly. But should any one say that these 
 punishments will be so severe, and will cause 
 so great pain, that they will rather drive those 
 upon whom they are inflicted to despair, dis- 
 traction, or fury, than promote their repentance, 
 ho does not consider that such a statement can 
 
 hardly be reconciled with our ideas of the jus- 
 tice and goodness of God. These ideas do not 
 permit us to suppose that he will punish any 
 one as an offender from whom he himself has 
 withdrawn all opportunity for repentance and 
 all freedom of action. He only can be rightly 
 punished who enjoyed freedom, but would not 
 employ the means and opportunities for reform- 
 ation which were offered him. 
 
 II. Arguments for the Finiteness of Future Punish- 
 ments, and Objections to these Arguments. 
 
 Besides what is commonly said to invalidate 
 the prevailing opinion of the eternity of future 
 punishments, the following arguments are often 
 employed to support the opinion that they are 
 finite in duration. These arguments are of very 
 unequal weight. 
 
 (1) Arguments from the New Testament* 
 (a) The advocates of this opinion appeal to the 
 declaration of Peter, Acts, iii. 21, where #pov<x. 
 artoxataardaeus rtavruv are spoken of, which 
 God had before promised by the prophets. This- 
 is understood by many to denote the future re- 
 covery of lost spirits and men to a happy condi- 
 tion, which is on this account called restoration* 
 (6) The finiteness of future punishments is in- 
 ferred by others from the efficacy and univer- 
 sality of the merits of Christ. There is no rea- 
 son, they say, to limit the salutary consequences- 
 of his work merely to the present life. It will 
 continue to be efficacious in the future world if 
 man is only willing to reform. Such is the 
 reasoning of many, and they refer to 1 Cor. xv. 
 22 28, where ^ai/aroj denotes misery and the 
 punishment of sin; and also other texts. 
 
 Answer. From the New Testament, how- 
 ever, no clear argument can be derived in be- 
 half of the finite duration of future punish- 
 ments ; for, 
 
 (a) The passage in 1 Cor. xv. treats of death 
 in the literal sense, since ^avowo^ is there op- 
 posed to the resurrection of the dead, and it is 
 there expressly said that Christ, in raising the 
 dead to life, will conquer this last enemy of the 
 human race. Cf. s. 98, ad fin. This is therefore 
 described as his last great work for the good of 
 the human race. And so, judging from this pas- 
 sage, one could expect no influence of Christ, 
 or of his work for the good of men, beyond the 
 grave. 
 
 (6) That the passage referred to in Acts iii. 
 does not relate to this point is beyond all ques- 
 tion. Vide Ernesti's Programm on this text* 
 in his Opusc. Theol.," p. 477, seq. Cf. s. 97 r 
 ad finem. The meaning of this passage is as- 
 follows: "The heavens have received Christ, 
 or retain him within themselves, as long as 
 (a^ptj oti) the happy period of the New Testament 
 continues." He will not come again to found 
 an earthly kingdom. In ver. 20, these 
 
553 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 rtavt'cov are called xaipol avo^v- 
 |?coj artb Krptov, and in Heb. ix. 10, xaipoj Stop^w- 
 tfgwj. Thus it is said in Matt. xvii. 11, 'Hu'aj 
 (i. e., John) artoxa-taa-trfiei, rtdvta, where the 
 phrase is taken from the Sept. Version of Mai. 
 iv. 6. ttdvta refers to everything which needs 
 reformation in religious affairs, and to every- 
 thing which is predicted by the prophets. Cf. 
 Morus, p. 301. 
 
 (c) Nor is there in the discourses of Jesus a 
 single passage which encourages the hope that 
 there will be a termination of future punish- 
 ments. Cf., e. g., Luke, xvi. 
 
 (2) Arguments from reason for the finite dura- 
 tion of future punishments. The principal of 
 these are drawn from our ideas of the divine at- 
 tributes, the goodness, wisdom, and justice of 
 God. How can it be reconciled with these at- 
 tributes, it is asked, that God should make so 
 large a number of his rational creatures for ever 
 miserable ? How can God, who is love itself, 
 punish his creatures eternally because they have 
 lived zfew years only in a thoughtless, wicked, 
 and irrational manner? This seems to be 
 wholly disproportionate. Again it is asked, 
 how could God create beings whose eternal 
 misery he foresaw ? 
 
 To these questions it may be replied, 
 
 (a) That although the views expressed in 
 them are in general true, yet our limited under- 
 standing is unable to determine, in particular 
 cases, what is to be expected from the divine 
 goodness, wisdom, and justice, and what is ac- 
 cordant with these attributes, and what other- 
 wise. And so, although it may appear to us to 
 be agreeable to the goodness and the other attri- 
 butes of God to put a period to the punishments 
 of hell, still it does not follow that he must ne- 
 cessarily, or will actually do this. Did we not 
 see it to be a fact, that God has created a world 
 in which there is so much physical and moral 
 evil, we should proceed to argue, on this prin- 
 ciple, that it would be inconsistent with his 
 perfections to give such a world existence, and 
 should think that we had reasoned conclusively. 
 
 (6) Again; in reply to the above questions it 
 may be said, that God does not look merely at 
 single individuals, but has respect to the whole 
 of his creation, and that he must prefer the wel- 
 fare of the whole to that of a few. The offender 
 himself may not always be benefited by the di- 
 vine punishments visited upon him, butjiis ex- 
 ample may yet serve for the warning of others, 
 and thus conduce to their good. Cf. Rom. ix. 
 17, 22. Thus the eternal punishments inflicted 
 upon some may perhaps serve, through all eter- 
 nity, to deter from sins many other beings in the 
 boundless empire of God good angels, and 
 men redeemed, and perhaps still other classes 
 of beings not belonging to this world. By 
 this punishment, therefore, a good may be done 
 
 for many which will overbalance the evil in- 
 flicted on a few. The subject is exhibited by 
 Michaelis in this light in his work, " Von der 
 Sunde," s. 325, seq. Plato, in his Gorgias, 
 near the end, ascribes a similar thought to So- 
 crates ; " he believed that the irreclaimable part 
 of mankind would be eternally punished, as 
 , i'va aXXot, opuivt* j, ^o^ov^svoi, ]3sk- 
 There is much probability in 
 this thought. The force of it, however, some 
 endeavour to invalidate, by saying that it is 
 conceiving of God too narrowly, and too much 
 after the manner of men. God cannot be want- 
 ing in other means by which this object could 
 be more easily and surely attained. Again ; it is 
 very much to be doubted whether the example of 
 persons condemned to eternal punishment would 
 have such a powerful effect upon all, and ac- 
 tually deter them from sin. This effect is not 
 certainly produced upon many here in this 
 world, who believe most confidently in the 
 eternity of future punishments. Moreover, it 
 is an imperfection belonging to human legisla- 
 tors and rulers, and not therefore to be trans- 
 ferred to the supreme legislator, that the pu- 
 nishments inflicted by them often serve merely 
 for the warning of others, and cannot secure the 
 reformation of those who are punished. Vide 
 s. 31, No. 2, respecting the positive justice of 
 God. 
 
 SECTION CLVIII. 
 
 RESULT DRAWN FROM COMPARING AND EXAMIN- 
 ING THE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS FOR AND 
 AGAINST THE ETERNAL DURATION OF FUTURE 
 PUNISHMENT; AND A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 
 
 OF THIS DOCTRINE. 
 
 I. Result of the Reasons far and against this 
 Doctrine. 
 
 (1) THERE is not a single text in the New 
 Testament, either in the discourses of Christ or 
 in the writings of the apostles, which clearly 
 authorizes the hope of an entire and universal 
 removal of all future punishments ; but exactly 
 the opposite of this sentiment is expressly af- 
 firmed in many passages. Vide s. 157, I. 1, 
 and II. 1. 
 
 (2) The following remarks, drawn partly 
 from scripture and partly from reason, may 
 serve to illustrate and confirm what we are 
 taught in the Bible respecting the duration of 
 punishment in the future world. There are 
 two kinds of punishment which the wicked will 
 be made to suffer viz., 
 
 (a) Natural punishment. As every action 
 morally good is followed by endless good con- 
 sequences to him who performs it, so it is with 
 every wrong action. This is founded in the 
 wise constitution of things which God himself 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 553 
 
 has established. When, therefore, natural pu- 
 nishments are spoken of, it is obvious to reason 
 how an eternal duration of them may be affirm- 
 ed. Indeed, reason cannot conceive it to be 
 otherwise, since there is no promise of God, 
 either in the holy scriptures or elsewhere, that 
 the natural evil consequences of sins once com- 
 mitted will ever cease. In order to this there 
 must be some incomprehensible miracle per- 
 formed, and this God has not promised to do. 
 Hence, as far as natural punishments are con- 
 cerned, their eternal duration may be affirmed, 
 both on grounds of scripture and reason. Cf. 
 s. 157, I. 2. 
 
 (Z>) Positive punishments. With regard to these 
 we may conceive that they may be removed ; 
 indeed, much can be said, on grounds of reason, 
 to render this opmionprobabk. To hope that God 
 would remove the positive punishments of sins, 
 in case the sinner, even in the future life, should 
 come to the knowledge of himself, and truly 
 repent, would seem to be agreeable to the divine 
 goodness and justice. That the repentance of 
 the sinner in the future world is absolutely im- 
 possible is not taught in the scriptures. Vide 
 s. 157, 1, 2, coll. s. 63, II. Note, respecting the 
 fallen angels. And that even these miserable 
 beings are by no means wholly excluded from 
 the active proofs of the goodness and justice of 
 God is evident from the fact that the Bible ex- 
 pressly teaches that the lot of some of the 
 damned will be more light and tolerable than that 
 of others. Vide Matt. xi. 22, 24 ; x. 15 ; Luke, 
 xii. 48. The phrase *o?uxcrtj cuwwoj may per- 
 haps relate therefore merely to the natural pu- 
 nishments of sin, and not to the positive. Still 
 it cannot be shewn that this phrase does and 
 must refer exclusively to these natural punish- 
 ments, and it is still possible that both these 
 kinds of punishment may be comprehended in 
 its meaning. In short, no arguments which are 
 merely philosophical furnish anything more than 
 a certain degree of probability on this subject; 
 they cannot enable us to decide anything defi- 
 nitely with regard to it. W T e know too little 
 what the positive punishments of the future 
 world will be, to speak decidedly with regard 
 to them. Where the object is unknown to us, 
 we cannot pronounce decidedly that the predi- 
 cate of eternal duration may not be applied to 
 them. But allowing that positive punishments 
 may be wholly removed from one who may 
 have actually repented, still the natural evil 
 consequences of sin will not therefore, of neces- 
 sity, come to an end. These may, indeed, be- 
 come more light and tolerable to one who has 
 repented, but even such an one can never be 
 happy in the same degree as another who has 
 never sinned. Such an one will always stand 
 on a lower point of happiness than others, and 
 70 
 
 there will always be a great gulf fixed between 
 him and them. 
 
