/ ^--^/x (y^:C^CZc C^P^ i'll.on. ^ PRINCETON, N. J. *g Presented by Vv'<2v_S' \ cX (S/r^-V Vt^-V-V(0 v^ . BT 75 .K6A 1872 Knapp , Georg Christian, 1753 -1825. Lectures on Christian LECTURES «v CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. BY / GEORGE CHEISTIAN KNAPP, D.D. PROFESSOX OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSirT OF HALLE. TRANSLATED BT LEONARD WOODS, JUN. D.D. PHESIDENT OF BOWSOIN COLLEGE, B AXTMSW I CK, MAIXB. 20TH AMERICAN EDITION. NEW-YORK: N TIBBALS 145 XASSAU STREET. 1812 , C if I Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1S45, by Thomas Wahdle, in the clerk's office of U>? District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, CONTENTS. Translator's Preface . p. 9 INTRODUCTION. •ECT. FACE 1. Of Religion and Theology, and the difference be- tween them 23 3. 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 THEOLOOV. I 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. PASI 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 C. Of the unadulterated correctness and intearity of the Old and New Testament scriptures. . .. 56 7. Of the truth and divinity of the doctrines taught by Christ and his apostles f7 8. Of the inspiration of the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, or the higher divine in- fluence enjoyed by the sacred writers .... M 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 OF GOD. PART I. THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. ARTICLE II. THE EXISTENCE AND THE NOTION OF GOD. ■GOT. PAGE 14. Of the notion of God 83 15. Of the proofs of the divine existence 80 16. Of the unity of God 90 17 Of the scriptural names of God 93 ARTICLE III. THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OP GOD. 18. Introduction to the doctrine respecting the na- ture and attributes of God 94 19. Of the spirituality of God 98 SECT. PAOa 20. Of the eternity and immutability of God .... 99 21. The omnipotence of God 101 22. Of the omniscience of God 102 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 Ill 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 118 30. Of the justice of God 117 31. Of the justice of God (continued) 120 32. Of the decrees of God (Appendix) J24 3 CONTENTS. ARTICLE 1< DOCTRINB or FATHER, BOII, AM 9 HOLT 0U08T. «CT. P*OE 33. Introductory remarks 130 CHAP. 1. 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 30. 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 58. Of the texts in which divine attributes and worlds *re 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 1 . . 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 152 44. History of the doctrine of the Trinity since the time of the Reformation . . 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 vorld; the proof of a creation; the material from which it was made; with a sketch of the various opinions entertained on this subject 1C3 47. The doctrine and language of the Biblical writers respecting the creation in general, and how they are to be understood 106 48. The work of creation twofolil ; diffirent classes of creatures; our kiiowleilge of them; and of God in the creation of the world ; the best world 169 49. Of the Mosaic account of the creation; its ob- ject; and the various hypotheses adopted to explain it 171 M. Explanation of tlie Mosaic history of the creation 170 ARTICLE VI. CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION OF MAN. SECT. PAS! 51. Of the nature of man, especially of the soul of man, and of his destination 160 52. Of the Mosaic account of the origin of the liu- 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 19^ 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 20O ARTICLE VII. THE DOCTRINE RESPECTINO ANOELS. 58. Of the importance of the doctrine concerning angels, and some introductory historical re- marks 203 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 ANGELS. 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 213 CHAP. n. THE FALLEN ANOELS, 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. Ofthe employments and the effects of evil spirits 223 APPENDIX. POWER OF SATAN OVER THE HUMAN BODY AND THE MATERIAL WORLD. 65. Of the bodily possessions recorded in the New Testament 22fl 66. Of magic and spectres 231 ARTICLE VIII. THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING DIVINE I*ROVIDENCE. 67. What is meant by the providence of God, and historical remarks respecting this doctrine 1 235 68. Of the proof of the doctrine of divine provi- di'nce, 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 govern inent of God 345 71. The government of God in relation to the free- dom of man, and to the evil existing in the world 347 72. Of the nature and attributes of Uivine Provi- dence 253 CONTENTS. BOOK II.— THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. PART I. ■TATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROCGHT BY THE FALL. ARTICLE IX. OF SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN. ■KT. 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, witliout the use of the Bible, teach us respecting the sinful state of man, and the origin of iti And how far do the results of reason on this subject agree with the Bible 1 261 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 lis 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 62. 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 Si. 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 88 What punishment i?, and what is the object of it ; how the diviae 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 8T. Come remarks on positive divine punishments 314 PART II. STATE INTO WniCH MAN IS BROUGHT Hi THE REDEMPTION. ARTICLE X. OF JESUS CHRIST. CHAP. I. OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOR THE RESTORATION Of MEN, IN A GENERAL VIEW; THE EXPECTATIONS, PRE- DICTIONS, AND TYPES OF 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 3M CHAP. II. HISTORY OF JESUS IN HIS TWO STATES OF HUMILIATIOH AND EXALTATION. 92. The scriptural representation of the two prin- cipal periods in the life of Tesus ; 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 334 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 348 98. Wherein the heavenly glory or majesty of Christ, as a man, consists ; and the scriptural idea of this kingdom and dominion of Christ. . .. 150 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 359 ▲ 2 CONTENTS. CHAP. III. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON Or CHRIST. SECT. PAGE 100. The higher nature of Christ, and how it is proved 3&5 101. Of the connection between the deity and huma- nity of Christ according to whit the Bible directly tenches, and the consequences which may be deduced from its ini^tructions .. .. 357 105f. Historical observations explanatory of the origin •nd 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 communicatiotie idiomatum ; 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- Dhetic, 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. 109. 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 3S0 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 IH. Of the influence which the resurrection of Christ, and his subsequent exaltation and inter- cession, have upon our forgiveness or justifi- cation . . . . . . .395 SECT. PA«I 113. The scripture doctrine of pardon or justification through Christ, as an universal a.n(l unmerited favour of God 397 114. Of the various theories respecting the nature and manner of the atonement of Chris^t ; and a notice of some of the most important works on atonement and justification 400 115. Of the active obedience of Christ .. . , .. 404 PART 11. 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 arc 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 icorlc 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 XL 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" »s 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 . . 437 124. 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 43S 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 ^W 127. Statement of the doctrine of moral reformation; its commencement ; on putting off repent- ance, and on late conversions 443 128. Remarks on the false opinions and perversions concerning the doctrine of repenlaiice, which havn been gradually adopted in the Christian church 44f7 CONTENTS. ARTICLE XII. THE OPERATIONS OF QKACE ; OR THE DIVINE INSTITU- TIONS FOR PROMOTING REPENTANCE AND FAITH. SECT. PAGE 129. E.vplanatinn of the terms "grace," "operations of grace," "means of grace," and other phrases nnployed in theology on this sub- ject; and the connection of this doctrine with the preceding 449 130. What are the operations of divine grace fnr pro- moting the repentance and salvation of those who live in Christian lands ; and what means does^Cod employ in e.xerting these influences on their hearts t •■ 451 131 IIow is the divine origin of these gracious renew- ing influences proved from the holy scrip- tures 1 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. E.xhibilion 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 Xin. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY OB 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 14S. The baptism of infanta .. ... 494 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 tliese 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 . . . . 518 149. 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 510 150. 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 elernalcondemnation 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 . . 552 ON ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS. 159. Introduction to this doctrine; and explanation of the scriptural phraseology with regard to it 599 160. What do reason and scripture teach, and lead u« to expect, in a general view, as to the real nature of future blessedness Ul 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, hy giving some account of the school of Biblical Theology in Germanjr, 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 hav« 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 df 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- drea; 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 Arndl'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, suflfer 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 w-hole apparatus of hermeneutical helps, (then indeed compara- tively small,) in order 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 nattiral, 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 rather employed language used to designate relations and feelings previously known, analogous to those intended. To every man, therefore, their 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 the literal Itnowledge of the subject which the na- tural man may possess. But there are many things in the human relation of a son to a father which might be the foundation of the metaphor employed. Resemblance, imitation, obedience, love, or actual descent and possession of the same nature, and many other things which might be mentioned, would furnish a proper foundation for the metaphor of sonship and adnption. And so these have all been made by slifferent commentators the point of analogy be- tween this common and this Christian relation. 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 ^s the only foundation of knowledge, — sensiis est principium eognoscendi. 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 pent les mettre dans I'ame. II a voulu qu'ils entrent du cceur dans I'esprit, et non pas de I'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.'*'' " 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. All 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 qua^ro 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, but almost inseparable from it; for what can prevent that exaggeration of its particular ob- jects, to which feeling always tends, and give to eadi its due importance, but that view of the whole which science alone can furnish ? 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 that with which he contended against their abuse. He held the just medium between the pious enthusiast and the cold speculator; and wished that the system might proceed from a living faith and be pervaded by it, and that faith might be regulated and rectified by thorough system; and he thus aimed to secure to Chris- tianity, what it may justly claim, the whaleman; the powers of the understanding and the feelings of the heart. The effort to attain to an insight into the in 12 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- bler 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 Ncander, AUgem. Kirchengeschichte, b. U. Al.th. 2, P 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 ib happily turning more and more to the inward scroll of experience; and instances might easily be mentioned, did my limiis 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 theoloQfians 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 promote 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 Chjistianity 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 others; and the piety of the church wanting its * Vide Schleiermacher, in the last article in his " Zeitschrift," s. 29, and especially a. 299—304. PREFACE. U 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 " Lecliones Pareenetica;," 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- cal department might be at liberty to attend. In the preface to the first collection of these lectures, Franke gives the following account of them : — " I have not been accustomed to follow any particular method in these lectures, but have 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 of 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 on these principles, and these alone, theology is a 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 of 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: — "Scientiaaquarum similis est; aquarum aliss descendunt coelitus, alias emanant e terra. Etian scientiarum primaria partitiosumendaest ex fontibus suis; horum alii in alto siti sunt; alii hie infra. Omnis enim scientia duplicem sortitur informationem. Una inspiratur divini- tus; aliter oritur a sensu. Partiemur i^itur 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'? 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. j- 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 augrn. Scientia. 1. iii. cap. 1. t Consider — e. g., the doctrine oi creation from nothing, long a doctrine of theology, but only lately of philosophy, B 14 PREFACE. many styled theologians who do not hesitate to abandon such trutlis as the creation of the world, the fall of man, native corruption, vica- rious atonement, future resurrection, heaven and hell, on the first flourish of arms from the corps of infidel dilettanti. But they forget that geo- logy, anthropology, and the kindred sciences, which they seem to consider infallible, are from their very nature as experimental, incomplete, and cumulative, continually leaving earlier re- sults behind. They forget that there are other hypotheses equally supported which tend to confirm revelation, and that what God has spo- ken— the firm prophetic and apostolic word — is not subject to human revision. By their gra- tuitous concessions to philosophy and science, they deprive Christian theology of its proper elements, and Christian faith of the ground of its reliance. Tliey make the great truths upon which the heart must rest for consolation and hope, dependent upon the advances of the expe- rimental sciences. We are thus left to drift about on this dangerous sea, while the holy heights to which we once lifted our eyes, and beheld them kindled with the revealed glory of heaven to guide us on our passage thither, now burn only with the uncertain fires of this modern illumination. These are, indeed, unhappy con- sequences, but we are told they are inevitable. Theologians, it is said, have no choice left them, and must adopt the splendid results which are every day disclosed in all departments of know- ledge; and if they would not suffer theology to fall into contempt, must admit some compromise between its antiquated doctrines and the rapid progress of light. To effect this compromise is the off.ce assigned to modern rationalism by one of its ablest apologists. Rationalism, says Bretschneider,* designs to restore the interrupt- ed harmony between theology and human sci- ences, and is the necessary product of the scien- tific cultivation of modern times. But whence the necessity 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 pope and the schoolmen only to yield it again to the empiric; and as to the advantages of this compromise, what has really been accomplished by this fiir-famed rationalism after all its pro- mises 1 It professed friendship for Christianity, but has proved its deadly foe; standing within the pate of the cluirch, it has been in league with the enemy without, and has readily adopt- ed every thing which infidelity could engender, and as studiously rejected every thing which true philosophy has done to confirm the truths of re- Telation. It promised to save theology from * Vide his " Sendschreiben," s. 78. contempt; and how has this^pTomise been per* formed? In the days of Spener, tlieology waa the queen of sciences, so acknowledged by the mouth 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, " Givt 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 man)' ages to come. To the direct influence of this school, considered 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- fluence— to the abuse of the principles upon which it was established — must 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 mijiutely 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 issues of these principles in pietism on the one hand, and rationalism on the othef, 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 schoo], faith and science, rda-fii and yvw rrtj, 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 tiulh; while their knowledge was humble, vital, and sound, through the influence of faith and piety. But one acquainted with the imperfection of human nature, and with the history of the church, coul 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 impose; 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 ni^atii and yvcotftj 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 difl'erent 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 mind, 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 inatters 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 pietisrn, 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 mofe 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 he salu tnry, 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 eflTects 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 suflicient 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 inve3ti- 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 iimovaturs 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 fiiith. 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 chakitas, cujtis mixtio, says Bacon, tempcrat scientium, eamque saluberrimam efficit, and without which, omnis scientia malignum quid habet venenosum' que, Jlaiuosis symptomatihus 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 ot 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 Paedagogium, 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 false 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 loss 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 himself to the study of the original Scriptures, and made it his great object to become thorough- ly 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 Repository, vol. i. No. I p. 30. PREFACE. maybe inferred from his programm, "Ad Vatici- nium Jacobi," Genesis, xlix. 1 — 27, 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, 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 ^. 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),andthenof ProfessorOrdinary (inl782). 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 thedeath of Freylinghausen(17S5), 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 diviidon of duties, the oversight of the Bible and rais- sionary establishment fell to Dr. Knapp, and he was thus brought into connection with the Moravian brethren. It Avas in the summer of the same year in which he received this appointment, and after i.e 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 complcto them before the summer of 1789, o'bea ho iirat read them before a class of 186. 3 After this time he continued to lecture on theo- logy (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 better 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 cf unusual eloquence. From that time he had the joy of beholding the cause which he held mijst dear gradually gaining ground. His own rejiutation, 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 ye:irs 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 b2 18 PREFACE. affection and esteem, as well as the civic and academic lionours, 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 llieological 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 childh^id. He had a complica- tion of ilisorders, which would have consio-ned 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 ofthese early parental instructions, in restraining from hardening vices, and in awa- kening the moral impulses of the sovil, 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, crebrfeque exhorta- tiones ad studium pietatis in Deum ac veri PREFACE. 19 rectique amorem, menti mese tarn alte infixae h8eserunt, ut earum memoria nunquam deleri poterit. Nam post ejus obitum quoque, si forte adessent peccandi illecebrce, quibus tentari ju- venilis letas solet, statim ejus imago animo meo obversabatur, simulque in memoriam revocabam cohortationesomnemqueinstitutionempaternam, qua juvenilis animus mature erat imbutus. Hac cura ac diligentia parentum effectum est unice, ut varia pericula atque incitamenta ad peccan- dum, quibus multos aequalium, optimae spei ju- venis, in academia prsesertira, 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 scoflFers 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. A.bout 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 m)' 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 179-1 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 tvas exhibited, — what ivere 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 diff'used 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 ivhat 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 eflfect 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, so 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 w^as 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 evy 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 conten»poraries, 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 17B5 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 subsidiarj^ 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 "-ourse, the principle, that lead where they viay, the decisions of inspiration are to be fearlcsiiy 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 owinf 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 the practical 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 tho 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, ihough 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 he 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 respon? be 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 ceises, 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 aiiowable. 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, Juw. Theological Seminary, Andover, Sept. 26, 1831. INTEODUCTION. INTEODUCTION. SECTION I. »F 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 pieiy to him. The objection which Staudlinand some other mod- ern writers have urged against this definition is not important enough to require us to abandon it. Wc 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, (yfwrftf, Ttla-tii, to jtiffT'sveu'.) The hu- man will is employed about the latter, which is called ihe practical part of religion, (ra tpya, to 7tot,tcv.) These two parts must coexist. One is equally essential with the other. They are, ^nerefore, always connected in the discourses of Christ and the writings of the apostles. Vide John, xiii. 17; Titus, i. 1; Jas. 1. 22 — 27. Vide Morus, p. 2, hiblica nomina religionis, ^dj3o5 0£ov, X. t. X. 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- spects a man is called religious. Religion is a name which is also very frequently given to the external 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, (b) 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 Mahorame- 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 xttt' t^oxriv, 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 reli- gioncs, 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 xoyoj rtept ©fw, (like aatpo'Koyia,') and this is either narratio de deo, 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 ^foXoyia. Pherecydes of Scyros, who wrote a work entitled ^eoXoyCa, 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 ^toxoytlv, 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 oixovo^ia, the doctrine of his human nature. Whence the phrase, ^toioydv XpcuT'or or livtv- fia oiyioi/ — 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 Musseus, 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 respectinof God, subtilior modus d.is- sendi dodrinam de deo. Morus, 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 t(i 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 calecheti- ca/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 yviLaii, who accordingly called divines yvutotixoi. 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 acroamaiica, or academiea, in opposition to popularis and eaieehetiea, 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 fiirdie ganzliche AbschafTung der Schulsprache in der Theologie, 1776, 8vo; and the answer, Brackmann, Apologie der theologischen Systemsprache; Braunschweig, 1778, 8vo. • Theological or scientific religion consists, as well as popular religion, of two principal parts : viz. (1) T^e /Aeore?2Cj5ar/, or theoretic theology, (Glaubenslehre,) because it proposes dogmas, ^tcopr'jUttta, theses, propo'sitiones de religions, which are discovered and established by reflec- tion and investigation. Vide Morus, Prajf. p. v. seq. It is also called theologia dogmatica, (dog- matik.) For the explanation of this term, let it be observed that boyfxa 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) theprinciple or doe- trine (doctrina) itself. Hence Pliny expresses it hy placitum, and Cicero by decretum ; as, de- creta philosophorum, Acad. II. 9. Many of the old fathers, as Origen, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, employed Soy^a in this sense — viz., to desig- nate not merely an opinion respecting certain principles and theoretic doctrines ; but these jirinciples 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 opusde 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 ^keoretiCf ia / CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 37 . ^pposiiion to praetieal or mnral theology. In I the same way, Seneca, Ep. 95, and others of the I ancient stoics, divided philosophy into theoretic (dogmatica) and practical (paraenetica). This name of the theoretic part of theology was intro- du?ed into the protestant church principally hy PfafFand Buddeus, who, in 1721 — 23, published their manuals under the title, Theologia dogma- tica et moralis. Vide Stange, Sytnmicta, 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 thelica, and the doctrines con- tained in them, theses, in opposition to theologia antilhetica,* ox polemica, (critical theology.) Ca- lixtus of Helmstadt, in the seventeenth century, l^was the first who undertook to separate cZoc^r/na/ ■ifrom moral theology in scientific instruction. I Since his time this division has remained. Cf. Morus, Epitome Theologiae Christianas, p. 1—3, s. 1—4. 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 n 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 ikryx,o;, 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; Tit. i. 9. Hence the phrase theologia elenctica, i\ryx.ri}iii, (elenktik,) which Turretin uses. Friedmann Bechmann, a theologian of Jena, in the seventeenth century, first used the phrase, theologia polemica, and wrote a book under that title. Stange, ubi supra, p. 1 6 1 . moral feeling by which we determine what ia 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 riew 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 38 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 ] Vide Flatt, Magazin fiir 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 hf 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, wc 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 ■apposed virtues, and therefore the means ap- pointed by God for the moral improvement of men. And since religion is appointed to raaa ' as the means of fulfilling his destiny, it must 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. Morus, s. 4, et passim. SECTION III. OF NATURAL AND REVKALED RELIGION. The knowledge of God, his moral govern ment over the world, and his will, can be ob tained in two ways. First, by means o( nature Vide Morus, p. 3, 4. s. 5, 6. This is a source of knowledge which even the ^ea/Aen 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 vofxa^; and those who do not enjoy it, and know God mere- ly from nature, avo^ot and voftov y-ri i;^or't'{ j. 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 our 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 Iftiowledge of its author, Ps. xix. 1 — 0; Rom. i. 20; Acts, xiv. 17; coll. xvii. 24, seq. He finds (2) another source of the knowledge of God in himself, in his oion con- scic7ice, whioh 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. NaU CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 39 XXX. 1) of his own and earlier times still holds true — ad religionem maximc etiamnum caltgat huDianum genus. Gesneri Chr. Plin. 737. 5, cf. 700, not. We should therefore naturally 3xpect that God would supply these defects in natural religion by means of direct revelation. We a)ust not, however, found our belief in a direct revelation upon zn a priori demonstration. The simple question is, Has arevelaiionactuaUy been made? This is a question of fact, the an- swer to which must, of course, be sought from hislory. 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 sey] 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 best 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 aan 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 bestowment of it by God, in condescension to our wants, cannot appear to the unprejudiced inquirer either inconsistent or incredible. W^e 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 booksof 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 religioua 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. ' Vide Psalm xix., where ver. 1 — 6 treat of the iii. 2; coll. ix. 4; and i. 19, 32; which shows knowledge of God derived from nature; ver. how the light of nature given to the heathen 'l — 11, of that derived from revelation. Cf. Acts, had been niisimproved by them. The studious and learned among the Greeks and Romans retained almost the sole possession of all tlial 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, they accomplished very little for the religious and moral improvement of the most numerous class of society ; though this class stood most in need of instruction. Add to this the observation, that 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 just 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 M'ith- out the light of revelation. Hume said, very justl}', 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 Wahrheitendernatiirlichen Religion; Zieg- )er, Theol. Abhand. Num. I., iiber Naturalis- mus und positive Relijrion, Gcitt. 1791, 8vo; and Stiludlin, Ideenzueiner Kritik des Systems der christlichen Religion, Gott. 1791, 8vo. 4. But although natural religion must appear, from what lias 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 ns, 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 rcrert/c^ himself 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.l7. 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 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 whiclt 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 Deity. Morus, p. 8, s. 3. But revelation {^avipooic, aTtoxaXv^ii) is used, even in the Bible, in a wider, and in a more limited sense. Morus, p. 9, s. 4. (I) 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 i^o.vfpovv is used in respect to the know- ledge of God derived from nature, (Rom. i. 19,) and u^TioxaX-iiTt-tiiv, Phil. iii. 15. (2) In the nar- rower sense, it is instruction respecting things which are not only unknown, but undiscover- able by the human mind. (3) In the narrow est sense, it is divine instruction on the truths of religion concerning the salvation of men, which neither have been, nor can be, taught by natural religion, and which cannot be derived from reasoning on the nature of things. Revealed religion, then, is not opposed, bst added, to natural religion. It repeats, confirmvi, and illustrates many of the precepts of natural reality. God cannot contradict himself, nor [ religion, and at the same time brings tc light exhibit himself in one light in nature, and in an I much that was before unknown, entirely different light in revelation. The know- All this admits of an easy application to the ledge of God acquired from nature is recom- Christian religion. Although the doctrines of mended and honouribly mentioned in the Bible, j the Christian religion must not be contradictory CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 31 te reason, they need not bo 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 exliibit 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, Vindicis 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, ^ctixov) is that quod ponilur, sive docetur sic esse ,• no?* quod de- mons'ralur geometrice. The following is the origin of this term : — The Greeks say, j/d^tonj -iidivai — i. e., prscscribcre, prxcipcre ; 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 religirn must begin his examination with the moral .lystem 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 i»e comes to put it into practice, he will soon hnd 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 (i) 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 ai;e 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. JS'ote. — 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 theologiaj 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 thenre trans- mitted to their descendants. They deny thai 33 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 Tiie elements only of many revealed truths were communicated to our first parents. Men were left to examine, in the diligent use of iheir 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 nligion? SECTION IV. IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD INNATE 1 The natural knowledge of God has been di- vided, especially by the ancients, into innate (insita, congenita, kfi^vtoi) and acquired, (ac- quisita, fTtt'zT'jjroj.) 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 intiiese innate ideas, {anteceptx 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 ih^at 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. Tliis opinion doubtless arose from the known fact, that tlie 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 mora. conscious7iess, 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. G4. 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, (polentia 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 ihe 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 fron^. 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 ox feeling \\\\\ch 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 witlihold approbation of right and admiration of virtue. But this moral feeling, as was remarked above CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. n elmds in close connertion with the idea of God, and leads directly to it. Paul says that even the heathen (^ujj vo/j-ov ixovtsi") have this feeling They, indeed, have no direct revelation (^v6p.ov) ; but they know from their own nature (^qivaic) 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 (ivScLxvvvtaL) by their judgments and actions that the precepts of the law (to tpyov toi) voixov, what the moral law commands to be done or avoided) are wriUen 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. 1, Res in animo suo inseulptas 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 yvuatbv roi) ©foi; for yruifftf 0£ou) is attainable even by the heathen. It is evident even to them, ((j>a- vepov iativ iv avtoti for avtoii;) 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 themsel'ies with the plea of ignorance, (sij ■ro tlvai aitov^ waTtoXoyr^tovi.) The words r a yap ^f lo-f^jj 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, (ddpata avtov,) his omnipotence and other divine perfections (^fior);^), can be discovered, since the creation of the world, (a7c6 xtiaiuii xoiyp-ov, while the world stands, cf. Luke, xi. 50,) by the observation of the things that are made, (rtot/^^acrt, 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 kis readers at Rome, at that time, to deal, and of these, therefore, he here principally speaks. 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' tern of theoretic religion are called doctrines of faith, (articuli fidei, capita fidei Christianse :) 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 essetitia!, 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 lias 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, Musasus, Baier, and others. (i) 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, {tTioixoho^d, and ver. 6, 7.) Cf. Eph. ii. 20, where the same comparison is fo'\jn<^« 34 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Paul calls the instructicn which he had given in the elements of Christianity, yaxa, 1 Cor. iii. 2 ; Heb. v. 12 ; also, xoyoj trji ap;t^j -toii Xptdtov, 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- n.ine 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 diff'erent 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 tlieologian 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 v/hich 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, wvealed as Father, Soc. iad Holy Gho«»^^-. ^as represented by the apostles as the author, pr»v server, and governor of all things. 2. The doctrine respecting Jesus, (a) He ifl the Messiah, the Saviour, (2wt»jp) 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, iCor. 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. ( b) He became man, died, and rose again. He is now gone into the heavens, where he is ex- alted overall, and enjoys thatdivine glory which is his due, and whence he will come on a future day to be our judge. ( c) He not only gave u3 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^a), the remembrance of which is so- lemnly renewed in the Lord's supper. These truths respecting Cliristare 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, (rtiftJ^ua ayior, ;^apL(Tjuara rtvsvixato^.^ 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 ths un versal moral law, although obedience to the latter is their indis- pensable duty. Paul argues this point against the Jews, who held the opposite opinion; ha also shows that the law of Moses is no ong«» obligatory upon Christians. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 3i 8. The doctrine of baptism. By this ordi- nance Christian rights are imparted and assured to all who are admitted into the Ciiristian church. These are the fundamental doctrines which were taught by the apostles. Note. — The whole Mosaic dispensation, as all will admit, rested op the principles of theocracy. But it is equally clear from the New Testament, that the ne^ 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 (xiiptof) and judge, (xptr^j ^wrrwy xal fSJCpuiI/.) Christianity, then, in the purely scriptural view of it, i-s 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 ^orernwen/, in which Clirist 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 Mmple authority. These views might be proved from the writings of the apostles and the dis- :ourses 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 enjinently important in the Christian system. The phrase aTiaiogy of faith is borrowed from Rom. xii. G. But there avaxoyia r^j Tilatiuii ia the proportion or degree of theoretical and prac- tical faith or Christianity ; like ^iit(iov n^oTiwj, 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 hy 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 Moras, 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. 3 SECTION VL OF THE MYSTERIES OF RELIGION. 1. The Greek jUDcrt'/jpioi' is commonly rendered mystery. It answers to the Hebrew nnpp, and signifies in general anything concealed, hidden, unknown. In the New Testament it generally signifies doctrines which are concealed from men, 36 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. 