 (3) The wisdom which Christ and his apos- 
 tles always shewed in exhibiting this doctrine 
 should be imitated by all Christian teachers. 
 In our practical instructions we should never 
 indulge in speculations, or suffer ourselves to 
 enter upon the investigation of learned questions 
 which the unpractised cannot understand, and 
 will but too easily misconstrue and pervert. 
 Even the distinction between natural and posi- 
 tive punishments cannot be made perfectly plain 
 to the unlearned ; and hence it is never insisted 
 upon in the sacred scriptures ; and that positive 
 punishments will ever wholly cease in the fu- 
 ture world can be shewn incontrovertibly nei- 
 ther from the Bible nor any other source. It is 
 moreover impossible to prevent the doctrine of 
 the finite duration of future punishments, let it 
 be stated ever so guardedly, from being pervert- 
 ed in various ways by the great mass of man- 
 kind, to their own injury. 
 
 Let the teacher, therefore, adhere to the sim- 
 ple doctrine of the Bible ; the more so, consi- 
 dering how little we know of the future world, 
 and how liable we are, through our ignorance, 
 to mistake. Had more full disclosures on this 
 subject been necessary or useful for us in the 
 present life, they would have been given to us 
 by God either through nature, or direct revela- 
 tion, or in both these ways. But since he has 
 not seen fit to do this, let the Christian teacher 
 exhibit faithfully and conscientiously that only 
 which Christ and the apostles taught on this 
 subject, without either adding anything to their 
 testimony, or diminishing aught from it. 
 
 Note. Some modern writers, who admit that 
 eternal punishments are threatened in the Bible, 
 but who are unable to reconcile this doctrine 
 with their preconceived philosophical or theo- 
 logical principles, have hit upon the thought 
 that God has merely threatened these eternal 
 punishments, in order to deter men more effec- 
 tually from sin, and to sustain more firmly the 
 authority of his law ; but that it depends upon 
 himself to what degree he will fulfil his threat- 
 enings. In executing the sentence, he can and 
 will, it is said, abate something from the seve- 
 rity of the punishment threatened. So thought 
 Tillctson, in his Sermon on the Pains of Hell. 
 And this view has appeared not improbable to 
 many German theologians e. g., Bushing, 
 Bahrdt, (in his "Dogmatik,") Less, and others. J 
 
 But such a supposition is unworthy of God. 
 Human legislators do, indeed, in consequence 
 of their weakness, sometimes resort to such ex- 
 pedients, in order to sustain the authority of 
 their laws. Still such measures, even among 
 men, are generally followed by injurious conse- 
 quences, and are rarely adopted except by weak 
 3A 
 
554 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 princes. But with regard to God, who is faith- 
 ful and true, such a supposition is incongruous. 
 Nor does he need any such expedients, since he 
 cannot want for means to effect this object, 
 without going contrary to his veracity. Be- 
 sides, the whole strength and efficacy of all the 
 threatenings connected with the divine laws 
 would by this supposition be diminished. For 
 men are always inclined enough to believe that 
 they shall not, after all these threatenings, be 
 dealt with so strictly and severely, because they 
 have been accustomed to see some abatement 
 of the penalty annexed to human laws, when it 
 comes to be inflicted. But against so hurtful a 
 mistake the holy scriptures labour with the 
 greatest earnestness, and everywhere insist 
 upon the doctrine of the divine veracity, and 
 the unfailing fulfilment of the divine threaten- 
 ings; e. g., Heb. iv. 12, 13. 
 
 II. Sketch of the History of this Doctrine among 
 
 Christians. 
 
 Cf. Burnet, De Statu Mortuorum et Resur- 
 gentium; also, J. A. Dietelmair, Hist. Anti- 
 quior Commenti Fanatici de artoxaTfatrtdofuisis 
 ftdvtw', Altorf, 1769, 8vo; and Cotta, Historia 
 succincta Dogmatis de Pcenarum Infernalium 
 Duratione; Tubing. 1774. 
 
 (1) We are not to expect any deeply-learned 
 and philosophical investigations and distinc- 
 tions, with regard to this subject, from the sim- 
 plicity of the earliest Christian period. The 
 teachers were then contented with the simple 
 doctrine of the apostles which has been already 
 exhibited, and they made use of this with the 
 most happy success in their didactic and horta- 
 tory discourses. Afterwards, since the second 
 century, when they began to mingle the philo- 
 sophy of the schools with Christianity, they fell 
 into speculation upon this doctrine. Some un- 
 dertook to define the idea of atwvtoj more accu- 
 rately, and to shew that it does not necessarily 
 imply punishments which are strictly unending. 
 Others insisted upon the literal meaning of this 
 term, and would have it taken in its strictest 
 sense. Thus two parties were formed. These 
 might perhaps have found some points of union, 
 or at least of approximation, if they had properly 
 considered the distinction between natural and 
 positive punishments. But no traces of this 
 distinction can be found in most of the ancients ; 
 certainly they did not see it, and all the conse- 
 quences which can be derived from it, with suf- 
 ficient distinctness. 
 
 (2) The doctrine that the pains of hell are 
 finite in duration was first clearly taught by 
 some of the Christian teachers of the Alexan- 
 drine school in the second century. *They ob- 
 viously derived their mode of representation 
 from the principles of the Platonic philosophy. 
 Plato regarded punishments merely as medi- 
 
 cinal, designed to effect the cure of the disorders 
 of men. He supposed that all spirits and souls 
 not wholly irreclaimable would be morally pu- 
 rified and renovated by means of punishments, 
 and would in this way attain to happiness ; 
 which, however, would be very different as to 
 its degree. But still he, as well as Socrates, 
 believed in the unending punishment of the irre- 
 claimable. Cf. s. 150. 
 
 Even in Clement of Alexandria we find a 
 clear exhibition of these Platonic ideas. Cf. 
 Strom. 4 and 6. But Origen, in the third cen- 
 tury, taught still more plainly, a 
 SatjUovt-coj' xai dcfgjSwv d^pwrtcov, and 
 pov slvai, xohatiw doffjSwv df^pcartcov, and endea- 
 voured to establish this doctrine by many argu- 
 ments. In the works of his which are still 
 extant, there are passages which are clearly of 
 this import e. g., in his works, " Contra Celr 
 sum," v. 15; "De Principiis," ii. 5. Homil. 
 19, in Jerem., and Athanasius and other ancient 
 writers, are agreed that he taught this doctrine. 
 Some modern writers have undertaken to' dis- 
 pute this, though without sufficient reason.* 
 Origen was followed in this doctrine by many 
 of the learned Grecian fathers e. g., Diodorus 
 of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others 
 of the school of Origen. Even in the Latin 
 church this opinion was widely disseminated 
 in the fourth century, as we learn from Augus- 
 tine and Hieronymus. 
 
 But in opposition to these, the doctrine of the 
 eternity of future punishments was affirmed by 
 other equally distinguished teachers e. g., 
 Gregory of Nazianzum, Basilius, John of Con- 
 stantinople, and among the Latins, by Hiero- 
 nymus, Augustine, and others. Even in the 
 fourth century Origen and his adherents were 
 severely reproached on account of this and other 
 doctrines which had been already freely circu- 
 lated. At length the ecclesiastical anathema 
 was pronounced upon this doctrine. Among 
 the opponents of the school of Origen and of 
 their doctrine on this subject, Theophilus of 
 Alexandria, in the fourth and fifth centuries, 
 was especially distinguished. The doctrine of 
 Origen was therefore condemned by the fourth 
 council at Carthage, in the year 398, and after- 
 wards by many other councils, and in opposi- 
 tion to it the doctrine of the eternity of future 
 punishment was established as the faith of the 
 church. 
 
 (3) Still the doctrine of the limited duration 
 of future punishment has never wanted defend- 
 ers. Even during the dark ages and among the 
 
 * [Neander, while he concedes that Origen taught 
 this doctrine, thinks it is one of those points respect- 
 ing which his opinion afterwards changed. Cf. Ne- 
 ander, Allg. Kirch. Gesch. b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1098. 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 555 
 
 schoolmen there were some who took this 
 ground, especially Scotus Erigena in the ninth 
 century, and the Abbot Raynaldus in the 
 twelfth. But the great majority of teachers 
 during this period held fast to the opposite opi- 
 nion, and endeavoured to confirm it by new ar- 
 guments ; so, e. g., Thomas Aquinas and others. 
 
 But this doctrine of the limited duration of 
 future punishment fell into very ill repute in the 
 Western church, on account of its being pro- 
 fessed by some of the enthusiastic and revolu- 
 tionary parties in the sixteenth century, (e. g., 
 by the Anabaptists,) and from its being inti- 
 mately connected with their expectations and 
 schemes. The mere profession of the doctrine 
 came to be regarded as implying assent to the 
 other extravagances of these parties, and as the 
 signal for rebellion. Hence it is rejected in the 
 symbolical books of the Lutheran church as an 
 Anabaptistical doctrine; Augs. Confess. Art. 
 xvii. In the form in which this doctrine was 
 held by these sects it deserves the most unmin- 
 gled disapprobation. Again; among the ill- 
 famed Christian free-thinkers e. g., the Soci- 
 nians there were some who professed it. In 
 modern times it has been the same. This doc- 
 trine has been advocated in the protestant church 
 both by men who have stood in suspicion of 
 enthusiasm, (e. g., Peterson, Lavater, and 
 others,) and by some of the free-thinkers in 
 philosophy and theology, although for very dif- 
 ferent causes, and on very different grounds, by 
 these two classes. 
 
 The principal advocates of the common opi- 
 nion on this subject, in modern times, are, 
 Mosheim, in the Appendix to his Sermons ; and 
 among the philosophers, Leibnitz, Baumgarten 
 in his Dogmatik and Vindiciae Prenarum Mter- 
 narum; Halle, 1742: Schubert, Verniinftige 
 Gedanken von der Endlichkeit der Hollenstra- 
 fen, 3te Aufg. Jena, 1750 ; Heinr. Meine, Gute 
 Sache der Lehre von der unendlichen Dauer 
 der Hollenstrafen ; Helmstadt, 1748 ; Schlitte, 
 Ueberlegung der beidersei tiger Grunde fur und 
 wider die unendliche Ungliickseligkeit der 
 Verbrecher, &c. Cf. also Michaelis, Von der 
 Sttnde, &c. 
 
 The principal advocates of the doctrine of the 
 limited duration of future punishments are, 
 Soner, (in an acute philosophical work, to 
 which Leibnitz replied ; vide Lessing's Bey- 
 trage zur Geschichte und Literatur, Ir Beytr., 
 Braunschweig, 1773, s. 201;) Eberhard, Apo- 
 logie des Sokrates, th. i. and ii. ; Gruner, Theol. 
 Dogm. p. G36; Basedow, Philalethie, s. 539; 
 Steinbart, System, u. s. w. A work entitled 
 Ueber die Strafe der Verdammten und deren 
 Dauer; Leipzig, 1782; is composed with much 
 reflection. The arguments on both sides are 
 examined, and a middle course between them 
 is chosen. Some have supposed that the wicked, 
 
 after enduring the punishments of hell for a 
 season, will be at last annihilated, and have 
 called this mortem scternam. Vide s. 151, ad 
 finem. But according to scriptural usage, a- 
 fatfof, or ote^poj atavtoj, or Scvftpoj, is not anni- 
 hilation, but eternal condemnation. 
 
 ON ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS. 
 
 SECTION CLIX. 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCTRINE ; AND EXPLANA- 
 TION OF THE SCRIPTURAL PHRASEOLOGY WITH 
 REGARD TO IT. 
 
 I. Grounds for expecting a happier life hereafter. 
 
 THAT a more happy life is to be expected after 
 death appears, even on grounds of reason, in a 
 high degree probable, if either the present state 
 of human life is considered, or the attributes of 
 God, his goodness, justice, and wisdom. Cf. 
 the arguments in behalf of the immortality of 
 the soul, s. 149. Man and his destination are 
 the most insolvable riddle, if he has received 
 existence merely for the present life. And this 
 riddle can be explained only on the supposition 
 that the period of man's existence extends be- 
 yond the grave, and that there will properly 
 begin the happy state where the pious will reap 
 the fruits of what they have sown. 
 
 The destination of man, as a moral being, is, 
 holiness and proportionate happiness. As to 
 holiness or moral-perfection, it is and remains 
 extremely defective during the present life ; and 
 even those who make the greatest advances in 
 moral excellence still fall very far short of that 
 high standard which is set up before them and 
 which their own inmost feeling tells them they 
 ought to attain. And as to happiness, it must 
 be confessed that no one in the present life is 
 perfectly happy, either as to body or soul, al- 
 though there is implanted in all by the Creator 
 a disposition to seek for happiness, and an in- 
 extinguishable thirst to enjoy it. But how 
 scanty and miserable is the satisfaction of this 
 desire in the present life, even with those who 
 in the judgment of others are enviably happy ! 
 Beautifully and faithfully is this described in 
 Ecclesiastes a book which contains the true 
 philosophy of life. 
 
 It is true, indeed, that agreeable sensations, 
 both bodily and spiritual, are enhanced in their 
 value and charm by being connected with un- 
 pleasant sensations, if the unpleasant only go 
 before, and the pleasant follow after. Thus to 
 the convalescent man, after he has endured 
 great sufferings in his sickness, the mere cessa- 
 tion of pain is an exquisite delight, while to 
 those who have felt none of these sufferings it 
 
656 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 is no source of pleasure. ' But an order exactly 
 the reverse is common in the life of men here 
 upon the earth. The most cheerful time is that 
 of youth; then we have the full power and 
 bloom of life. The older we grow, the more 
 we become entangled in business, burdened 
 with cares, oppressed with griefs and distresses, 
 infirmities of body and mind, perhaps with po- 
 verty and disgrace. How sad were the lot of 
 man if he had no future and happier life to 
 expect! 
 
 How many men are bora with intellectual 
 faculties and powers which they can never fully 
 develop here, either because they die early or 
 are wholly destitute of the means and opportu- 
 nities for development and cultivation. Now if 
 existence ceases with death, this sum of powers 
 is wholly lost, But since our Creator does not 
 give us even our bodily powers in vain and for 
 no end, how much less can he have imparted 
 the higher intellectual and especially moral fa- 
 culties without design ! 
 
 It is no wonder, therefore, that the expecta- 
 tion of a more happy state after the present life 
 has, as it were, forced itself so universally 
 upon reflecting men. But equally universal and 
 equally well grounded is the hope of an unend- 
 f n_r continuance of .this future happy state. For 
 if it is not to continue for ever it ceases to be a 
 truly happy condition. To foresee the end of a 
 state of bliss would be of itself enough to dis- 
 turb the happiness which we might for a time 
 possess, and to embitter its enjoyment; and 
 when it should actually come to an end, it would 
 leave us far more miserable than we were before 
 we had experience of this blessedness. For one 
 who is born and brought up poor and in a state 
 of servitude will not feel his situation to be so 
 miserable and oppressive as a rich or great man, 
 who is cast down from his elevation and brought 
 into the same condition, will find it to be. 
 
 Great and inestimable, therefore, is the merit 
 of Jesus Christ in giving to this doctrine of an 
 eternal blessedness beyond the grave that firm- 
 ness and certainty which it cannot receive from 
 arguments of reason, by which it can be rendered 
 only probable; and also in referring everything, 
 as he does, to this future life. Vide John, xx. 
 98; 1 John, ii. 25; Rom. ii. 7, and s. 143. Ex- 
 cept for Christ we should have no satisfying 
 certainty to lift us above all doubt But now 
 this doctrine is placed in the most intimate con- 
 nexion with the history of his person, since he 
 always represents himself as the one through 
 whom we attain to the possession of this eter- 
 nal happiness, and in whose society we shall 
 enjoy it, Cf. the sections above cited, also s. 
 190, II. 
 
 n. Mature art Somes of Future Blessedness. 
 On this subject we have no very clear and de- 
 
 finite knowledge, nor can we have in the pr 
 life. "Men, indeed, usually conceive the joys of 
 heaven to be the same as, or at least to rese: 
 the pleasures of this world ; and each one hopes 
 to obtain with certainty, and to enjoy in full mea- 
 sure, beyond the grave, that good which he holds 
 most dear upon earth those favourite employ- 
 ments or particular delights which he ardently 
 longs for here, but which he can seldom or never 
 enjoy in this world, or in the enjoyment of which 
 he has never been fully satisfied. Hence rude 
 men, living only in the indulgence of their pas- 
 sions and appetites, have always expected to find 
 in heaven the uninterrupted enjoyment of sensual 
 delights of every kind. The indolent man, or 
 one who is exhausted by severe labour, regards 
 rest and freedom from employment as the high- 
 est good, and places the chief blessedness of 
 heaven in this. But one who reflects soberly 
 on this subject will easily see that the happi- 
 ness of heaven must be a very different thing 
 from earthly happiness. This last is of such 
 a nature as to be soon followed by disgust and 
 satiety. \Ve should be very unhappy, if we 
 should live for ever in the richest profusion of 
 the highest earthly delights and joys, even 
 could we continue in perpetual and never-fading 
 youth. For all earthly joys and delights of 
 which we know anything by experience, are of 
 such a nature that after they have been enjoyed 
 for a short time they lose their relish, and then 
 follows satiety. Experience daily confirms the 
 truth of what is said by the preacher, that t 
 thing upon earth is vanity and vexation of spirit. 
 If it were appointed to us in our present condi- 
 tion to live for ever upon the earth, ia the full 
 enjoyment of all it can afford to please and 
 charm, our lot were indeed pitiable. Had we 
 tasted all possible earthly pleasures, and were 
 there none now left which could attract us by 
 their novelty, satiated with a joyless life we 
 should wish ourselves dead, and even this 
 wish, to our sorrow, would remain unsatisfied ; 
 even that rest, or rather indolence and torpidity, 
 which is so highly praised and so ardently 
 longed for by some drones, would, long conti- 
 nued, render us perfectly miserable, and at 
 length become wholly intolerable. 
 
 Cicero very justly remarks, that the bl- 
 gods, according to the notion which the Epicu- 
 reans entertained of them, could not possibly be 
 happy, being without employment, and having 
 nothing to think of, through all eternity, except 
 belle est mihi. Hence the bliss and joys of the 
 future world must be of an entirely different 
 kind from what is called earthly joy and happi- 
 ness, if we are there to be truly happy for ever. 
 
 But since we have no distinct conceptions of 
 those joys which never have been and never will 
 be experienced by us here in their full extent, 
 we have of course no words in our language to 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 557 
 
 express them, and connot therefore expect any 
 clear description of them, even in the holy scrip- 
 tures. Cf. Moms, p. 298, s. 7, ad finem, and 
 p. 299, note 1. Hence the Bible describes this 
 happiness sometimes in general terms designat- 
 ing its greatness, (as Romans, viii. 18 22; 2 
 Cor. iv. 17, 18,) and sometimes by various beau- 
 tiful images and figurative modes of speech, bor- 
 rowed from everything which we know to be at- 
 tractive and desirable. 
 
 The greater part of these images were already 
 common among the Jewish contemporaries of 
 Christ, but Christ and his apostles employed 
 them in a purer sense than the great multitude 
 of the Jews. The Orientalists are rich in such 
 figures. They were employed by Mohammed, 
 who carried them, as his manner was, to an ex- 
 travagant excess, but at the same time said ex- 
 pressly that they were mere figures, although 
 many of his followers afterwards understood 
 them literally, as has been often done in a similar 
 way by many Christians. If all which is figura- 
 tive is taken away, the main idea which is left is 
 that of great felicity, which, as it is expressly 
 said, will transcend all our expectations and con- 
 ceptions. Vide 1 John, iii. 2; Col. iii. 3, ^to^ 
 j^itwv xtxpvrttai. The passage 1 Cor. ii. 9, eye 
 hath not seen, ear hath not heard, &c., (which is 
 taken from Isa. Ixiv. 4,) does not properly relate 
 to this subject. Judging from ver. 7, 8, the 
 subject here treated of is the Christian doctrine, 
 which was before unknown, and which is not 
 the product of human invention. Still the whole 
 passage leads to this, that God made these ex- 
 traordinary provisions through Christ, in order 
 to bring us to the enjoyment of an unspeakable 
 bliss. Cf. also 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 
 
 The following are among the principal names 
 of future happiness, both literal and figura- 
 tive : 
 
 (1) The literal appellations. Zuq, fay ouwt> toj, 
 which, according to Hebrew usage, signifies, a 
 happy life, vita vere vitalis, eternal well-being. 
 Hence the term opyrj sov is opposed to it 
 e. g., John, iii. 16, 36; also xatdxpiGLs, xo^cwtj, 
 x. r 1 . ?u Ao|a, 86|a EOV, reward, Rom. ii. 7 ; 
 v. 3. 'A^aputa, 6o|a, ti^ xai d^aptjta, Rom. 
 ii. 7; and elp^v^, ver. 10. Aluvtov j3apoj 66|^j, 
 an eternal reward of full weight, 2 Cor. iv. 17. 
 Scor^pt'a, tfcoT^pux atwvtoj, Heb. v. 9, &c. 
 
 (2) Figurative representations. Among these 
 is the name heaven. The abode of the departed 
 saints is a place which, to us who live upon the 
 earth, and while we remain here, is invisible 
 and inaccessible, beyond the bound of the visi- 
 ble world, and entirely separated from it; there 
 they live in the highest well-being, and in a 
 nearer connexion with God and Christ than 
 here below. This place and state cannot be 
 designated by any more fit and brief expression 
 than that which is found in almost every lan- 
 
 guage viz., heaven ; thi, therefore, is frequent- 
 ly employed by the sacred writers. It is there 
 that the highest sanctuary or temple of God is 
 situated i. e., it is there where the omnipre- 
 sent God reveals himself most gloriously. That, 
 too, is the abode of the higher spiritual creation 
 of God. Thither was Christ translated; he 
 alls it the house of his Father, and says that he 
 lias there prepared an abode for his followers, 
 John, xiv. 2, coll. s. 23, II., and s. 97, II. 
 