'Mvatrfiiov signifies, therefore, in its biblical use, (1) Christianity in its whole extent, because it was unknown before Its publication — e. g. fnvatrfiMv rtiarsto;, 1 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. G, 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 (i) 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 caption 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- tarily contain mysteries. Mystery is not, in tself considered, an essential mark and requisite «f revelatjon But, on the other hand, we should not undertake to say beforehand that a revelattoi 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 d priori have no place. (3) The great object of divine revelation is the promotion of the moral improvement of men. Those dark and unintelligil-le doctrines, which are either themselves subversive of this end, or are wholly disconnected vvii h the pr^tical 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 difierent 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 oui duties and relations to God ; and to remove this mystery would render our duties and relations to God essentially different from what they arc 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 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 ot 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 w« CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 17 can never fully comprehend the objects which ! lie beyond the circle of our bodily vision, and j that yet we must believe in them, notwithstand- | ing all objections, as far as they are found by | experience to be effectual means of promotingour i holiness or moral improvement. We must be- lieve in Christ, as Redeemer and Saviour; in God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and we j must make a practical use of these doctrines for 1 the end and in the manner prescribed by Christ, | hov/ever unable we may be to understand their grounds and internal connection. (G) Religion, as we may conclude from all that has been said, is a necessary result from the principles of human reason. It therefore rests ipon a faith, which is grounded on these prin- iples of reason; otherwise it would be super- :tition. 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. Tliis is a point not at all essential to the reasonableness of faith ; because the objects of this religious faith belong to the epiritual world, and are, therefore, from the very nature of the case, incomprehensible to man. The comprehensihleness of the doctrines of reli- gion cannot therefore be made tfie criterion by v» hich their truth is to be determined, as has been d' ne erroneously by many modern philosophers a>.d theologians. Proceeding on the principle, Hat every thing in the doctrines of religion which uas incomprehensible must be explained away or fv.jected, they came at last, in order to be con- sistent with themselves, to renounce all religion, Kitural as well as revealed ; or, at best, to leave oMly the name of it behind. The nature of God is, and must ever remain, wholly incompreh'en- eible. We know not what he is in himself, nor tie 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 comprehe/isibleness of the doctrines of religion as the criterion of their truth, or v/holly 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 .he 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 THB SCRIPTURES, REASON, AND TRADITION, A3 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. Oui 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 lesu 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 giound 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 praciice, 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 tlie trae priticipium 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 ^iT^oao^ia, (Col. ii. 8;) or yrtostj -^sybuivvfioi, 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. G. 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 dericiencies 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 theonly 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 our 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 hifh tory of revelation, and the correctness of th« facts gathered by experience, and in discovering and estimating the suitableness and sacrednesn of the duties imposed upon us. Reason may properly be used, as the instru- ment of our knowledge of revealed truth, in th» 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, for example, is not drawn out in the Bible, but is presupposed. (h\ 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. ((/) 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 as 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 revealec religion, and c/ the particular doctrines which it embraces (usua rationis humanse apolegeticus) How much reason is needed in this particular must appeal sufficiently from the preceding remarks. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 39 III. 0/ ihe use of Tradition. The words rtapubosi^ and traditio are used by the older ecclesiastical fathers, to denote any \nstruction whish one gives to another, whether will or lorilien. In the New Testament also, and in the classical writers, rtapaSorrac and tradere •ignify, in general, to teach, to instruct. Tradi- tion in this wider sense was divided \nio scripta, ind nmi scripta site oralis. The latter, traditio oralis, was, however, frequently called traditio by way of eminence. This oral tradition was often appealed to by Irenteus, Clemens of Alex- andria, TejftuUian, (De Prajser. 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 often evade the force of an appeal to texts of scripture by misinterpreting them. This tradition is called by Origen xr;pvyfj.a ixxT-r^- aiaotixov, and by the Latin Fathers regula fidci (i. e. doctrinas Christianse) sive veritatis. The latter title was given by them, more specifically, to tlie ancient symbols, which contained the in- struction received from the apostles, and trans- milted and preserved in the church. Oral tradition is still regarded by the Romish •jhurch as - say, Beytrag zur endlichen Entscheidung der Frage: In vvie fern habendie Lehren und Vor- schriften des N. T. bloss eine locale und tempo- relle Bestimmung, und in vvie fern sind diesel- ben von einem allgemeinen und stets giiltigen AnsehenT Hanover, 1806, 8vo. Note. — Biblical names of revealed religion and of a religious institute. Some of the most important are the following: — viz. mm, rojuoj. 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, »ofioi' /t)j t;^"*' CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 4S nna, Sia'^ixrj. When God made a law, or oublished 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, Sia^jjxj; signifies a iaio 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. 21; 2 Cor. iii. 6. The Christian economy is called Ttlatii Xpta- •tov, vof-ioi XpiOT'ov, o^djttoj TtifTTfcoj, rCvsv/xa, (in reference to its divine origin and perfection,) and ^specially ivayytXiov. 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 ecnno7ny, as containing not only promises but precepts as conditions of those promises. In this sense it may he 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 tlie 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 rtapa'xXjyJtj, Tiai^axaXilv, rtopa.at'^iio^at, which are used in reference to the teaching of Christianity, (z^pryjua.) 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 Christianity in this way more popular. They had 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 Pantsenus, 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 pliilo- sophy iiad 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, readmitteJ it. Then followed the systems of Des Cartes, Fho- 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 — have alike furnished themselves with weapona from the philosophy of Aristotle, Leibnitz, Kant^ and others, down to our own times. 44 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 trm 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 fxSoit; axpifirii -fyj; 6p^So|ou Titsticoi. We do not mention the books of Origen, Ttipi ttp;^u)i', 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. Tlie 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 va»iance 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. («) There always were learned theologians who treated the truths of religion as if they were given f )r 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 leach 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 ah 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. (b) 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. Tiie mystics have been divided, in consequence of this difference of opinion among them, into puri and mixti. The mysfici 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 meansof 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 pui^ CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 45 sued by the student, with special reference to the circumstances of our own limes. (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, (Tide s. 7,) the study of theology must com- mence with the Bible. The truth of the maxim, theologus in scn'ptu7-is nascitur, cannot be contro- verted. Tho 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 tlien 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) Tlie theologian should always be careful to notioe the practical injluence 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 thos'e 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 disertos facit. The want of this personal experience cannot be 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 general y 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 fromilliberality in his estimate of otliers. 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. (b) 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. Ic) 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. Nijfc. — In the study of theology, the follow- ing works may be read with profit, and used as manuals. (1) Morus, CommentariusExegetico- historicus, in suam Theologiaj Christianas Epi- tomen, Tom. 2, edited by M. Ilempel, Halle, 1797 — 98, 8vo. (2) Reinbard, Vorlesungen iiber die Dogmatik, edited with literary additions by Berger, Amberg, and Sultzbach, 1801, 8vo. (3) Storr, Doctrinee Christianas pars theoretica e s. Uteris repeiita, 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 Stori de- serves special recommendation, as a very tho- rough system of biblical theology. Tlie work8 which give a merely historical view of the vari- ous theological opinions are less suitable for be- ginners. One of the best among the works of this kind is Beck, Commentarii historici decreto- rum religionis Christianae et formulae Lutherias, Lips. 1801, 8vo. The work of Augusti, above mentioned, gives a briefer sketch. Another work of the same author, vSystem 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 OP 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. Aiaiirxtj and n'i3 denote laws, religion, and religious lorit- ings ; also the books, or the coUcdion of ihebnoks, ivhich enihodjj all the precepts of religion. Bij3- %iov hia^r^xr^q is used in the latter sense, 1 Mac. i. 57, and TtaXala 6ia^j;x);, 2 Cor. iii. 14. The sacred books of Christians are called, in distinc- tion, xaivrj Siai^r^xrj. The books of the New Testament have been differently divided. At a very early period they were divided into -to ci-a/^'ytXiov and o ajtoirojioj, of which we shall speak hereafter. Tiiey hare 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 fijst in the collection ; because the dmne CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 47 revelation contained in the New Testiment 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) n-nn, //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 joyovntvo,, protoca- aonici, and the avti>.(yofiiva, deuterocanoniei. SECTION III. OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOKS OF THB OLD TESTAMENT. The proof of the authenticity of the books of the Old Testament is attended, indeed, with some difliculty, 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 thesebooks, either the whole of them or their most important parts were composed in the ages to which they are assigned. I. Inieryial Proofs of the Genuineness of the Booka 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 bookf, the ideas, expressions, and in short ever thing 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 languege, 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 impostort 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. 4f neglected by the ancients. Jerusalem, Briefe iiber die Mosaischen Schriften und Philosophie, Braunschweig, 176-3, 8vo. C. Gottlob Lang, Versiich einer Harmonic der heiligen und Pro- fanschreibenten, 1775. II. External Proofs of the Authenticity of the Books of the Old Testament. 1. 'I'i.ese 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 lxxviii.,cv., cvi. ; I Samnel, 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. 2G ; 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, ai'axftiifia iv ta tfpu ypdi.iuaT'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 bocks 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 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 tho 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 respecting 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 ttiose of Moses — were composed in this way. B-at al E M 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 Bame 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. Intruduclory 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 hooks has not always ieen 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, undei 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 Uhri r.anonici was taken in a more limited sense, and became synonymous with the term ti'Sta^j/xot,, which was common among the ancient Greek fathers. Lihri carwnici, 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 canbnical are the apccryphal books. And the latter term, as well as the former, has been used in a wider and a more limited sense. («) The apocryphal writ- ings were originally those books which were not publicly used in the Christian assemb leg which were laid aside, or shut up, the public use of which was forbidden, (3i|3xia artox^iv^a., D\MJJ.) A book therefore of the Old or New Testament, whose divine original and authority were undoubted, might be apocryphal in this sense. But (i) 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 lime 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 ke|)t in the sanctuary of the tem- ple, in order (1) to secure it more cfTectually 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 captivit)'. The other original collec- tions have been altered and improved in a simi- lar manner. Note. — It is usually the case, that as soc n as a nation comes to the possession of many woik which have different degrees of merit, or which are in danger of being corrupted or neglected, oi which perhaps have already experienced thia fate, persons appear who are versed in literature and who interest themselves iri these works CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 51 They take pains to preserve their text, or to re- store it when it lias become corrupt; they shew the distinction between genuine and spurious writings, and they make collections, or lists, comprising only those w-hich 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 syx^nvoi-iivov (classic!), and the books excluded, ixxpivouiivi. The ex- cluded writings were of course less used, and have since mostly perished. Vide Ruhnken, Historia Oratorum Groecorum critica, p. xcvi. Quintillian, (I. 0.) I. 4, s. 3, and Spalding, ad h. 1. These 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. Rut 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 ihe nation. The collection thus made was ever after con- sidered complete; and the books composing it were called The Holy Scriptures, the Law A.vn THE Prophets, &c. It was now circulated by (U«an8 of transcripts, and came gradually into common use. The cane n of the Old Testament was closed as soon, cert^iidy, 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 granmiarians 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, Wien, 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 no complete list of all our canonical books cae 59 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGV. be gathered from the works of the oldest Jewish writers. The following observations, however, may enable us to come to some conclusion: — (1) 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 tiiere 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 VVetle 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, fiom Jahn's Introduction to the Old Testament, and the theological work of Storr and Flatt, which iiotice 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 hy Christians. Since the primitive Christians received thf books of the Old Testament from the Israelites they may naturally be supposed to have admit- ted into their collection all the books whicli 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 (i) 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 theii 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 hooka which belong to our Bible. This was done in the second century, by Melito, bishop of Sardis, cited in EuTsebius, 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 apocrypha4 writings, which are usually appended to th» Alexandrine version, among the canonical books. They, at least, ascribed to these writings a greal CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 53 authority, and called them ^ttor 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 viTiters 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 ajevel with the canonical books. The Egyptian fathers, Cle- mens of Alexandria and Irensus, 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- turcis cfmonicas. 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 churqh who carefully distinguished the apocryphal from the canonical books. Hiero- nymus, in his Prologus Galeatus, says respect- ing the Book of Wisdom, &.'c., 71011 sunt in ca- mme. In his Praif. in libros Salomonis, he says, " HcBC duo volumina (ecclesiasticum et sapien- tiam) legal ecclesia ad asdificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirinandam." Hence the books properly belonging to the Old Testament were called lih-i canonici, and the apocryphal books, libri ecc/esiastici. Rufinus, ExpositioSymboli Apost., after enumerating the canonical books of the Old Testament, says, " Hsec sunt quffi patres intra canonem concluserunt, e< ex qiiihus fidei nosfrae. assertiunes conslare vohierv^it : sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non sunt canonici, sed ecclcsiastici a majoril)us appellati." He then enumerates them, and adds, " Quffi omnia kgi quidem in ecclesia voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei con- Jirmandam.'''' 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 3f 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 centur}', set aside the disi notion between the canonical and apocry- pha, books, and closed its decretal by saying, *'Si quis autem libros ipsos integros, cum omni- bwi suis partibus, prout in ecclesru cathoHca legi iottsueverunt, et in vderi vulgala Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non suscipetit, et traditiones pra;dictas, 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 deuicrucannnici, 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 Colkciion. 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 weredi'ayit'o5KO;iifi'oi, which were not ivScd^rjxoi {iyr.pu'6j.i(voi..) 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 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 whufie collection. In order to arrive at the truth on tills subject, we must consider the collection divided into its two principal parts, svayyiXiov and (xrioaroxoi. 1. It was commonly reported in the early ages of the church, that J(jhn 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. HI. 21. 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 ^'\\\c\\prececle(l'Ax\A followed 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 (artoo- to%o{) 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 Apocalyi)se, 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 a» once, but was commenced a consi- derable time before it was made complete. It was divided into two parts, to ivayytXiov, and o anonroXoi or ro anors-t oXixov. (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 Hares, HI. 11, cites the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as those which he knew to be genuine. The same wai 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 foul 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 epiaiks, 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 ivrUings. 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. 16;) 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 ariostoXixov, therefore, ori- ginally contained only the thirteen epistles of Paul, and the first epistles of Peter and John; since these only were considered hy the oldest fathers as belonging to the ivhid^r^xoi.. But afterwards the avrAiyoy-fva, 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, tho diri^LfyojUf I'tt not excepted ; as appears from tho catalogue of Origen cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. VI. 25 ; and from that of Eusebius him- self. Hist. Eccles. HI. 25, where he appeals toix- xXjjotaaTw^ Tiofihooi-i, and excludes the Apocry* CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 8S pha from the ivSiu^^xoi. Vide Griesbach, Hist, epp. Paull. Jenae, 1777, 4to. The catalogues of Cyril of Jerusalem and of Gregory Nazian- zen agree with these, except that the Apoca- lypse is wholly omitted bj' the former, and is mentioned by the latter as doubtful. II. T/ie Principles on which this Collection ivas 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 iv&Lu^t^xoc 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 a])0stles 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 Drocure more influence and currency. 3. The custom and example of otherchurches, liich 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. Scri|)t. Eccles.), when speaking of the book of Jude, says that it had indeed been doubted and reject- ed by some, but aiicloritaleiu jam vetustate et usu meruit. 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 tliese 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 credhihe testimony of the ancients, whe- ther given by particular churches or by distin- guished individuals; nor, on theconlrary, should we blindly reject their testimony. We 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 (tne avtiXiyo/xiia.') 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. l^he 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 Jpostolici, which, however, are spurious ; also in can. 60 of the council at Laodicea, about the year 3G0, 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, arid 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 tliis opinion by many theo- logians of the sixteenth century. And other protestant theologians have doubled respecting other books of the diriXfyOjUfia. jVote 1. — Even if we should allow that the avtiXfyofiftu 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 o{ the avti^fyofiiva, 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- M CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. ent books of the New Testament, without any rcftrence to this distinction. Works to be consulted : — Gerh. de Mastricht, Canon SS. secundum seriem seculor. N. T. collectus et nolis illustratus, . Tense, 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 Untersuohung des Canons, 4 Theile, Halle, 1771 — 75, 8vo. Weber, Beytrage zur Gescliichte des neutestamentlichen Canons, Tiibingen, 1791. Corrodi, Versuch einer Be- leuchtung der Geschichte des jiidishen und chrisllichen Bibelcanons, 2 Bande, Halle, 1792. Other vvorlvs 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. Tiifcgritas 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 •lewish 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 or«/ 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 sufTer 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, irin 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. [I. 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 kw 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 Scriptierts ts not so corrupt as to prevent the attainment of tfte 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 intentionaLy and generally falsified cannot possibly be maae. Any falsifications must have been made eithet by the reigning ecclesiastical body (citUoUciJ CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 57 or by some of the sects (hasretici) during the | first three centuries. But among the former, thPTe 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 Testattient 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. And 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, oeen disprn-ed since our manuscripts have been comjiared. They differ widely from one another, 8 as a])pears from the vast number o{ various read- ings collected by Kennicott and De Rossi. (3) The Hebrew manuscrijits 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 IMoses, 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 Jestts 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. »j3 ; John, V. 43 ; xvi. 27, 28, et passim. This de- claration of Jesus, so often repeated, is, in itself considered, of great 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. 98 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. even of the best desc^.pfljt, usually are; he practised none of the arts 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. 4fi, seq. . This proof has been carefully stated by Storr, Doclrina Christiana, p. 28 — 34, and by Dr. Hensler, Di(> Wahrheit und Gottlichkeit der christlichon Religion in der Kiirze dargestellt, p. 26— 3-J, Hamburg, 1803, Bvo. II. Proof from the Excellence, Suitableness, and Be- neficial Tendency of this Religion. This proof is called argumetitiim internum pro veritate et divinitale religionis C'hrisiianse. 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, Alhenagoras, 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, an;l, 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 tiie 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 )f the Chrisliin 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 estal)lished by this internal argument may be seen from the Introduction, s. 7, I. ad finem. But although this internal argument does not, separately considered, satisfactorily prove the immediate divine origin of the Christian religioiii it is still of great importance — 1. To the 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 wh> 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 delude-d 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 eVfery 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 Moras, p. 39, 40. The term testimonium (juoprvpia), taken from Rom. viii. IG, and 1 John, v. 6, was ap- plied to this inward persuasion, in contradistinc- tion to the name testimonium externum spiritus sancti, taken from Heb. ii. 4, wliich was given to the proof afforded by miracles. The internal witness of the Spirit denotes those pious feelings and dispositions whicii 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 effiea- cia verbi divini, et spiritus sancti in scriptura lo- quentis testificatio et obsignaiio,''^ Qucnstedt, Systema, I. p. 140 CHKISTiAN THEOLOGY 59 This 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- tuous resolutions, than ever before. In this way we are brought to the conviction that the Chris- tiaii 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. 1 — i ; Acts, ii. 14 — 37; 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, IL; 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 Wiracles. 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: — mi3J, niii^j, correspondent to which in the Sep- tuagint, and in the New Testament, are the ■words bivay-ii, Smauftj, because miracles are proofs of the divine power, n^c, ^av^uacrca, ^av/ttara, something extraordinary, which ex- cites wonder, rfli::, TEpo?, -rtpa-fa, prodisia, por- ienfa, something monstrous, which excites the idea of a tremendous force, mx, arjida, ostenta, because miracles are signs or evidences of di- vine interposition; whence they are also called the hand .fy;^oi', Ttpuj frtavop^tocrtv, Ttpoj 7(cuSii.av -t'/jv tv ^Lxaioi^vvTi, .'111 inspired scripture (no part of it excepted) is also profitable for iristruction (in the Christian religion), /or conviction (confutation of errors, &c.),/or improvement, and for disci- pline in virtue or piety. Ver. 17, "Iva apnoj r u -toi) ®tov di'^pcortoj, rtpoj ndv tpyov dyaJ^ov cirpr icr/i£voj, By means of the Old-Testament scrip- tures the servant of God (Christian teacher) may become fitted, and truly qualified for his import- ant uwrh. In this passage, therefore, Paul ex- presses the opinion, tliat the books of the Old Testament are inspired, and that, when rightly enii)loyed, they are useful even in Christian in- struction. 2. 2 Pet. i. 19, -PO. Vide Scripta Varii Argu- ment!, t. i. p. 1, seq. In this passage, Paul shews, in opposition to Jews and judaizing he- retics, tliat 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 feeblj' 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 (Ertavoij from IrttX-ufti', explicate, Mark, iv. 31,) 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 :!ontext of ver. 21 ; and what is here said agrees with the passage, 1 Pet. i. 10 — 12.) Ver. 21, Ou ydp ^;V/;uart (I'iS^? T?n) di'^ptortOD rivix^^i •io-Li Tipn^'/j-t na, uVK vrto rti'fu/.ia-r'oj dyt'ou (divine impulse and guidance) ^fpojusiw (^spfo^yat, mo- veri, agilari, — the word by which the Greeks commonly described the inspiration of their minstrels, prophets, soothsayers of the temple of Apollo, &c. ; vide s. 9 ;) iT^dxrjsav ciytot, ©Eoi) dr^pwrtot (the prophets of the Old Testament,) for no oracle ivas 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, '^tlat, y^af^di, wpd ypd^ti- juartt, and always mentioned with the greatest veneration. Divine inspiration {iTtiTivoia @iov) 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 w- hich many have permitted themselves to use with regard to the Old Testament are, as Morus justly observed, Epitome, p. 24, Christiana indignx voces. The doubt may arise whether some of the 7iis- 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, ar« ascribed to Isaiah. rS 66 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. SECTION IX. HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS, COMPARING THE CON- CEPTIOjVS and expressions of THE ANCIENT WORLD RESPECTING IMMEDIATE DIVINE INFLU- ENCE. I. The Idea of Inspiration Universal. We .'ind that every nation of the a-ncient 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 v/hich 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 1 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 he 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 ivord 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 ayiot and ^fiot, by the sacred writers nirnp, ain'?sn iris, 2 Kings, i. 9, ayiot ®iov av^pwrtot, 2 Pet. i. 21; also avs^^j, which, according to its Arabic etymology, would denote messengers, ambassadors, (of God.) The term >£ort|)drto5 (Homer, Iliad, XII. 228) signifies one who speaks in the place of God, vates. 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 ai>» tiquity expressed this belief respecting them- selves; and to doubt their smcerity, 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 Natiira Deorum. II. 6G, Nemo vir inai^mis sine aliqiio ajjlaiii. divt'no ttti- quamfuit, 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. HI., 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 t'l^ 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 Natio)2s 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 v/hich 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 ivord 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 mn'' ■'D, mni "17137, iJi ; among the Greeks, $>;,«);, ^aeii, 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, nn, D^nSx nn, rnp nn, nini. no nn; in the Greek, rti'Eco, £|(irtv£to, rti'E-Dfta (aytov or ©sor,) i/irti'fixJtj, iTtiTivoM Qiov, also ^tonvtvoto^, 2 Tim. iii. IG, (vide s. 8 ;) sometimes, -ka-xdv iv Tivivf-iati ©eov for ^isivivatov tlvM, or srtJrtwtai- ®iov t;^£ti." in the Latin, inspiratio, inspiralus, (a spirando,) and sjnritu divino instinclum esse, Livy, V. i5, ajjtatus Dei, afflatunt esse numine, injlari divino spiritu, Cicero, Pro Archia Poeta, VHI. 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 ivhat 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 — 'ASai'flTOi PaWovai. 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 Philo; and Peter says, 2 Pet. i. 20, 7i^o^r^tiia. Ibiai crttXvfjfcoj ov yivitai. Vide s. 8. We find the same thing expressed in innumerable pas- sages of the Grecian writers. Plato, in his dia- logue rtfpt 'Ixidboi ('Icoi'), puts the prevailing notion of the Greeks into the mouth of Socra- tes:— Kor^oi/ ;^p^/xa rtot^^rjjj tatL,xai rttrivhv, xal Isfov xai ov rtpotipov olocts tColciv rtpiv dv tV^foy T's yevrj-tai, xal tx^po^v, xai 6 wvj y.fjxttv iv avt(j> evr). £ws 6' dv -fovti tx'll "to xtr^fxa, dSvi'atoj rtae Tioulv iativ ai'^pwrtoj, xai XpriS/xatbuv . . . . ov yap isx^^ T'av'T'tt XiyovBiv, aXKa ^eua bwaju-ei . . . o ^£05, £|aiporjit£i'0{ ■tovtuv vovv, fODT'otj ;i^p'/jr;cfjM98oi5, xai •fotj pavnat^ T015 ^fi'oij' iva y^fiili ol axovovTii eiSui/xiv 6-fi ovx ov-tot, fiaiv ol tavta XEyovi'f j, ovtu> tCoX^ov a|ia, olj vovi fxri rcdpiativ, aX^' o ^fdj eattv 6 Xtyutv. bid tovtuv be ^^eyyitai, rtpbi tj/xdi. " The poet cannot compose, nor the soothsayer prophesy, unless he is inspired by the Deity, apd trans- ported, as it were, beyond himseTH 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 himJ*^ True inspiration is described in very much the ee CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. same way, Mark, xiii. 11. Again, Plato says in his dialogue rtfpt 'Apjr-/jj (MiVtoi'), 'Op^wj ai> xai /.LiyuXa xa-top^ovrnv Tith the character of the writer and the "^-'•ure of the suhptt. This .-as believed by some of the ancients ; but theologians have nevel 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 ike v:kale of the inspired books was written under special divine assistance. Those who have en- tertained this opinion may be subdivided into diflTerent 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 ot human origin onlj', 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 writerB 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, that what- 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 wiiich 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, (I) 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 h 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 inspiratio7i and divinity, they endeivour 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- liansays, "A nobis nihil omnino rejiciendum est, quod pertinet ad nos : et legimus, omnem scripturam wdificntioni hnhilem 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, fi) 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 rin[ht. But when they undertake to prescribe to Supreme Wisdom the means by which this end is to be attained, they transcf id 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. («) 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 inspircitin7i^nd 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. (h) 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, inapnratio con- comitant. (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 ^eojtitvatvai 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 men. But how, the unprejudiced in- quirer will be compelled to ask, could the latter have written in such a widely different manner, and one so superior to that of the fathers, if they liad not enjoyed a higher divine assistance? Nate. — The following works on this subject may be recommended to the attention of the stu- dent. Kich. Simon, Hisloire Critique du V. T., especially ch. 23 — 25 ; and the Letters of a Dutch divine 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 Tlile, Halle, 1771 — 75, 8vo. The dif- ferent theories are here illustrated and examined. This work induced Schmid, MiiJler, Pittiscus, and others, to undertake the defence of the com- mon doctrine. (2) ToUner, Die gotiliche 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) Ficlite, 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, ejusque ratio, historia, et usus popularis, Hei- ,6yoj ©tov 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, Tid'iav jiovXriv tov Qiov, 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 whona 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 Bible, and be regulated by the principles of G 74 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Christianity. The Bible, from which these principles are learned, must be the star by which we are »tters of the apostles were addressed to the whole church, and were publicly read in th« 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 nil, 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 ^d haben- dum tribuebat promptissime, non solum viris sed etiam feminis, quas vidisset leciioni deditas," Apol. I. Contra Ruffinum. 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 inreniet 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 M'as unincumbered. Vide Walcli, Vom Gebrauch der heiligen 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 wiiole 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 us5 of the scriptures. Bu 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 tliirteenth century. The use of the Bible was agrain forbidden the CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 79 laity, on account of the Waldenses, by the council held at Toulouse, in the year 1229. " Proliibenuis, ne libros V. T. aut N. laicis per- iiiillatur habere; nisi forte Psalterium vel Bre- viaiium pro divinis officiis ac Horas Beatae Vir- giriis aliquis ex devotione habere velit; sed, ne uraniiissos libros habeant in vulgari Iranslaiione, nrctissime 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 Wickliffwas declared a heretic by a synod at Oxford for pub- iishiiig- 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 and corruptions of the church. At last, in 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 prohibifurum, in the preface to which he writes, " Cum experimento manifes- tum sit si sacra Biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde ob ho- minum temeritatem detrimenti 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 faeultatem in sc)-iptis habeant. Qui autem absque tali facul- tate ea legere sive habere pr8BSumserit,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 faeultatem Episcopis vel Inquisitoribus aut Regularium Superioribus concedendi licentiam emendi, .egendi, aut retinendi Biblia, vulgari lingua edita, cum hactenus mandalo et usu sanctse ro- mansc et universalis Inquisitionis sublata cisfuerit facultas concedendi hujitsmod\ licenliai legcndi vel retinendi Biblia vulgaria, aut alias sanctaa scriplurx tarn Nuvi quam Veteris Testamenti partes, quavis vulgar i lingua edit as ,- ac insuper summaria et compendia eliam historica eorun- dem Bibliorum, seu librorum sanctse scriptiirse, quocunque vulgari idiomate conscripta ; quod qui- dem inviolate servandum est." And at last this permission was M'holly withdrawn by (jlreoory XV., who says, "De plenitudine apostolics: po- testatis et ex certa scientia, ac matura delihera- tione revocamus, cassamus, et annuUanais 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, 1G87, 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 Unigenilus, 1713. Among these propositions were the following: — "Lec- tio sacree scripturae 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 Clirisli os obturbare." " Interdicere Christianis lectionem sacrte scriptura?, prasertim Evangelii, est inter- dicere usum luminis filiis lucis, et f\icere ut pa- tiantur speciem quandam excommunicationis." It should be remarked, too, that the use 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, Bvo. \_Note. — The following passage from the his- torian Olaus 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) scripsit (2 Jan. 1080) ac prohibuit, ne, ut optavit, scriptura sancta verteretur in linguam vulgarem ; quoniam tam secreta niajestas in ea est, ut diihcultei translatae sensus secretorum Dei poterit in ea postmodum deprehendi ; immo nunquam devotior fieret populus, quando sciens facilitatem, in con- 69 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. temptum verteret, quod in reverentia coiisueverat 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 .1. Eck, Casp. Uhlenberg, and others. The condemnation of the maxims of Father Quesnel by Clement XL 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 tlie 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 MohilefT 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 reprimanded by Pius VII., in his brief of June 29, 181G. 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 (Jerman theologians. Vide Lessing, Theol. Nachlass, Berlin, 1781. J. G. Becker, Tract, ad (iiia,stionem, utrum lec- lio literarum sacraj scriptural omnibus omnino Christianis, maxime imperitee multitudini. valda sit commendanda, Rostochii, 1793, 4to. "Poigt- liinder. Die Bibel kein Erbauungsbuch, in the Predigerjournal fiir Sachsen, November, 1809. Voeckler, De eo, an bene actum sit, scripta Ve- teris et Novi Testamenti omnia ac singula cum imperitorum multitudinecommunicandi, Lipsiae, 1823, 8vo. Vide Halin, Lehrbuch des christ Glaubens, Leipzig, 1828.] 11. How may the Bible be best adapted to common use? It appears from th;; 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 lo 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 unintellinihle; but the period has not yet arrived, either for intro ducing a new version into the protestant church or for making considerable improvements in thi one now established. Indeed, to attempt thi at the present crisis of the affairs of religion, anc while opposing sects are inflamed with such 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. Mlegurical interpretafion and compcnds. 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 the different name of moral interpretation, re- ceived the sanction of Kant. Vide Nosselt, Progr. Animadversiones in sensum sacrorum ibrorum moralem, Halle, 1795. 