 This place was never conceived of in ancient 
 times, as it has been by some modern writers, 
 as a particular planet, or world, but as the wide 
 expanse of heaven, high above the atmosphere, 
 or starry heaven ; hence it is sometimes called 
 the third heaven, as being neither the atmo- 
 sphere nor starry heaven. Vide 2 Cor. xii. 2. 
 The remark of Morus is good, p. 297, note 4, 
 " Illud in coelo esse, magis indicat statum condi- 
 tionemque hominis, quam locum certum." 
 
 Another figurative name is paradise, taken 
 from the abode of the first man in his innocence. 
 Vide vol. i. s. 52, ad finem. From this it is 
 transferred to the abode of the blessed. Luke, 
 xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 7; xxii. 2. 
 
 Again : this place is called the heavenly Jeru- 
 salem (trtovpdvios, xawri, vj awo) ; because -the 
 earthly Jerusalem was the capital city of the 
 Jews, the place of the royal residence, and the 
 seat of the divine worship, Gal. iv. 26; Heb. 
 xii. 22 ; Rev. iii. 12. Bacrttot'a ovpavwv, or so-D, 
 Matt. xxv. 34 ; James, ii. 5 ; 
 and at'owio?, 2 Tim. iv. 18; 2 Pet. i. 11 ; 
 
 vsw ty XpKtt-9, 2 Tirn. ii. 12 i. e., to be 
 distinguished, honoured, and happy, as he is, 
 to enjoy royal felicity. Cicero says, turn nos 
 rcgnare videbamur. The stoics say, omncm sapi- 
 entem regnare. K^povo^ia and xx^pof, (accord- 
 ing to the Heb. eh^ and *?ru, possidere, to attain 
 to possession,} the possessing and fully enjoying 
 happiness, as the ancientlsraelites did Palestine. 
 Hence x^povoftia tvfrftijfuvij sv ovpotvotj, 1 Pet. 
 i. 4; Heb. ix. 15. To sit down at table with 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob i. e., to share with 
 the pious of antiquity in the joys of salvation; 
 to be in Jlbraham's bosom i. e., to sit next to 
 Abraham, Luke, xvi. 22; Matt. viii. 11. Vide 
 Wetstein, ad h. 1. Saj3/3cn'KJjuoj, or avdrtcww, 
 av<st$, Heb. iv. 10, 11, where it denotes the 
 happiness of pious Christians, both in this life 
 and that to come. 'Ztityuvos SLxaioavvrjs, the re- 
 ward of piety, 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Phil. iii. 14. 
 
 (3) As to the abode of perfected and happy 
 men after the judgment, when their souls will 
 be again united with their bodies, the opinions of 
 men have been very different. It is of chief im- 
 portance to notice that it is always described in 
 the New Testament as a very delightful and 
 happy place. Moreover, the apostles teach dis- 
 tinctly that this earth, after the present state of 
 things is ended, will be renewed, and fitted for the 
 3A2 
 
553 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 ordinary residence of those whose souls will be 
 again united with their bodies, in short, of the 
 saints who will be raised. Vide 2 Pet. iii. 13, 
 where he speaks of a new heavens and a new 
 earth. Hence it is said in the Apocalypse, that 
 the New Jerusalem in heaven (i. e., the abode 
 of the departed souls of the pious) will, after 
 the resurrection, (when their souls will be again 
 united with the body,) be let down (xa-tafiaivi tv) 
 to the earth, (now renewed and beautified.) Rev. 
 xxi. 1, seq., coll. Rom. viii. 18, seq. 
 
 SECTION CLX. 
 
 WHAT DO REASON AND SCRIPTURE TEACH AND 
 LEAD US TO EXPECT, IN A GENERAL VIEW, AS 
 TO THE REAL NATURE OF FUTURE BLESSED- 
 NESS? 
 
 THE sum of what we are taught by reason and 
 scripture on this point may be comprehended 
 under the three following particulars : () We 
 shall hereafter be entirely freed from the suffer- 
 ings of this life; (6) Our future blessedness will 
 be a continuation of the happiness of this life ; 
 (c) But it will also be increased by the addition 
 of many new joys, which stand in no natural or 
 necessary connexion with our preceding condi- 
 tion in this life. 
 
 I. Entire Freedom from the Sufferings and Adver- 
 sities of this Present Earthly Life. 
 
 This is often expressed in the Bible by words 
 which denote rest, repose, refreshment, after per- 
 forming labour and suffering affliction e. g., 
 avftftj, ai/artauffis, <jaj3j3artctyK>s, (not inactivity, 
 entire freedom from employment, or indolence; 
 vide s. 159 ;) vide 2 Thess. i. 7, " G d will give 
 to you, who are troubled, avtow. Heb. iv. 9, 
 11 ; Rev. xiv. 13, "they rest from their labours," 
 where xonoi, like labores, signifies molestiae af- 
 flictions, and not employments. Cf. Morus, p. 
 299, n. 1. Cf. also Rev. vii. 17, "God shall 
 wipe away all tears from their eyes." 
 
 This exemption from the evils of the pre- 
 sent life includes, according to the New Testa- 
 ment, 
 
 (1) Deliverance from the earthly body, the 
 seat of the lower principles of our nature and of 
 our sinful corruption, and the cause of so many 
 evils and sufferings, 2 Cor. v. 1, 2 ; 1 Cor. xv. 
 Vide s. 153. 
 
 (2) Entire separation from the society of 
 wicked and evil-disposed persons, who in vari- 
 ous ways injure the righteous man, and embitter 
 his life on earth ; 2 Tim. iv. 1 8, pvastai pe arco 
 rtavtos Jfpyou rtovypov, (i. e., men who do evil.) 
 It is hence accounted as making a part of the 
 felicity of Christ in heaven that he is there sepa- 
 rated from sinners, (xE^coptctytEj/oj,) Heb. vii. 26. 
 
 (3) Everything here upon the earth is incon- 
 stant, and subject to perpetual change ; and in- 
 
 capable of satisfying our expectations and de- 
 sires. Everything is vanity. Even the pleasures 
 and joys of this life are of such a nature that 
 they lead to satiety and disgust when they are 
 long continued. Vide s. 159. But in the world 
 to come it will be different. The bliss of the 
 saints will continue without interruption or 
 change, without fear of termination, and without 
 satiety ; attfyavos a^oproj, Ojiuayroj, a^apcwfoj, 
 a crown ever new and beautiful, in opposition to 
 the fading crowns of earthly victors ; 1 Pet. i. 
 4; v. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 16, 18; Luke, xx. 36; 
 1 John, iii. 2, et passim. From hence it is also 
 manifest that the joys of the pious in the future 
 world will be capable of a constant increase, an 
 ever-progressive enlargement. For everything 
 uniform and stationary produces satiety and dis- 
 gust. In the heavenly world, then, there will 
 be no sameness and stagnant uniformity of joy. 
 Note. The question is here asked, whether 
 the pious, in the future world, will be entirely 
 delivered from natural depravity, or the prepon- 
 derance of sense over reason ? Whether their 
 obedience to God, and their virtue, will be so 
 entirely confirmed that they will be for ever free 
 from all danger of sinning? If we would agree 
 with the holy scriptures we must answer this 
 question in the affirmative. The whole ana- 
 logy of Christian doctrine implies that this will 
 be so ; and so clearly that it does not need any 
 further proof. That the state of the saint in the 
 future world will be one of secure and confirmed 
 holiness may also be deduced incontrovertibly 
 from the doctrine of the perfectionment and en- 
 nobling of the body. The seat of carnal appe- 
 tite and of sin is in the earthly and mortal body ; 
 and from this we shall then be freed, and shall 
 possess, like Christ, a heavenly body, s. 77, 
 and 8. 153. According to 1 Cor. xv., our body 
 will no more then be crw^a -^v%ix6v, but ytvsv/jia- 
 tixov. There is no need therefore of resorting 
 to purgatory to explain how man may be here- 
 after purged from hereditary depravity. The 
 possibility of sinning will, however, still re- 
 main, as it was with man in his original inno- 
 cence, and as it is with the holy angels. But 
 the blessed saints in heaven will not wish to sin ; 
 for the preponderance of sense will then be en- 
 tirely removed ; nor will they any longer meet 
 with those external hindrances, those allure- 
 ments to sin, which obstructed their piety here 
 upon the earth. On the contrary, they will 
 there have the strongest attractions and motives 
 to piety, more enlarged views, good examples, 
 &c. And these means are sufficient to confirm 
 the saints in goodrress. 
 
 II. Continuance of the Happiness of the Present . 
 
 Life. 
 
 When the soul leaves the body it will retain 
 the consciousness of whatever passed within it 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 559 
 
 while here upon the earth. It carries along with 
 it, into the future world, the ideas, the know- 
 ledge, the habits, which it possessed here. And 
 so it takes also good and evil from this life into 
 the next, as its own property, and there receives 
 the fruit of it. It is therefore certain that a part 
 of the heavenly blessedness will consist in the 
 consciousness and recollection of the good en- 
 joyed and performed in the foregoing life, and 
 in that cheerfulness and peace of mind which 
 will proceed from the thought of this. As to 
 the wicked, the case will be reversed. This, 
 now, is one of the natural good consequences or 
 rewards of virtue and piety; and the opposite is 
 one of the natural evil consequences or punish- 
 ments of sin. Vide s. 15G, 157. 
 
 From what has now been said, it follows of 
 course that there will be a difference of degree 
 (diversitas graduum) in the happiness of saints 
 in heaven. The happiness of all will be equally 
 eternal, but not equally intense. The more good 
 actions, such as are acceptable in the sight of 
 God, one has performed, the nobler his virtues 
 were, the greater the difficulties and hindrances 
 which he had to overcome, the greater will be 
 his reward. That this should be otherwise nei- 
 ther the goodness nor justice of God permit us 
 to believe. Thus, for example, two men, one 
 of whom had devoted his whole life to virtue 
 and piety, while the other had put off reflection 
 to a late period, and then first renounced his 
 former sins, could not possibly be equal to each 
 other in reward. Vide s. 127, II. In short, 
 the happiness of each individual will be exactly 
 apportioned to his susceptibility of happiness. 
 Great and various as may be his capacity or 
 susceptibility for the enjoyment of happiness, 
 just so great and various will his happiness 
 certainly be hereafter. The very different ta- 
 lents, powers, and knowledge of men, and the 
 use they have made of them, also make a great 
 difference as to the capacity for happiness. 
 
 All this is perfectly accordant with the Chris- 
 tian doctrine. Cf. the parables, Matt. xxv. 14, 
 seq., and Luke, xix. 16 19; also 2 Cor. ix. 6,, 
 "he who soweth sparingly shall reap also spar- 
 ingly ; and he who soweth bountifully shall reap 
 also bountifully;" coll. Gal. vi. 7; 1 Cor. iii. 
 8, "every man shall receive his own reward, 
 according to his own labour, (xatu tbv ifaov 
 xortov;) Rom. ii. 10, "to him who worketh 
 good, glory, honour, and peace, will be given, 
 'IW&U9 rtpwT'ov, (since from his greater know- 
 ledge he could do more good,) xai "EM^w," in 
 opposition to the punishment spoken of ver. 9. 
 
 This sentiment is not contrary to the de- 
 claration of Christ, the last shall be first, &c., 
 Matt. xix. 30; xx. 116, the parable of the 
 labourers in the vineyard. For all which Christ 
 there says has respect to the mercenary question 
 of Peter, IVhat shall ive receive in return ? In 
 
 opposition to this, Christ teaches that men must 
 not undertake to prescribe to God when and 
 how he shall bestow rewards; in their dealings 
 with him they must not insist upon recompence ; 
 for men have deserved no reward at the hand 
 of God which they can claim as a right. They 
 ought rather, conscious of their own unwor- 
 thiness, to expect this reward, with humility 
 and submission, only because God, of his mere 
 good mercy, has promised it. Cf. Cotta, De 
 Diversis Gradibus Glorias Beatorum; Tub. 
 1773. 
 
 Note 1. The Christian doctrine requires of 
 every one who desires to partake of eternal hap- 
 piness that he should possess a humble and un- 
 pretending spirit, and should be deeply con- 
 vinced that he deserves nothing by his good 
 deeds, and has not so merited the rewards of 
 the world to come that he can claim them as his 
 right. This disposition is finely represented in 
 Matt. xxv. 37, seq., where Christ says, that the 
 pious will be hereafter surprised to find them- 
 selves so rewarded, as they will not be conscious 
 of having done any thing to deserve such re- 
 wards. On the contrary, the wicked, ver. 44, 
 suppose they have done much good, but are not- 
 withstanding sent away into the place of torment. 
 Vide especially Luke, xiii. 26, seq. 
 
 Note 2. According to the Christian doctrine, 
 such actions only as flow from grateful love to 
 God and Christ can be consistently rewarded, 
 for these virtues only are recognised by scrip- 
 ture as having any good desert. Hence in 
 Matt. xxv. 35, 36, Christ himself specifies such 
 deeds as are Active proofs of faith in him, and 
 of grateful love to him. Vide s. 124, 125, re- 
 specting good works. One who does good from 
 impure motives has, as Christ says, already re- 
 ceived his reward. 
 
 III. Positive Rewards in the Future World. 
 
 Besides being exempt from all earthly trials, 
 and having a continuance of that happiness 
 which we had begun to enjoy even here, we 
 have good reason to expect hereafter other re- 
 wards and joys, which stand in no natural or 
 necessary connexion with the present life. For 
 our entire felicity would be extremely defective 
 and scanty, should it be confined merely to that 
 which we carry with us from the present world, 
 to that peace and joy of soul which result from 
 reflecting on what we may have done which is 
 good and pleasing in the sight of God ; since 
 even the best man will always discover great 
 imperfections in all that he has done. Our feli- 
 city would also be incomplete Were we com- 
 pelled to stop short with that meagre and ele- 
 mentary knowledge which we take with us 
 from this world, that knowledge so broken up 
 into fragments, and yielding so little fruit, and 
 which, poor as it is, many good men, from lack 
 
560 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 
 
 of opportunity and without any fault on their 
 part, never here acquire. Besides the natural 
 rewards of goodness, there must, therefore, be 
 others which are positive and depending on the 
 will of the Supreme Legislator. 
 
 On this point almost all philosophers are for 
 the above reasons agreed, even those who will 
 admit of no positive punishments in the world to 
 come. But for want of accurate knowledge 
 of the state of things in the future world, we 
 can say nothing definite and certain as to the 
 nature of these positive rewards. Vide s. 159, 
 I. In the doctrine of the New Testament, how- 
 ever, positive rewards are considered most ob- 
 viously as belonging to our future felicity, and 
 as constituting a principal part of it. For it 
 always represents the joys of heaven as result- 
 ing strictly from the favour of God, and as being 
 undeserved by those to whom they are given. 
 Hence there must be something more added to 
 the natural good consequences of our actions, 
 something which cannot be considered as the 
 necessary and natural consequences of the good 
 actions we may have before performed. But 
 on this subject, we know nothing more in gene- 
 nil than this, that God will so appoint and order 
 our circumstances, and make such arrange- 
 ments, that the principal faculties of our souls 
 reason and affection, will be heightened and de- 
 veloped, so that we shall continually obtain 
 more pure and distinct knowledge of the truth, 
 and make continual advances in holiness. 
 
 The following particular remarks may be of 
 some use in illustrating this subject: 
 
 (1) In this life God has very wisely allotted 
 various capacities, powers, and talents, in dif- 
 ferent ways and degrees, to different men, ac- 
 cording to the various ends for which he designs 
 them, and the business in which he employs 
 them. Now there is not the least reason to 
 suppose that God will abolish this variety in 
 the future world ; it will rather continue there 
 in all its extent. We must suppose, then, that 
 there will be, even in the heavenly world, a di- 
 versity of tastes, of labours, and employments, 
 and that to one person this, to another that, field 
 in the boundless kingdom of truth and of useful 
 occupation will be assigned for his cultivation 
 according to his peculiar powers, qualifications, 
 and tastes. 
 
 A presentiment of this truth is contained in 
 the idea, which was widely diffused throughout 
 the ancient world viz., that the Manes will 
 still prosecute, in the future life, the employ- 
 ments to which they had been here accustomed. 
 At least, such arrangements will doubtless be 
 made by God in the future life, that each indivi- 
 dual will there develop more and more the 
 germs implanted within him by the hand of the 
 Creator; and will be able, more fully than he 
 even could here, to satisfy the wants of his 
 
 intellectual nature, and thus to make continual 
 progress in the knowledge of everything worthy 
 of being known, of which he could learn only 
 the simplest elements in this world; and he 
 will be able to do this in such a way that the 
 increase of knowledge will not be detrimental 
 to piety, as it often proves on earth, but rather 
 promotive of it. To the sincere and ardent 
 searcher after truth it is a rejoicing and consol- 
 ing thought that he will be able hereafter to per- 
 fect that knowledge which here has so many 
 deficiencies. Vide 1 Cor. xiii. 9, seq. 
 
 But there is danger here of going too far, and 
 of falling into those strange conceptions of 
 which we find so many examples in the writ- 
 ings of Lavater. Various as the tastes and 
 wants of men in the future world will doubtless 
 be, they will still be in many respects different 
 from what they are here; because the whole 
 sphere of action, and the objects by which we 
 shall there be surrounded, will be different. 
 We shall there have a changed and more per- 
 fect body, and by this single circumstance shall 
 be freed at once from many of the wants and in- 
 clinations which have their seat in the earthly 
 body. And this will also contribute much to 
 rectify, enlarge, and perfect our knowledge. 
 Many things which seem to us very important 
 and essential during this our state of infancy 
 upon earth, will hereafter doubtless appear in a 
 different light; we shall look upon them as tri- 
 fles and children's play, and employ ourselves 
 in more important occupations, the utility and 
 interest of which we may have never before 
 thought of. 
 
 Some theologians have supposed that the 
 saints in heaven may be taught by immediate di- 
 vine revelations (lumen glorias') ; especially those 
 who may enter the abodes of the blessed without 
 knowledge, or with only a small measure of it, 
 e. g., children, and others who have died in 
 an ignorance for which they themselves were 
 not to blame. On this subject nothing is defi- 
 nitely taught in the scriptures; but both scrip- 
 ture and reason warrant us in believing that 
 provision will be made for all such persons in 
 the future world. Vide s. 126, II. 
 
 Note. In the popular exhibition of the whole 
 doctrine of future blessedness much prudence 
 and caution are requisite ; and the teacher must 
 pay careful attention to the difference of educa- 
 tion and intellectual culture among his hearers. 
 This is particularly necessary with regard to the 
 point introduced in the foregoing paragraph. 
 The importance which the learned and educated 
 man attaches to the culture of his intellectual 
 powers, and to the increase of knowledge, may 
 easily lead him into the mistake of insisting, 
 even in his religious discourses, too much on 
 the importance of this/or every one, and of repre- 
 senting it as constituting a chief part of the 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 561 
 
 employments and joys of the future life. But the 
 great mass of mankind have but little taste for 
 this intellectual culture. They even associate 
 with it the idea of severe labour and toil, be- 
 cause thinking and learning are so difficult to 
 them. It is the same as to the expectation of 
 increased activity hereafter. This has no charm 
 for the great mass of mankind, because their bo- 
 dily labours are so oppressive. They find more 
 satisfaction in the idea of rest and refreshment, 
 with regard to which, however, they should be 
 taught that the rest of heaven is not a state of 
 entire inactivity. Vide s. 159. They prefer to 
 hear of the cessation of all their pains, and the 
 drying of all their tears. Cf. Rev. vii. 17, &c. 
 It is therefore very necessary, in presenting this 
 subject before popular assemblies, to have re- 
 gard to the different wants, conceptions, and 
 dispositions of men, and thus to imitate the ex- 
 ample of Christ and the apostles. 
 
 (2) A principal part of our future happiness 
 will consist, according to the Christian doctrine, 
 in the enlargement and correcting of our know- 
 ledge respecting God, his nature, attributes, and 
 works, and in the salutary application of this 
 knowledge to our own moral benefit, to the in- 
 crease of our faith, love, and obedience. There 
 has been some controversy among theologians 
 with regard to the vision of God, (visioDei in- 
 tuitiva, or sensitiva, or beatifica, or comprehen- 
 sive,.} The question is, whether the saints will 
 hereafter behold God with the eyes of the glo- 
 rified body, or only with the eyes of the mind 
 J. e., merely know him with the understanding. 
 On this point there was dispute even in the an- 
 cient Oriental church among the Nestorians, 
 some of whom advocated the bodily vision of 
 God, and were on this account blamed by others. 
 Even in the Latin church, too, there was con- 
 troversy on this point among the schoolmen, 
 and the different theological schools of the Rom- 
 ish church. And this was transmitted to the 
 protestant church of the seventeenth century ; 
 since Musaeus, and other theologians of Jena, 
 rejected the doctrine of the bodily vision of God, 
 which was, on the other hand, advocated by the 
 theologians of Wittemberg. 
 
 But in the scriptures God is always repre- 
 sented as a Being invisible by the bodily eye 
 (ddpcwoi/), as indeed every spirit is. Vide s. 19. 
 The texts of scripture which speak of seeing 
 God have been misunderstood ; they signify, 
 sometimes, the more distinct knowledge of God, 
 as we speak of knowing by seeing, of seeing 
 with the eyes of the mind ; so John, i. 18 ; iii. 2 ; 
 iv. 12, coll. v. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 16; and Paul 
 uses fatrtfiv and ywuaxew as synonymous 
 1 Cor. xiii. 12, 13, coll. v. 10. Again, they 
 express the idea of felicity, the enjoyment of 
 God's favour, the being thought worthy of his 
 71 
 
 riendship, &c. Still more frequently are both 
 of these meanings comprehended under the 
 shrase to see God. The image is taken from 
 oriental princes, to see whose faces, and to be 
 n whose presence, was esteemed a great favour. 
 3f. Matt. v. 8; Heb. xii. 14, "Without holi- 
 ness ov8fi$ o-^sfat tfov Kvpiov." The opposite 
 of this is, to be removed from God and from his 
 'ace. 
 