11 [iVo/e. — Those who apply this mode of inter- pretation suppose that every passage of the Bible contains a concealed, spiritual, and higher sense, either in comiexion 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/oi/r/Wdf sense of the Bible — viz., (I) gram- MATiccs, (2) MYSTicus, Subdivided into («) iropologicus, s. moralis (1 Cor. ix. 8, seq.), {h\ alkgoricus (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 sacraj scripturoe verbis, praster sinsum literalem, primario a spiritu sancto intentum, latere subinde etiam alium, senmm 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 Jonx in ventre ceii, suam sepulturam desig- nat," &c. In opposition to this, Sara. IMaresius, of the reformed church, writes — " Absit a nobis ut Deum faciamus Biyjiuttov, aut multiplices sen- sus afiingamus ipsius verbo, in quo potius, tam- quam in speculo limpidissimo, sui autcris sim- plicitatem contemplari debemus, Ps, xii. 6 ; xix. 8. Unicus ergo sensxis scripturae nempe gram- maticus, est admittendus, quibuscunque demum terminis, vel propriis vel tropicis et figuratis ex- primatur. Sed cum res illo sensu grammatico expressse, (sunt enim verba rerum imagineg) ssepe sint typicee, hinc fit, ut sensus ille unicus et simplex debeat extendi non solum ad typum, sed etiam adprototypum,cui prffifigurando typus ille a Deo destinatur; quo spectant pleraque ex- empla hie Tirino citata, et in quibus sensum hactenus mysticum agnoscimus, quatenus res ipsae mysticam habuerunt significationem." Such was the opinion of the reformers, and of most of the older evangelical theologians; but Musaeus, Calovius, Quenstedt, HoUaz, 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, Bnddeus, 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 {vTtovoia, Untersimi) , which he calls spiritual. Vide Olshausen, Ein Wort uber tiefern Schriftsinn, Konigsberg, 1824, 8vo. 83 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Hahri, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, Leipzig, 1838.] (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 time, 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 Eusebiiis, Hist. Eccles. IV. 2G, Melito of Sardis, in the third century, composed a Syfiopsis Vete- ris Tcslamcntt, 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 o( Speculum. These compends of the Sj^riptures 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 tiie 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 everythingymsj'/u'fi 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 maxims. 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 tiiey 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 authorof 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 1. 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 doctrino of Father, Son. and Holy Ghoet . , - . ... Art. IV. PART II. OF THE WORKS OF GOU. « 1. Of the creation of the world (o) 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. S. Of Divine Providence and the preservation of the world . . Art. VIII. (84) BOOK I. DOCTRINE OF GOD PART I.-NAIJRE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. ARTICLE 11. OF THE EXISTENCE AND THE NOTION OF GOD. SECTION XIV. OF THE NOTION OF GOD. I. Can God be defined? '^ 0 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 thing 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- tions which philosophers have given of God is, for the most part, merely verbal. Some of the 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 of the world is to be found," or, " God is a being who has the ground of his existence in nimself." 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 jtuvtutv cuttov, to oi-rcos oi', ovoto diStoj, d^ai'tttoj, aitupxyj^, x. -t . X. 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 (x'^tci-f'oj), exalted over all, to whom none can be compared. (5) 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 mo7-al 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 pu7-e 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- H (85-> 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. 1. Statement of the Proofs of ike 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. Vxook a priori. The most celebrated of these is that derived from the idea of the most perfect being, and called the oniological or Carte- sian proof. It was first used by Anselmus, 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 liis 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. 26 — 28; 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 costnolo- gical proof.] Note. This argument, in its scientific forrr and development, has been ascribed by many, from their ignorance of ancient philosophy, tc Thomas Aquinas. It was used, however, by Carneades in opposition to the stoics, who ascribed divinity to the world ; according 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. (i) The proofs from ^naZcaHse.s. 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. (I) The world exhil)its the most astonishing marks of order, perfection, and design. Although we are unablb 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. r, (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 of the Di- vine Being from the wisdom displayed in the constitution of the natural world, is c^WeA pliy- tico-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-tlieological or iekolo- gicnl. This argument, so well adapted to common apprehension, was employed more frequently than any other by the ancient writers. Cf. X»noplion, Memorabilia, I. 4. IV. 3. Plato, De Legg. X. 68. XII. 229. Galen, De usu partium. Philebus, 2-14. 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 Autdlychum, 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- theclogie. Derham, Astrotheologie. Bode, An- leitung zur Kenntniss des gesternten Himmels. Reimarus, Ueber die Triebe derThiere. 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. 24—28; Rom. i. 19. (c) The 7»oj-a/ 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. Huvrsi ai'^pwrtot rdpi ^siLv t%ovaiv i'TioXr^-^iv, Aristotle, De Ccelo, I. 3. "Artavtci ai^pcoTiot, ax^^ov "ExXj^ie's ts xai jSapjSapot, vofxi- fovflti' ilvai TO ^flov, Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Mathern. I. 8. The same writer mentions as one of four proofs of the divine existence, ^ rtapa Ttdaiv di'^piortotj tfVjU^oi'i'tt, Adv. Mathern. IX. 60. 'Ei' )3apf'3apot5 ovBsii iatt thv "^ibv dyi'Owj/, 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 mora] order we ourselves belong, as we learn from th 88 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. moral feeling which we all possess, and which is exerted in the conscience. Now we are led Vy our practical reason to conclude, that there txists some cause, by which alone this order could bn established — i. e., that there is a God. Vide Jacobi, Priifung der Mendelssohn'schen Morgenstunden, oder allcr speculativen Be- weise fiir das Daseyn Gottes, Leipzig, 178G, 8vo. Cf. Jacobi, Ueber den moralischen Be- weis vom Dascyn Gottes, Libau, 1791, 8vo. [Tliis argument will be placed in a clearer light by the following passage from Kant iiim- self. " Tlie 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 tlie 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 i-e- sult: — («) The metaphysical proofs of the divine existence are imperfect, as well as all proofs of tliis 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 ^roue 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. (i) 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 tiiese principles ; and not because it is proved by spe- culative reason. Vide Introduction, s. 4. (c) This moral proof is therefore very true and 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. Thi» proof should likewise be used, divested howevet of technical language, in popular instruction; for so it is actually employed in the holy scrip- tures. (fZ) 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 thje 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 inconclusivenessin 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 folp 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 lav/ within Wis 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 — IG; Acts, xvii. 27—31; Rom. i. 19, 20, 32; Cf. Introduction, s. A. 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. 69 'encc 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, (_fons, / 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 mn^ — i. e., he shall be, from hti, or rather, nin, ftiit, 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, nin'' or n-7\. 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 aTiVx or 1J^N; from the latter of which its common punctuation is borrowed. It is always rendered by the Alexandrine translators by the word Kvptoj. 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 might 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 tlie names Jehoiakim, Jehoiadah, Jeho» zadak, &c., in which the word mni evidently makes a part of the composite proper noun. But •4 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. tkese names were afterwards altered, in conform- ity with this superstition, into Eliakini, &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 indehted to the C haldeans. 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, 21 ; Isa. xiii. 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 mn\ 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. TV. This name occurs only in the poetical portions of the Bible, and is frequently ren- dered in the Septuagint by the word Kvpioj. It is derived by many from ns% 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, rtin\ 4. iv^jj, from n'-y, o v^uatoi, Luke, i. 35,) Beus supremus, the Most High. God was sup- posed to dwell in the highest heaven, which was called ann, ra v-S^icta, Hence the name D^cc' is sometimes given to God himself, Luke, XV. 18, -21. 5. niX3S ntn^, v 'nSs, xvptoj (ya|3aco^, iiav-to- xpartop, X. i. "K. 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 .>;^^u'65 0fo;, the living and true God, in opposition to the gods of the hea- then, who are called juciratoi, ft§u>Xa. ARTICLE III. OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. SECTION xvin. 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 all the di« vine perfections ; the attributes of God are the particular distinct perfections or realities which m are predicable of the divine nature, (prtedicata ■ 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 ox\]y for maliter, [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. ]Vote.—{l) Cf. Morus, p. 57, s. 22. The attributes of God were called by the Jews s'^, rrici^, 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 a^i-tal, (1 Pet. ii. 9,) answering to the Latin virtutes, and the Hebrew mSnrv, (Isaiah, xlii. 8; xliii. 21,) laudes dei, rendered dpsrao in the Septuagint. They are called by the ecclesiastical fathers (e. g., by Cyrill of Alexandria), a%iai, a^iJifiata, also Iwoiai, irti' voM, vorifxata, whence the Latins have their coneeptus. In the western church they are called virtutes, attributa, proprietates, qualitates. (3) The whole sum of the divine attributes is called by the Hebrews nvi> noa, 6o|a Qtov, 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, / wi^l 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, ol supposed to possess the same attributes, as be» DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 95 long to me. Accordingly, the terms 1133, " oi:' nin% ^dsa ©sov, majcstas Dei, are mere peri- phrases for God, or the nature of God, which Paul expresses by ^fioTJjs, Rom. i. 20. Some- limes the term 805a is used in a more limited sense ; as, Rom. vi, 4, Xpioroj ^y£p^>; 6ta So^jjj roiJ rtatpdj, x. r. %., where 6d|tt signifies ^oi/^er. 11. What lue know respecting the Nature and At- tributes of God, and whence we derive our hi- furrnation. 1 . '1 lie nature of our knoivledge respecting Gad. On a suliject of this kind it is impossible that we should have perfectly clear and distinct no- tions. For, («) 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 anthrojntpathic 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, r 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 (^fortpfrtujj) 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 ; \\xi at the present day the reverse of this is true. The modern teachers of religion ojarefully 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, v.'ho, 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] 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 witii 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- ainple 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. (^) We reason mostly from the constitution of tlie 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 any 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 ia 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. VVc 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 CHRISTlAxN THEOLOGY. as to quality^ inasmuch as lie conceives of it as a round, luminous, and iiot 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 feeis 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. IG, that God dwells in lii^ht iiiaccessibk, (^wj a;tpo!n- rov,) — 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, "©for ovbiii tJjpaxi rcdirtoti, but the IMessiah 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, quanto diutius considero, tanto miki res videtur obscurior. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. I. 21. Con- siderations like these should not, however, deter lis 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 v/hen 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. (h) 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 employeil 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 shouh) shew, for example, that by the symbol of fire, the activity of God, his power ).o restore and destroy, the moral purity of his dispositions, are exhibited ; by the symbol of a gentle luind, his goodness and mildness ; by the symbol of^prince or ruler, his supreuiacy and power, and his jus- tice in bestowing rewards and punishments. (/;) Nature is another source of our know- ledge of God. (\'^ Internal, moral nature. In s. 15, 11., we have shewn how the idea of the character and law of God is derived from the conscience of man. (2) External naiure, or the sensiljle 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 tlie 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, 25 — 28, This method is denomi- nated by the schoolmen via ne^ationis, and bv DIVINE NATURE i^ND ATTRIBUTES. 97 Dionysius the Areopagite, ^roxoyt'a a^aipitixr^. (i3) 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 altributes of God, his justice, wisdom, and good- ness. K'f. Ps. xciv. 9. This is called by the schoolmen via emincntix. (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 causaHtatis, or causx. It might also be called via posifiva, in opposition to via negativa, because we thus obt.sin 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. ill. Division of t lie Divine Atlrihiiies. All the divisions of the attributes of God, which have been adopted by philosopiiers and theologians, are in some respects imperfect and inconvenient, but not equally so. The follow- ing are some of the most common : — 1. Negative, dinA positive ox 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 causalilatis et eminenlix. 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, EVEpyj/rtxa,) -dinA passive, (quiescentia, or imma- nentia, avtvcfyritixd.') The active attributes are tiiose 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 maniire (Tctre cf 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 \fe 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 ox 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 ■& 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 (I) 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 wiJi, Introduction, s. 25 ; its freedom, immutability, and efficiency, s. 20. 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 attr» 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 intelligentc and a free morai •e CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. vill (natura intelligens et moralis.) A mate- rial or corporeal substance acts only by motion; aspiritual substance, on the contrary , by thought, OT 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 : — j 1. Simplicity, (simplicitas, immaterialitas.) ,1 Nothing of a material or bodily nature can ap- pertain to spirit. Matter possesses no power nf 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 oi 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 art>.oi'5 xal avXav, cxpers inaterix ,■ and with this description the sacred writers perfectly agree. John, iv. 24, nwi'/ixa o ©foj. 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 ive 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 intimacj'. 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 jf divisible parts may be destroyed ; but spirit, which is uncompounded and simple, cannot be divided or destroyed. Hence the attribute tt^^djirtta is ascribed to God, and he is called a<})^ap-ros, 1 Tim. i. 17, and aif^aproj ©soj, in op- position to ^^aproj lii'^pwrtoj, 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 forbad* the Israelites to make any images of God, Exod. XX. 4 ; and with this prohibition all the sacred writers agree, Isa. xlvi, 5; Acts, xvu. 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 eas}' 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 connpelled 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 ^fortpfrtwj. 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 i his dispo- sition and feelings by speaking of his heart, &c. (i) A merely external and bodily service is of no avail with God, who is a vSpirit, 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 perioc' The Hebrew word n^-', which is translated spi rit, signified, properly and originally, tvind, 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 .iteral signifi DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. cation stood tor the wind, — e. §■., nn, avev^a, spirilus. 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 •\^'2, and is thus widely distinguished from the power itself by which it is moved. In this way, nn and t^o 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. Til us nn and nn'' nn came to signify (a) the nature of God in general ; (i) 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. I, 2; cf. s. 9. But the an- cient Hebrews justly ascribed thought and ilhU to the same principle which moves and animates us, and so denominated them nn, Ttvivixa.' 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 ira 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. Tertuliian asks, Quis negnbii Beam corpus esse, etsi Dcus 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 aaujfiatoi. 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 hini the attribute of extension. This opinion may be, traced to various causes. (1) With some it was mer^ ignorance, or the use of unguarded expressioTis, like those em- ployed by illiterate people at the present day. This was probably the case with the Ebionites, Audajus, 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 Tertuliian, 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 matcrialisfs, 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 mystici 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 luhat it depejids. 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 aciernitas h jmrte ante, or d, priori, and sometimes priinitas Dei ; considered as without end, it is called seternitas h parte post, or h posteriori, more commonly called immor- tality, aff'^apaia, o^avaoia. This immortality of God, however, unlike that of created spirits, is necessary ; with him there is necessiias absoluta Vivendi; nor can he, like the creatures of his power, ever cease to exist. '00 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. The eternFly of God depends upon the neces- sity of his existence; since we cannot suppose that there ever was, or will he, 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 bping 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 iime 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 consi- 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 vi'ith this doctrine is that of— II. The ImimitahUiiij 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 supposad with regard to him. Accordingly, his relation to his creatures, which first arose on the creation of the world, caij have produced no al- texation in God himself; he continues the same aaiidst 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 caanot form any clear conception of it. This immutability relates to '.ne decrees and th« actions, as well as to the nature, of God. Cf Morus, p. 53, s. 15, n. 1. The iuimutabiiity 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 expec;.;d, we say, after the manner of men, that he rpents. 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-cxist- 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. 15, 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 veternitas, percjmitas, &,c. The Hebrews, like other nations, were destitute of any single word to express the idea of eter- nity. The .word shr;, like aluiv and atiovtcj, sig- nifies atiy 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 ivorld was; seternitas d 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 he destroyed, Isaiah, xliv. G, coll. xli. 4. The same meaning is con- veyed when God is said to be A xal S2, o-^ixr^ xai ttXoc, Rev. i. 8 ; or, as the Rabbins say, from N to n — j, e., ah initio usque ad cxtremum. In Psalm xc, the eternity of God is described in a very subliine 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 deserl to seventy or eighty years, Moses hence takes occasion to compare the perishable nature of man »Jlb the eternal nature of God, Thw DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 101 phrase '•before the mountains were brought forth" is a periphrasis for scternitas a parte ante, like Tifo xata(io%r^i x6af.iov, John, xvii. 24. In the phrase d'?ij7 iy dSij-d, the former word denotes past, the latter, future time ; like art' aiwixoj', sl^ Tovi atwmj, 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 tlie same import is the passage, Ps, cii. 24 — 28. "Thy years are throughout all gene- rations (anil -\-n3)." " Of old (d'JdS) 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 xternitas a parte post. So Paul describes God, 1 Tim. vi. 16, as o fiovoi tx'^'" a^ai'oi'Ji-'av — i. e., immortal in a peculiar sense, necessarily so — a being who ca?^ Iiave no end. Cf. 1 Tim. i. 17. The pas- sage, Rom. i. 20, aiSio^ avtov Sria^uij xai ^£idr^5, belongs in this connexion. 2. Respecting the immutability of God. This attribute is described by the text before quoted, Ps. cii. 28, (Nin nnx, avtoj, semper idem.) It is also implied in the names n"™ nw n^ni, and r\a- 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 one 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 a/A.eTfai.u'Kyj-ta, Rom. xi. 29 ; also, ■^6 d^ffa- ^£tov fr^i ^ovXr;i avToiJ, 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, (rfar^p -r^v ^'iLrtoi',) with whom is no variableness (rtapaX- ^ay>;,) nor shadow of alteration (•fportjj? ajtoaxi,- a3dx%ov jusys^j bvvdfiiioi avtov. The phrase ovx a5vi'atr^6ei, jtapo. ■fo ©to rtar )j^/At*i 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, ((j>;,ua lan.) Cf. Gen. xviii. 14, whence these words are taken. Morus, p. 50, s. 13. SECTION xxn. OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. This attribute is ascribed to God, to denote that he possesses the most perfect knoivledse. That it is rightly ascribed to him may be easily shewn, even by reasoning ix 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- science. I. The Extent, or the Objects of the Divine Knouiledge. How the divine intelligence can comprehend and survey so vast a number and exhaustless a variety of objects, is quite inconceivable to out finite and feeble capacities. Paul speaks of the /3a^o; yi/iodfwj ©foij, 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." Xenophon 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 ii 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- ledge is called by theologians cognitio natiira' lis — (i. e., naturje su?e.) 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. Oiirio xai to. tov &tov ovSit; olhiv, ii f.iri to rtvevfta. toil ©foij." DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES 10.' 2. Jill objects EXTRINSIC to himself are also in- cluded in the knowledge of God. These may be divided into ( j) Possible things, which are known by God, although ihey may never become real. The Knowledge which respects these subjects is called seientia simplicis itiielligentias, 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 seientia Dei media, or conditionata, or seientia de futuro condilionato, the knowledge of what is conditionally possible — i. e., the knowledge of those things which, although they have never eome 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 scietiliam medium, and prevented it from taking place. This seientia media must necessarily be ascribed to God, since many other divine attributes de- pend upon it — e. g., the wisdom of God, which consists in his determining which is the best among many possible things, and his choosing according to this determination. Examples of tiie exercise of this seientia media are furnished in the Bible, Jer. xxxviii. 17 — 30 ; 1 Sam. xxiii. 5 — W; Matt. xi. 2\ — 23. The term media was first employed by Fonseca, a Portuguese Jesuit, and an Aristotelian, of the sixteenth century. !Jut its use in theology was principally author- ized by Lud. Molina, a Spanish Jesuit of the seventeenth century, and a disciple of Fons«ca, in his book, De coucordia gratias et liberi arhitrii. 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 perseverentiaj, c. 9,) and other of the ecclesiastical fathers. (b) 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 seientia libera, or visiunis — im- mediate, intuitive knowledge. It is involved '.n tlie idea of the most perfect being; it was re- quisite in the creation of the world, and is essen- Ual to the rule and providence which God exer- cises over tlie 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 cliaractei of hia 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, ©toj ytru-^xst rtajz-fa, and in Heb. iv. 13, ndvta ha yi'^ura xal t it ^^axrfKicsi'.iva. ■foij oip^aX^oc j 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(1; x. 29; the destinies of men, iMatt. 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 o{ 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, remimscentia, visio, and prscscicntiu. ThatGod 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 nece^^saria — 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 gooc' that will be done by a person under given cir- cumstances; (3) futura cuiitingentia — those events which depend on the free will of man. or other rationetl beings, and therefore may or may not come to pass. The knowledge of CJod relating to the last of these classes is called xat' i^oxr;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 praescita sunt omnia futura, hoc ordine venient, quo ventura esse praescita sunt. Et si hoc ordine venient, certus est ordo rerum prasscienti Deo. Et si est certus ordo rerum, est certus ordo causarum ; non enim aliquid fieri potest, quod non aliqua efiiciens causa praecesserit. Si autem certus est ordo causarum, quo fit omne quod fit, fat o fiunt om nia, quae fiunt. Quod si ita est, nihil est in nostra potestate, nullumque est arbit:iuni volun- tatis." De Divinatione, II, 5 — 7.] The s^me ground is taken by some of the schoolmen, and 104 HRISTIAN THEOLOGY. by Socinus and his followers. [Sociniis says : — "Animadvertemluin est, infallibilein islam Dei prte notionem a nobis non admitli, nisi prius probetur." — " QuDedam sunt qua; Deus scire nulla ratione dici potest, nee tainen ipsius omni- scientiae quidquatn derogatur." — " De futuris contingentibus non est determinata Veritas." Praelec. Theol. c. 8 — 11.] The common argu- ment is briefly tliis : 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 conj'dural; while to God the future is certain, and his knowledge with respect to it infallible. [Tlie 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 ipsas qiiippe volu7itaies nostrx in causarum online sunt, qui certus est Deo, ejusque prajscientia continetur, quoniam et humana; 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 praescientil Dei retenta tol- lere voluntatis arbitrium, aut retento voluntatis arbitrio Deum negare prsescium futurorum, sed utrumque amplectimur, illud, ut bene crcdamus, hoc, ut bene vivamus." Augustine, De Civ. D. V. c. 9, 10. The same distinction between foreknowing znd foreordabiing IS also sufcrested by John of Damascus: " Xpij yivutaxsiv, wj Ttdvta j.iiv TipoyiViliaxiL o Ofoj, ov jtavia 6s rtpoopt- ^«i. npioyu/tocfxft. yap xai tu, i(p' s^.ttn', ov Tipoopi^ev fit aura, ou yap ^tXii. triv xa.xi.av, ytvfct^at, ovbi /3td<,frai riji' apf-rri/' uioti tr^i ^aai rtpoyi'toat'tx^j xtXf vtjftoj tpyoi' iativ u rtpoopicfjuoj. npoopi^tc bi •to, ovx ( manet simplicitate prsesentia;, infinitaque prae- teriti ac futuri spatia complectens, omnia quasi jam gerantur in sua simplici cognitione consi- derat. Itaque si prscscientiam jiensare vclis, qu^ cuncta dignoscit, non esse praesrienliam quasi futuri, sed scientiam nunquam deficientife instnntise, reciius tcstimabis. Unde non prx. videntia, sed /jrovidcntia potius dicitur, quod porro ab rebus infimis constituta, quasi aL excelso rerum cacumine cuncta prospiciat."j Vide Leibnitz, Tbeodicee, under the titles, pre- vision and science de Dicu. Cf. Eberiiard, Vei mischteSchriftei), Num. 5, J^erschiedem ^Jufsdtze i'.bcr die Prcyheit des Wilkns; Halle, 1778, Svo. DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. i05 •yallisen, Beytrag die Lehre von der Allwissen- heit Goties, und die Lehre von der mensclilichen Freiheit in Harmonie zu bringen, in Schmidt's Bibliothek der theologischen Literatur, b. viii. 6. 247; Giessen, 1805, 8vo. We can therefore bring no objection against ihe Bible, when it ascribes to God this scientia futurorum cnntingentium. Vide Psalm cxxxix. 16, " Thou knewest the whole course of my life, when tiiou 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 cf 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. 2G; 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 tiiis 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- saiion, from which we obtain, either directly or indirectly, all our ideas. This is a limit beyond which we cannot pass; and being suclx, 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 gradically. 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 probabilily 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 ^aWcA scientia sinmltanea ; and God is 14 said by the schoolmen to know inimcdiale, sine discursu, imo actu. Vide Castner, Wie die allge- meinen BegrifTe im gottlichen Verstande sind ; Altenburg, 1768. When 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 ,• (b) most true, without error or mistake ; (c) most clear, — with- out darkness or confusion; (J) 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 understfuading. There iSj 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 unintelligil)le. 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 asforgetting — 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, yrr, ibitv, axoviLv, which are synonymous with ^y, ycvwa- xnv, V.'^i ifiivva.v, &C. Morus, p. 46, s. 10. SECTION xxni. 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 tim.e 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 tan only be said of the presence ofbody. 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: — I. 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 an(J limited nature. Space is a mode of thought, in which, as in a frame, we must range every tiling which belongs to the sphere of sense, but within which notliing relating to the spiritual or moral world can be brought. The omnipresence of God v/as 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, T'ortoj -ri^v 6xu>v, or -tov oXov, locus omnium rerum ; and by the Rabbins, D^r, spatium universale. But this is an incor- re-ct notion of the divine omnipresence. Baier and many of ;r:-; older theologians spoke of the omnipresence of God as stibstanfialis, or essen- iialis, in opposition to that which was merely operaliva, or aclualis. This substantial presence of God they called uZiaf,taoia,, or in Latin, in- dtstaniia, or adessentia subslantix divinx. These expressions, however, convey no distinct idea, and often le^d to erroneous conceptions. [i\We. — 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 ttie omnipresence of God to be that attri- bute, '* vi cujus ille, non tantum substaniia? pro- pinqnitate, sed etiam effieacia ac operalione, adest creaturis omnibus." System, tom. ii. p. 612. He adds, p. 613, " Omniprajsenlia Dei est attributum tvfpyj^T'txoi', nee solum dSiacrfa- flftav, indislantiam adessentise, scd etiam ivipyeiav, operalinncm prwsentis Dei, subinfert." In this view of the subject Calovius was followed by Qnenstedt, who writes that this attribute, "non solum essentiae divinse propinquitatem, sive adosspntiam Dei ad creaturas, sed etiam opera- tionem qnandam, importet." He therefore dis- tinguishes between the immensity and the omni- preseiicr, of God, the former of which he supposes to be abso'ute and eternal, the latter relative. And coeval only with the creation. Hahn remarks, that from the history of the various opinions which have prevailed respecv 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. Sjartwi/ T'9 (ju)^art, rtapwv 6£ tci rlvsvixa/tiy 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 iipperfection 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 prxsens, est Deus in res agetis. 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 sui)tilties. 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? If I ascend up into hea- ven, thou art ihere; 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 Hah4i, 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. GodJiUs (nS;?) heaven and earfh — 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 cf 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. We 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 i\\epalace, ihrnne, or temple of God; and the earth, in contradistinction, his footstool. 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 wh ch 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 plirase, he dwells in heo' ven. Vide Psalm cxv. 3; Job, xvi. 19. (6) He dwells in his temple, which is some- times called his dwelling-plate. 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 elsewheie; and they t^iere- 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 cf the Jews. The prophets, however, improved every opportunity of teaching them to raise their thoughts above the mere sensible represmtaiion, 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 c(n the earth 1 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, oix £1' x^iportorr^toii laotj xatot-xci. Even Homer appears to have had some just views of the presence of God. In II. xvi. 515, Glaucus thus addresses Apollo: Tas, 5) eci Tpoirf 6itiaaai 6t av nanTOs dKoisiv. 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 ivithdrawa from them. These also are figurative expres- sions, adapted to popular discourse. When they wished to describe God as knowing anything perfectly, they said, he drew near, and closely in- spectedit. The representation that God draws near to any one, or divells xvith hi?n, 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 withdraiu 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. 106 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. Tiic omniscience of God implies that he possesses the clearest knowledge of the con- nexion of all thing^s, 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), ^woi/oj oo^of, the all-wise, sapienlissimus ; 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 vvhich 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. Hf, 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 altainniont of his object in tlie 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 asconomia;;) Deum ire via brevissimd; according to the axiom: Quod 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 tlie shortest way and what migiit be the best means for attaining the divine ends. IMany things appear to us useless, unsuitable, or superfluous. The observation of Paul, (1 Corintliians, 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, Bvo. 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,) g; oo^la (jSxov) ihi- xaiilj^Yi drto 'tuiv T'fxi'coi' aiJtJjj — 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 oo^iia, 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 aon, and the Greek oo^dj, signified originally, skilful, expert, and were affiled especially to artificers ; cf. Ex. xxxi. 3 ; Homer. II. xv. 412. They signified, seconda- rily, able and knowing in any way. Thus c^CDn are dodi, Eccl. i. 18; Is. xix. 11 ; 1 Cor. i. 20, {riov cfoifoj; Tiov ypafiixattv^.') 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 rtD3n, and so^la. 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 sthers, from what we know of the human soul ; rejecting here, as before, all imj)erfeelioa. 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 inteU ligence and luill. 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. V^'e are said to will, when we feel an inclination for any- thing which appears agreeable, and disinclina- tion for anything which ajipears 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 sen; also nsi, and the substantive pi-i. The former words are translated in the Septua- gint by '^h.u,, fSov^o/xat,, ^i%r;i^a, |3ov?i)j, and the latter by ivboxttv and siboxia. The last word often denotes the sovereignty, or rather, the freedom of the divine will {7\-\n-; ]yi'\.) 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, yn'ri^r^-tio to ^t'jijjfxa aov, Luke, xi. 2. Cf. Ephes. V. 17 ; Romans, xii. 2. BodXjj ®iov (nirr' sen. 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 (f 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 stj, (as 0 3 sen or nna, and ivboxilv iv rU'i,) 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., ^L7.ilv. Indeed, the latter word is used in Luke, xx. 46, instead of ^tXEtf, which occurs in the parallel text, Mark, xii. 38. The same meaning, to love, to have pleasure in a thing, belongs also to ^ixf tv with the accusative, Matt. xxvii. 43. Hence ^ixiq^a, ^ov'Kr^, ivboxia, 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 determinar K HO 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. ^2, 1. YcT God, like all rational beings, chooses only such things as are perceived by his under- standing to be good. His will, therefore, as well dsihatof 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. GiiJ is frequently represented in the Bible as favminilily inclined towards all men, and as de- siring ilieir 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 writ-^rs. Passages occur which exhibit the most ex-ilted and worthy conceptions of the Deity, w lile other passages ascribe to him the design- ing and performance of such actions as are in- consistent with his perfections. Those of the .atter kind, which occur in the holy scriptures, being taken by themselves, and considered by those who were unacquainted with this ancient mode of tliinking 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 ^jre^es//- 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. Anteccdcns ?Lnd consequens. Voluntas ante- cedens is also called prima, or primitiva; and voluntas consequcns is called secunda,Jinalis, or deerdoria. This division is very ancient, and occ'irs 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 ^ixt^ua ttputov and Sivtfpov, rtpor;yovf.itvov and trto/xevov, (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 oh* ject, is called voluntas anlecedens animi humani j 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 antecedcns { and that he makes application of this general will to particular objects, by his voluntas consequcns. 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 consequcns 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 antecedcns 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, exvoluntateantecedentc, wills the happiness of all men, without exception; but, ex voluntate consequeiite, 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 aniecedenter, but which has never taken Tplace^consequeriter ; 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. IL, No. I. Kann Gott Endzwecke haben, die er nicht erreicht? 2. Voluntas ahsoluta, 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 whoie nations, without reference to their moral worth. Vide DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. Ill Rom. IX. On the other hand he wills condition- a/li/ when he determines anything on certain conditions, or in respect to the free actions of moral beings. Thus he declares o rtttTrcvoaj oto^^aEfttf o 5' drttat/j^raj xataxpi^r^astat, 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 ineffeehial (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, arhitrium Dei), and why is this attribute ascribed to God? 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/ree- 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, arhitrio^ tit std 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 Deing 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, riie understanding discerns what is good and bad ; this knowledge awakens affection or aver- 4-»n; 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 acte6 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 eminenlix, that i>A 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 w^orld, 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. B at theru is a fallacy in this argument, arising l>om tliti improper use of words. That is here supposed to be nece.ssa7-y 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. IIS 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- «tandin(T is subject to mistake, and our choice is freijuenlly 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 tuill. 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 I3ible, although they are expressed in popular rather than in philoso- pliical language. So, when God is said in the Bible to bestow blessings ivhen he will, and to be severe ivhen 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 sometimes disposed to think that he has none in his own mind, and that he acts in an arbitrar)"^ manner; and as we think we usually express ourselves. The popular lan- i;uage, therefore, which seems to affirm that God decides and acts in an arbitrary manner, oftea " means no more than that wt are ig.