 But Christ is always represented as one who 
 will be personally visible by us, and whose per- 
 sonal, familiar intercourse and guidance we 
 shall enjoy. And herein Christ himself places 
 chief part of the joy of the saints, John, xiv., 
 xvii., &c. And so the apostles often describe 
 the blessedness of the pious, by the phrase being 
 with Christ. To his guidance has God entrust- 
 ed the human race, in heaven and on earth. 
 And Paul says, 2 Cor. iv. 6, we see " the bright- 
 ness of the divine glory in the face of Christ," 
 he is " the visible representative of the invi- 
 sible God," Col. i. 15. Vide s. 120, respecting 
 the office of Christ. 
 
 (3) According to the representation contained 
 in the holy scriptures, the saints will dwell to- 
 gether in the future world, and form, as it were, 
 a kingdom or state of God. Cf. Luke, xvi. ; xx. 
 38; Rom. viii. 10; Rev. vii. 9; Heb. xii. 23. 
 They will there partake of a common felicity. 
 Their enjoyment will doubtless be very much 
 heightened by friendship, and by their confiding 
 intercourse with each other. We must, how- 
 ever, separate all earthly imperfection from our 
 conceptions of this heavenly society. But that 
 we shall there recognise our former friends, and 
 shall be again associated with them, was uni- 
 formly believed by all antiquity. Vide s. 150, 
 II. 2. This idea was admitted as altogether 
 rational, and as a consoling thought, by the 
 most distinguished ancient philosophers. Cf. 
 the speech of the dying Socrates, recorded by 
 Plato, and translated by Cicero in his Tusculan 
 Questions, i. 41. This too was the opinion of 
 Cicero, as may be seen from his treatise, De Se- 
 nectute, c. 23, and De Amicitia, c. 3, 4. 
 
 And yet there have been Christians, and even 
 teachers, calling themselves Christian teachers, 
 who have blamed, and even ridiculed, other 
 Christians for comforting themselves under the 
 loss of those who were dear to them, by che- 
 rishing the joyful hope of seeing them again, 
 and renewing after death the friendship here 
 formed. Even reason regards this as in a high 
 degree probable; but to one who believes the 
 holy scriptures it cannot be a matter of doubt or 
 conjecture. For, 
 
 (a) The scriptures assure us that we shall 
 hereafter see Christ, and shall enjoy his personal 
 intercourse and friendship. So John, xiv. 3, 
 "I will take you to myself; where I am, there 
 
562 
 
 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGYf 
 
 shall ye be also." Cf. 1 Pet. i. 8. According 
 to John, xvii. 24, we shall be high witnesses 
 and participators of his glory. 
 
 (6) Paul says expressly, 1 Thess. iv. 17, that 
 we shall be with Christ, in company with our 
 friends who died before us (a/j-a avv avrotj) ; and 
 this presupposes that we shall recognise them, 
 and have intercourse with them, as with Christ 
 himself. Paul advises that Christians should 
 comfort themselves, under the loss of their 
 friends, by considering that they are at home 
 with the Lord, and that they shall be again 
 united together. 
 
 The objections made against this opinion are 
 of no weight. It is said, for example, that the 
 body of the saints will be entirely changed, and 
 cannot therefore be recognised. But it would 
 need to be proved that this change is of such a 
 nature as to make it impossible to recognise a 
 person to be the same whom we before knew. 
 And even were this allowed, it is not merely 
 through the body that we can recognise each 
 other. Even friends here upon the earth, who 
 have never seen each other's faces, disclose 
 themselves by conversation and agreement of 
 soul. Indeed, we can, even upon earth, through 
 the instrumentality of others, become again ac- 
 quainted with old friends whom we had forgot- 
 ten. And why may not this be the case in the 
 world to come ? 
 
 Again : it is objected that Christ himself says, 
 Matt. xxii. 30, that the relation of persons con- 
 nected by marriage will cease in the heavenly 
 world. It is said, moreover, that the love which 
 exists between husband and wife, and also be- 
 tween parent and child, is rather of a bodily 
 than a spiritual nature, and therefore will wholly 
 cease when this gross earthly body is thrown 
 off. 
 
 ANSWER. It is true, indeed, that this con- 
 nexion and love, so far as it is founded in the 
 distinction of sexes and in blood-relationship, 
 will cease ; there will be no wedlock, no sexual 
 propensities, and no gross material bodies in 
 the heavenly world. But friendship, in virtuous 
 and pious minds, does not depend upon these 
 circumstances, but rather upon conformity of 
 intellectual tastes and dispositions. Whatever, 
 therefore, is merely sensual and corporeal in 
 love and friendship here upon the earth, will 
 there fall away ; but whatever is spiritual, which 
 is the essential and nobler part of friendship, 
 will remain, and constitute a great part of the 
 bliss of heaven. Cf. Less, De beatorum in 
 coelis Consortio, in his Opusc. Theol. p. ii., p. 
 329, seq. ; also Ribbeck's Sermons on this sub- 
 ject; and Engel's little work, " Wir werden 
 uns wiedersehen." Villaume, in his Inquiries 
 on some Psychological Questions, denies, in 
 his second essay, (whether, in the future life, 
 we shall remember the present,) that we shall 
 
 hereafter have any recollection of our lives on 
 earth, because he regards memory as a bodily 
 faculty, affected and often destroyed by bodily 
 injuries. But here he mistakes the exercise of 
 a power for the existence of the power itself. 
 He also denies that friends will recognise each 
 other in the life to come. 
 
 Note. The question is asked, whether the 
 pleasures pertaining to the body, and bodily 
 employments, will continue in the life to come 1 
 There can be no hesitation, if we follow the 
 scriptures, in answering both these questions in 
 the affirmative. For what purpose will saints 
 in the life to come have a body again, if it is 
 not to be still the organ through which they will 
 feel and act? It is therefore justly concluded 
 that the pleasures and employments of heaven 
 are not merely spiritual, but also bodily. Paul 
 too says, according to the most natural interpre- 
 tation of the passage, Rom. viii. 18, seq., that 
 all nature will be ennobled and beautified for 
 the residence of the friends of God ; and that 
 they will dwell in a world which will minister 
 pleasure to the refined senses of the spiritual 
 body. 
 
 But in what these corporeal pleasures and 
 employments will consist cannot now be under- 
 stood by us, because we know nothing of the 
 nature of the future body, of its organs, or of the 
 objects by which we shall then be surrounded. 
 So much is certain, however, that these will be 
 different from corporeal pleasures and employ- 
 ments here upon the earth. This is clearly 
 taught in the New Testament. E. g., Christ 
 says, Matt. xxii. 20, that the saints, at the re- 
 surrection, will be like the angels of God, (as we 
 justly conceive of them ;) " they will not mar- \ 
 ry, nor be given in marriage," because the end 
 of marriage, the propagation of the race, will no 
 longer exist. Nor will the glorified body be 
 nourished and sustained by eating and drinking. 
 Vide 1 Cor. xvi. 13; cf. s. 153. Hence it is 
 obvious that Christ employed the phrase, to sit 
 down (at table) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 which was common among his contemporaries, 
 in a figurative sense. 
 
 The following are some of the most important 
 or most celebrated works on the life eternal, and 
 the joys of the blessed above viz., On the His- 
 tory of this Doctrine, Burnet; also Cotta, in his 
 " Historia dogmatis de vita aeterna." Vide s. 
 149, ad finem. This subject is treated doc- 
 trinally and philosophically in Cotta's "Theses 
 Theol. de vita seterna." Tubing. 1758. A 
 poetical delineation of this doctrine may be seen 
 in Lavater's " Aussichten in die Ewigkeit." In 
 this work, while we find many very beautiful 
 and happy thoughts and fine observations, we 
 feel the want of just interpretation of scripture, 
 and calm and unimpassioned investigation. He 
 gives himself entirely to the wing of his bold 
 
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 563 
 
 imagination, and treats the subject rather as a 
 poet than a philosopher. A more strictly philo- 
 sophical and theological investigation of this 
 subject is found in the work of C. L. de Villette, 
 Unterredungen iiber die Gliickseligkeit des zu- 
 kiinftigen Lebens, translated from the French 
 into the German, and accompanied with a Pre- 
 face, by Spalding. Berlin, 1766, 8vo. Cf. also 
 
 Carl Wilhelm Goldhammer's Betrachtungen 
 iiber das zukiinftige Leben, u. s. w., 2 thl. ; Leip- 
 zig, 1791 ; a work written with warmth of feel- 
 ing and in a popular manner. The scriptural 
 grounds of this doctrine are briefly and tho- 
 roughly investigated by Storr, in his Comment, 
 de beata Vita post Mortem, p. 75, torn. ii. of his 
 Opusc. Academica. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 PART I. SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 
 
 Page 
 
 ACTUAL sins, true idea of 297 
 
 Adam, original state />f 187 
 
 Age, notion of the golden . . . . . 198 
 
 Angels, creation of 208 
 
 , divisions of 209 
 
 , importance of the doctrine of . 202 
 
 -, proofs of their existence . . . 208 
 
 , their appellations 207 
 
 , their nature 207 
 
 , fallen, apostasy of 219 
 
 , existence of 215 
 
 , names of 221 
 
 , nature of 219 
 
 , number and classes of . 221 
 , objections to the common 
 
 theory of the employments of ... 222 
 
 , present and future state of 220 
 
 , holy, classes of 212 
 
 t employments of ... 211 
 
 , names of 213 
 
 , present state of . . . . 209 
 
 ', worship of 214 
 
 Arius, his view of the Trinity . . 153,160 
 
 , origin of his errors 12 
 
 Athanasius, his view of the Trinity . . 154 
 
 Atheism, nature of 89 
 
 Atonement, perfection of 393 
 
 , various theories on ... 400 
 
 Augustine, his view of the soul . . . 158 
 
 opinions of, on grace . . . 459 
 theory of, on original sin 275, 290 
 
 Bacon, principles of, applied to theology * 13 
 
 Baptism, by whom to be administered . 487 
 
 effects of infant 495 
 
 external advantages of. . . 488 
 
 -, formulas used in 486 
 
 -, institution of 483 
 
 Page 
 
 Baptism, internal advantages of ... 488 
 
 , John's the same as Christ's . 485 
 
 knowledge requisite for . . 487 
 
 lawfulness of infant .... 494 
 
 , mode of 485 
 
 names of 483 
 
 necessity of 491 
 
 not to be repeated .... 492 
 
 origin of 484 
 
 usages incidental to .... 487 
 Bible, see Scriptures. 
 
 Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost . . 305 
 Blessedness eternal, continuance of pre- 
 sent happiness 558 
 
 ' ' , exemption from suf- 
 ferings 558 
 
 , nature and names of 556 
 
 , to be expected . . 555 
 
 ' ' ', rewards of . . . . 559 
 
 Body, human, origin of 200 
 
 , original excellence of .195 
 
 Children, salvation of 421 
 
 Christ, active obedience of 405 
 
 ascension of 348 
 
 deity and humanity of .... 357 
 
 descent of, into hell . ... 343 
 
 divine attributes ascribed to . . 138 
 
 divine honour claimed for . . 139 
 
 divine names given to . . . . 136 
 
 doctrine of his person .... 355 
 
 doctrines of, their truth ... 57 
 
 , glory of, in heaven 350 
 
 happiness derived from, on earth 415 
 
 , in future 418 
 
 -, influence of his example . . . 411 
 
 -, kingdom of 350 
 
 -, last appearance of 538 
 
 3B 
 
 565 
 
566 
 
 IiNDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 
 
 Page 
 
 Christ, millennial kingdom of .... 538 
 
 , mission of 373 
 
 , names of 372 
 
 , offices of 377 
 
 , redemption effected by ... 374 
 
 , resurrection of 346 
 
 , seat of, at God's right hand . . 355 
 
 , subjects of his teaching . . . 340 
 
 , sufferings and death of ... 390 
 
 Christianity, names and blessings of . . 412 
 Christians, views of the primitive, on the 
 
 Trinity 148 
 
 Church, catholic and apostolic .... 474 
 
 , divisions of 470 
 
 , head of 475 
 
 , perpetuity of 475 
 
 , sanctity of 473 
 
 , scriptural character of .... 469 
 
 , Christ teaching in the . . . . 476 
 
 , unity of 472 
 
 Confession, auricular, its futility . . . 448 
 
 Conversion, meaning of the term . . . 439 
 
 Creation, end of God in 171 
 
 , how from nothing . . . . 167 
 
 , Mosaic account of .... 171 
 
 , six days of 177 
 
 , time of year of 177 
 
 , work of, twofold 169 
 
 Creatures, different, classes of . . . . 169 
 , preservation of 241 
 
 Dead, resurrection of, see Resurrection. 
 
 Death, names and descriptions of . . . 514 
 
 , senses in which used .... 515 
 
 , state after 516, 518 
 
 , universality of 515 
 
 , whether or not a punishment . 516 
 
 Decrees, divine 109 
 
 Depravity, natural, ecclesiastical phrase- 
 ology on 289 
 
 , how proved . . . 283 
 
 , imputation of ... 287 
 
 , manner in which pro- 
 pagated 286 
 
 ^ ., names of, in scripture 278 
 
 - , nature of . . 277, 285 
 
 , results of discussion 
 
 of 293 
 
 , teaching of doctrine 295 
 
 Divinity, its character 26 
 
 Boctrines, Christian, fundamental . . 34 
 
 ,Eden, its character 188 
 
 Edwards, President, views of, on original 
 
 sin 282 
 
 Eve, the creation of 188 
 
 Faith, analogy of 35 
 
 , attributes of 434 
 
 Page 
 
 Faith, different degrees of 433 
 
 , division of doctrines of .... 33 
 
 , objects of 427 
 
 , relation of one part of, to another . 431 
 
 , significations of the term . . . 423 
 
 , signs by which discovered . 432, 434 
 
 , theological divisions of .... 425 
 
 Father, deity of 135 
 
 Fathers, terminology of 366 
 
 Forgiveness of sin, to what owing . . 390 
 
 Franke, account of his lectures ... 13 
 
 Germany, school of biblical theology in 10, 14 
 
 God, decrees of 109, 124 
 
 , division of the attributes of ... 97 
 
 , doctrine of his government . . . 245 
 
 , eternity and immutability of . . 99 
 
 , government of, in relation to evil . 249 
 
 , government of, relative to human 
 
 freedom 247 
 
 , holiness of 116 
 
 , justice of 117 
 
 , knowledge of, whether innate . . 32 
 
 , nature and attributes of .... 94 
 
 God, notion of 85 
 
 , omnipotence of 101 
 
 , omnipresence of 105 
 
 , omniscience of 102 
 
 , proofs of the existence of ... 86 
 
 , scriptural names of 93 
 
 , source of the knowledge of . . . 95 
 
 , spirituality of 97 
 
 , unity of 90 
 
 , veracity and goodness of . . . 114 
 
 , will of 109,113 
 
 , wisdom of . . . % . ... . . 108 
 
 Golden age, notion of 198 
 
 Grace, different theories of 458 
 
 ' , divine origin of 454 
 
 , explanation of the term . . . 449 
 
 , later opinions on 461 
 
 , operations of .... 451, 462 
 
 , opinions of Latin fathers on . . 458 
 
 , scriptural phraseology of ... 455 
 
 various names of 450 
 
 Guilt of sin, removal of 386 
 
 Heathen, salvation of the 321 
 
 Hell, history of doctrines of .... 554 
 
 , names of 545 
 
 , punishments of 545 
 
 Holy Ghost, blasphemy against . . . 305 
 
 , scriptural representation of . 306 
 
 Holiness, its nature 442 
 
 Image of God, how to be understood . . 189 
 
 Immortality, ideas of Jews of .... 519 
 
 , ideas of rude nations of . . 519 
 
 , philosophical arguments on 521 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 
 
 567 
 
 Page 
 
 Immortality, scriptural proofs of . . . 517 
 Inclinations, evil, origin and punishable- 
 ness of 288 
 
 Indulgences, futility of 449 
 
 Inspiration, idea of universal .... 66 
 
 , national views of .... 67 
 
 , various theories of ... 68 
 
 , views of great men of . . 66 
 
 Involuntary sins 301 
 
 Jesus, ascension of 348 
 
 , character of, as a teacher .... 337 
 
 , deity and humanity of .... 357 
 
 , descent into hell of 343 
 
 , different conditions of 331 
 
 , doctrine of 337 
 
 , doctrine of the person of .... 355 
 
 , early history of 337 
 
 , glory of, in heaven . . . . . 350 
 
 , history of opinions concerning . . 361 
 
 , kingdom of 350 
 
 , method of his ministry .... 338 
 
 , miraculous conception of ... 334 
 
 , mission of 373 
 
 , names of 373 
 
 , offices of 377 
 
 , predictions respecting 325 
 
 , redemption effected by .... 374 
 
 , resurrection of 346 
 
 , seat of, at God's right hand ... 355 
 
 , subjects of his ministry .... 340 
 
 , sufferings and death of . . 341,390 
 
 , true humanity of 335 
 
 Jews, views of, on original sin . . . . 273 
 
 Jews and Gentiles, future conversion of . 540 
 
 Judgment, the geneaal ... ... 541 
 
 Justification, an unmerited favour . . . 399 
 -, effect of Christ's exaltation 
 
 on 395 
 
 , only of Christ 388 
 
 , universality of 397 
 
 Keckermann, B., his view of the Trinity 159 
 
 Keys, import of the term 478 
 
 Knapp, Dr., memoir of 16 
 
 Language, original, of man 196 
 
 Law, connexion of sin with 299 
 
 Law and gospel, meaning of .... 429 
 
 Life, connexion of the present and future 518 
 
 , the tree of 187 
 
 Lord's Supper, by whom and how to be 
 
 observed 502 
 
 ?-, by whom to be adminis- 
 tered 503 
 
 , chief object of .... 499 
 
 , external uses and efficacy 
 
 of 505 
 
 , history of opinions of . 508 
 
 Page 
 
 Lord's Supper, institution of .... 497 
 
 , internal uses and efficacy 
 
 of 505 
 
 names of 496 
 
 remarks on hypotheses of 512 
 
 texts relating to ... 497 
 
 unessential rites in . . 504 
 
 use of bread and wine in 501 
 
 Magic, historical observations on . . . 231 
 
 Man, destination of 182 
 
 , means of subsistence of .... 187 
 
 , moral inability of 28 
 
 , Mosaic account of the origin of .184 
 
 , nature of 180 
 
 , original external advantages of . 197 
 
 , original language of 196 
 
 , preservation of 243 
 
 -, primitive state of . ... . . . 192 
 
 Matter, on the eternity of . .... 166 
 
 Men, great, belief of, in inspiration . . 66 
 
 Messiah, degrees of revelation of . . . 328 
 
 , gradual development of . . 321 
 
 , interpretation of the predictions 
 
 respecting 325 
 
 , Jesus of Nazareth the true . 324 
 
 , views of the Jews of , 323 
 
 Millennial kingdom, the 538 
 
 Miracles, Christianity proved by ... 59 
 
 , their possibility 254 
 
 Monarchians, their views of God . . . 151 
 
 Monothelites, sect of 366 
 
 Morals, importance of the Christian sys- 
 tem 31 
 
 Mosaic institute, abolition of .... 413 
 
 Mysteries, religious 36 
 
 Nations, agreement of, in ideas of inspi- 
 ration 66 
 
 Nature, revelation of God in .... 28 
 
 New-Testament writers, their views of 
 
 original sin 274 
 
 Nicene Council, the 154 
 
 Ordination, nature and importance of . . 477 
 Origen, his views of the Trinity . 153, 362 
 
 Paradise, its character 188 
 
 Pardon, nature of 385 
 
 Participation, how shown in sin ... 304 
 
 Pelagius, errors of, on grace .... 458 
 
 , views of, on original sin . . 282 
 
 Penance, futility of 447 
 
 , self-inflicted, folly of ... 382 
 
 Plato, his views of God 145 
 
 Possession, satanic, history of .... 227 
 
 , meaning of ... 226 
 , records of, in the New 
 
 Testament 229 
 
568 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 
 
 Prayer, a mean of grace 467 
 
 Predictions, Messianic, accommodations 
 
 of 325 
 
 , degrees of . . 328 
 
 , how interpreted 325 
 
 , , principles of, act- 
 ed on by Christ and his apostles . . 326 
 
 Prophecies of Christ proofs of Christian- 
 ity 61 
 
 Providence, definition of 235 
 
 , history of opinions of . . 236 
 
 , its benevolence .... 253 
 
 , its universality .... 252 
 
 , its unsearchableness . . . 253 
 
 , proofs of 238 
 
 , scholastic views of ... 239 
 
 Punishment, its nature and object . . 311 
 
 , positive divine . . . . 314 
 
 , removal of 387 
 
 , scriptural names of . . . 312 
 
 Punishments, division of 312 
 
 Purgatory, opinions on 529 
 
 Rationalism, character and design of . . 14 
 
 Reason, definition of 38 
 
 , use of 38 
 
 Reconciliation, nature of 501 
 
 Recovery of man, divine institutions for . 317 
 
 , purpose of God respect- 
 ing 320 
 
 , requisites for ... 317 
 
 Regeneration, meaning of the term . . 440 
 Religion, harmony of natural and reveal- 
 ed 29,30 
 