-iorant of the reasons which influence his aecisions and con- duct. Vide IMorus, p. 51, note. And in this sense God's government, even in the intelleetuat 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. Ephcs. 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 ll,ifo ?! xat' ixXoyriv rtpo^fOtj tov @iov ^tvrj — i. e., the will of God QxT-oyr^, libertas in eligendn, as Jo- sephus uses it) must be acknowledged to be free. (Cf. the phrase ivhoxla ^sX^^uaroj, 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- cludes, ver. 18, that God ov ^ixii, iXiil- ov hi ^ixn, axXrpvrst,, (Job, xxxix. 16.) Cf. ver. 15. iXtrSio 6V av iXsui, xai oixttipr^csi^ 6v av oixrji.pw- 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, wo 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 ou 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- piehension. Vide Noesselt, Opusc. ad Inter. S.S. — Interpr. Gramm. c. ix. ep. ad Rom. — Fdsc. 1, p. 125, seq. II. Iinmutnbility 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 he 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, II, "Je- hovah bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought; but his counsel standeth for ever." Ps. cxix. 89 — 91, Rom. xi. 29, afxi-tautXr^ta Xapi^ixata @eov. 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 lepent, (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 God was not a man, that he should repent. 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 ly loves what is good, and hates what is evil ; s. 29. 4. We ascribe yws//ce 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 1.01,) considers the holiness of God as nothinc else than his supreme goodness, or benevolence. In the same manner he explains the jwiticc of God, and in this respect is followed by Wolf, Baurngarten, 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, benignilas ad leges sapientisE 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 whilo 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 o5- 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, tht welfare of his creatures. W« here see how closely connected these ideas are, ard wha 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 ca'ied good or benevoknt who is k2 tI4 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. inclined to benefit another, qui bene cupit, vult ; *ne is called holy, in respect to the purity and blamelessness of his disposi/ioii, — one who loves what is good, and hates what is evil, qui rede, $entit, saiicttis est; just, who acts according to this disposition, qui reclc a^tt, and who there- fore aetivcli/ 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 yws/ice, at the same time henevo- kntly ; and even those things which we call evils znd pujiishmenfs, 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 ncs Sn, pns Sx, Is. xlv. 21 ; 0f6j axr^ivoi, 1 John, v. 20; John, xvii. 3, But we here speak of the truth of God in the vioral 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 ; a^vvatov ■^cvsan'^a.t, @i6v, says Paul, Heb. vi. 18. This attribute is also designated in the Bible by the words nrs, djicn, p-is, nr% aXri^sia- and opposed to it is falsehood, varia- bleness in speech, trustlessness, ipu', Nir, nmr, 4fi;6o5, 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' i%oxriv, nrs, aXrl^fia.' and Christ says, John, xvii. 17, o ^oyoj o ohi;6.%r^iiai6T;(„ 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. 2G, 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 rtiufos, pvSj, and truth ncs, njics, rticrnj, 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, rttaroj o Qfof, and ver. 20, " the divine promises which are given through Jesus Christ {iv avf9, sc. XptfTT'9, ver. 19), are to val, xal to d^rjr — i. c., firm, sure, IlJarij &fov is opposed to the artirjt^a ttv^pwrftoi', 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, 22 — 2G. 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., rtiWij- the opposite of which is uTtiatia. 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. zZv yap o Xoyojrov ©£ou, xai £j'f pyjjj, xai t'Oftui-Tf poj rrtip Tiarjai' fxdxo.t.- pav hintojxov, x. i. X., xoi xptTtxosfi'^uj^aftdi/ xox, ivvoiZiv jeapSiaj, "The theatening of God, (xoyoj ■tov 75tdr7pj. So far as the love of God has respect to men in general, it is called pJd- lanfhropy, ({(tXav^portia Qiov, 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, aTnn, -to, OTfKdyxvci Qiov, tXsoi. IMen in this condition have the promise given them that God will pro- tect and comfort them, and provide a way for 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, 0''T!< "tin, juaxpo^- fiia, avoxri, 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, Ov rtpoj -to fiiyf^i fVfpytrft (u 0f6?) rtov ai'tov ;^ap(.T'coi' — rtpoj 6s -faj -fiov fvfpyftovusvuiv Swafieii' ov yap tJJ rtt'pvxev o ©toj jv Ttotf IM, ovVio xai ro ycvofiivov fv ndrjxtiv, X. t. X. De Opif. Mundi, p. 13, ed. Pf. 'I'his is the great principle upon which God proceeds in the distrii)ution 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. 11 — 13, "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 Testamen;, and especially Moses, wen; wholly destitute of correct ideas respecting thi- 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. Tiie 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 calk-d ;yapij, |n, 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 Clirist, and recurring under different forms in every age of the churcii, 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 (or 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 ivill 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 finem. This attribute implies, 1. That no sinful or wicked inclination can be found in God. Hence hi> is said, James, i. 13, coll. 17, to be drttipowroj xaxCJv, incapable DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 117 of being tempted to evil, (not in the active sense, as it is rendered by the Vulg-ate 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 -nnj, xa^apoj dy^oj, 1 John, iii. 3 ; also c'cn, artXooj, integer, Psa. xviii. 31. The older writers described this by the word aia- fidatrjro^, impeccahilis. [The sinlessness of God is also designated in the New Testament by the words tiXiwi, Matt. v. 48 ; and ocjioj, Rev. xvi. 5.] Ss. 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. IG, 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 Morus, 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 e. 26, As to the use of the words c'np and oiytoj, some philologists (particularly Zacharia, Bi- blische Theologia, th. i. s. 240, f.) remark, that the}'' 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 «u>e and rencration. And it is true that this is their prevailing meaning — e. g., Isa. vi. 9 ; John, xvii. II, (aytf rtaVrp ;) and that according- ly ayiu^ss'^ao signifies, to be esteemed venerable, to he 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. 14 — 16. Thus also toLo-e-q^ Eph. iv. 24, and ayiix>avvq, dyiao^dj, by which all moral perfection is so frequently designated, especially in the New Testament. The differ- ent meanings of the words rnp and dyioj stand connected clearly in the following manner (cf. s. 126) — viz. these words signify (a) the being externally jmre — e. g., 2 Sam. xi. 4; Lev. xi. 43, 44 ; XX. 7, 25, 26, &c. ; (b) the being sepa- rate, since we are accustomed to divide what is pure from what is impure, and to castaway the iatter ; and therefore (c) the possessing of any kind of external advantage, distirtetinn, or worth ,■ to the Jews were said to be holy to God, in op- position to others, who were xoivol, profane, common, unconsecrated. Then everything which was without imperfection, disgrace, or blemish, was called holy ; and rnp, dywj, sacrosanctus, oame thus to signify what was inviolable, Isa. IV. 3 ; 1 Cor. iii. 17, (hence rSpr, asylum.) They were then used in the more limited sense ^ rJtH^te, {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 THK 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 jtist. 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 pni", pis, and bixaio(;. In its primary, original mean- ing, pns doubtless denotes what is fit, suited, adapted to a particular end, appropriate, right. The Greek 6i,'xatoj has the same signification as Stxatoj iVtrtoj, Stzato)/ cip/xa, x. -t. X., also the hntin Justus, the German gerecht, and the Eng- lish right. These words came afterwards to denote one ivho acts justly and rightly, a virtuous man in the moral sense. Accordingly pi:s, and hi'xai.oavv/1 (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 p^Tin, Stzaiovj', 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 laivs 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 antecedens, sive dispositiva.) (2) By actions, in which he manifests his approbation of what is good, and of those who practise it; 118 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. and h,8 disapprobation of what is evil, and of those who live wickedly. This is called rdri- butive justice, (^justilia rctribuiiva, judiciaria, rec'"ria, disfrihtiliva, coinpemalrix, onseqiien^.) Since this division, whicli has long been com- mon in the schools of theology and pliilosophy, 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, ©ixrjfxa Qsov •fo dya^oi' xai tvaptatov xai reXstov. 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 mad,e 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 j\istified 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, altho\igh 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 ; 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. G2 — 71, 130, ff. INIany 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 Vindicice 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 f^tct that many have made an improper use of positive precepts can* nof prove that they are without use, injurious, and reprehensible, and that they cannot«be of DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. Ii9 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, wiie;:ever the existence of positive laws is ad- mittea; 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 teaph 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, h 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, k priori, is of no avail. If no evil ex- isted in the world, our philosophers would prove h 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. 48—50, 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- lators published even their c/yzVJaws 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 ana united. Can it now appear surprising, inconsistent, or contrary to tiie natural expectations ot 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 h 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 Cliristianity 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 nutnber, 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 positiT* no CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. precepts, for which divine authority was pre- tended, that Cliristian 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 tliose 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. OF THE JUSTICE OF GOD — {conlhiucd.^ II. Tlie 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, wc see his retributive justice. This approbation whicli he expresses of what is morally good, is called reward; his disapprobation expressed against what is evW, punishment. The former is frequently called in the Bible by the figure synecdoche, aydnri ©sov, and the latter, dpy>j ©£ov, tix, 'nn, 1.11, 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 tlie manner of men, and which we express in the language common to men, givi^s rise to the scholastic division of the di- vine justice, into rcmuneratoria 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. 8(), 87, where a history of this doctrine will be given. 1 . lie ntuncr alive jusliee. When God rewards good actions by favours immediately bestowed or promised hereafter, lie exercises liis remunerative justice. From these blessings bestowed upon us as rewards, we iustly conclude that our actions agree with the divine will, and that God loves and approves us; and l)y these blessings we are thus induced to regulate our conduct according to the divine commands: this, thru, we may suppose to be the obiect 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, spcj. ; Rom. ii. (I — 10; I 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 cammodi NECESSARii cum hono, sive rede facto, as IMorus 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 priemia naiuralia, 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 Moras calls the nexus connnodi non nece?sarh cum bono, sive rede facto. The question is hero asked, if positive rewards are ever conferred during the present life ; and if so, what they are 1 To this we may answer, that in the Christian dispensation positive rewards during the present life are not universally promised, as in tiie 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 positivo 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 unu'frsa/; the smallest virtues of every individual man will be rewarded, for they are all known to God, INIatt. x. 42 ; 1 Cor. iv. 5; Heb. vi. 10. It is n\so impartial. This is called in the Bible, drt|>o5corto>.)j4'ia ©fou, Rom. ii. 10, 11. Unlike human judges, who are often deceived by external appearances, God rewards actions according to their mors 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 tuugh: DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 131 that our present life is but the feeble commence- ment of our being ; and that by far the largest :»nd 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 aftliclion 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. 24—30, coll. ver. 3G— 40; Cf. Rom. ii. 5—12; 2 Thess. i. 4—12; Luke, iv. 13, 14. 2. Penal Justice. When we say the justice of God is exhibited \n 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. NectH commoda bono, sive rectefactis; incommodo malo, site male faciis. 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, Kpti^o^tifiw rrto Kipt'ov Tia.ihivo^n'^a, 'iva, jxri cvv ■fcj xoaixat xataxpi'^ujjxiv — i. 8., tlie 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, IVhen thy judgments are in the earth, the inhahit- ants ivill learn righteousness. Ps. cxix. 67, Be- fore I was ajjflicted I went astray ,• hut now have I hept thy law, lest I should draw upon myself additional afflictions. Ver. 71, It is good fur me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes. God punishes (Z>) in order to shew that sin is displeasing to him, and that only the truly obedient can count upon his apprebation ; 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. 1. 18, ATioxa'KvTttstac, 6py>; Qiov — ifti ndaav aatSsiav xal ahixiav dr^pwrtwv. 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 Ths^s. L 6, 7; Ps. ix. 5, seq. ;^ and this is 16 called, in the popular language which the Bible employs, his revenge, ixhixrioii, 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 pcnaLjustice of God is his goodness, wisely proportioned to ihe 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 vv'ho might witness the punishments inflicted upon him. Vide Ps. 1. 16, seq. ; lii. 6, seq.; Rom. ii. 4—6; 2 Pet. ii. iii.; 1 Cor. x. 11, Now all these punishments were inflicted upon the Israelites as examples (rvxoi, 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. Goltingen, 1779, 8vo,) that the final cause of the divine judgments is not so much to benefit and reform the ofi'ender, 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 gocd 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 titi CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. iiat God, who knows what kinds of punish- merJ ^re 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 f.iult; for ho 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 aufhority 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., rtaiSsia, Hebrews, xii. 5 — 11; and ttrtoTo.uia, Rom. xi. 22. The representation of God und(!r 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 it will therefore be wiser for religious teachers to represent God under the image of a fatlier, 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 wretcliedness 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 cduca- tioB of his children, often finds it necessary to treat even the dutiful with severity, in order to promote iheir jjrcsent advantage and real per- manent welfire. In the same manner does God often set' it necessary, for wise reasons, to exer- cise severity towards those whom he is edu- cating, and to impose sufferings upon them. Ho sees that afllictions will tend to promote their holiness, strengthen their faith, and restrain theii sinful propensities. Ilahcnl talia vim disciplinx., 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, na.ihila,v, fatherly correction, znA com- pares the conduct of God towards men with that of a father. Ver. G, "Ov o/yarta Kvptof, rttttSfVEt. Ver. 7, Tij ia-eiv vtoj, 6V ov rnubtvn, Tiatrfi. In ver. 10 the apostle teaches that God punishes ijil to (ju.u^tpov and proceeds, ver. 11, to say, rtatSsia ov boxcl ;^ciptt5 ilva.i,^ vrJtepov be xapxbv eif)rji'i.x6v ttrto6i,6ioat, x. T. X. The goodness and justice of God which appear in the allotment of such evils to men, is hence called by some theologians, jus/Z/ia pxdeuiica^ or pwdagogica. 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 ; arid 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. \_Nofe 2. — The causes for which God does anything, and also the ends which he would at- tain, may be soaght either in himself or without himself in the world which he has made; in other words, they are either subjective or objec' live. But because he is entirely independent and absolutely per.'ect, 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. 129 sure in what is morally evil. This necessary love to what is morally perfect is, tlien, the last grounded 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 ] 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, site 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, hut are connected with them by the mere will of the legislator, and are additional to the natural con- sequences cf 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 aloije to eflect the moral im- provement of men, and to deter them from sin. In order, therefore, to preserve in^iolate the authority of his law, he connected positive judg- ments with the natural consequences of sin, which alone were insnflicicnt 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. 3—5. 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 Avorld. Those who deny the existence of positive punishments hereafter consider that Christ by his atonement has freed us merely from the fiar of punish- ment— a notion which is inconsistent with the declarations of the New Testament, as will be shewn in the Article respecting Christ. In speaking of \he 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 oi nation as in every case the consequence of moral evil, is an error to which the multitude is much iuclined. They frequently refer in these casea 124 CHRISTIAN THEOLOG\, 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 sufl'er, 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 tiie 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 armi&s, 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 aufliority. 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, tbat 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. 8G, 87. I APPENDIX. SECT. XXXII. OF THE DKCBEES OF GOD. The doctrine of the divine decrees depend? upon the freedom of the will of God, and upom his wisdom, goodness, and justice. It may therefore properly succeed the discussion of these subjects in the foregoing sections. I. General Statement, and Scholastic Division.'!. 1. Definition of the decrees of God. By these we mean, ike will of God that anylhin^j; should come into existence, or be accomplished, (Alorus, 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) on\y one single decree. They were all made at one and the same time. Before lue 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 our minds as many different decrees as there are p.irticulara comprehended in this one universal decree. (&) The divine decrees are/rcc. Nothipg can com- pel God to decree what is contrary to his will or understanding. His decrees, however, though free, are never blind and irroundi'eass DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 125 % itlo s. 26. Cf. Ephes. \.b;2 Tim, i. 9. (c) 'I'hey are benevolent, always intended for the good of the creatures of Ooa Eplics. i., Rom. viii., ix. That they are su i ilows from the goodness, holiness, and jubi oe of God ; s. 28 — 31 inclusive. ((/) Eteniai and unalterahle. Vide s. 20, and especially s. iJo, ad finem. Cf. Morus, p. 53, s. 15. Whence the BiBle often says, God determined such a thing, rtpo xa-ta- |I5oX'/j5 x6(5[ji.ov, Ephes. i. 4 ; an' or ytpo aiwi'wv. ripo, in Ttpoytcuioxfi.i', Ttpoopc'^fn', X. r. %., denotes the same thing. God existed from eternity ; and as he exists without succession of lime, all of his decrees must be as eternal as himself, and as immutable as his own nature. Rom. xi. 'id^a^ita^i'krita. Heb. vi. 17,t'6 ay-Bia^itov ■i'-^5j8odX>j5 0£ov. (e) Unsearchable, avi^ifivi'Tfta, avs^iXfi-aata, Romans, xi. 33 — 36 ; (id^rj Qsov, 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, of of determining h 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, I Cor. ii. 16. We flan 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, (I 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 tlie true character of moral beings. In the allotment of temporal o^t 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 Malt. 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 iree, 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 lliis 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, predestinatio7i, 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 prxdestinarc was employed by the Vulgate to render the Greek rtpoop/^ftv, 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 eleetio, decretum electionis, pre- destinatio ad vitam. The decree respecting the punishment of sinners in the future world was CdiWeA. reprob at io, decretum reprobaiionis, predes- iinatio 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, fa;5t.cy^, there spoken of, is the gracious reception of Jews and heathen into the Christian society ; and the re- jection is the denial jr withdrawment of this and other divine blessings, as will appear from No. II. l2 I2r, CHRISTIAN THEOLOlJY. II. Scriptural Representation, and the Errors occa- sioned by Fal.se Interpretation. 1. Scrfplural representation. The following are the principal expressions employed in the Bible in relation to the decrees of God. (a) All the words which si}{nify to wy, speak, command. The phrase, God says, often means, he vnlls, he decrees, Ps. xxxiii. 9. So frequently -yzi, niss, iji. (h) The words which signify to think, are often used to denote the divine decrees; as nara, n^arnr, 8ta>.oytcov ai'i^ixvi-a'j'foi. (e) The following occur more frequently in the New Testament : ®e'Kr;fia,, siSox^a, in He- brew, VBpi ]Vi-\, used particularly to denote God's gracious purpose. Vide s. 25. npo^f 515, Ephes. i. 11, where it is synonymous with jiovXri ^sx?;- fiatoi, 2 Tim. i. 9, seq., and Rom. ix. 11, Iva tj tov ®(ov rtpo^Efjtj xat' ixXoyyjv ixivYi — i. e., so that the divine purpose must remain free, must be acknowledged to be according to his own choice. Ilpoytrwfjxjtr. This verb, like the He- brew j,'i^ and yj'ilii'at and cibivai, very frequently signifies to decree, (metonymia caussae pro elFectu.) 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, jtpoyvi^'jii very often signifies, by way of emi- nence, the gracious arid benevolent purpose of God, which he entertained from eternity for the welfare of men. Thus rtpoyvcoitj 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, ol-j rtpotyrco, his beloved, those whose welfare he seeks ; Rom. xi. 3. 'Opii^civ and rtpoopi'^stf, commonly ren- dered in the Vulgate prxdestinare. 'Opi^fii' is to d termine, in the general sense ; and in this sense it is said. Acts, xi. 29, that the apostles wpt'rav X. t. \. The divine purpose is therefore called iipis/iivr; fiovXr-j, decretum voluntatis divinsc. Acts, ii. 23. In the classics, opiff;U05 is purpose, determination. ITpoopi'^fti/ is properly decernere antequam existat ; because the decrees of God are eternal, as, Acta, iv. 28, the Jews conspired to do "whatever thy counsel rtpo»y»' tery (in the theological sense), because there ia much in the mode and manner of it which is unintelligible. The obscurity and mystery ol this subject arise from our inability to answe: the question, In what sense and in what manner do these three so share the divine nature as to main 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- re({tics, 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 thi» DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 131 doct/Mie to men to furnish them with mat^r 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 both 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 the 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 poterif, (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: oil 8ft toias ^r^tr^aei^ rofxov ta'Oj arayxTj; rtpoatdt- tiiv,ov8s •fatjTtai'rcov dxoaij artpoioy^rtoj TdaTiviw, Epist, ad Arium, Ap. Socr. i. 7. Would that he himself had afterwards remained true to these principles ! [Vide Neander, AUg. Gesch. Christ, Rel., b. i. Abth. 2. s. 61G.] Pla7i 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 1 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, Irenteus, TertuUian, 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 .32 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 Calixlus 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 sanclification. 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 falloYi^ing 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 Din-'S, ijis, n^-j'np, iji, are cited as examples ; but they alTorJ no certain proof, as they may be only ihe pluralis majeslalicus 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 a^n-is, ijns, iji. Philo thinks, (De Opif. Mundi, p. 17, ed. Mangey,) that in the pas- sage, Gen. i. 26, Ijtt us make man, God ad- dresses the angels. Maimonides thinks the same of the passage. Gen. xi. l,Lrl us ^o down and confound their language. Vide Mangey, in loo. It is not uncommon in Hebrew for kin^s 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 foi us (iJ'^)'? where the plural form may be expl lin- ed either as the pluralis jnajeslalicus, or as de- noting an assembly for consultation. The chiefs of heaven (d^dt;:') arn described as there collected ; and God puts to them the question, whom shall we make our mitsenger? as 1 Kin""s, xxii. 20, seq. 3. Texts in which nin^ is distinguished from nini, and a\-iSN from D-inSN. Jehovah rained brim- slone and fire frpm Jehovah, Gen. xix. 21. 0 our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, fur the Lord's (Christ's ■?) 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 /ro77» 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, 0 God (Messiah 1), thy God (the Fa- ther) hath anointed thee. But the name a'n?x is sometimes given to earthly kings. It does not, therefore, necessarily prove that the pi^rson to whom it is here given must be of the divine na- ture. The passage, Ps. ex. 1, >jts'? n^n•' zm, "Jehovah said to my Lord," &c. is also cited. But ij'ns (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, IViou art my Son; thin 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 appeass here to speak. The name Son of God was not unfrequently given to kings; it is not, therefore, nomen essentix, but dignitatis messianx. The passage would then mean, Thou art the Icing (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 — 31. 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 nead of the church, than as belonging to the divine nature. (i) 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 be 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. IG, where the whole doctrine of the Trinity is supposed to be taught; inni MnSir nw. ijix nn>'i, 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 Luiher, and the English translators. It means here, as it always does when used by the pro- })l!et3 in this connexion, the direct, immediate, cuinmandof 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 /Arce. In this class the text, Ps. xxxiii. G, was formerly placed : the heavens were made by the word (Aoyoj, Messiah) of Jehovah (the Father) ; and all the host of them by the spirit if 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 x\zmQ Jihovah in the benediction of the high priest. Num. vi. 24, is more remarkable : Jeho- vah bless thee, and l:eep thee ; Jehovah be gracious to thee ,- Jehovah give thee peace. But the knov/- 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, nr-'?s nt xnp. The word rnp might have been sung by each choir separately, and the last words, the whole earth is full of tny 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 : («) Those in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioi-ied in connexion ; (b) 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, £|ot'{yi.'a rtdavit aapxoi. Wherefore he requires his disciples, ver. 19, to go forth and proselyte all nations, M ^34 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. {fid^r^tivsa-tc rtdvfa fa X^vrj ) They were to do this in two ways, — viz., by baptizing 03art- T't'^oi'T'55, ver. 19), and by instructing, (SiSaaxoi'- tti, ver. 20.) They were required to baptize their converts, fij to oi'o,ua (n"o) -fov Ilafpoj xai -toi) Tioi), xai -fov ayi'ov Ili'f v/uatoj — i. e., ft? roi' IlaTfpa, X. f. X. y^ baptize in the name of a person or thing, means, according to the usus loquendi of the .lews, to hind one by baptism to profess his belief or give his assent, or yield obc- dicnr.e, to a certain person or thing. The Tal- niudists 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, rldvtti (rtarspfs) t^Gartri'^fai'T'o stj Mwtjjji', and in Acts, xix. 4, that John the Bap- tist ciiuTttiae fisroi' s^^xof-ifvov. This text, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality, or divinity. For («) 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. (i) The person in whom one is baptized is not necessarily God, as^art-fi^f ii- fis Mcjarjv, Tlaixov, X. t. %. (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 X\\T(^e persons, and equal to one another? And so, the objector might say, the converts to Christianity might be required to profess by baptism tbeiracknowledgment of theFather, Tthe author of the great plan of salvation ;) of the Son, (who had executed it;) and of the doctrines re- vealed t)y God (rti'f iJ,utt aytoi/), 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 xata rtpo- yvuriiv ©fou rtarpij, (i. e., according to the gra- cious decree of God,) iv aytttrt|tiQ (for fij ayi.a.5- uov) rfi'fvuatoj, ftj irtaxojjv xai (fi?) liavtcnfiov alfiarof 'Irjwv Xpi^roi', 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 frrgiveness through faith in his blood. 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 LordJcsns Christ, the love of God, and the communioii (f 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 diffi^rent personal subjects, — viz., o UapaxXr^toi, Ilv ( V i^a to (iyiov, o jiifi'^so 6 IlaT'^jp iv ■ta dv6fia.tv fiov (Xpifftov). 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 classieus upon this subject. So the ecclesiastical fathers considered it. Whence the celebrated formula, /a^Z /or^/anffT?;, e/ I'ide- bis Trinitatem. This text was called by the ancients "^iof^avnd. Three personal subjects are indeed here mentioned — viz., the voice of the Father, the symbol of the Holy Spirit (rtf pwrfpa), and Christ; but nothing is here said respecting their nature ; and the phrase, Tioj 0£ov (ver. 17) does not always indicate the divine nature of Christ. This passage then, taken by itself, does not contain the ivholc 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 froin iv -fci oipavo, to kv t^ yrj, 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 Trinit)''. Three subjects are indeed enume- rated, o ITar^p, o A6yo5, and to ayiov Ili'fvua' but their nature and essential connexion are not determined ; for the expression, ovrot, ot rpfij tv f i«, at the end of ver. 7, does not refer ad uni- tatem essentia', 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 cnn- firmant. This is the meaning at the end of ver. 8, as all are compelled to admit, and it is tha DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 135 meaning of 'iv clvai, whenever it occurs in the writings of John, as John, x. 30; xvii. 11, &c. Ci. on these verses: Sernler, Historische und kritische Sammlungen iiber die sogenannten Beweisstellen der Dogmatik, Erstes Sliick ; Halle, 17G4, 8vo; also his Vertheidigung und Zusiitze, 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 (i) 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 ©soj o Hatrfi, 1 Cor. viii. 4 — G ; John, xvii. 1 — 3. He is often called ©{65 xal IlaT'^iJ — i. e., Qibi o IIar>;p, or ©joj 65 icti Vlatrfii as Gal. i. 4, (a Hebraism, like the use of 1 for the relative irx.) 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 d^nA preserver. Deut. xxxii. 6, Is he not thy Father, who hath made thee and established thee? 1 Cor. viii. 6, Ssoj o Ilai'^p it ov ta yidvta, Ephes. iv. 6, 6 narjjp Ttdv-iuiv. The Hebrews call the author, inventor, teacher of anything, the father of it ; as Gen. iv. 20 — 22, Juhal, the father of 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, IG,) 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, lather, heavenly Father, &c. The name chil dren of God sometimes denotes \\is fawurits, those beloved by him ,• sometimes those who en- deavour to resemble him, especially in purity, love, and beneficence; sometimes Loth 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, 6 ©soj xai Ilatrj^i toi> Kvptov 'Ir^aov Xpto- 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 (Jlatrfi) 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, ndrrp, — do^a'juv aov -thv Tlhv — tSwxaj avta i^ovJ» 6 Xci^'oj, must be rejected at once, since all the MSS. agree in the common reading, which is undoubtedly correct. Vide s. 100. In this passage the principal proof does not lie in the word Xoyoj, nor even in the word >fdj, which ih a larger sense is often applied to kings and DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 13? earthly rulers, but to what is predicated of the Aoyof — viz., that he existed from eternity with God ; that the world was made by him, &c. This text l)elongs, therefore, to the following general •iss, as well as to this. 2. John, XX. 28. Here Thomas, at last con- "inced that Christ was actually risen from the dead, thus addresses him : o Ki)pio5;itov xai 6 0f6j .oyjjr6j ("ina) stands first in the clause; accordingly, if it referred to the Father, it would read cv'koyyjtoi 0 ©£05 o iTil Ttdv-tuv. This usage is as fixed and invariable in Greek, as in German to say Gott- lub .' instead oi Lobgott.' (c) Since Paul has elsewhere ascribed divine perfection to Christ in the distinctest manner, as will be proved s. 33, 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. 28 — 30, iyCj xal 6 Harris iv io^tv. 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 d liferent senses of this name may be distinguished. (a) In many passages it is synonymous with ;fpic(to5, Messiah, or king. In the oriental lan- guages, kings are commonly called the sons jj ■tov ftsyaXoti 0£oiJ xal iTiotjjiJo; tjuCjv 'Irj aov X p t cf t' o xi. Here it is objected, that if ©f 6j /Uf'yaj related to Christ, the xai would be omitted. But since tov is omitted before (jtor'^pos, both fieyuxov ®sov and owrjjpoj must be construed as in apposition with 'Itjnov Xpiutoii, according to a known usage of the Greek language; and so they are construed by many of the ancient writers. Besides, trfi- ^avfttt 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. IG; Acts, KX. 29 SECTION XXXV IIL OF THE TEXTS IN WHICH DIVINE ATTRIBUTEa 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 arc 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 Clirist in the Bible, the conclusion ia inevitable, that he must possess all the rest The divine attributes cannot be separated oi 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; lor this is the way in which eternity rt par/e 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 7i\ib tov tov xosjxou clvM. 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 tlie 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 i.ui,') ; 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 iht ivorld. This is ascribed to him, John, i. 1 — 3, IlavT'a 8t, Qivtov iyU'Sto, xai X'^9''i avtoi (yivito ovb'e fv, o ylyoi'fi'. Ver. 10, O xoaixoi 8i' avtoii iyivito. Col. i. 15 — 17, nptotoT'oxoj rcdar^i xtt'ofuij, not, primus inter res crcalas, which would be incon- sistent with the context, ver. 16, where the rea- son is given why he was rtpwroroxoj- but, rex, the ruler or gover/wr (rfpiortrwi' iv Tiioiv, princi- patuni tenens, Col. i. 18) ; in which sense DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 139 Christ is also called rtputotoxoi inHeb. i. 6, and o^fXV ('• ®*' ''■P^"'') '^'7? x'tvoiioi &iov, Rev. iii. 14. By him iverc all things^ in the universe created, {tv avtc^ ix'it.o^ri •fa rtav-ta. ta tv rotj or^dvoli; xai irti -fr^i 7^?') '^^ material and spiritual world, (ra ojjara xal adpara ,•) everything tuhich is ele- vated, great, and powerful, (^poj/ot. xvptotr^t^^, dp;^ai.', X. ■i. %. ,•) all things were created by him {Si avtoii) and on his account, or for his service (^sii avtov). He exists from eternity (rtpo ndv tiov), and from him everything derives its exist- ence (ra Tiuvta iv avt^ avvtatrjxs). Philo and Josejjhus often speak of God, the Creator, in the same way. Heb. i. 2, 3, Christ is here described as ^spcov, (i. e., conservans ,• cf. nL"j, Is. xlvi. 3 ; and the phrase S^d 3*71^ applied to God) -fa. rtctvra -ta I'lj/^afi ■tr^i 8vvdjj.s(x>^ avtoi' i. e., by his almighty will or command. That in the clause, 6t' ov xai •fovj atuivaj ^rtoi.jjrrsi', the word 5ia 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, hi ov ra jidv-ta. 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 (Thou, 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, Jtopaz? foi' rtatspa. John, ii. 24, 25. He is also described as the searcher of hearts, who knows and loill 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, ndvta fxot, rtwpf 6d^>j irtb "(ov rta-rpoj. 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, Iv ai-ta xatoixsl " rCav to ffKripcifia t'^j ^eot'jjt'os au,[xatixiL;, 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^ svSoxr^oc ndv ■fo rt>.>jpw;ua xarotx^trat, and Ephes. iii. 19, where the phnise n'Kr^pi^f.ia ©sov occurs instead o^ 7fX^pco//a ^sorr^toi, SO that ^iotr^i is abstract for concrete, like xvpiotr^i instead of Kvptoj. Ilxjj- pu/xtt means multitude, collection ,• as rO^r^pi^va ■tujv t^viov, Rou). xi. 25. By the phrase, then, Tidv fo rtXjJpco^a tjjj ^corr^to^, the whole multi- tude of men living under the divine government are intended, and when of these it is said, that they iv avtc> (Xpta-f&j) xa-toixel, it is the same as to say, All men without distinction, whether Jews or Greeks, have citizenship in tlie Chris- tian church, — all are the people of God. Sco^ua- tixui is equivalent to j5, (i. e., ti'5o|oi' or oiyi-oi') xai (i. e.) rd tov eiov Tivivfia. 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, HI. 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. c'n,-) nn frequently signifies, the divine nature, or God himself; but it also denotes the divine potoer, 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 eiiects 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 hoiy scriptures; no practical put* DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES 141 pose coJd have been answered by introducing it; and indeed, to have made it would often have been injurious. Accordingly, throughout the Old Testament, the \^^-ip nn, or d^hSn 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 Cod 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 Ilvevi.ia.tc ayto or eeov. Vide 1 Cor. xii. 3, seq.; from which passage tve 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 «// 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 n^fv/^a ayioi/, Ili'fvia 6fo{), Xpicfr'oi;, or Ttoii. 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 insHtuted 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 ofHcers 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 advancement of Christianity. Vide Matt, iii. 11 • x Cor. xiv. 12; 1 Thess. v. 19. On this account it is that all who oppose the truth of God, or persecute the propliets who teach it, even those who put hindrances in the way of the influence of religion over themselves or others, are said tn resist the Holy Spirit, to ajjlict, 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 HguTe pj-osopopcia, and personify these divine influences — speaking of them as the Ho/y Spirit, as they often do of the ivisdom 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 Beforderting des richtigen Ge- brauchs des Teller'schen Worlerbuchs iiber das N. T. unter dem Worte Gcist. Schleusner. Diss. de vocabuli Tti-sv^ia in libris N. T. vario usu, Gottinga", 1791, 4to. Scripta Varii Argumenti, No. IV., De Spiritu Sancto et Chrisio paracletis ; Halje, 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. 10, 17, 2G ; xv. 26. The Holy Spirit is here called rtapasc^-jy-foj, 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 rtapa»;X5jt'os, (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 aiixilium, but by the concrete auxiliator i 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 men, 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 tvill send to you from the Fa- ther, {Iinean, the Spirit — i. e., teacher — of truth, who proceeds from the Father), he tvill instruct you further in my religion; where it should be remarked, that the phrase EXTtopivtc^ai, Ttapa ria-fpos means to be sent or commissioned hy the Father. Cf. John, xiv, 16, (bCjOii vplv nar'<;'p,) 142 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. and xvi. 28, (s|>»x^v rtapa Ilarpos, missus sum,) and N>> in Hebrew. This procession of the Holy Spirit from the Fatlier does not imply, then, as it is used in the Bible, the communi- jalion of the divine nature to the Spirit, or his internal connexion with the Father. Vide s. 43. 2. I Cor. xii. 4 — 11, There are various gifts (;^tt(H''5,uara) , hut there is one and the same Spirit (to ttvro llvfvua),fr()m whom they all proceed. Here the ;^apt5juttra are expressly distinguished from the Spirit, who is the author of them. In ver. 5, tliis same person is distinguished from Christ (i Kvpioj), and in ver.. 6, from o 0£oj. In rer. 11 it is said, all these (various gifts) work- eth one and the selfsame Spirit, who imparteth to every man his oiun, as he will (xa^wj /SovXftai). 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 %a%flv, axnixiv, \au.3dvtt,v, X, -t. 7.. 1 Cor. ii. 10, God hath re- vealed the doctrines of Christianity to us by his SPIRIT, (the rtttpaz?.>;roj before mentioned, who was sent to give us this more perfect instruction.) »^;»f/ this Spirit searches (fptDva) all things, even the most secret divine purposes, {jid^T^ @iov, cf. Rom. xi. 33. seq. ;) in his instruction, therefore, we may safely confide. The expressions, the Holy Spirit speaks, sejids any one, appoints any (me 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, T. 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 //i/.s respect he depends (to speak after the manner of men) upon the Father (John, xiv. IG) and upon the Son, (John, xiv. 10, 26, also xvi. 14, ix to\i (uov Xri-^ftai;) and in this sense he pro- ceeds from them botii, 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 tliem as speaking and acting, whicii, however, they themselves did not consider as person?!, 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 languHge, 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 nvci/xa ayiov, possesses the same divine perfections which are ascribed to the Father and the Son. I\loru-;, p. 65, 66, s. 10. These texts may be divided into those which are more important, and those which are less convincing, or which, tiiough frequently cited, have no relation to this subject. I. Texts in which Divine Attributes, <^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 rtviv^a, we may p.ot 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- tions belong to him; for the divine perfections are inseparably connected, and the possession of one of them involves the possession of al/ the rest. Vide s. 18, 38. DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 143 1 Cor. ii. S —13, ITi'fiJ^a epsvia to. ^a^rj @iOv, where oniuistience is evidently ascribed to the Spirit. Vide s. 39 ; John, xvi. 13 ; where he is said to know future events, (futura contingen- tia,) whicii i;re concealed from every created tjcing', find kiijwn to God only, (tv 'yowasi. ^swi' Kfttcit, Horn.,) except so far as he reveals this knowledge to men. The Holy Spirit, then, to whom they ars known, and who himself reveals them to oihexs, 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 prirper 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, iv Hviv^a-ii, ayto, 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, Malt. v. 33 — 3G. To swear by God, and to honour orivorship him, were synonymous terms in the Old Testament. In Malt. 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 vSpirit, 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 internal 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 •■♦'i'h primary reference to the c mdition of men at the time when they were written, and always presuppose a more full oral instruction. (6) The most important consideration, how- ever, is this: that by the Ilvivixa dyiov, something divine {tl ^iiov) was always under stood by the Jews and Christians of ancient times. So soon, therefore, as the early Chris- tians understood that the Ilviv^a ayioi' was a jiersoir, they immediately regarded him as God — a 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 in 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, S(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, (b) 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 ■^f^cac&ott to Ili'EVjua ayiov, and afterwards (ver. 4) ovx i-!^tv avtov avyxiitat. riavta. Book of Wis* dom, xviii. 15, %6yoi @tov rtai'toSvj'ojuoj, coll. ix DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES 145 I, xvi. 12. Nor does the appellation Son of God. in the Book of Wisdom, ii. 13 — 20, desig- nate the Messiah, but, in a more general sense, a favourite of God, one approved hy Heaven, a rii^hkous person. The phrase Holy Spirit, used in the same book, (chap. ix. 17, 18,) there means only a holy temper, virtue, temperance, continence, saiictitas animi; cf. ix. 4, 10. (c) The terms '^ n Ninip, a^nSs nid^d are used very frenuentlv in the Chaldaio paraphrases, and seem, as there employed, to designate di person, and have therefore been compared with the ap- pellation "Koyoi @so\), 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 tinmen, majestas divina. The whole subject needs a new investigation. Vide Paulus, Zum Anf. des. Evang. Johannis. [_N()te. — Whatever may be said of the use of the term xdyoj in the Apocryphal writings, it cannot be doubted that the term co^la, in the Book of Wisdom, an ^gyptico- 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 Gud, as his perfect image, and the creator anil jrovernor of the world. Cf. i. G; vii. 2-^— 27; 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 ncDn of Prov. viii. xi. ; but his representations very much surpass that in bold- ness; and this must be ascribed to the influence of tiiat 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 punts. — Tr.] [I. Traces of this Doctrine in the Writi7igs of Plato, the New Platonists, Pfiilo, tfie Cabbalists, 4-c. • 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, Versuche zur Auf- kliirung der Philosophie des jiltesten Alter- thums; Leipzig, 1788, 8vo.) The system of Plato may be thus stated : God first produced the ideal ivorld — 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 tlien 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 Uatr^p ; (i) the divine understa^id- ing, which he calls, rovj, drj^iiovpyoi, Xoyoj, (jcotjjp, TO.. ; 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 Timseus, and elsewhere. It appears, then, that Plato believed in a Trinity, or three principles in the Divine Being; but whether he actJially hyoostasized 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 hy thy reason, (fo^^toj, intelligibilis ,•) and opposed to this, that which is produced, mutable, material, and cognizable by the senses, aia^to;, sensibi lis.) The latter must have a cause of its exist ence; and this cause is the Creator of thu world, who, in imitation of the perfect ideal ia his understanding, in which all the reality, sub stance, and true being of things was contained N I $6 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 beint^, could not make anything otherwise than perfect, he imparted a soul to this sensible world. But this soul of the world -s 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 (^.oyoj) 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, .Tamblicus, Proclus, Chalcidius, Ma- crobius, and other New Platonists, and also by the Christian fathers of the second and third centjry. [_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 Kirchenviiter. Ben. Carpzov, Triniijs 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. Philosophie, 3 bd. s. 149. Geschichte der Philosophie, 2 bd. s. 387. Paulus, Memorabilien, an Essay, Ueber den gottlichen Verstand aus der Platon. Philosophie, — Tr.] 2. The New Platonists eagerly embraced ♦hese 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, jttpl *lliv T'pt.wv op;^txtJi' rrtotrrasftov — (i. e., Dctis .sw- premus, mens, anima iiiundi.) 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 h-^nnds 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 tho cominsr of Christ,) many of the principlas of the philoso phy prevailing in the regions where they re- sided, and had connectc.'., and as it were incor- porated them with their previous opinions, and with their established itjligious 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 nclions. They were encouraged to do this the more, from the opinion which they entertained that Plato had derived many of his ideau Vom Moses and other Hebrew writers. Thes> fo- reign learned Jews seem also to have been 'n- fluenced in their speculations by the p.'ncipics of the theory of emanation. This orieniil ele- ment may have been introduced in different ways into the later Jewish phi].osoph)^ 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, bf fore and at the Christian era. Vide Job. Fr. Kleuker, Ueber die Natur und den Ursprung der Emana- tionslehre bey den Kabbalisten; Riga, i;86, 8vo. These principles were indeed wholly un- known to most of the Jews who lived vviihin 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, iiow- ever, with the Jews who lived beyond the bounds of Palestine, and who were educatfed under the influence of the Grecian philosophy; they foi the most part abandoned the expectation of a future Messiah, or regarded his kingdom a? en- tirely of a moral nature. It is among these learned Jews out of Palestine that the theory of the Xoyoj is found as early as the first century. They regarded the Xoyoj as existing befoie tko creation of the world, and as the instrumenZ through whom God made all things. They entertained also the samn notions resperling the DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 147 spfrilual world and the emanation of spiritual substances, or seons, from the divine nature, &c., as are found among the Platonists of that day. And entertaining ti ese views, derived from the Platonists, they endeavoured to find hem in the Old 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 Aoyoj, call- ing him the Soti of God, the first-born Son of God, (in distinction from the world, which was the younger son,) Ihc first servant of God, 6sv-ripoi ©foj-, X. t. a.. The Cabbalists fre- quently speak rn their writings of Father, Soti^^ and IIoI)/ 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 fjnpreme God, and of one begotten of him, (elsewhere called rtpcofoT'oxof, Xoyoj, vovi, X. t. %.,) who was full ■roiJ ®siov Ilvev^iaroi. Vide Carpzov, Philoniana, p. 157. 4. When now, at a later period, the Christian doctrine became known to these Grecian Jews, and wa3 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., («) 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, simp.y adept the pure ideas of Plato, which were variously represer.ted 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 >: trinity, in this sense, was known and professed by philosophers and Jews who were not Chris- tians, is admitted. But (b) the representations of this subject which are found in the writings of Plato and his followers, whether pagans or Jews, by no means agree witii 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. \_JYotc. — 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 irimitrti (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, 180S, 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 '■'■thehohj 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 Neith (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, ;?. 78, f. of Moser's abridgment. On the general subject, cf. Tholuck, Die speculative Trinitatslehre dej neuern Orientalen; Berlin, 1826, 8vo.— Th.I 148 CHiUSTIAN THEOLOGY. SECTION XLII. HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DUR- ING THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES BEFORE THE NICENE COUNCIL. Kbtice of some of the ivorks tvkich 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. ; Antwerpiae, 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, i\ Corse, " Institutiones historico-theologicae ;" Amstel. 1 (i45. 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 '^lausibly contended ; for the earlier writers often /sed these words and phrases in an entirely dif- 'rent sense from that in which they have been Jip'oyed since the fourth century. This re- .• "lust b-^ kept in mind in forming an esti- mate of tb' -i works which were written with the professed object of proving the entire agree- ment of th-; 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 Nicsenaj, 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 Geschicbte 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, Bvo. Souverain, Platonisme devoile, 1700; translated into German, under the title, Versuch uber den Platonismus der Kirchenviiler, with notes and a preface by Lofller, 1782, 8vo; re- published with an additional Essay by Liiffler, lleber das Entstelien der Dreyeinigkeitslehre unler den Christen, Ziillichau, 1792, 8vo. Cf. the Review of this work in the Lit. Zeit. Nr. 395—297, 1793. C. F. Riissler, Lehrbegriff der christlichen Kirche in den drey erstcn Jahrhunderlen ; Frankfort am Main, 1775; also his greater work, Biblioihek der Kirchenviiter, 10 thle; Leipzig, 1776 — 86, 8vo ; in which he gives extracts from the doctrinal writings of the ecclesiastical fathers. The works of Meincrs 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, INIuenscher, and Augusli, on dogmatic history, must also be here cited. [_Nute. — The latest and most distinguished investigators of this difficuU portion of dogmatic history are, Neander, Giestler, and Schleienna- cher. The first of these, ia that portion of his Aligemeine Geschicbte der 'ihristlichen Religion und Kirche, devoted to the history of doctrines, is thouglit to have given the best history of this doctrine yet offered to the public. The Kirchen- Geschichte of Gieseler is principally valuiible 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, v.-iih 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 Christianitj' 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, wo hav« 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 (oeconomicis operi- bus), and in pointing out to them the various and undeserved hmejils 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- ilent from the writings of the oldest churc-li fathers, Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, 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 (Xptcrroj) and Saviour (Swf'^p), 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. Tiiese ancient symbols were gradually enlarged by various additions intended to oppose the va- rious errors which from time to time arose. iSucli, however, as has been represented, was the simplicity with which this doctrine was at first taught. And even Origen, in his Books rtfpt dp;i:wi', states the sum of the doctrines for- merly taught to the people to be, the doctrine of the Fatber, 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. 11. 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 J^gypt, and indeed had been embraced before this, in the first century, by many of the learned Grecian Jews. Vide s. 41; and INIeiners, Beitrag zur Geschichte der Denkart der ersten Jahrhunderte nach Christi Geburt, in einigen Betrachtungen iiber die neuplatonische Philo- sophic; Leipzig, 17S2, 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 ])agans 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. Vides. 41. But we find that those learned Christians ot the second centur)^ confined themselves, in their philosophizing respecting the Trinity, princi- pally to the Logos; and this was very natural, since the name A0705 is applied even in the New Testament to Christ, and since so much had been said and written respecting him by the Pia- tonists. These philosophizing Christians con- nected in general the same ideas with the name 7.6yoj, 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 theii 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.Iud. c. Gl,) Tatian, Athenagoras, (in his Apology,) and TertuUian, (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 apoiver, but that, agreeably to the divine will, {povTir^jxatb ©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 «n« n2 150 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. tirely divine. Hence the Logos is denominated by Alhenagoras rtpwrov yiwr^jxa, the first-begol- ten; and Justin, in llie passajje above cited, says, &e6i yiytvvr^xfv 1% tavroii ?> v v a. i-i t, v Tliva 7.0- ytxjji', which was sometimes called 86|ttKrptov, sometimes T105, aof^ia, iyyfy.os, and sometimes ©foj, Kvptoj, 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 substcmce (the term used by Tertullian) emanating from the Father and the Son, to whom, on this account, divinity must be ascribed. Tertullian says. Est Spirilus a Pat re per Filium. [Vide Neander, b. i. Abth. 3. s. 1039, nr.] Respecting these three, the early fathers con- tended that they were one. Athenagoras says, that with these three tiiere was fVcostjEi'Su^au^wft, but If rfi td^ii ^laJpftTtj, Origen and Novatian make exactly ihe same representation in the third century. It is obvious, however, that the %nity Qv<^cii, unitas) of Avhich 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 deify with the Father. Justin the Martyr expressly declares that the Son is in God what the understanding (rovj) is in man, and that the Holy Spirit is that divine power to act and execute which Plato calls dpft/j. With thisrepresentation, 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 Xoytxa, and Holy Spirit to moral perfections. According to Tertullian, the per- sons of the Trinity are gradus, formas, species tinius Dei. Thus it is obvious that these philo- sopiiical 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 tlio 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, ibuted to them that system of belief which was afterwards established as orthodox. Intc this mistake, Bull, Burscher, and many others, have fallen. Various causes conspired to givtj 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 tliey were in entire agreement with tho 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 tiie 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 (Aoyoj) 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 mtare 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 Jpsus; and supposed that what was extraordi* nary in the person of Christ was merely the divine influence of the Father, (called Son, Logos, fee.,) 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 tho 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 ivor/is, and various modes of divine reoelutioiu According to him there is only one divine person (^fiia rrtoatacij), but a threefold divine luork, or three ybrms (rp/a Ttpocrcorta), 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 ^j£rso«a/ distinction in the god- head, and in opposition to it, contended that the Son was ojuoovcrtoj or awovaio^ ta Ilarpt — i. e., U7ium idemque cum Fatre. It was in this sense of the word o/xoovaioi, 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 ididv vjtoataaw, the jiroper personality of the Logos. \Xote. — The seceders from the catholic faith here described were in the early ages commonly denominated 3ioHa;-c/z/a?2s, because they insisted upon the unity of God, which they supposed in- fringed by the common doctrine which placed three eternal persons in the divine nature. ]\Io- narchiam tenemus, they said often, when compar- ing themselves with the orthodox fathers. But this general class comprehended many who dif- fered more from each other than they did even from those reputed orthodox, and who indeed had nothing in common but a great zeal for monotheism, and a fear lest the unitj"^ of God should be endangered by the hypostases of the Alexandrine fathers. Without any regard, how- ever, to these essential differences, all who, in tiehalf 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 Vv^ith 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, tl xaxbv rtoiw bo^a^(x>v 'Kpcatov ; It was on account of this intimate union, and almost identity, I'or 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 ^£orta(5;^trac., patripassiani, patripassia?is. 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. Thcophilus of Antioch 3. Athenagoras 4. Irenseus 5. Clemens Alexandrinus 6. Tertullian 7. Origen 8. Dionysius Alexandrinus 9. Cyprian 10. Novatian 11. Dionysius Komanus. MoXARCHIANS. (x) Unitarians. 1. Theodotus 2. Artemon 3. Paulof Sarjosata. (3) Patripassians. 1. Praxeas 2. Noetus 3. Beryllus of Bostra 4. Sabclhus. Tu.] III. Terms employed iri the Discussion of this Doc- trine during the Second and Third Centuries. The theologians of this period, in the learned discussion and the scientific statemem, 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. G7, 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 front 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 theii terms. This newly-invented phraseology was afterwards in CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. troduced from the Grecian church into the Latin, by TertuUian, who enli rged 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. Tptaj. 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 TertuUian, by the word trinilas ; and the phrase in'nitatis unilas, answering to the iVuijij 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 Dreyciriigkcit [the usucl term for denoting the Trinity among German theologians; less accurate, however, than the word trinity, because it expresses agreement of affection and will merely, and therefore seems to lean towards trilheism. It contains the same implication as would be expressed in the Eng- lish'word irianimily, if such a word may be supposed.] It was at first rendered into German by the word Drcyfalliglicit [Anglice, triplicity'], which, however, was opposed by Luther, as fa- vouring the Sabellian view of the divine nature. Basedow recommends that the word Dreyeinhcit [friunify'] 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 Drcycinig/icit, to express what was intended in the second and third centuries by the terms fptaj, trinilas, 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 churcii at the present day, so well as the term Dreyeinhcit Uriunity.'] If we wished to designate tiiis doctrine by a German word as various and com- prehensive in its meaning as the Latin trinitas, rEnjflish, trinity, 1 the word Drcyfuit would be the l.eat; but if we wished to express more ex- actly the doctrine of the Bible, and the preso..* belief of the church, w-- must prefer the woid which Basedow has recommended — viz., Drey- einheil [triunity.'] 2. Ov5ia rrtoara^tj. These terms were not sufficiently distinguished from each other by the Greek fathers of the second and tliird cen- turies, and were often used by them as entirely synonymous. TertuUian translates ovaLtt by substantia, and affirms siibstantix unitatem in tho Trinity. By the word vTtoata.'jii 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 ov0i,'a. Thus, according to the Platonists, the Aoyoj 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 tliat the world might be created by him. The New Platonists employed the word v^(,atdvac in reference to the deity in itself, and called their triads vrtoara'sf 15, or to, if (.at ajxiva. 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, 11. 2. 3. Persona. This word was first employed by TertuUian, in the passage above cited; and by it be means, an individual, (^subjecluin intelli' gens,') a single being, distinguished from others by certain peculiar qualities, attributes, and re- lations; and so he calls Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus, tres personx, at the same time that he ascribes to them unitas substantias, because they belong to the divine nature (orsi'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 inoatcusti in a sense like that which TertuUian connects with persona ; and he accordingly says, TVe be- lieve in three vTio6tdc!ii.i, Hat ipa, Tlov, xai Ilftu fia ciyiov. ECTION XLIII. HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DUR- ING THE FOURTH CENTURY; AND OF THE DIS- TINCTIONS ESTABLISHED AT THE MCENE COUN- CIL, AND SINCE ADOPTED IN THE ORTHODO? CHURCH. I. The Trinity, as held in the Fourth Century. It hod already been settled by many councils held during the third century, and in the sym hols which they had adopted in opposition to Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, that the Fathei 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 am:tig the learned respecting the mu- DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES 153 tual relation ot the^hree persons of the Trinity, or respecting the question in what the distinction between them properly consists ; and these sub- jecs were accordingly left as yet undetermined by the decisions of councils and symbols. Vide fi. 42. The learned men of this period, there- fore, entertained different opinions on these sub- jects, and were at liberty to express themselves according to their own convictions. At length, however, one of these opinions prevailed over the rest, and through the influence of those fathers by whom it was advocated, and through the patronage of the imperial court, was adopted by the Nicene Council, and authoritatively pre- scribed as a rule of faith of universal obligation. Origen and his followers had maintained against the Sabellians that there were in God ipiii vTioa-tuseii, (tres personae,) but fiuav ovai.av, (una substantia,) which was common to the three. They had not, however, or at least but few of them, as yet taught, that these three per- sons were entirely equal to one another; but, on the contrary, had allowed, in accordance with their Platonic principles, that the Son, though belonging to the divine nature, was yet subor- dinate to the Father. But at length, in the be- ginning of the fourth century, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and Athanasius, his successor, attempted to unite the hypotheses of Origen and Sabellius, thinking that the truth lay between the 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 and penetration, and it must be allowed to have a decided superiority over the partial and un- scriptural theory of Arius. He stated the per- sonal distinction of the Father and the Son to be, that the former was loithout beginning and unheg(jiien, (ai'ap;^o;, wytvvritoi;,) while the latter was elernally begotten {yivvqtoi) 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 rptaSt jUom'Sa dvai. 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 m glory (Sd^atj ovx o^otat) ; — that the Father alone was the supreme God (jxyivvr^io{), and God in a higher sense than the Son ;— that the Son derived his divinity from the Fath 3r before the creation of the world, and that he owed his existence to the divine will {^iXry-wtt, ©£ov rtpo 20 Xi>ov(^v xa.1 jipb aMviov xtia^hi) ; — and that the Holy Spirit was likewise divine in a sense in- ferior to that in which the Fatlier is so. These doctrines were not in reality different from those entertained by the early Christian fatiicrs, 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 ndvtu, di'd^iocj.) [These are called by different names, descriptive of their doctrine — viz., avofxoLOL, Anomoians, also Hele- ruusians ; and also after their leaders, Aetius, Bishop at Alexandria, 3G2; Eunomius, Bishop at Cyzicus, 392; Acacius, Eudoxius, &c. This party prevailed at a council held at Sir- mium, 357, and their confession of faith is con- tained in the Formula Synodi Sirmienais. — Tr.] Others contended that the Son, though not of the same, was yet of a similar nature with the Father, (u^otovcftoj tcp Tta-tpL) [These were called o/xoLovi^iuotai, HfuapiLot, Semi-Jlrians, also Euscbians, 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 avo^Loiov xaz' ovcSLav T'ci rtatpt, or that he is u/xooiaiov ij tavtoovoiov -rci rcatpi. — Tr.] All the Arians, of whatever party, agreed in rejecting the term ojxoovato^, because, in their view, it set aside the personal distinction in the Deity, and made the Son unum idemque cum Falre. 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 Ojuooiffioj, unconsciously, into the error of Sa- bellius. Though condemned by the Arians antj 154 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Semi-Arians in a council held at Constantinople, (330,) 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 Sabellianisrn, 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, A thanasius and his adherents contended with great zeal. Their great object was to find the true medium between Arianism and Sabel- .ianism, 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 : — " IlLd-fsv- ofUBv iii eva Qiov, YloL-tipa rtavtoxpaT'opa, navruiv opdti^v ts xai aoparuv ftotri'trfV, Kat ttj eva Kvpiov 'Iriaoiiv 'Xpistov, roi' Tlbv -tov ®tov, ysv- vrj^ivta ix I'oij Ilar'pos, fiovoyivrj, 'tovtiattv, ix trii; ouat'aj I'ou Ilttrpoj, ®i6v ix @sov, ijjwj ix (fiotoj, &s6v aXri^ivov ix Qsov aXr^^ivov, ycvvri^ii>-ta, ov Ttoirf^ivta, i^ioovniov tat Ilafpi, St' ov -fa riavta iyivito, fa rs iv ■fa ovpavo xai to, iv fij yvj, tov hi rj^a.^ touj di'^pwrtovj xai Sta triv rif^itspav Oiotrj- pt'ttv xctTiX^ovta, xai aapxio^ivta, xai ivav^ptorCr^- aavta, Tia'^ovta xai ava'Jtavta T^ '^P'-'^?? ^JA^spaj dvi'K^ovta ttj -tov; ovpavov^, xai ipxajA-cvov xpivai, ^Hjvta; xai vfscpovj. Kai ftj to dyiov nvsvjxa. Tovi bs xiyovta^, oft, r^v rtofs ots ovx rj', xai rlpiv yivvri^Ylvai ovx ^i*, xai-oto £? ovx oviLov iyive-to, rj <| itepai i'Ttos-tdrssioi rj ovrrtaj ^dsxovta? slvai, ^ xrt^rov, tpi-rCtov, yj dVKOK^-ebv -tov Tiov fov &bov, dj-a^f/tart^ft y; xa^T^ixr; ixx7.>;(n'a."] This sym- bol was confirmed at the council held at Con- stantinople in the year 331, under Theodosius Jhe Great, and so enlarged as to meet certain heresies which had in the meantime arisen. [A sect called 7tvtvu.atoixa.xoi, Pneumntomachians, 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: — niattvoficv sij to iiyiov Ilvfii.ua, (fo Kvpiov, to fcoortotof, to ix t'ov Hatfibi i X rCopsvo jx( vov. to avv Ilatpi Koi Tt9 avijirtpoaxvvovfiti'ov xa(i (Jvy5o|afo^ufvc«', "T^ XaTi-rjaav 6ia tCJv rtpo^rituv.) Respecting th( clause to ix tov Ilarpoj ixTiopsvofitvov, a seiious 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) Ti^/r J, 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 irithtism 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 v/ho 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, oi 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 Doo trine since the Nicene Council. 1. Ovfjia, 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. (6) JVhalever exists for itself has personal self-subsistence, in short, a person. Hence some, in opposition to Sabellius, spake of rpfij oiaiat, iv ©fu. (c) The entire sum of the attributes ivhich belong to a thing, its na- ture. In this sense it was employed when it was said that three persons belonged to tho ovijia 0?ov. Hence the phrase o^oovtjtoj, con- .■iubstantialis. 2. "^rtoataaii and rtpocrtortoj'. Th < fornvv DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBU'j'ES. 155 ■of these words gave occasion to much contro- versy on account of its ambiguity, some con- iend.ng for fxiav vnoataniv, others for rpf 15 vrio- ora'cftj. Before the Nicene Council, as we have seen, s. 42, vrtoccfaotj and ovalo. were em- ployed by the ecclesiastical fathers as synony- mous; even in the Nicene symbol they appear as interchangeable words, {ynoataaii yj ovaia;) and Hieronymus, still later, contended for unam hypostasin (i. e., oraiav) in God. But, as we before said, Origen had previously contended that there were t^sli vHos-tdaiii and /xia 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 vTtoa-taaii 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 rtpoourtoi/ instead of rrtM-ra^i^. 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 rtpoffwrta, 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 h se invicem sic distinctos, tit singulis sua intelligentia d 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 axxoi xai aTiXoj — i. e., different subjects, though not o.'K'ao xal a?i^o — i. e., of different nature, as the Arians affirmed. 3. 'OjUooxKJioj, consuhstantialis, 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 sane nature, being, properties, with another thing Thus Aristotle says, Ttdv-ia -fa a^-fpa ofiooiaia, and Plato says, respecting souls, that they are onoovaiai, ^j^. Thus, too, Chijysostom says, Adam was rjjuoovuioj with Eve, and re- specting Jupiter and Neptune, Horner says, a^tqjoripototi' u/xiiv yfi/oj, both ivere of one race, born of one father, II. xiii. 354, seq. This term had been used by tiie 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^toovatoj -ca na-tfl, they m-sant that he was unum idem.qiie, so that no personal ('istinc- tion existed between them. Hence this term was rejected by the orthodox of that period Vide s. 42. But when, in the fourth crntiiry, 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 (xna- ^fij, rtof/j^sij), but eternally generated (yji'r;;- ^si'j) from the nature of the Father, {piaia Ilarpoj,) 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 falhfr, and so cannot be separated from the Father. In this way was the term o^uoovotoj defined 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 w« 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, imitate essentia: conjzincti. 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 fronl refine- ment and subtlety. Vide ]\Torus, 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 ivhich these persons may be distinguished from one another. If these three supposita are really distinguished from one another, there m-jst 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 personales, sive hypostatici., yrtopJ(j;uafa iStwaara 5;x£'fixa) by which theolo- 1S6 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. gians undertake to distinguish these persons from one another. 1. Internal, ckaraetcres interni. These are distinctive signs which arise from the internal relation of the three persons in tlie godhead to each other, and which indicate the mode of the divine existence, Cpccttliaris subsislendi modus, fportoj rrta'pjftoi.) They are also called proprie- tales pcrsonales. 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. («) The Father generates the Son, and emits the Holy Spirit, general Filitim, spiral Spirilum Sarictum; and possesses, therefore, as his per- sonal attributes, generalio 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 v/ycvi't^ai.a, tt;'ap;i;itt, paternilas. "Ihiov tov Ilttrpoj dyfvijjsia, said Gregory Nazianzen, Oral. 31. "Falris est generare, nan generari." Ac- cordingly, the Father was said to be tti'ap;toj ayivvr^to;, oirtrsixjr'oj, avto^fo;, rtJjy^, aina^fons, radix, princ'pixim divinitatis. (6) The Son is generated by the Father ; Filii est GENERARI, llOll GENERARE ; lbl.OV tOV TIov 7J yBvvyjmu according to Gregory, in the passage above cited. So that the Son possesses as his personal attributes, yiwr^aia, filiatio generalio 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 speak. (c) The Holy Spirit neither generates nor is generated, but proceef/s from the Father and Son; Spiritus Sandi est, nee generare nee generari, sed PROCEDERE ; iSiov tov IlvsvfiUtoi rj txTCej.i-^ii, said Gregory, as above. What he calls ixrtf/i^'S is called by other Greek writers, ftvor^, rtpo,3o>.;;, and by Basilius, rfpooSoj ex Qtov. Respecting these attempts to determine ex- actly in what tlie internal distinction between the persons in the godhead consists, we have to emark. First, that they were wholly unknown to the oldest writers, both of tlie 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 Sabelliana on the other, as finely as possible^ as we have already seen in No. I. Sccondh/. In stating these internal personal characteristics of the three persons in the god head, theologians have indeed selected term 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 arr, wholly un.ible to detect tliat 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 lo 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. 3-1, 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, toa ©fw Ilarpi, just as, among men, the son as truly participates in human nature as the father, loa Ilarpi dc^pionioj. Again, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Father, which is spoken of, Joiin xv. 26, denotes merely his being sent and commissioned, and by no means liis divine nature and internal relation to the Father and the Son. Vide s. 39, II. 1 ; and INIorus, p. 67, note. Thirdly. With regard to the Holy Spirit more particularly, "w.e 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, the-efore, being DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 157 ,!eft 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 avv ^'t^at xal Tttj avfiTtpoaxvvovi^svov, and sx ■tov llatpoi ixnop£v6f.iBvov, was all that was required in the symbol there adopted. It was not long, however, before dissension arose with regard to the latter phrase between the Greek and Latin church. The Greek fathers adhered for the most part to this formula, without going into any more minute distinctions; so Basilius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, and others ; though Eoiphanius added to the formula, tx Tfov Ilarpoj {x7top£v6i.i£i'ov, thc explanatory clause, ix tov Tiov Xa,u,3aioi', 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 made by Novatian, (^Spiritum Sanctum a Patre per Filium procedcre,) and which undoubtedly was derived from John, xv. 26, I will ser^d you the 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 hath, (jrib utroque,') and to insert the adjunct Fi- lioque after Patre in the Symbolum Nicxno-Con- stantinopoUtanum. 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 causea of these unhappy dissensions were, howevei. very different from those which were alleged, and we have reason to suspect that they were less animated by zeal for the truth tlian by the mutual jealousies of the Roman and Byzantine bishops. But to whatever cause they are to be ascribed, these disputes terminated in tiie ele- venth century in that entire separation of the Eastern and Western churches which continues to the present time. Cf. Morus, p. 07, s. 11, note. Walch, Historia ControversicE Gracorum Latinorumqne de processione Spiritus Sancti; Jenee, 1751, 8vo. Ziegler, Geschichtsentwicke- lung des Dogma vom heiligen 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. 201, 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- raeteribus personalibus inter7ns 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. Gl, No. 2, and p. G7, 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 etemiiy 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 S07l. 2. External, characteres externi. Morns, p. 68. Note 3. These are characteristics of the persons of the Trinity arising from the luorks of the Deity relating to objects extrinsic to itself, and called opera externa, sive, ad extra. They are twofold : (a) Opera Bei 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. 16, 17. He also gives or sends the Holy .Spirit, John, xiv. 26. The Son is sent from the Fathet to accomplish the work of redemption, and sends the Holy Spirit from the Father, John, xv. 26. The -Holy Spirit formed the human nature ot 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 work* O 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 {nttribuiiva), tribus personis sunt communia. To the Father is ascribed the decree to create the world, the actual creation, and the preservation of it. To tlie Son also, the cre.ition, preservation, and government of the world is ascribed ; also the raisinsj of the dead and sittiair 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 ap|)lication to men of the means of grace. [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, 8. 2.38.] 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 w'ritings which belong to the period between the second and fourth centuries; and 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 Unilarians, 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 p-Zo;-?, and that reason alone firnishes sufficient arguments for its truth ; th ^ueh others of this class have looked to reason for nothing more than an iUustralion of this fac* with regard to the divine existence, for the know ledge of which 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 pcmufiai 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, ?i6yo5. 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 soul, which, he says, is one substance, with three principal pow- ers, memory, understanding, and ivill; 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 persona existence are used to represent the subsistence of a trinity in unity. Hence such illustrations are more favourable to the theory of Sabelliua than to the doctrine of the Trinity drawn from the Bible, and established at the Council at Nice. Tlie 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 professo at Stuttgard. Space, he says, cannot be seen felt, or recognised by any of our senses, and ye must be regarded, he thinks, as something suh stantial. It is, indeed, extended, and still one This one substance has, however, three distincf dimensions, which are not arbitrarily assumed and which cannot be considered merely as parti or accidents of space, but which belong essen tially to it — viz., letigth, breadth, and thickness Some chemists and thoosophists suppose the there is, throughout the whole kingdom of na [ ture, and even in material bodies, a threefolo I elementary principle, (as to the nature of which ■ lowever, they arc not agreed,) and they refer to this as an illustration of the Trinity DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. IS But, as we have said, there were others who supposed that the Trinity could not only be illustrated by reason, but mathematically proved h priori. Among these were Bartholomew Kec- kermann, who wrote a " SystemaTheologicum," Peter Poiret, and Daries, who publisiied an Es- say, " in qua pluralitas personarum in Deitate e solis rationis principiis, methodo Mathemati- corum, demonstratur;" Leovardiae, 1735, 8vo. The attempt of this kind which deserves most attention is that made by Reusch, a celebrated theolocrian and philosopher of Jena, in his "In- troduclio in theologiam revelatam," — an attempt which was regarded by the late Dr. Gruner as entirely successful, and was adopted by him substantially in his "Institutiones theol. dog- mat," 1. i. c. 5. This demonstration is very much as follows : — In the divine understanding there are three acts : (a) God comprehends in his understanding the ideas of all things which can be conceived, and so far as he does this he is called Father; (h) 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 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 re£j;:ded 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 be 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 orthodox! de Trinitate; Gottin- gae, 1788. 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 aomitted a distinction in respect to rank and perfections. [Kanry Nicolai, William Sher- .\-iC.k, and Pierre Faydil, belong to this class.] 3. Other modern writers have inclined to adopt the Sabclliaii theory as the ground of their views on the Trinity. Among these is Michael Serveto, or Servetus, 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 taught that there is one God, who, however, has made known his will to men in two personaks represenlutiuiies — i. e., personal, or personified modes of reve- lation, called Aoyoj and Ili'si\ua ayiov. For these opinions he was brought to the stake by Calvin, at Geneva, 1553. Vide Mosheim, Leben Ser- vet's; Helmstadt, 1748, Bvo, republished with additions at the same place, 1750. The repre- sentation of the Trinity which Grotius gives in his "Silvae Sacrae" leans towards Sabellianism, and agrees substantially with the theory ad- vanced by Stephen Nye, an Englishman, in his "Doctrine of the Trinity;" London, 1701. 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, Bvo. Marheinecke, Grundlehren de 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, ^nd 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 Arniinians, 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 ha/e 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 m'jch more prevalent. They have so explained the Trinity as to lose the idea cf three dhine person* 160 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. in the godhead, for which they have substituted either three distinct powers or alfributc.s, (as Meier, Seiler, Cludius, and Tollner,) or a three- fold aij;ctici/ 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 Nennder appears inclined, from his general re- marks pipfixed to his history of this doctrine, and also Tholuck, from various passages i.i his Commeiitary 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. Tlie .Irian 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, Harvvood, 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. G9, 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 beginnitig (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 avroovJio;) and the source and author of all the works and agency of the Son and Hoi}' 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 suhordinationists. 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, witli 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 pc-tonal 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 z 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 Sucinians, some- times called Photinians, beca> se they agree irj the tnain 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 sixleenth century. They maintained that the Nkene theory leads DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 161 0 Ir'tthetsm, and on account of the uncommon Durity 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 briery as follows: — The Father is the only true God. Chiht 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 n 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 essenlialis, the internal threefold distinction necessarily belonging to the divine nature; and trinitas aeconomica, the three persons revealed to us in the work of redemptioii. 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 ODvious, that while we are taught by thf scriptures to believe in three equal subjects in the godhead, ivho 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 w'as not given us to era- 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 («) 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 vi^e 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 fiivours 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 169 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 great doctrines of re- ligion will exert their proper influence upon tha 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. or THE MEANING OF THE WORD "WORLD," AND OF SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 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- 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 Si/?ion7/mous 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 ivorld,- 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. 3G5, translated by Forster, in his " Magazin von merkwvirdigen 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 neeeisily was the cause of all things. Vide Mei- 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. 4(j. 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. W^hen 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, tht heavens and earth. So we find it frequently among the Hebrews. Gen. i. 1 ; ii. 1 ; Psalm cxv. 15. The nations vHio 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, KocT/io; iati avatrma <| ovpavov xai yrji, xa,i T'dir iv fovtoii }tepisxofiiv<^v ^vaiuv, De Mun- 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 Syrian» called the world nSi>'i a^cSip, to which correspond the oiioi', aluivti, of the Grecian Jews. Thi» 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 hyhnian exile, in which these words are clearly used in the sense now ascribed to them. In the earlier books they stand simply for the ideaa WORKS OF GOD. 163 of eontlmtance, duration, age. The word "\Sn, which occurs in Ps. xlix. 8, 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 Sin, on the contrary, which occurs, Isaiah, xxxviii. 11, in the sense of world, or earth, is of exactly an opposite origin, the viutahilily znd perishabk- ncss 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 Wcret, which is derived from the word wdhren, to con- tinue, endure; though, according to others, it is abbreviated from Werld, and so derived from loerlen, 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. (i) From the beautiful and wonderful order and arranirement of all parts of the world, the Greeks called it o xdcr^tioj, and the Latins, mun- dus, which is a mere translation of the Greek xbofioi. 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 xdrr^oj 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 employs the term in this sense, he is careful to say, o vTio tuiv ao^Latciv xaxor/xsvoj xoGfio^. 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 xoa^ioi 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, oUoviA-ivrj, hnn ; and also of particular provinces of it — a meaning which be- longs to the words just mentioned, and to the liatin orbis terrarum. Kos^oj was also used in the sense of the ivorld of men, the tvhole human race, and then, the wicked as a whole, the heathen. By Christian writers it was sometimes used to denote the Jeivish ivorld. Finally, xorsiio^ was ased to denote visible, perishable, earthly things and possessions, (res terrenx, externa;, 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 star» the host, NJi', 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 hi? will, Ps. ciii. 21, coll. ver. 20, 22 ; also Gen. ii, 1 . The heavejis and the earth, and all the host of them, CN3X Sdi. Hence the supreme God is call- ed mxa^ pin''. Lord of hosts — i. e., of the world. Cf. s. 17. This term resembles the xorsfioi 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 ■ta opa-ta, xai aopata waS employed to designate the sum of created objects, and occurs in this sense. Col. i. 16. The Greek term, -fo rtav (^universum), is the appropriate philosophical appellation of the world, and does not occur in the New Testa- ment, except indeed in the plural, -to, Ttdvta. 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 0.F THE VARIOUS OPI- NIONS ENTERTAINED ON THIS SUBJECT. I. Definition and Proof of the Creation of the Worla. 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 — II. 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 progressio cans- sarum in infinitum, which is not supposable. But, 2. The ancients found great diflSculty in ex plaining the origin of this first material. Th« 104 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Grecian philosophers and other ancient writers insisted upon the principle, ex nihllo nihil fd ; atu! could not admit, therefore, that it was even possible for God to create tlie world out of no- thing. Accordingly, they believed almost uni- versally in two eternal, original principles — viz., God, and self-exislent mailer, 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 ivill, united himself with matter, and produced the world from it; so that he could say that the toorld 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 diflfered from one another in explaining ihe 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, until 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 flie 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 miJeria — from which v/hatever exists proceeds. But it is not true if understood of the causa efficicns, 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 notiiing produce something, or bring into existence what \iid 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 tf itself, but must derive its existence from God, or depend upon God, who at first cre- sted it out of nothing. Tho orreatest philosophers of antiquity appear therefore to have stopped short of the truth, i.nd " to have been inconsistent, when they worshipped God as the creator of the world, indeed, but nol of matter. They admitted merely a crealio me.' diata, ex prxexistente materia, and not imme- diata — i. e., they did not believe in the produc- tion of matter itself from iiothing. God, with them, was merely the builo'a; and not the cre- ator, of the world. The ancient Greeks, as v. e 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 7iothinfr. It is no valid objection, however, against the [)osi- 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 experiencn 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 J created by God from nothing, is the unifcrm 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 bpen 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 thai 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 de 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 its definite position in space, and have pre WORKS OF GOD. 165 Berveu it as he originally created it. But in "fise he were not the creator, but only the foiiner 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 h« 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 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- phers 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 v.'ere 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 smaU and minute affairs. When once Phaeton had misguided the chariot of the sun, Jupiter indeed found it necessary to see whether the tlrmament isad been shattered ; but except in €uch extraordinary cases, he remained uncon- cerned with the affairs 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 un the doctrine concerning providence, and so is of great practical consequence. This belief alone excites in us ideas of providence wliich 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 «choolmen, with entire truth, called the pre- servation of the world a continued creation. And ;pT'i.'(5^ai, ]0), by the decree or ivill (Jjr^ixaii) of God; so that what we see {faiv6i.isi'a and ^Xs- TiojjLiva., what appears or exists,) was made out of nothing, (■fa jxri ^aivofitva.') The phrase -ia, /.ir] ^aivoficva is here synonymous with ■ra ovx ovta, which occurs in 2 Mace. vii. 28, God made heaven and earth, f| ovx ov-iciiv. Here too the text, Rom. iv. 17, is cited : Jihraham trusted in God tov ^iooTioiovvtoi 'tovi I'fxpoxij xai xaXovv- toi (creantis) ra /.iv ovta uj oi/'ta. 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 xaXilv here answers to the word N-ip, Isa. xli. 4; xliv. 7, and signifies creare, producere. So Philo says, ■fa /xr^ ovta ixd'k^ssv lii -Co ilvai. 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. xxxiii. 6, 9. Gen. i. " He spake, and it was done," &c. Cf. s. 34, No. 5. It is said in Rev. iv. 11, ai) "ixtioai ndvta, xai Bia -to ^sXrifxd (iJxna, Daniel, viii. 4; xi. 3, Ifi) aov liac, "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 Vy'ill, created the world from no- thinor; and we are innable even to form any con- ception of the subject, as we have nothing ana* jns CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. logons to wnich we can compare it. The New Testament usually ascribes the work of creation to the Father ; and God is called Father, (Llarj;)) ytai'T'toi',) so far as he is creator and preserver of all things. Theologians say, Creatio est opus Dei ad extra, quod Fatri adscribitur appropria- tioe sivetermiiuttivc, Morus, p. 72, note 1. But creation is also ascribed to the Son, or to the Aoyoj (vide s. 38, I. 2) ; as John, i. 3, Tlavra Si ovrou (Aoyou, ver. 1, 2) iyevito, x. t. %. ; and again, in ver. 10, o xodfioi fit' av-tov iyiveto. It is the object of this passage to describe the rela- tion of the Logos to the world and created things. The particle fit'a with the genitive frequently, in- deed, denotes merely the causa instrurti.cniulis ; (so Luke, i. 70;) but it also denotes the causa efficiens; as Rom. i. 5, and 1 Cor. i. 9, (0f6f, fit' oJ ix'Kr^tit') and Hebrews, ii. 10, (0f6j fit' ov to, jtdvta..'^ 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, iind at the same time simple view, is perhaps the following. Since the New Testament makes the Son of God equal (isa) 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 trihus 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^.r^(>o^'6fJiov') over all, hi 0-5 xa.i rovj alCJva; 'ntoir^nsv: the meaning of which they suppose to be summed up, and ex- pressed in ver. 3, " He (the Son) upholds all things ((})£p(ov -to, rfai-ra) by his power, (jj^uan Stim^ufto?.)" The phrase, the Father created the world through the Sun, occurs only this once n tiie New Testament, for which reason Dr. Grie.sbach advises to alter the reading, and to substitute fitott xai for fit' ov xai, Progr. De mundo a Deo Patre comiito per Filium ; Jenae, 1781. But no suflTicient 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. 3, 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, I. 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. («) N13, to create, produce. Gen. i. 1, et passim. This word, however, by itself, docs not signify to create from nothing. It frequently denotes the formation of a thing from a pre-existing ma- terial, and answers to xti^tiv. 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, parare, condere, facere, reddere i so Is. xliii. 7; Num. xvi. 30, seq. Cf. s. 48,1. (b) All the words which signify to make, tn prepare, to form ,• as ni";', (hence nrj'C, a work, created thing, jtolrifxa, tpyoi',) ■>iS to form ; ]^3, xatapti^fiv, 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, ids ^f wfT^tow, to found, to establish, is applied, particularly in poetic lan- guage, to the creation of the earth ; Ps. cii. 26. Hence the Hellenistic phrase xatajioXri xosixov, John, xvii. 24, coll. ver. 5, and Epti. 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 andeviating in its course, they represented it as established upon pillars ; Ps. civ. 5. m, to build. &c. ; but it also signifies to propagate the race, lo acquire posterity. Gen. xvi. 2 ; hence p, son, (the builder of the family.) (f/) The words which signify to say, speak, call, (call forth,) command ; as, ->w, n-\;->, respect- ing which, cf. No. I. These are the worda more commonly employed to designate creation from nothing. WORKS OF GOD. 1G9 SECTION XLVIII. TUa: WORK OF CREATION TWOFOLD; DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CREATURES ; OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THEM ; END OF GOD IN THE CREATION OF THE WORLD ; THE BEST WORLD. 1. The Work of Creation twofold. Creation is divided into prima or immediata, and secunda 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 *hat 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 tchich 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. 13—16. The word Nia 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 Nia and -iS> are interchanged as synonymous: as, n-\3J uv,popu- lus creandus, Psalm cii. 19; and -\h^:u'ii, populus nascendus. Psalm xxii. 32. Hence to create, signifies metaphorically, in the scriptures, to re- new, tofoxind, to be the author of anything ,• Is. xlviii. 7 ; Ps. li. 12. The same is true ofxtl^siv and xtlai^, Eph. ii. 10, 15; iii. 9 ; and also of the Latin crcare ,- as, " Romulus creator urbis.''^ " 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 ot making them useful to others. Of. 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 sifrvey but a very small portion of it at once, and are v.holly 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 are properly styled the provinces (nirrpn) 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 naturai order; their dependence on God is shewn, ana 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 ths 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 t^e 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, vid§ s. 45, ad finem. Angels and the human sout belong 170 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. to the second class; but the whole man belongs alike to the coiporeal 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 wore 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 som"! 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 ')thers. 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 u.sed — 1. As a very easy and practical means of at- talningto 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 ; also, Morus, p. 71, 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 wtiat 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 lo 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 ihem 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 oe 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 superstiuous 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 coniributes 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 nalurci cognitd levamur supers! itione, — non conturbamur ignnralione re- rum, e quel ipsa fiorribiles saope exisiunt formi' dines ; detiique etiam morati melius erimus, De Fin. i. 19. Bayle's work on comets should be read, as a thorough antidote to superstition. Cf. Wiegl(#>, 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 tha purpose of merely instructing his people iu WORKS OF GOD. 171 natuial 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 Relicrionsvortrage 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 :'ls 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, 23. Moreover, his power i^ 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 w^orld is so well adanted to ths attainment of the divine purposes as this. We are, indeed, nnacquaint 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 Moruis, p. 75, s. 6. So far, however, as we considei 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 hijihest object in the creation of the world, when thus explained, is just and scriptural. Cf. s. 24, I; s. 18, I. Note. Now if optimism be thus defined, and if the sopposiiion 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- trinse recentius controversae 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 Urtheilskraff ; Berlin, 1790, Bvo; 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. Mosea wrote primarily for his own nation, the Israel- ites. And the surest way to determine why 173 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. end he had in view in writing this narrative, is to consider the circumstances and wants of tlie .Tews at the time he wrote; and these are best learned from his own hooks. 1. One principal object which Moses had in view in this account, was to shew that the God whom the Israelites worshipped ivas the being from tvhom 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. IG. 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. 15 — 17. 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. 11,) respecting the use of the sun and moorpn the reckoning of time, was designed to recommend the custom which lie had instituted among the Israolites of reckoning time, and ob- serving feasts and pulilic solemnities, according to moons and lunar years. And thus, especially in the account which he gives of the seven'?* 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 thb 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 (l"i3) the seventh day, and appoint- ed it for a festival (iTfip^). ' 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 tliisi 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 Hexacmer, 1. i. c. 3. Eichhorn, in his " LTrgeschichte," has endea- voured, very ingeniouslj', to carry out this idea respecting the object for which Moses wrote. Vide Repertor. fiirbibl. Lit. th. iv. s. 12'J — 172; Leipzig, 1779; and, Eichhorn's Urgescliichte, herausgegeben mil Einleitung und Amnerkun- gen, von Dr. Joh. Phil. Gabler, 1 th. Altorf und Nurenberg, 1790, 8vo, and Ite Ahth. 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 ihis 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 Jaws 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 liimself is silent upon the subject. Such might have been the case ; and the supposition detracts nothing from th* author of the bo jk of Genesis. This opinl ."S WORKS OF GOD 173 w^s 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 Sclirift und Phiiosophie," (Braunschw. 17G2, 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? 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 ihe 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 "MosaischesRecht," 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. fiir bibl. und anorgendland. Lit. th. ii. Num. 5; Jena, 1790, 8vo. lie 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 tlie 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 forv.erly 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 ! When 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 INIoses, or to force them upon him. The first fault was committed, though with the best intentions, by the otherwise very deserving Joh. Amos Comcnius, in his "Synopsi physices ad lumen divinum reformats." 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., Joh. Amerpoel (Cartesius Mosaizans), Beaufort, Rambert, and others. The same was done in the eighteenth century, and in still more modern limes. 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 Utile confirm the theories of one philosopher as he will contradict those of another. All the attempts made by difierent philosophers to an- swer oDJeclions 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 mathemalischen Grundsat- zen, 3 thle ; Berlin, 1780 — 83, 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 I'histoire de la terre et de I'homme, ^ la Haye, G torn. 1779, 8vo. Dr. Ro- senmuUer, Antiquiss. telluris Historia; Ulmae, 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 have 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 a'\ ages. This amplifi- cation is entirely simple and popular ; and when the work of creation is here represented as a six- days' 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 hisbusinesi. By such a representation the notion of the crcntion 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 (hat 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, (i) 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 form 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 " Allgern. 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. fiir 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 .Tour- nal. Cf. Ilgen, Urkunde des Jerusalem'schen Tempelarchivs, and Vater, Commenlar iiber den Pentateuch. 3. From this history of the creator ;t follows, that our globe, and the race of u.n that now dwells upon it, is about six thousanc 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, bcrause 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 — 6. 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- lions ; which, however, in themselves, are not satisfactory. One important question in relation to this sub- ject remains to be investigated : Does Moses speak in the first chapter of the Jirst creation of the globe, or only of a new creation, a remodel- ling of it, and planting it with a new race 1 Cf. Morus, p. 73, n. 6. Many modern naturalists affirm that the earth must have existed much garlier 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 boasts 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 lie far be- yond the reach of our history. Vide Biiffon and Justi, Geschichte des Erdbodens aus seinen innerlichen und aiisserlichen Beschaffenheiten hergeleitet und erwiesen; Berlin, 1771, 8vo; Bergmann, Physikalische Beschreibung der Erdkugel; Greifswald, 17G9. Other great na- turalists, however, even Linneus, Haller, De Luc, 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 v/hether 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. G — 9, which indeed is an amplification of the Mosaic account of the creation, but wiiich gives no information respecting the fime or the duraiioii o( this revolu- tion, and none respecting a race of creatures previously existing upon the earth. The pas- sage, 2 Pet. iii. G, is cited with still less propriety in support of this hypothesis. The 6 rort xoa- ^oj 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. 1, "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 eart''- 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 hook of Genesis, we may draw an argument xar' av^puHov 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 oriuinally a sput on the sun,- must be determined on other grounds than the testimony of INIoses. Vide Silbcrschlag'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 viatcrial 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 ivhat time'in the year ivas the world created? Tb# Jews commonly answer, according to the Chal- daic paraphrases and the cabalists, that the v-orld was created in autumn. They found their opi- nion princi])ally upon the supposed fact, that the patriarchs ia the most ancient limes 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. tpmpp.," 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. xli. 2 is also cited, wher» 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, n''rN'^3 — 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, T6' sv apx'^ iTtoirjGsv, laov t/yti -tu' npuitov irtoLy;'Jt t'ov ovpa.v6v, De Opif. Mundi, p. IG, Pf. And so Cicero says, "A principio omnia facta a diis et consfituta su7it," De OfRciis, 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;:ti7 ^^ " ^^oyoj, John, i. 1. " 'E| a^xrji" (ab initio mundi,) Hesiod, Theog. v. 45. Af'ter prefixing this general statement, Moses now (ver. 2) proceeds to describe the creation of the earth; vide s. 49. "The earth waa waste (inn is applied by the Hebrews and Ara- bians to deserts and wasted towns) and empty, (mo, void, unoccupied, like a chamber without furniture ; so in Arabic") Both terms occui in Isaiah, xxxiv. II. The earth is thus repre sented as a rude, formless mass, which, toga iher 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 WORKS OF GOD. 177 i.ien, and is adapted to common apprehension, xhe same may be said of the description of the cieation of man in the second chapter; he was nidde gradually, and was formed like any other uork of art. "And darkness was upon the deep waters." Dinn is rendered by Luther, die Tiefe, the deep; doi'crc-of by the LXX ; but is also deep waters, p7-(fundum, profundum pelagus ,- so frequently in the scriptures, the sea — e. g., Gelfi. xlix. 25 ; Psa. cvi. 0. 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 d;-eadful. 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, Pra?p. 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, 'Qxtai-oj was the eldest progenitor of all the gods; and from him everything proceeded, II. xiv. 201, 24G; 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 hoiu this was brought about, whether from the subsidence of the waters, from the action of internal fire, or feome other cause. D'Dn ••y-hy renin n^n^N nn. What is here called D>n^s nn, is elsewhere called d^hSn npu-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 m-^, vide s. 9, and s. 19, IL tp-^ «3 is variously explained. The LXX. and other Greek interpreters render it irti^ipsto, moved over the waters. The Chaldaic, Samaritan, and both the Arabic versions, render it blew over the waters. Others render it, to make warm, cakfacere, (to vivify;) because it is applied to the hatching of eggs by warmth, Deut. xxxii. II. 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, seg. 1. Introductory remarks upon the question, What is here meant hy 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, (i) 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 difii- 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 1 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 o*dn through the whole description, periods of indefinite length ; or thd^ prolong each day into a roon 178 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Btious 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 tliis whole description of the creation, we must conceive of six separate ^ic/ures, 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 maybe 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 Jo 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, arid 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 7io more be commingled and united in one mass, (Diod. Sic. 1, 7,) as they were o:i 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 lover 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 kind. The naturalist may indeed object, that il is incredible that plants should spring from the earth before the appearance of the sun; but il 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 -xnd plant to-day because we expect that to-mor-nw and on the succeeding days there •••.ill be v'«a- 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. II — 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. Tiie little moon is represented as, next to the sun, the greatest light, because it apj)ears so to us. A painter would justly be accused of a fault, if he should otherwise represent it. H«« must represent it as it ap|)ears 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 Moses describes the birds as formed from the waters, is without foundation. Sixth picture ,■ ver. 24 — 3 1 . The inhabitants of the dry land are now produced, after every- thing is properly prepared for them, and provi- 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 dwciling 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'n work, (ver. 8.) In some MSS. of the Septua- gint, the formula is here introduced, but it is wanting in others. Zachariii. conjectures (Bibl. th. ii. s. 31, 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 b« WORKS OF GOD. 179 fiiat introduced at the end of ver. 10, before the words, "and God saw that it was ^ood ;" 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. (6) 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 boasts in ver. 2G. Michaelis and Eichhorn well observe here, that it answers the purpose of a pause, before the transition is made from the in- ferior creation, here completed, to the production zi 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. 0. 3j\-n is translated by Luther, Veste, because the Vulgate \\2iS firmamentiim, which is a translation of the atipii^/xa of the LXX. j-pi, the root of this word, signifies, to stamp (with tlie feet), Ezek. vi. 11 ; xxv. fi ; and hence, to spread out, to expand, to hammer out, to tread Old, {calcando cxpandere.") Moses and the other sacred writers always use this term to denote the heavens — das GewiJlbe, 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. pp-\ there denotes ihe Jloor of the throne of God in heaven. God, the Ruler and Judgfe, 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, xpvascfi iv SarttScj, (upon a golden floor;) 11. 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 p^ii-i for a covering, is frequently called the footstool of God. By 5,'if)-i is meant («) the atmosphere, which bears the rainy and stormy clouds: also (h) whatever is still above them — all that the eye can see over us in the heavens. In the immeasurable distance of the blue sky, liigh 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 i'^ii, heaven,'''' it is as much ag 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. Nuh is the generic name for everything which grows out of the earth — the green plant, yjj is the specific name for trees and arboreous plants. 3U"j? stands for the herb and lesser plants. j,nr 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. H. The usefulness of the heavenly bo- dies to the earth and to men is here stated. The word PIN, sig7i, signifies a mark for the division of time. The sun and stars are intended to de- termine the times, (□■'-'yic,) the days, and the years. onriD 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 DiiyiD are said to be determined by the moon, because tliey are defined by her mo- tion : — " He created the moon for the computa- tion of time." Ver. 20. inuS wehende Thiere, (moving crea- tures,) Luther. I'-iU' 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. B^crn "'J"."'?i', not supra caelum, but to heaven, to- wards heaven, heavenwards ; as the flight of birds appears to the eye. Ver. 21. D-'rjn, Wallfische (whales), Luther, because the LXX. have x-i^trp and the Vulgate ceti. But these words signify all great fishes, pisces cetacei. 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, ron 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. •\-^^ 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) nrnp, the larger kind of tame, domestic ani- mals, when opposed to rrn. (i) fsn, the smaller kind of tame animals, (c) I'-TX-in^n, the wild beast. 160 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. ARTICLE VL or Tins 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 conJilibn, 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^reserm- tion and propagation of the human race. I. The Nature of Man. 1 . Of hoiv many parts does inari conaist ? 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, bodi/,soul, and spirit. This opinion had its ori- gin in the cabalistic and Platonic philosophy. The cabalists divided the iiuman soul into ro: (life, anima vegetiva), nn (the sensitive soul, anima sensitivu), and ncc'j, (tlie 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 07ie 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 wiiole man into tliree 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 Cliristian theologians and pliilosophers who believe that man consists of three essential parts differing from each other, sometimes appeal to scripture in behalf of theii 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, "Tliat your spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless to the coming of Christ;" also Il.-b. iv. 12. The first who asserted this opinion i:i modern times was Theophrastus Paracelsus, who was followed by Jacob Boehmen, Weigel, and other theosopliists; also by Andr. Riidiger in his Fhysica 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) Thali in most of those cited, rtvivfia and -^vxri are sy- nonymous ; as in Isaiah and Luke ; also in Ileb. 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. (6) 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 probal)ility is, that he meant to distinguish rti'ivfxa and vr;^^ ; not meaning, however, by any means, to imply that man consists of three essential parts; but only to distinguish 7tvBv/xa and ■^vxri as two different powers of one substance. This the Hebrews and Grecian Jews frequently did. By Ttvivfia, and nn, they often meant, the supe- rior faculties of the soul, the reason ,- and by ■^vxr and V2i the sensual part, which we possess in common with the brutes — the desires, Similich' keit; Ps. cxxxi. 2, seq. Josephus says. Arch, i. 1., '¥.Tl>.ariiv o ©soj ai'^purtof, ;^oii' drto irfi yjjj "Ka^Cnv, xa.1 rtvtvjxa tvr^xsv ait a xal ■^X^t"' Philo and the New-Testament writers frequent- ly use ■^x^ and ■^x''''"^ i" ^'''^ sense. Vide Jude, ver. It). [iVt'/f. — The theory according to which man is divided into two parts is called dichotomy; that by which lie is divided into three parts, /;•/- chotomy. The latter of these, so rare at the pre- sent day, was the prevailing theory with the early fathers. Vide Tatian, Orat. ad Graecos, p. 151, seq. ; Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. v. G, 7, 9 ; Ori- gen, Ttfpi dp;^il»', iii. 4 ; Nemesius, De Nat. Horn, c. 1. It was indeed opposed by Tertullian, and other writers of the Western church; but itwaa still believed by many distinguished Christian teachers. Trichotomy is chargeable not only upon Paracelsus, Boehmen, Weigel, and oMier WORKS OF GOD ISi theosophists, but 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: — (u iffto av^ptortoj) (o J'|co ai'^pwrto^) 1. 2. I 3. SriRIT, (Geist, rii'cC/ia) SoVL,QpvXfl) BoDT,(roj ai-^urtoj ix y^j, xoixoi. Eve was formed afterwards, and from Adam, Genesis, ii. 18, seq.; 1 Cor. xi. 8, ywri t| avSpoj. Some modern investigators of nature have supposed that the distinction found between the races of men cannot be accounted for on the supposition tliat llicy all have proceeded- from one stock. Tlicy 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 thf variety which is perceived among the differen- races of men is what they will not allow. Biv others affirm that all the arguments adduced ii 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 uiu die Welt," s. 226—254; Berlin, 1783. Also Kant, Ueber die verschiedenen Racen der Menschen; K6- nigsberg, 1775, 4to; Blumenbach, De generis humani varietate nativa; Gottingai, 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 eluded from the rights and privileges of frater- nity in the human family. Lactanlius has well said, (Div. Inst. v. 10,) Si ab una homine, quern Dens finxii, omnes orimur, eerie consanguinei SUMUS ; ct idea maximum scelus putandum est, odisse hominem vel nocente.m. 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 Alterthuin;" Berlin, 1821. There is one physiological argument, which, it would seem, must be conclusive against the supposition that the negro belongs wholly to j iifferent kind frora (VORKS 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 b>-ethren, bearing with us something of the imago 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. INIost 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 '■'■ PraEadamits.''' He pretended to find his Prajadamites 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 griechischcn 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. Tlie 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 kinguage 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 D^nSx, in another, by the name nini, and in a third, by the combined name DinSx nin\ 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, Gsiesis, i. 26—30. Here, and in other parts of the histor}^ 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. niN, in the first chapter, is not z proper, but a collective noun — maii. 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, ijrin-'3 ijrSi'3, should not be distinguished as they have sometimes been. The two words thus collocated signify, an exact or a very similar q2 186 CHRISTIAN THEOLUGV. image; as chap. v. 1, 3. The primary sig- nification of D^v is, a shadow, as Psalm xxxix. 7 ; then, a shndoicy image, a likeness. In what this divine likeness consists, — whether simply in the dominion over the rest of the creation, menl.oned 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, Gud blessed them, (ver. 28,) is to be un- derstood as above, in ver. 22 ; he gave them fritilf Illness, the poioer tn propagate their species. The fruits of the tree and of the field, and not ihejlesh 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. G — 9. The same trait recurs in the description which the Greeks give of the Saturnian age. Vide Plutarch, rcipl crapzo(j)aytaj. Ovid, too, de- scribes the vetus aurea xtas as happy fa:tibiis arborcis et hcrbis ; nccpoUuit ora criiore. 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 ephhet divine, and describes it as a gift of the gods. The Caribeans at th« present day eat flesh without salt. 2. Observations on the second account. Genesis, ii. 4—21. (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," nmNn'iD ^c>* — 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 describedeath they said, ij? ^Vii' "^cj;, 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. Hero again the description is rendered natural and probable from the analogy of the human body when first deprived of life. The form and 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 farmed under the plastic hand of the Artist; and the breath of life was not imbreathed until it was finished. In these two respects there is 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 nis is here not only the common appel- lative for man, but also the proper distinguish- ing name of the Jirst man. The first man is called, by way of eminence, the man. The word is not derived from •::-Mi,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 tlie Rabbins and Josephus (Antiq. i. 1) suggest.) It is rather derived from nr-'X, the earth, and so describes man as earthborn, yr;yivr;i. Plato says, in his Polilicus, Ex yrji yap avtjituia- xovto Ttdvttc. "And he breathed into his nostrils the bieath of life," D^in pr:^'i v"N3 nr>i. God vivified the pre- viously lifeless body of man. Breath is the most obvious and certain indicationof 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 saic to breath out his breath, or to breathe it into them When he causes them to die, he is said to tak^ 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. 137 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- sance of the senses. Cf. the remarks on nn, s. 51, I. n^n B'BJ, is, a living creature, or being. (J)') 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, (jjn -\>r^i.') 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, arhores saluiares, 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 mmediate 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 itthou shaltdie." 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 trees 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 rf 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 disnc scere rectum, Ep. ii. 2, 44,) always signifies in tiie ancient languages to be or become irisc, to acquire judgment. So frequently in Homer — e. g., Odys. xviii. 227, 228; xx. 309, 310. Cf. Rook ii. s. 75. (c) In ver. 19, 20, we have the following points — viz., (tt) Adam lived at first among the bensts ; 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 re])respntaUon 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, tliey are tame and unsuspicious, though elsewhere known as wild and timid. Cook describes tlie 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 tlirough 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." 0/ 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 sometiinrs 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 iEsop 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, roan did not find among them all a companion for himself. His inn.Ue propensity to the social and conjugal state was thus more strongly ex- cited ; ver. 13, 20, ad finem. " Man only," it is said, "had not as yet nua nry." -\vj signifies, properly, an assistant, companion ; as Ezekiel, xii. 11. njj3 is rendered by Luther, die um ihn wiirc; in English version, meet for him ; Sept. xat' ai'Tov and ouotoj avT'y. (d) Creation of the wife of Adam, ver. 21 — 24. This passage has greatly perplexed com- mentitors, who have undertaken to reconcile it with the notions of modern limes, with which it does not at all agree. Eichhorn (p. 182, 183 of the work above 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 Zacharii, 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 w^oman 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. IG — 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 tlie 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. ySx in this place does not signify rib, hfitside, half, as com* monly in Hebrew and Arabic — e. g., Exod xxvi. 26, 27, 35, seq. Sept, TtXfvpa— " 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, wiihout waking at the time, we have a sort of percep- tion, which we obscurely recollect when after- wards awake, cyrn rsr, 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., n-.-x (like the vira of the ancient Latins,) because she was formed from man, (u'^x.) When afterwards she had borne a child, he called her name mn, because she then became the mother of the human race, (TrSa dn;) Gen. iii. 20. In ver. 21, 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 j^ y^a^ri is to be supplied before f?rtE, 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 fatlier 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 cyMeA. paradise, rtapaSatoroj, (cf. Morns, 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 Din:;,) 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, (Econ. iv. 13. The name o^ paradise was afterwards given to the abode of the bless- ed ; but the original abode of man was calle*' by this name, by way of eminence, after the example of the LXX., by Sirach, Josephus, Philo <4nd other Grecian Jews. WORKS OF GOD. 18f The description of the garden is given, Gen. ii. 8 — 15. Eden was not the name of paradise itseif, but paradise was a spot in the extensive territo'v 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 (o-^d) and Tigris (Spin) to Aras or Araxes, (jic'iv', which rises in Armenia and flows into the Cas- pian Sea,) and Oxus (jinu), 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 Eible, 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 filtesten Erd-und Menschengeschichte," endea- voured to pi'ive 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 suflicicMtly 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. 34, Vv'here a renewal after the image of God is mentioned ; which is understood to mean arestoraiion of this image, implying that man must have lost it ; also 2 Cor. xi. 3. Against this common opinion it may be 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 .lames, iii. 0, " With the tongue we curse men, who are made after the si- militude of God;'"' also 1 Cor. xi. G. 7, di-w — • sixdtv — 0£oij vTtdp^^uv. Here also belongs the passage often cited in behalf of the opposite opi- nion, Gen. v. 1 — 3, where it is said, that Goo created man in his own ima^e ; 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 havt had the same image of God, whatsver ii was, which Adam possessed. This phrase, then, evidently, is not always used in cTie same sensn in the Bible. And the fault of interpreters ann theologians has been, that they have overlooTfsc; the different meanings In which this phrase ib used, and have selected one only, wnich tr*^y have endeavoured to elicit from ah the texis in which the phrase occurs. As to the question, in w^jat consists that ex- cellence of man, denoted oy the phrase, the image of God, we find, 1. Even the oldest Cnristian writers, the ec- clesiastical fathers, were very much divided. This is acknov/ledged by Gregory of Nyssa, in an Essay devoted to this subject. Theodorct confesses, that he is not able to determine ex- actly in what this image consisted, Quasst. ix. 190 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. in Genesin. Kpiphanius thinks that the thing cannnt be determined, H»res. 30. Tertullian placed it in the innate powers and faculties of the human soul, especially in the freedom of choice bftwcen good and evil, Adv. ]Marc. ii. 5, G. Philo placed it in the vovi, the rational soul, and associated with tiiis i)lirase his Platonic notions respecting the original ideas in the divine mind (Xoyoj), 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 rtcij iv^fuTloi xato. fiiv iriv hidvoiav ^iXftwrai ©fio Xdy9, tr^i /.laxapia^ ijjv^fwj ix/xayiiov, rj artodTtaa/xa r arcavyaiuot ysyoi'toj. Origen, (Ilfpt dp;xuii', iii. (■),) Gregory of Nyssa, and Leo the Great, were of tin; 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- inortaliiy 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 citncHs ho)ninibus imago Dei pcrmaneat" Ep. ad Joannem, in 0pp. Hieronymi, t. i. Most of the Grecian and Latin fathers distinguish between imago and simililudo Dei. By the image of God, they say, is meant the original constitution {Jrilage) ^the innate powers and faculties (potentia iia- turalis, Scholast.) of the human soul. By the siinililudc 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 vovu 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 of 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 i\\e foundation or source of those excellences in which it does more properly consist. (fe) Others find it in the dominion of man over ail 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 ive 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 ccrtior notilia Dei ct prohilas. Theologians define it, jus/<7ta ori- ginulis sive sanctitas, original uprightness or holiness. {d) 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; insignia dignitas ac prsestanlia 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 .ou ^aiaro,- iiari%'^iv ti^ t'ov xoafiov rtftpa- ^ovji 6i av-C'jv ol tr^i exsivov /.ispuSoi bvts^, 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 u^vatoc are always synonymous in his writings. (b) Dominion over the earth. Book of W^is- 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 oaiotrj^xai Sixat.0- Bvvi] xai ii^vf/;^ ■^v%r^i in which the first men lived upon the earth and ruled over it. These n'loral 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, (fl) In reference to the general exaltation, dignity, and dominion of man: — e. g., 1 Cor. xi. 7 ; James, iii. 9. (i) In reference to the moral perfections of man, exactly as it is used 9y 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; Uiey are entireVy similar in phraseology, and terfectly 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, (yfal^atoj dii'^pcortoj;) 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 ava.xai-vovjXivoi;, 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. Etj £rtiy;'t)'TU' should be construed with xtlaavtoi a{i-ro»', to the knowledge of God — !. e., this A ?• position is produced in you to enable you to at- tain to the knowledge of God and of h'-s will — a living and saving knowledge. Kri^sn/. to erc' ate anew, transform — i. e., entirely ta change and improve ; continuing the figure derived from the new man. Kar' lixova ®iov — i. e., a. -cord- ing to Ephes. iv. 24, xara @s6v, after the pattern or likeness of God — :. 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 Eidies. iv. 24, where Paul says that this reformed charac- ter, bearing the divine likeness, consists sv Sixawaivrj (piety), xai oaiotrjtt, tr,? a%rj^(Lai — (i. e., aXrj^lvrj,) 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 (oftoiwotj) to God is, "6(,';tatoi' xai oaiov fjLi-ia ^pov-/ja£uf yeVfO^at." 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 ccelestium ordinem contemplanles imita- rentur cum vitaj 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 beUeve 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 aTCKo-t-ctoi tr^^ sij X-piaroi/ — i. e., sim- plicitas, sincerity, purity ,• here, pure love to Christ, true and sincere dependence upon him like what innocent children feel towards thei» parents and benefactors. Again ; we compare men with God in respec y03 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. to all the excellences which we observe in them, and which we conceive ttiat he also |)ossesses, 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 Gnd, or are lilce 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 («) 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 imaore of God, Deo stmt 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 becomt 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. Xote. — 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. huhilm infusi i) but only as capacities and fa- culties fo; those excellences which, by practice and exercise, he may come to possess. The human soul resembles in this respect an unwrit- ten loaf, (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. 'Hiey are naturales ; united with human nature, ana wrought into it by God ; and op- posed (a) to perfectiones essentialcs, because man can be conceived to exist v.ithouc them, and would remain man though desti',ate of them; and (6"^ to perfectiones super tddi',{ 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 sindliludo cum Deo as opposed to the status purorum nuturalium, in which man was without the knowledge or love of God ; and therefore as a djntim super natur ale, 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 ba transmitted to the posterity of our first parents, so long as the conditions prescribed by GcJ. should be fulfilled. SECTION LIV. OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN; HIS MENTAI AND MORAL PERFECTIONS. The excellences which man possessed in his original condition are generally divided into two classes; (a) Internal, 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 I'rom the relation to the rest of tht creation in which he was placed by God; hV. dominion over the other creatures of the eartf., his title to use them for his own advantaj^*, &c. — imago Dei sensu latiori ; s. 5G. We shill 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 trti-'yi'w^'S one of the things in which our likeness to God consisted; Col. iii. 10, cf. s. 53; since holiness and blamelossness, 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 fincm. WORKS OF GOD 199 In what the knowledge of our first parents eonsisted 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 Mose's does not represent Adam as in all respects resembling a new-born nliild. As to o'shial 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 cieated man, according to the Mosaic account, not only endued with reason, but able to exercise il 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 fiom 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 yei 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 ihem to a full development, were, according to Moses, of two kinds. (fl) Indirect, — the external objects by which man was surrounded. Jlnimate creatures, being more nearly related to him than the inanimate creation, were the first objects which attracted his attention and excited his curiosity. Tiiat 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 — s pretension which has been ably refuted by Schultens. The Jews think they can discovei 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. (b) 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. "VTde 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 U9 believe, it would be highly improbable, and tho 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 nnd faculties of our first parents, as long as the oa'pl and rtvev/xa, 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," Stiick 1, of his philosophical and theological Essays ; Niirnberg, 1779, 8vo. II. Original Excellences of the Human Will. They consist chiefly in the order and re'gu- 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 childr .n 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 tc 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 (ctapl) over reason (rtvfii^a.) 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 (ai'a^aptJj'Ji-'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 kolin'iss (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 diclam, also justitiam originalem, the last of which is used in the Apol. Augsb. Confession. \'i(le Morus, p. 105, Not. ad. s. 23. Of the same import ia the phrase iv^v^:r,i■^xr,i^ which occurs. Book of Wisdom, ix. 3 (s. 53) ; and also iwrr^ij and aix7Mtr^i, 2 Cor. xi. 3. Ev^v'j corresponds with the Hebrew -\t'\honcst, upright, virtuous i and is used with particular reference to the text,. Eccles. vii. 29, " God made man upriglit; 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 he 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 vvhicii he was placed, was still very small, and his actual knowledge very limited; but the more feeble and imperfect these are, tlie more imperfect, necessarily, must be that virtue which depends upon them. There is a great difference between tiie innocence of ciiildhood, and the virtue which is grounded upon the mure 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 the'r transgression of the divine command could bo imputed to them. We should avoid, therefore, the other mistake of representing them as en- tirely ignorant. Vide INIorus, s. 8, 22. Ifthev 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« ties to the Ephesians and Colossians. WORKS OF GOD. 195 SECTION LV. aV THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN ; HIS BODILY EXCELLENCES, AND SPEECH. 1. Original Excellences of the Human Body. 1. The superiority of our first parents over their posterity in tliis 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', 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- ful ness, 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 )'et 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 r3ook 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, ox immortalitus 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 tiie gods as partaking oi 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. Hom. 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 ?;i 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. ,",/. 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-^pccrtos ix y^j ;^olx6j (so-fi.)." But we cannot attain to certainly 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. 51.11. 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. Jlgri- 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 taster than any othei to progressive improvement. 196 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGV. II. Original Language of Man. Speech is the great cliaracterislic 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 PufTendorf, Jus naturae et gentium, 1. iv. c. 1 , s. 3, and Mai- ler, Positiones, historico-philosoph. de origine sermonis; Argentorati, 1777. Thi^ subject has been often discussed in modern limes, 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 janguage, 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 mmlern times is Joh. Pet. Siissmilch, 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, 170G, 8vo. But, («) 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 BuflTered 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- teeding from these, have formed so many and such different langua^'es. According to thij supposition, then, a great miracle would have been wrought in behalf of our first parents, from which none of their posterity had reaped lh«i least advantage. This is not according to thi manner of God in his other works. (i) The supposition that the original lan- guage of man was copious and finislied, over- looks the fact that langu;!ge cannot bo such where objects and ideas arf 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. IIow, then, could there be a perfecj language in that simplicity of human life in which there were but few objects to be seen or compared? 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 \ 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 l^nown 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 innatt 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 imaginei iimalns, sive si<^na innata ideariim de rebus. The Bible makes no mention of any such ; on the contrary, it teaches that one way in which WORKS OF GOD. 191 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 not 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 ???anner in which man pro- ceeded in the development and improvement of his faculties of speech. The strangest conjecture on this point is that of Mauperlius, 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 infJexions. 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 Ike ammals. 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- •r, (messenger, ambassador,) ^'' v'^'it'c, ijisn ^'cy, 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 thej S04 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. were regarded as spt'rt'ts, 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 Abraliam, 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 tlial 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 if 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 appjied to things of the material world by the Hebrews, especially in their poetic writings. Vide P«, lxxviii.4'J; civ. 4 (wind and lightning), coll. Pa cxlviii. 8, (cf. Morus, p. 89, Not. ad. s. G;) 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 tliose in heaven and those on earth, angels are always enumerated with the stars, as behmg- ing to the former class. So Ps. cxlviii. 1 — G, coll. ver. 7 — 13. 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 lifc; 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 foi 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 ri-'r, 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 ancrels 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"? "Regierung der ISIorgenlander ;" Altona, 175C, 4to. 3. The servants of princes are accustomed t« WORKS OF GOD. 205 give a-^ount to their superiors of the state of the provinces over which they have charge, and of the good or ill conduct cf 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. ..xxviii. 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 had 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 scazcj Satfoov, 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 cf 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. W^e 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 o^ 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 afterwards 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 8 906 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. they dri not ngAn appear in the history of the J«\vs Iji'C.ire tlie Babylonian exile ; at which time, and shortly afterwards, they are once more introduced. Sliorlly before the birth of John the IJaptist, angels were a; ayytxoii, (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, H. 1. Another name given to angels, besides these and others which are derived from their office and employment, is, dti'^n •'J3, children if 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 joyV Here, indeed, it may be objected, that sans 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 so?is 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 tcelestis. Cf. Ephes. iii. 15, and Heb. xii. 22, 83, 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 airiSx. That this title may he 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 dtiSs, by oyyE>/)t, in some texts of the Old Testament, where, however, the context does not make this rendering absolutely necessary. The texts ".ited are Ps. viii. 6, and xcvii. 7, in both of which the criginal avi'^s is rendered by the LXX. &yys\oi — a rendering which is approved and retained by Paul, Heb. i, 6, and ii. 7. I am at present in- cliiied 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 wliich 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, honiinihus 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, ilia eminentix, 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 (^Ttviifiata ;) Heb. i. 14, rti'ivf-iata "Kntovpyixu. And the at- tributes which belong to spirits — understanding and will, are frequently ascribed to them — e. g., Luke, XV. 10; James, ii. 19. JYote. — 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 h 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 havo one, must be very unlike the hum^i 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, Irenasus, Athen- agoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Auorustine. They appear to have entertained about the same notion of the bodies of angels as the Greeks had of the bodies of their go^'s^ Vide Homer, II. v. 339—342. Justin the Mar- tyr, (Dial, cum Tryph. Jud. c. 57,) and soma others, believed that angels partook of heavenly nourishment, as the gods of the Gr€-;ks partook of nectar and ambrosia; that, like them, the^ 908 CHRISTIAM THEOLOGY. could at choice become visible or invisible to *ien, &c. The latter opinion is quite ancient, as appears from the account of Ba-laam in Num. xxii. 22 — 34, and from the representation of Horner, in tlie Odyss. xvi. 160, seq., where Minerva is visible to Ulysses, and not to Tele- machus — Oi yap rru) mivrcaai Stoi ipahovrai ivapyu^^ The ass, however, in the one case, iuid the dogs in the other, perceived the apparition, and were frightened. So again in t^ie Iliad ». 198, Achilles beheld Minerva, who stood befor.^'. him, Xuv 8' aXh^v ovftj opftT'o. At tlie second Nicene Council, in tho \ear 787, it was established as a doctrine of ti^A oa- tholic church, that angels have a thin bodv of fire or air. Afterwards, however, Peter of J.n the New Testament. In Matt. xxii. 30, Chript expressly and designedly professes his belief n <.he existence of angels, in the presence of tho Sadducees; also in Matt. viii. 28 — 34. Paul, *C'0, as is very clear from his writings, believed in the real existence of angels, and re- tained «<;;(? sanctioned, as a Christian and an apostle, M'^ny opinions on this subject which he had lerrred in the schools of the Pharisees. Thus, for ri'.nm pie, both he and Stephen (Acts, vii. 53) heH, in common with the Pharisees, that the Metric law was given through the ministry of ingels. Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2. And he laboris through the whole of the first two chapters cf the epistle to the Hebrews to «>rove that Jesuit Christ was superior to the an- ^pIs, and a mesr.»nijer of God of a more exalted ch-xracter than thty. His meaning cannot be, a*^ some have stra»igely supposed, that Christ WPP superior to belnfs whom lie supposed to exi'5» merely in the fancy of the Jews. He has so Jn'orwoven the theory of the Pharisees with his ov» instructions cu this subject, as plainly to sh.T'' that while ho did not countenance those Alulous represenlaV'ons, with which he must cn'^.'nly have beei- .vyjainted, in their schools, S- yet regarded th.v. .lo'itrine as essen- tially true. IV. The k\ Ki'ion of Angels,- lUeir Perfections, and Number. 1. The B;1\> teaches us noM.'pg definitely respecting th." < rgin of angels. I3'i» when it represents all ♦! invs as coming uot God, it must clearly be n-\l-^rstood to imnly thi' angels also derive tlieir evi-*».nce from him. Pa-i' sava expressly. Col. i. ?f\ "God made all tbipps*. visible and invisible. Their creation is not indeed, mentioned by \W.es in !iis account o* the creation. And a? ht undertakes to describe the creation of only the jr:''i'e world, their crea tion did not come within ♦Se compass of hi* plan. Vide s. 49. The question has been as\ '•d. On xvhich da}. (f the creation were the 071!-;^^^ made? and ai least an historical view of the opinions enter- tained on this subject must lie^o be exhibited, (flr) Some have held, that the ^nv Is were cre- ated before the visible world, ^^no iliat this is the reason why Moses does not mppjcn them. Of this opinion were Origen, Chrysos»oi.i. Hie- ronymus, John of Damascus, and others .niionc tlie ancients; and among the moderns- vlf.il mann, Michaelis, and others, {b) Others h*,!it that angels were created after man, because th« WORKS OF GOD. 30» 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 Scliubert 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, o 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 11. and Morus, p. 86, s. 9. Their inteUedual poujcrs must be greater than our own; they must pos sess more strength of thought and clearness of conception. Their moral 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 angelic powers and excellences. From the fact that men have a state of probation (^status gratias) 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 glorix,) we conclude, that the case is the same with regard to angels. The New Testament says nothing expressly respect- ing the perfections of angels, except that they possess greater strength and power than men ; 2 Pet. ii. 11, ic(;^i;t xai 8vva.jxii fiii^ovii. Hence the phrase ayyiJMi Swd/xsi^i, 2 Thess. i. 7. Hence also the word oyycXo^ is used adjectively, like ©foj, to denote the excellence of a thing; 9 Sam. xiv. 17, 20, the wisdom of angels; Ps. Ixxviii. 25, the food of angels,- Acts, vi. 15, the face of angels. 3. The number of the angels is by some re- presented as very great; and they justify this representation by arguments a priori. God has made, they say, a great number of creatures of all the different kinds, even in the material world; and it is therefore just to suppose that in the more exalted sphere of spirit the creatures of his power are still more numerous. And, indeed, the Bible always describes God as sur- rounded by a great multitude of heavenly ser- vants. Vide Dan. vii. 10 ; Ps. Ixviii. 17 ; Jude, 27 ver. 14; Matt. xxvi. 53. Cf. s. 58, and Morus, p. 89, note. V. Dirision of Angels. Angels are divided into good^nA evil in refer- ence to their moral condition. There is no dis- tinct mention oi apostate angels in the Bible be- fore the Babylonian captivity ; though from this silence it does not follow that the idea of them was wholly unknown to the ancient Hebrews. Vide s. 58, l\. 3. Tiiis idea, however, even if it had before existed, was more distinctly re- vealed and developed at the time of the exile, and afterwards. It was sanctioned by Christ and the apostles, and constituted a part of their faith, as really as it did of the faith of the Jews who were contemporary with them. The name, evil or bad angels, was taken from Ps. Ixxviii. 49, the only passage in which it occurs in the Bible; though even in this passage it does not denote disobedient angels, evil in a moral re- spect; for in this sense tiie phrase evil angels is never used in the Bible; nor, on the contrary, is the phrase good angels ever used to denote those who are morally good, though indeed they are sometimes called holy in this sense. But although this term is not derived from the sacred writers, but from the schoolmen, it should unquestionably be retained, since the meaning it conveys is wholly accordant with the doctrine of the Bible. The term aiigel is applied in the Bible to evil spirits only in reference to their former state, when they were still the servants of God. Vide 2 Pet. ii. 4. Since they have apostatized, they can no more, strictly speaking, be denominated his angels — i. e., servants, mes- sengers. On the contrary, they are called in the Bible, ayyf^^oi, toi biafSo^ov, or 'tov Sararo, Matt. XXV. 41, Rev. xii. 9. The phrase, bad or unclean spirits (not a7igels,) occurs frequently in the New Testament, especially in the writings of Luke. Paul, too, uses the phrase Tivivfiatixa tr.^ rtoi'jjpiaf, Eph. vi. 12. Whenever the term ot dyytTioc 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 6ta(3o7toj. We proceed now to considei these two classes more particularly. CHAPTER I. THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY ANGELS. SECTION LX. OF THE PRESENT STATE AND EMPLOYMENT Ot HOLY ANGELS. I. Their Present State. 1. Angels are properly regarded, according to the general remarks, s. 59, IV. 2, as beinga possessing great intellectual excellence — intelli- s8 SIO CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. gcuce, 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 docs not imply that God needed their council; but ratlicr, 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. 30, the angels of God are said not to know the hour of the destruction of Jerusalem. 1 Pet. i. 12, ftj 2. They are also described as possessing great moral perfection, which is called their holi- ness. Tiius they are sometimes called aytot, in opposition to axd'^apror also IxXextoi, Deo pro- bat i, elect, 1 Tim. v. 21. Hence they take their greatest pleasure in witnessing and promoting integrity and virtue. In Luke, xv. 10, tiiey 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 loisdom 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 blessedn»^js of which we shall hereafter be partakers, they do it by saying, that we shall then he like the angels of God ; irsdyyiXoi, Luke, xx. 3G. 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 tviti?i to do so. Still to sin must he 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 he in more than one place at the same time? Whether more than one angel could be in the same place at the same time! Whether they spake the Hebrew lan- guage, or what language was meant by the yXidcrcrai. ayytTicoi', 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 thoy 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. (rt) 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 surficient for us to know that we are watched over and provided for by the providence WORKS OF GOD. 211 of God, and thit his angels are employed in our Ijehalf; 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 jierformed. (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. iNIoreover, 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. 58, 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 representation^ 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 genera] 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 (t''?u ^nSd) men- tioned Job, xxxiii. 23, as promoting the virtue of man, and interceding for him when he lies desperatel}' 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^^oi' dyyt'Xcoi' @iov. And C'nSN-''J3, Tioi &(ov. Gen. vi. 2, is rendered by Philo and Josephus ayysTioc ®£ov. 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 cf Jonathan on Gen. xi. and Deut. xxxii. This idea was the source of many othei 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 dyyt^oj avtov isTiiv. 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 (^(xpdiv) 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 913 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. mean, those who guard and preserve them when- ever and wherever occasion might require; ac- cording to Heb. i. 11 ; 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 fiixpoi, which primarily signifies r/i/'Wren, means also Ihose 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 overparticular kingdoms of the earth by Clement of Alexandria, (Strom, b. 7,) Origen, (Contra Cels. b. 4 and 8; also b. 5, 10, 2G, 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, Jamhlicus, Julian, and others. Vide the work of Ode, before cited, s. 779, ff. Much is said respecting the guardian angels of particular men, by Hernias, 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, Jamhlicus, 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 wiilely 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, tluit Jehovali was on Sinai with thousands of angels. We find also in the Septuagint version »' avrov ayytXot fxft' avrcv. This opinion was universally received l)nth among Jews and Christians at the time of the apostles, and sometimes occurs in the New Testament. Heb. ii. 2, §«.' dyytjuov >.aX>;'J>fi5 xdyoj, (i. e., vo^oi.^ Acts, vii. 53 ; Gal. iii. 19, Siarayfij 5t' ayyi-Kutv. Novv, 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 hi dyytJuov rtapa ©foO. 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 Morus, 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 ivhol/y 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. OK THE CLASSES OF GOOD ANGELS ; THEIK NAMES ; AND THE WORSHIP RENDERED THEM. I. Classes of Good Angeh. Angels are described as existing in a society composed of members of unequal dignity, power, and excellence; as having chiefs anii 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 higlier 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, v^'hom he employs as his messengers and agents. Cf. iii. 7. In Dan. x. 13, the appellations pu'sin nu*, and in xii. 1, Snjn ir, are given to Michael. The Grecian Jews rendered this appellation by llie term apjj;ayy£?i.o{, which occurs in the New Testament, Jude, ver. 9, and I Thess. iv. 16, wliere'we are taught that Christ will appear to judge the world ev fu>r-^ apxay/ilov. This term denotes, as the very analogy of language leaches, a ciiief of the angels, one superior to the other angels; like dpjjtfpsti?, (ipx'-^'^(>^'^^,yo^i 'ip;i:tc(D- raycr the invocation of saints and angels is allowed, the great mass of manliind, 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 estal)lished 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 -faTtnvo^iio- ni'vy;, and the ^->r^rixsia ayyb^v of some seditious persons of Jewish feelings. But TaTietio^pooivy} and ^prjnxHa oyyhMv here signify humility and worship, like that of angels, to which these per- sons pretended; like ao^ia. ayyi>Mv. Vide s. 59, iv. 2, ad finem. It is synonymous with i^sxo^pr^t^xfla, 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- came 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- sum, 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 din^ctly defended it, nor is it now defended in the Romish church. The Trent Catechism con- tains the doctrine, .Ingclns pro iis provinciis pre* ces fiinderc quibus prorsunt ; and the Romish church teaches, that It is proper to pray to angela WORKS OF GOD. 21!l for holiness, and to seek their intercession ?n articulo monis. Vide Jo. Himmelius, De Na- tura Vers ac Religiosaj Invocationis, Contra Bartho'.d.; 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 FA.LLEN ANGELS, OR EVIL SPIRITS. SECTION LXII. OF THK 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 Diaboli, &c., Ed. 2; Tubinga-, 1780, 8vo — a work in which the existence, condition, power, agency, fcc, if evil spirits are considered, and in which the r^ommon doctrine is defended ; and, on the 9thpr side, the work " Versuch einer biblischen Damonologie, oder Untersuchung der Lehre vom Teufel und 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 .Tews 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 bv 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 indef d 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 untruei 216 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 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- ^y of the sacred writers and of the Eastern phi- losophers. According to the latter, the two nrinciples 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 Ademonids. 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: " Quffi de angelis et diemonibus tarn in s. scriptura quam hisloria 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, l)ut some mode of moral evil. This system is well expressed by Ammon when he says, " Acquiescamus non tarn in cxisttntia et faeti's, quam nolione Satance," Sum. Theol. Christ, p. 105. Tlie 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 foi any advantages with which it may be connect- ed— pcrtinacia in damnum propriuiu vel nlicniim ugcndi, absque illecehris carnis, vel mundi, sive glvrix vanx. In the school of Kant, Satan is l/tc iDKA 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 of 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 tiie 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. lOG: "Verisimile est magistrum ilium divinum rectius quidem de demonologia Judaeorum cogitantem, at formulis quibusdanj usum symbolicis, regnum divinum regno dia- bolico oppositum adumbrantibus, quae apud Ju- dajos tunc temporis pervulgatae erant, a disci- pulis suis non satis intellectum fuisse, et ipsam providentiam divinam posteritati doctrinara istam emendendam tradi voluisse." Cf. De Wette, Bib. Dogm. s. 241.— Tb.] 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 tlie errors which prevailed among the Jews, we may be very certain that be would not have spared their belief in the existence and agency of the devil, if he had reganled 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 whes WORKS OF GOD. 317 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 iloes 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 nis 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. 22—31, 43—45; 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 chat 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;) r.nd even mentions the fact that the prince of (his ivorld 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 .Tesus, 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 I But so far is he from either opposing this 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, scq. 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 tliey 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 leach 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 d ^n'orz, 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 hi acts only in view of seeming T ai8 CHRISTIAN THEOLOr.V. good, he must have been made to believe that transijression 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 vi^orld in vvliich 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, tiiis 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 tlie 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, ilie doctrine which relates to them ought not to be omitted in popular instruction. If it is passed l)y, t!ie common people will fall into very erronoDus 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 uninfringeB, and the whole sense of scripture unperverted The following is the simple scriptural view of this subjpct which the religious teacher sliould exhibit: — («) 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, (b) 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 Godi if wicked, citizens of the kingdom of Satan — re- presentations by which the states of moral good- ness and badness are figuratively described. VideMorus, 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 ain had come into the world by Satan. So the Book of Wisdom, ii. 34, 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 oli'ence, that by which he first rebelled against God. On the contrary, they seem to presuppose that he was previously wicked. The passage, .lohn, viii. 41, 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 toii rtarpoj rov 6[a5oXoi) i^tt ;) he was a murderer from the beginning, (flr^purtoxroi'oj dn:' "|);t^?< alluding to the murder of Abel by Cain, Gen. iii.; 1 John, iii. 1'2, and other events,) and remained not in tlie truth, (the knowledge and worship of God, WORKS OF GOD. ?I9 n moral rectitude, or both united ;) the love of (ruth and integrity is not in him ; it is his plea- «ure to speak and propagate falsehood and error, {■to -^ivboi. Rev. xxi. 27; xxii. 15;) for he is the author (rtatrfi) 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, particulaily the Latin fathers, who were followed by many of the schoolmen, and in modern times by Luther, Bnddeus, 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, IL), 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, lilie 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 bb 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 ver"' clearly authorized even in the New Testament, especially in the j)assagps 9 Pet, ii. 4, and Jude, ver. G, 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 (rapraptocraf), where he keeps them in reserve for future punishment, (fij arpi-'crti .)" Still clearer is the parallel text, Jude, ver. G, where we are taught that God keeps enchained (x'rto fd^ov) in Tartarus, reserved for the judg- ment of the great day, the angels tovi /.irj tr;fir- oai'raj tTjV tavtuiv ap^riv, aXTia urtoXLTtoira^ to Ihiov olxtr^fiov. 'Apx^j does not here signify, ikeir original state, but the dominion entrusted to them as governors. T>;pf tv is tueri, coni'crvare, 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. JYote. — 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 they must have been acquainted 1 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 duly? 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 tr)gether, Demonstrations a priori on such subjects are therefore wholly inadmissible. SECTION LXIIL OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF EVIL 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 goo.. 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 ayyfXot avtov. The names devil and Satan are not used in the Bible in the plural, and are applied only to the ap;^u)j' tiiv Sai/xovluiv. 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) Ilvtvfiara dxu^apta — i. e., morally impure and evil ; Luke, xi, 24, et passim. Synony- mous with this is (i) Tivtviiata rtoij^pa, Luke, vii. 21 ; Ephes. vi. 12, •ra Ttviv^atixd tiri Tiovij- pt'aj. (c) Aaufiovti or Sat^torta. 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, (?>foi,'.) 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 (□^':'iSn,) and also in 1 Cor. x. 20, 21, and Rev. ix. 20, where fiat^owa and ftSco^x* 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 Ilia 6a(^di'io, foreign deities. But the name Satjuovfj 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 Sai^woi'tj, 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 Sai^oviov. Whenever this invisible agent was the cause of good to men, it was called aya^8atjU(^i' or ivbai/xuiv ; and when the cause of evil, xazoSai^wv. At the time of Christ and the apostles, Sai/xuiv was a common appellation given by the Grecian Jews to evil t2 933 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. spirit!, those morally so, and indeed by the Apocryphal writers also. Vide Tob. iii. 8, jio»';;i)oj/ baifioviov. In tlie evangelists, the phrases rtvfvjuara axa'^apra and rtoi'^pa are in- terchanged, times without number, with hai- fiovfi and rCfivua bauioi'iov axa^prov. In Matt. xii. -21, baluoi'fi are distinctly mentioned as be- longing to the kingdom of the devil. The woman who is described in Luke, xiii. 11, as ni-fiutt t^cov^a da^a'fi'aj, is said (vcr. IG) to be one rjf tb^r^fv u Sttraioij. Vide s. 61, 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, Sat/iorta has clearly the signification above given. But how came Sat- fiovei to have this peculiar signification among the Grecian Jews? The LXX. usually rendered the Hebrew words which signify idols by the word ha.iflovis^ 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 oi Jupiter, Mercury, &c., and had seduced the heathen into this idolatry. Hence baifiovn; and evil spirits came to be regarded by them as synonymous terms. '2. But one of the evil s])irits is represented as their prince, leader, commander. Vide No. iii., and Morus, p. 91, s. 10. He is called by various names, (a) Satan, pt', Sarai'ttj, lite- rally, enemy, fiend, accuser, Ps. cix. 6; Job, ii. S (s. 58) ; INIatt. xvi. 23 ; and hence, by way of eminence, ^/-/ncfps dxmonum, 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 o aj^^poj and o avribixo^, (h) 'O rto»')jpos, malignus, noxious, the foe of man. This name is frequently given him by John; as 1 John, ii. 13, 14. (c) Ata- ^oXoj is the most common Grecian name of the devil ; and from this word our devil and the German Teiifcl are derived. It signifies ^end, destroyer of peace, calumniator. The LXX. ren- dered the Hebrew pj' by 6ia'3oxoj, Job, i. 6 ; Ps. cix. C. This name was sometimes applied to men, 1 Tim. iii. 11 ; Tit. ii. 3. ((/) BtXi'ax or BfXi'ap, 2 Cor. vi. 15, from Sjj'Sp, compounded of 'S:, net, and Sp, high — i. e., low, abject. It has diflferent senses. In the Old Testament it sometimes signified the under ivorld, the king- dom if 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 Beliall" — i. e.. How can the worship of Christ con- sist with the worship of the devil (idolatry) ? (e) Bff^'f 8ov,3, or BuX^t^ovX, who is eipreaily called ap;^w^ ruu' bai/xoi'Luv, ]\Ialt. xii. 21. 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 Piiilistines. The name when written with final j3, is derived from 3i3r S'3. It most probably means, God (f the flies, Fly-Baal, Deus uverruncus muscaruui, whose office it was to protect his worshi|>per3 from the flies, which were among the greatest plagues of Egypt and Pliilistia. [It corres- ponds with the Greek Ziv^ flrtd^vto;.] Accord- ing to the later Jews, it means dominus crimi- nationls, accuser, complainant, and is synony- mous with 6taj3o7.o{ and Sataiaj, from the Sy- riac 331, wliich signifies criminari. The other form, BffxCfMovX, is derived from Sur Vyo, and is either an intentional alteration of the word into an epithet of disgrace, and so signifies deus ster- coris (Mistgott), from ':'ar, stercus ; or signifies, deus, or prccfectus sepulcri, (as Sut signifies in Chaldaic and Syriac,) dominus inferni, or infc- rorum, o xporoj £;^tjj' rov ^avdtov, Heb. ii. 14. It was at first, then, the name oT the angel nf death, and afterwards of the devil, when he was supposed to be the same person, {f) 'O Spa'xwv o jj-iyai, and o o^tj o (ip;j;aio5. Rev. xii. 9, 13. This appellation a)ight have been given to him from his general character for cunning and de- ceit, (o jt'Kavuiv t7}v olxovixiv/jv,^ But the word ap;^aroj 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 us well as to good spirits. Among these is 'A'suo- Saioj, Asmodi, mentioned in the book of Tobias, iii. 8, also Samuel, .Hzazel, &c. But none of these proper names of evil spirits occur in the New Testament, unless the name of the angel of destruction, 'AjJaSStiv — i. q., 'AtioXXwv, — o ayyiXoi r^{ d,3v)cy(joi), Rev. ix, II, 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 activelr 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 centrry, 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 o^ 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 io 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 someti'mes been carried, is incon- sistent with human/reeJoOT. 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 sin;') and sin, when it is brougiit 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. {b) That he contributes something to the sins which pre- vail among men — e. g., 1 Cor. vii. 5, where Satan is distinguished from axfaoia-, incontinence, to which he is said to tempt men; from which it is clears 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 huw much it may have been. So thought Origen {rctpi ap;^u(i', 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 li'e. (,3) They often furnished a real hindrance to M4 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. moral improvement; for instead of seeking for the orijrin of sin in themselves, and endeavour- ing to stop its sources, — instead of becoming acquainted with, and avoiding the external oc- ca'--ions 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 cf 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; I 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 " OpusculaTheologica ;" Jenae*1789, 8vo. ToUner, Theol. Untersuchungen, th. i. st. 2, ' Die Lehre von den Versuchungen des Teufels ist nicht praktisch." Range, Man muss auch dem Teufel nicht zu viel aufbiirden; Bremen, 177G, 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 .Tews respecting evil spirits, and wiiich has been adopted and authorized by the writers of the New Testament, is, that they are the authors and promoters nf evil amon;p, ienebrx, Homer, Od. ix. 144; Virgil, acre sepsil) — i. e., of the heathen world, darkened by ignorance and error. Cf. Eph. vi. 12, ot xoaixoxpdiopai; tov axorov; iov aiuivoj tovtov. To the former passage the apostle subjoins the declaration that evil spirits were tvipyovvfsi iv viol; ■r^j urcti^eiai, and in ver. 3 mentions al irti^vixuai, -rrj^ oapxoj, the de- sires which spring from our bodily nature, and which lead to immorality. vSatan is called in the same sense 6 ^eoj roD aiuJvoj tovtov, who blinds the understanding of the unbelieving, 2 Cor. iv. 4; also ap;^"'' '^o^ xoaixov, John, xii. 31 ; xvi. 11 ; and paganism, irreligion, and im- morality, are called i%ov(s'^ tov Sarava, Acts, xxvi. 18; while the Christian church, the object of which is to make men pious, and to prepare tnem to become citizens of the society of the blessed above, is called /ScwiXsJo tov Tlov Qiov, Col. i. 13 (6) Clifist 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, E^aytpii^jj — ira Xvar^ ta 29 tpya tov 5ia)367.ov, 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, u tComv trjv afiaptiav, ex tov 8caj36Kov irntiv. 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 ivorks 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, ike devil en- tered info 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 Tta^r^/xata 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, btaxovoi "Eatava. Unbelief in particulai 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 como into the world through him ; Book of Wisdom, ii. 4 ; John, viii. 44 ; Heb. ii. 1 4. In the last pas- sage he is described as the one who has power over death, to xpdtoi exi^v 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 fio-uratively ; 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 •aaa CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. ends, not otherwise attainable, God allows more power to evil spirits, in particular cases and at certain times, than they commonly possess. (t) But evil spirits, accordinjj 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 rolilied evil spirits of their power, has co-nquered i]iem — 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 fir 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 nf 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 UODY AND THE MATERIAL WORLD. SECTION LXV. OF THE BODILY POSSESSIONS RECORDED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. I. Meaning of the term "Possession." 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, sul stantial indwelling of the devil was abandoned, and the term possession was understood to indicate merely the powerful iujlucnce 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, latavo-i f idrjx^i V lii tiva (lovSav), John, xiii. 27; but by this phrase nothing more than an obsessio spirilualis, an injluence upon the mind, is intend- ed ; and the common expressions are, lx'<-^ ^*'" ixoviov, dai/xovi^iij^ai, x.t.X. The term posses- sion is not used in the New Testament, although Josephus speaks of rcovr^pa Ttvfvjxata. xai 6ou./x6- j'ta eyxa^i^ofifia (insidentia). Ant. vi. 11 ; and of Ttvevixara ivbv6ij.fia, (induentes se, sive, in- gredientes,) Bell. Jud. vii. G. The words la possess, and possession, are exact translations of the Latin words possidcre, obsidcre, 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, corpnribtis omnis obsidetur locus. It was then spoken figuratively of the orator, who possesses iiimself of his hearers, and gains them over to his own views, obsidct ac tenet auditorcm, Ci- cero, De Orat. 62. Possidcre is also sometimes used for tenere, inpoteslate sua habere. So Pliny, Hist. Nat. XXX. 1, says, with regard to magic, possideri ed ttominum sensus vincuUs, the senses of men were controlled by magic as by chains, were held absolutely under its power; and in the same place, Gallias posscdit 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 centur)', 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. IG, where Satan is said to have bound (t6j;«) a sick woman; and in Acts, x. 38, where some are described as xataSwaanvo- [/.ivoi, vrtb toi) 8ia,3o^v. II. History of this Doctrine. 1. .^mong 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 sjme other spiritual WORKS OF GOD. 297 \gent more powerful than man. Whatever of /his kind is g-ood or desirable they regard as an eilect 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 arfd inexplicable phenomena. For tlie cure of such di-seases, 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 mpi ■f'/jj u'pjjj, voGov, also Galen, and Aretteus 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 dai/^ovai', xaxohaijxo- vav, and ba.Ljx6i'iov t%iiv, as synonymous with (laU'SG^ac. This is seen in the writings of Xe- noplion, 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 — But when, at a later period, the doctrine of in- termediate spirits was received among the Greeks, and tl«se spirits were called Sat'^oi-fj, (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 some 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 en 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 Sat^oia'^f a^at, haljxutv ftOi'p;tf'fa[-, 'tf'pSrsT'at, ix^dVKi-ta.L, ^ciat idaot. 2. Jlinong the Jews. (c) 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 r/iora/ 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 can)e 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 w'itii 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. (h) 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 eflfects 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 aui 228 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, enliorhtened than the rest, either wholly rejected the belief of possessions, and indeed of the ex- istence of evil spirits, (as was done by tlie 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, to. xa'Kovy.eva iaiuovta — ftofrjpCJv eatc dv^purttov Ttvev/xarcx. (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 adxinonisrji. Vide VV'etstein, uui supra. 3. Among Christians since the sccojid 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 Piatonists, who contri- buted much to the dilTusion 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 ■i^vxal a,3Co^a.vovt^^iv — 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, wns the belief that evil spirits have power to IKMsess the bodies of men, even since the age of Christ, more prevalent in the Western church than from the end of the *"fteenth to the niiddhi of the seventeenth century. Hence wo find tliM this belief was received even l)y Luther af.d Melancthon, and otiier theologians of both the protestant churches, and was transmilted by their disciples to those who came after tlicm. (i) But about the middh- of the seventeenth century some doubts arose w ith regard to demo- niacal possessions, and in 'general with respect to the whole notion that tiu; 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 I'^ngland, about the year IGTG, 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 Leu warden a quarto volume, entitled, Tlie Enchanted JVor/d, afterwards translated into German by Schwager, and published at Leipsic, 1781-82, with a pre- face and notes by Scmler. 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, eveo those mentioned in the New Testament. His opinions met with great approbation at the be- ginning of the eigliteenth 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 Beaker 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 afllicted with common and natural diseases. He first published an es- say, De dajmoniacis 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, fur 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. Remai-ks 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 difli- 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- sperting the reality of the possessions recorded in the New Testament is at least open to dis- cussion, and cannot bo 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 difljculties 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. 17—21 ; 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 230 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 tiie principles of that pure morality wliich they themsp.lves 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., (rt) 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 tiius be the means of leading others astray, or of confirming them in their errors, (i) 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 iiluminali should array themselves in opposition, and scoflTers 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 lu's 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 tlie 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 f irfeited 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 chaiacter 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 ana authority (f Christ ; and from this point, tliere- 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 philosopliy, 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. («) Satan and other evil spirits feel a hatred to men, which is mani- fested in various ways. Vide loc. cit. s. G4, II. (i) 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. 17 — 20; 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. II ; 1 John, iii. 8, and those cited s. Gl. 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 for 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 cognizanct 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 teachei and his doctrine to be divine. Facts produce always a greater effect upon men than abstraci instruction; and hence God so frequently em- ploys them, as we see both from the Bible and from experience, in the instruction which ho gives to men, at least makes use of them to ren- der the instruction he has otherwise imparled more impressive and certain. WORKS OF GOD. 231 SECTION LXVI. OF MAGIC AND SPECTRES. I. Of Magic. \. 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 antrels, 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 v/hich relate to the natural world. The question has sometimes been asked, In what na- tion was magic first practised"? and, W^ho was its first inventor or teacher"? And in answer to these questions, the Chaldeans and Persians have been mentioned. Sine ditbio, says Pliny (xxx. 1), orta in Perside a Zoroasire, ut inter auciores 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; ISIarburg, 1787. V\ hen rude and uncultivated man wishes in any way to better his condition, or to accomplish what appears to him difiicult or impossible, he resorts to magic, or the aid of spirits, (a) 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), Natam primum (magiam) e medicina nemo du- bitat, ac specie salutari irrepsisse velui alliorcm sanctioretiique 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 (^ap^a- xiia) signifies both the mingling of j)oison and sorcery. So Pliny (xxx. 2), Habel (niagia) quasdam verilutis umbras ; sed in his vtnejicias artes pollent, nan magicce. {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 tiieir 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 winch the magician has availed himself. Among men entertaining the superstitious opinions here described, the supposed confidant of superior s-pirits 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 moit common are the following— \'\z., 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. 65, seq.; iEn. 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,) 2iN"nSy2, a wuman who has a spirit of necromancy ; in the plural, nois, sorceresses. Lev. XX. 27; Is. xxix. 4. Of this class was the witch if Endor, whom Saul consulted, 1 Sa- muel, xxviii. Cf. Is. viii. 19. Enchantment by mu'j^ic herbs, ointments, medicines, and different means (f excilimr the feelings and passions. But the belief in the connexion between wic/ccd men and evil spirits or malignant dei- ties, and the injury to others which wizards of this description could do with the assistance afforded tliem, has been more fricrhtful 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 nf mischief , not inoraUy wicked, like the devils of the Jews after the captivity. So we find r)r3, (from the Arab, i ,.B»,o, ohscu- ravit, eclipsi affecit Deus solem, and synonymous with ' o...'^ caliginavit oculos,) magic, black art ; and rjubn, a magician, practitioner nf 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 4)ap,uaxf(,'a, in Latin, by ve- neficium, venefica ; 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 tlierefore 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 ])ovver 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 trices of this o|>i- nion, however, are to be met with shortly after the exile; hut 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 scientinc magic which has prevailed so extensively even among the civilized nations of Asia and Kurope, 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, 17615, 8vo. Eberhard, Ueber den Ursprung der wissen- schaftlichen Magie, in Num. 7 of his " Neuen vermischten Schriflen;" 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) ©£OV|jyi.'a, ^sovpytxi; -rix^^ti '^^' 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 ^fayuyia, Quayoipial) the art of en- listing the gods on one's side; ^corttia, x. r. X. (i) Tcwyrfio (from yo;;;, incantator,praestigiator,') prxstigix, 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, IG. 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 yor^tiiu Vide Lactan- tius, 1. 1. Van Dale, De Oraculis vett. elhni- corum; Amsterdamiae, 1700. Among the Jews, some adopted the opinions above described, others adhered to their cabalistic dreams, and pretended to work wonders witii words anc* phrases taken from the Bible, with the name of God or angels, &c. ; all whicli ran into th« 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'' s sione 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 (^sovpyJa and yoj-rf/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 ;" Halse, 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 prc^ioion 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 ]\Ia- gica, 3tom.; Lemgov, 1735 — 41,8vo, where the 30 hurtfulness of these magical practices is shewn from authority and history. Hennings, Daa Grab des Aberglaubens, 4 Samml.; Frankfurt, 1777, 8vo. Vide Noesselt's "Bucherkennt- 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 tlie 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 oi Jdam Kad- mo7i, 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, Raymund, Lnllus, 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 ccmprehend- 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 934 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. immediately from certain feelings and ideas rtliicli are widely dilTused among men. Spec- Ires are called by the Greeks, .uSwXa, apparitions, visio)is, forms ivhich can be seen, shadow-shapes ; Also fdr^jxara (from (})ou'to) and ^avtdrjuata (from favro^ti,) phantoms, phantasms. Vide Mark, vi. 4i). They are called by the Latins spectra, (from the obsolete specio, cerno ,-) also vionstra. What arc 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 vien. The nations now nientioncd, 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 ('?inc-), (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, xvl. 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 ricl) man in Hades is said in the pa- rable to pray that one ff the dead might be sent to his father's house, Luke, xvi. 27, 30. 'I'hese 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 hones 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 .Tews, and also among the Latins and Greeks; thus Homer speaks of /3po- f wv ftScuXo xaixov-tuv, and says of them, Oij ytip ciri aapica( re Koi oaria jcEf cX"'"'^"'' Cf. Li)ke, xxiv. 39, ttvcvfia (japxa xai oa-fsa ovx ixii>. Vide texts from various writers cited by Wetsiein 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- perstiiions the delusions of the ancient necro- manc. rs 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 Josiis to be the apparition of a depart'd spirit in a shadowy body, (ft5to?.o)'.) 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 wUh his disciples after his resurrection, in order, it would seem, to discountenance the idea that he appear- ed only with tne airy body of a spectre. The common opinion on this subject was adopted by Plato in his Phadon, and was afterwards fur- ther developed and remodelled to suit themselves by the new Platonists. Vide Scripta Varii ar- gument!. Num. iii., Progr. super origine opini- onis de immortalitate animorum ; Hallse, 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 os/m/, because he supposed that it was composed of the two upper elements, atVand^e, 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 Roso 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-establishexl 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 eximine impartially the Tariouo irhost-stories which are told, we shall be brought to the conclusion that spectres a,re 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, Bvo. 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 LXVII. WHAT IS MEANT BV THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD; AND HISTORICAL REMARKS RESPECTING THIS DOCTRINE. I. Dejiyiition of Providence, Providence, defined as to its inherent nature, IS the power which God exerts ivithout interrup- tion in and ttpon all the works oj his hands. The •elation in which all things stand to God, and -he 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 them 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 cf 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. JVote 1. — The word providence (Germ, vorse- hung) is derived from the hnlin providenlia, and this from the Greek rtjjoiota, 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 Ttpoi'onv and providere properly signify to foresee, fiitur a prospiccrc ; and rtpdi'ota and providentia, accordingly signify foresight. But providere not only signifies to foresee, but also to exercise forecast, prsccavcre, and thus, in a general sense, to ivateh over, to care for, curare, procurare. In this sense it is employed by Cicero, (Nat. Deor. ii. 65,) Kon 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., y-i"', nN->, and the other verba videndi et adspiciendi, as a''3ri, Psalm xxxiii. 13, (cf. i^opav. Homer, Od. xiii. 214 ; opav, II. xxiv. 291; and the phrase, Deus contemplans maria et terras, Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 20;) 13? 1,1?, Psa. viii. 5, (cf. anoixvdo^iau, II. xxiv. 428 ;) 3t:'n, D'JO, Nt'j, Num. vi. 26 ; idi; and also the following Greek verbs — viz., ^fovilv, iiiT^Xnv, (1 Pet. v. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 9,) iTtinxtTitio'^a.i, nhi- va,L, tTiiyt-vuioxdv. Corresponding with provi- dentia are the following Hebrew substantives — viz., Ti-n, iSfltrT, ni-y, noK'nc, nictr, nini ^jv, v:i ; and the following Greek substantives — viz., Xfijxa-ta, oboi, 8 laXoy i.aj.iol, x. t. X. 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 us 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 i3» 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. I. 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. I, 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 doctrinse 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, Ztvi SvvatM aHavta- 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 (^fatttm, /xolpa), 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 matters o( mere propriety ; and as it was reputed inconsistent with the dignity of a Tiler to concern himself in all the petty affairs jf his subjects, so it was supposed, a minute .nspection and particular care over all his works would be inconsistent with the majesty of God. Such were the popular no. ions respecting the deities which preva-'ed among the ancient Greeks, and which are expressed in Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and other early 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 iiTOt /i£f ravra Seoi.i cv yoitaat (ctTrai, II. XX. 435, and represented him as the witness and judge of the conduct of men ; Zcuf 0(pcias rtVaiS' iKcrfiaioi, oare Kai aX'Sovf dfSpoJTrovi iipi't£ av-tuv ; Acts, jcvii, 26, 28, yivoi @iov iajxiv. 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, Svo. But more particularly — 2. The life and all the powers of each indivi- dual of the human race depend upon God. Mo- ras, 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 v/hich 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 snd striking manner, by supposing God to keep B 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 outfron: the booh of life is the sam* as to die, Exod. xxxii. 32; Ps. Ixix. 28. Tlv3 meaning of the representation is this — God de- termines the beginning and tlie end of our lives he is perfectly acquainted with our whole des- tiny ; everything in our whole existence depend?; upon him, and is under his control and govern- ment. (jS) As to its termination. However centin- 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 teiits, 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 ot 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, us 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 ei^or 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 Tiircicum 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 adhihueris, sive non, convalesces ; [and the saying, Nisifatale asgro mori, facile evadeti cuifafale mori, vel pediculi morsu coificerefiir.'] 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 hov long a man will live, and the result will perfectly agree witli this foreknowledge, since th*' 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 oimiiscienl, 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 liis foreknowledge of all these circum- stances respecting him, God forms his purpose, fixing the termination of his life. The bodily consiitution 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, sannot be passed over. When the clock runs lown, 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 uniuttural, txlraordinary , or sometimes consequens, in op- position to the other, which is called anlece- dens. The cases here supposed are described in the Bible by the phrases, to fulfil onc^ s days, (vD' rw nSd,) or not to fulfil them, Isa. Ixv. 00. And in this way are we to understand those pas- sages in which God is said to lengthen out, or to abridge, tiie life of man. Tlie 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 mu«l call fur a physician, and make use of prescriDed remedies, because he cannot be certain that ihf; end of his life has now come. The purjiose 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, .is 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, Quxstioncs Epistolicx de vituc terminofaluli ,■ Dortrecht, 1G34, 8vo; and enlarged, Leiden, I63G, 4to. (i) Our powers depend upon God. These powers are very various ; but they may be class- ed under two general divisions, the powers of sow/ and of body — spiritual nnd corpureal 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 efi'ect 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 mos strenuous eflfbrts will be in vain, unless Gou 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 arc 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. r46 hat 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 sup[)ort, since they withdraw us from more important concerns, and render us disqua- lified for religion, and divine instruction. Luke, viii. 14, ai jtifpt^rat fov jSJou avfirtviyovao tov jLoyov, 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 ad 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, 60 as to promote the highest good of the whole, afld of each part, that the gnvernment 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 secuFed in the world under the go- vernment of God — a subject on which mistakes ars 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 wc are unable fully to comprehend, but which, for the very reason that God chose it, is the wisesst, best, and most adapted to its ends. So we r.re 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 groat 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 ! (i) 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 undei X 2 346 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. their suRerings and deprivations there may be concealed the germ of a greater temporal and eternal good. (9 — 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 ^'>s state in it, — of death, the immor« tality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, tt day of judgment, tho end of thft world, and future happiness and misery; Art. xv. s. 147 — 160. CSK) BOOK II DOCTRINE OF MAN. PAilT I.-STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. ARTICLE IX. ; OF SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN SECTION LXXIIl. WHAT IS MEANT BY SIN; THE DIFFERENT WORDS USED IN THE BIBLE TO DENOTE SIN, AND THE MEANING OF THEM. I. Definition of Sin. J IN, understood objectively, and taken in its wider sense, ^ is, any deviation from the law of God, or, tvhat 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. Verhrechen, 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 ^e'Xjjjuo. iov ®iov. This worfJ 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, n^hich is opposed to the divine law, or which deviates from it. Hew 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 IWi vofxo^, oi-bi rtapailadij (sett). Were there no law given, the actions now denominated siris (e. g., licentiousness, theft, murder,) while they must still be regarded as foolish and injurious, and be called evils, (Germ. Ucbcl,) 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 si7is, 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, aceom- panied with eomminations ; 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 righffid'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 C259) 160 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 whicli they should continually have regard, and according to which they should regulate their conduct. Morus, p. lOG, n. 3, 4. II. Scriptural Terms for Sin. I. The most common word for sin is the He- brew nxan, generally rendered by the Grecian Jews aixapiia. Both of these words are used in various senses. (a) The Hebrew Njn 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 ajuaprai/fir and ajuaprta 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 d^opraiocrf J r^j j3ou>.>;(j£W5, whose counsel was frustrated ; and even in Homer we find the phrase djwopr^ffaa^ac. tiqi ortwrt^?, to he deprived of sight. In the Iliad (xxiv. G8) he says, with regard to Hector, that he never suffered the gods to want for offerings worthy of their accept- ance— ovri ^I'Xcof nfiapravz iiipoiv. Hence (b) these words are used figuratively, and are transferred to the soul, and denote the faults and defects of the understanding and of the will, an- <^no of the actions ;»of the latter more frequently, though sometimes of the for- mer— e. g., John, viii. 4G, ixiyx^'-v rtfpt d/iap- t'l'oj, erroris convincere, and John, xvi. 8, 9, where d/iaptia signifies, delusion, blindness of the under- standing. More commonly, however, it is used with reference to the will ; t d ibe a '-lions, and denotes every deviation from the divine law in willing and acting. 'H aixaptia, therefore, often signifies, sometimes every transgression of a grave character, and sometimes, in gen "a , i n- piety, profanitas, irreligion. Thus the heathen were denominated by the Jews, a}i.a^tu>%oi, D's-Jn, in opposition to themselves, the gens sancta. In Ileb. x, 26, d^apra'i'ftj' signifies to apostatize from the Christian faith. In Romans, \ii. 9, Paul uses d/tapr/a to denote the propen- sity to sin (Germ. Hang zur Sii7ide) 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. ((/) They also signify a sitt'iffering — e. g., Ps. xl. 7; 2 Cor. v. 21, ^voia jttpi duapr/a?. 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, ]yy, guilt (reatus), sin, Psaln lix. 5; frequently rendered in the Septuagin a^ixrifxa, or a.bi.xia. r>^7, strictly, apostasy from the true God, or rebellion against him. [The word n-in, from iid, 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. j:ub is tiierefore a stronger word than nsrjn. yth is used to de- note the injustice of judges, when they lose sight of what is just (p"".?)? ^iid decide unjustly and partially. Job, ix. 21 ; Ezek. vii. 11 ; hence ap- plied to any misdeed or wickedness, by which the desert of punishment is incurred, Psa. v. 5. Hence ;'"n signifies, one giiilly, (^reus, damna- tus,) sensuforensi. yuh is rendered in the Sep- tuagint by the words ahxia, d/ji',3fta, x. t. X. a"\s', guilt, guiltiness, rsat', or ns^ju", error, mis- take, transgressio7i, Psa. xix. 13. Sept. rta- puTtfiofia. Classical Greek, 7t7.di'r^. (i) 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 ,-tapozo>;, Hebrews, ii. 2; — rtopdjia^is, Romans, iv. 15; — ttSixia and d5(.'xj;^ia, (like d^apna and anuprrjxa,) Romans, i. 18; vi. 13; — 6^Ei%r;i.ia, Matt. vi. 12. (The Hebrews often represent sins under the image of rfei/s, which must either be remitted or paid.) Xlapdrtrio^o, Matt. vi. 14, also used to signify apostasy from religion, Rom. xi. 12; ayvor^na, a sin committed through ignorance, er- ratum, Heb. ix. 7. (So Aquila renders py. Lev. xxvi. 39, by dyvota* so also nTMir], 'Avofiia, illegality, trariSirression of the law, or sin. Matt vii. 23. It is also sometimes used in the sense of irreligion, heathenism, since louoj often sig- nifies the religion revealed by God. Hence the iieati.f'n are called dvouoi, Rom. ii. 12; vi. 19. Cf. tt BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 26* constitutei the original temptation are unknown V) us. (■2) Literal interpretations. A large proportion of the church fathers, (e. g-., Justin the Martyr, frenaius, Theopiiilus 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 tlie 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 b}^ 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 afier 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 tte 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, ((fi^oi'9 StaPoXou, 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, («) 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 interpretalion is presupposed, and from which it appears that Christ and his apos- tles assented to it, and authorized it — e. g., John, viii. 44, di'^pcortozroroj art' ap;^^j ; 1 John, iii. 8, cLTt' afiXfji o Sia/joXof afiaptdvii. ; also the titles in Revelation, Bpdx(^v (liya^, 6 o^itj 6 dp;};atcj, 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, Dubia vexata, cap. 6; among the more modern. Job. Balth. Liiderwald, Die allegorische Erkliirung 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 mythiis, 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, in some re- spects, is also the interpretation of Rosenmiiller, (Repertor. th. 1. s. 160,) who supposes that the narrative in Genesis was taken from a hiero- glyphic picture — i. e., transferred from pictoriaJ S68 CHRISTIAN TilEOLOGY. representation t'j 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 viythus, 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, Paulus, 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 j^sop 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 S|)ake. 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 lies and familiar intercourse; somewhat as the gods were supposed by the Greeks to have as- sociated with men in the heroic ages. Vide fi. 54, I. This whole representation, however, whether it be fact or moral fiction, is entirely conformed to the nature of the human soul, and describe* in a manner perfectly true, the history of thfl 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, howev,-r, there is a ditTer- ence, that in the case of o;;r first parents tliey 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 Morus, p. 99, n. 1. [A'b/e. — 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 accora- ance with his destination, enjoyed a holy inno- cence, in which he knew no other will than thai of God, abandoned this state, became selfish (autonomic), and would no longer acknowledge the divine law of life as the higiiest;" s. 2G6, 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, Philosophie 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. Parlicular 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 accouni of the name, tree of the knowledge of good and STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 269 tvtl, vide s. 52, II. The question is here asked, iVhat design had God in view in giving this precept? According to the opinion of many theologians, this coaimand 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, Vindicise 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 illustrited by the following remarks. The serpent was used by almost all the ancient na- iions 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 greatei 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. 11. 14, coll. Sir. XXV. 32, drto yri/atx-oj df;/rj auttp- tia;. 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 aDowed to be no otherwise concerned in this afl'airthan 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 870 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 napaxo^,Rom. v. 19. Tlie 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 ecripture as sin,- but merely the entertaining, cherishing, and accomplishing of this desire. Vide James, i. M. 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., (rt) 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 wliich constituted, according to the ac- count of Moses, the principal advantage of the Btata 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 fijllows: "Tliey 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 ths 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 tho harmful fruit which had been eaten by tliem, 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 hai 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 v/avned 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 repos£ But a just and unpcrvcrted critical taste must be of- feniicd with an interpretation so flatly and frigidly ad Utcraui as that which is here suggested. If this narrative is to retain the least doctrinal in- terest, it nnist be regarded as exhibiting llie trial oj man rw to obedience to lite divine will, and the un- happy issue of this trial. And if this meaning b« extracted from this history, it is not of so much con* STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 271 (b) The consequences of the first transgres- Bion 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 cvn 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 ai^n cii, 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 thou gayest 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 ain, 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, " tliat it was not the tree, but the disubedlence, 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 tlie first step towards his recovery should be a medical prescription. But of this more hereafter. — Ta.] much as to say, "hadst not thou given ner 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 mrn nc (best rendered by Symmachus, ^I'jjtoj t'oi;) ; in the latter, thou shall return to