 , its distinction from theology . 26 
 
 , mysteries of 35 
 
 , of Christ, beneficial tendency 
 
 of 58 
 
 Repentance, character of 42, 441 
 
 , danger of delaying . . . 442 
 
 , mistakes respecting . . . 447 
 
 , not the procuring cause of 
 
 salvation 382 
 
 Revelation, degrees of 40 
 
 , principal periods of ... 41 
 
 , object of 40 
 
 , one made by God to man . 28 
 
 Resurrection, biblical representation of . 532 
 
 , Christian doctrine of . . 531 
 
 , difference of the future body 
 
 from the present 534 
 
 , doctrine of the Jews respect- 
 ing 528 
 
 -, identity of the present and 
 
 future body 536 
 
 , what is understood by . . 527 
 
 Sabbath, its origin 173 
 
 Sacrament, nature of a 479 
 
 Page 
 
 Sacraments, object of Christ in instituting 482 
 
 Sacrifice, universality and design of . . 380 
 
 Salvation, conditions of 420 
 
 of children and the heathen . 421 
 
 Sanctification, its nature 442 
 
 Satan, power of, over men 226 
 
 Scriptures, books of 47 
 
 , external proofs 47 
 
 , how adapted for common use . 80 
 
 , inspiration of 62 
 
 , integrity of 56 
 
 , internal proofs of 47 
 
 ., reading of 78 
 
 , the use of 37, 74 
 
 Servetus, his view of the Trinity . . . 159 
 
 Sin, actual idea of 297 
 
 , against the Holy Ghost .... 305 
 
 , Christ's instructions on .... 410 
 
 , definition of 259 
 
 , different degrees of 298 
 
 , inquiry as to whether God could 
 
 have prevented 265 
 
 , forgiveness of, its cause .... 380 
 
 , its necessity . . . 385 
 
 , how connected with knowledge . 300 
 
 , imputation of Adam's . . . . . 273 
 
 , involuntary . 301 
 
 , its results on the sinner .... 308 
 
 i, manner of 409 
 
 , Mosaic account of original . . . 266 
 
 , opinions of heathen philosophers on 261 
 
 , participation of others' .... 304 
 
 , redemption from 408 
 
 , results of reason and observation 
 
 on 263 
 
 , scriptural terms for* 260 
 
 , sorrow for . 443 
 
 , viewed in connexion with the law 299 
 
 Socinians, their views of the Trinity . . 160 
 
 Soul, its origin 200 
 
 Souls, departed, opinions of their state . 525 
 
 , place of their abode . . 523 
 
 Spectres, question as to existence of . . 233 
 
 Spener, proceedings of, at Halle ... 9 
 
 Spirit, Holy, divinity of 142 
 
 , meaning of the term . . . 140 
 
 , names given to .... 143 
 
 , personality of . . . . . 141 
 
 Teachers, Christian, rights of .... 478 
 
 Testament, New, collection of books of . 53 
 
 . , external proofs of . . 47 
 
 , inspiration of ... 62 
 
 , Old, authenticity of ... 48 
 
 , cautions in reading . 77 
 
 1 , completion of canon of 51 
 
 , external proofs of . . 44 
 
 , inspiration of ... 64 
 
 , origin of canon of . . 50 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 
 
 569 
 
 Page 
 
 Testament, Old, reception of canon of . 52 
 
 Theologians' hypotheses on sin ... 274 
 
 Theology, course of study of .... 44 
 
 , how distinct from religion . 26 
 
 , scientific treatment of ... 43 
 
 Tradition, the use of 39 
 
 Trinity, distinction of persons in . . . 155 
 
 , doctrine of 130 
 
 , history of doctrine of .... 144 
 
 . , how taught in New Testament . 133 
 
 Old Testament . 131 
 
 , terms employed respecting 151, 154 
 , views of primitive Christians re- 
 specting 148 
 
 Understanding, original excellence of 
 man's . .192 
 
 Urlsperger, Dr., his views of the Trinity 161 
 
 Will, original excellence of man's . . 194 
 Works, good, connexion of, with salva- 
 tion 437 
 
 , history of opinions respect- 
 ing 437 
 
 -, not to be depended on for 
 
 salvation 382 
 
 , true nature of .... 435 
 Works of God, knowledge of .... 170 
 World, ancient, views of, on divine influ- 
 ence 66 
 
 , creation of 163 
 
 , end of . . 543 
 
 , material from which formed 176, 163 
 
 , meaning of the term . t . . 161 
 
 3u2 
 
PART II. SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATED. 
 
 GENESIS. 
 
 CHAP. VERSE PAGE 
 
 1.1,2 .... 176 
 
 1. 26 169 
 
 2. 424 . . 185, 271 
 
 3. 14, 15 . . 272, 329 
 
 3. 19 271 
 
 6. 7 113 
 
 17. 1 ..... 93 
 
 49. 10 329 
 
 EXODUS. 
 
 3. 13 93 
 
 32. 32 . , 243 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 6. 24 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 4. 7,8 
 6. 4 
 18. 18 
 
 2 SAMUEL. 
 
 16. 14 
 
 JOB. 
 
 14. 4 . 
 19. 25, &o. 
 38. 7 
 
 133 
 
 29 
 
 91 
 
 329 
 
 227 
 
 283 
 
 528 
 207 
 
 PSALMS. 
 
 2. 7 132 
 
 14. 1 89 
 
 16. 10 344 
 
 19. 16 .... 28 
 
 32. 2 444 
 
 33. 6,9 . . 102,133 
 
 51. 7 283 
 
 90 101 
 
 119. 8991 ... 114 
 
 139. 15, 16 . . . . 200 
 
 PROVERBS. 
 
 CHAP. VERSE 
 
 8. 2230 
 
 PAGE 
 
 . . 108 
 
 ECCLESIASTES. 
 
 8. 8 99 
 
 12. 7 99 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 6. 3 133 
 
 28. 2329 ... 122 
 
 44. 6 100 
 
 48. 11 94 
 
 48. 16 133 
 
 53 330 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 23. 23, 24 .... 107 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 
 1. 20 335 
 
 3. 16, 17 . . . . 134 
 
 5. 17 77 
 
 1C. 18 476 
 
 16. 19 478 
 
 20. 116 .. . 127, 559 
 
 23. 35 52 
 
 24 538 
 
 25. 4146 ... 300 
 
 26. 41 301 
 
 26. 63 57 
 
 28. 1820 ... 133 
 
 MARK. 
 
 3. 2830 ... 306 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 1. 37 102 
 
 11. 51 52 
 
 15 443 
 
 16. 8 251 
 
 18. 914 . . 443 
 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 VERSE 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1. 
 
 1,2 . . 
 
 . . 136 
 
 3. 
 
 3,5 . . 
 
 441, 489 
 
 5. 
 
 23 ... 
 
 . . 140 
 
 5. 
 
 39 ... 
 
 . . 76 
 
 5. 
 
 3947 . 
 
 . . 324 
 
 7. 
 
 1517 . 
 
 . . 59 
 
 8. 
 
 44 ... 
 
 , , 224 
 
 10. 
 
 28 ... 
 
 . . 137 
 
 10. 
 
 3436 . 
 
 . . 93 
 
 13. 
 
 19 ... 
 
 , . 62 
 
 14. 
 
 6 ... 
 
 , , 373 
 
 14. 
 
 16, 17 . . 
 
 . . 141 
 
 14. 
 
 26 ... 
 
 134, 141 
 
 15. 
 
 2224 . 
 
 . . 300 
 
 15. 
 
 26 . / . 
 
 . . 141 
 
 17. 
 
 5 ... 
 
 , , 138 
 
 20. 
 
 23 ... 
 
 , , 478 
 
 20. 
 
 25 ... 
 
 , , 234 
 
 20. 
 
 28 ... 
 
 . . 137 
 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 
 3. 
 
 20, 21 . . 
 
 . . 349 
 
 13. 
 
 48 ... 
 
 . 128 
 
 17. 
 
 2731 . 
 
 . . 28 
 
 
 ROMANS 
 
 
 1. 
 
 3,4 . . 
 
 . . 138 
 
 1. 
 
 19, 20 . . 
 
 . 28, 33 
 
 2. 
 
 14, 15 . . 
 
 . . 32 
 
 3. 
 
 
 , 399 
 
 3. 
 
 2128 . 
 
 . . 389 
 
 4. 
 
 4 ... 
 
 116 
 
 5. 
 
 6 ... 
 
 391 
 
 5. 
 
 11 ... 
 
 386 
 
 6. 
 
 3,4 . . 
 
 . . 490 
 
 8. 
 
 15 ... 
 
 . . 77 
 
 8. 
 
 29, 30 . . 
 
 . . 125 
 
 8. 
 
 34 ... 
 
 396 
 
 9. 
 
 5 ... 
 
 , . 137 
 
 9. 
 
 18 ... 
 
 310 
 
 10. 
 
 14 ... 
 
 , . 337 
 
 
 
 571 
 
572 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATED. 
 
 CHAP. 
 11. 
 
 12. 
 
 VERSE 
 
 3336 . . . 
 6 
 
 PAGE 
 
 541 
 35 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 1 THESSALONIANS. 
 
 VERSE 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 12. 
 12. 
 
 VERSE 
 
 1,2 . . . . 
 511 .... 
 
 PAGK 
 
 412 
 122 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 1U * 
 
 J4: 
 RfiO 
 
 12. 
 
 27 
 
 42 
 
 1. 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS. 
 30 
 
 373 
 
 
 1 TIMOTHY. 
 
 
 
 JAMES. 
 
 
 3. 
 
 11 
 
 33 
 
 
 oo 
 
 
 1. 
 
 17 
 
 101 
 
 10. 
 11. 
 12. 
 
 611 . . . . 
 2734 . 121 
 411 .... 
 
 121 
 
 ,507 
 142 
 
 . 
 
 3. 
 
 2 TIMOTHY. 
 1417 . . . 
 
 oU< 
 
 64 
 
 1. 
 3. 
 
 1 PKTER. 
 
 2 . . . . * 
 19 
 
 134 
 344 
 
 
 2 CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 
 
 3. 
 
 21 
 
 489 
 
 3. 
 
 11 
 
 42 
 
 
 TITUS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 5. 
 
 21 
 
 392 
 
 2. 
 
 11 
 
 410 
 
 
 2 PETER. 
 
 
 7. 
 
 9, 10 .... 
 
 443 
 
 2. 
 3. 
 
 13 
 5 
 
 138 
 
 489 
 
 1. 
 1 
 
 3,4 . . . . 
 
 iq on 
 
 410 
 
 CK 
 
 13. 
 
 14 
 
 134 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2. 
 
 4 .... 
 
 219 
 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 
 1. 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 1 
 
 40 
 
 3. 
 
 713 . . 101 
 
 ,544 
 
 1. 
 2. 
 
 414 .... 
 3 . . . . 
 
 112 
 
 285 
 
 2. 
 
 Q 
 
 911 .... 
 
 UQOK 
 
 332 
 373 
 
 2. 
 
 1 JOHN. 
 1 
 
 396 
 
 
 
 
 4. 
 
 12 
 
 114 
 
 5. 
 
 7,8 . . . . 
 
 134 
 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 
 6. 
 
 1 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 
 2. 
 
 6 
 
 137 
 
 
 1 Q "->, 
 
 lie 
 
 
 JUDE. 
 
 
 2. 
 
 8,9 . . . . 
 
 333 
 
 7 
 
 q in 
 
 274 
 
 
 g 
 
 219 
 
 2. 
 
 10 
 
 140 
 
 7 
 
 OK 
 
 JQfi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9. 
 
 24 
 
 39 
 
 
 REVELATION. 
 
 
 
 COLOSSI ANS. 
 
 
 11. 
 
 3 
 
 167 
 
 20 
 
 . 18 . . . . 
 
 538 
 
 1. 
 
 24 . 
 
 391 
 
 11. 
 
 13 . 
 
 41 
 
 22 
 
 18. 
 
 74 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 *Etrt7 
 
 ^ , 
 
 JUN 4 2 04 
 
 LD 21A-60m-3,'65 
 (F2336slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
YC 40910' 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY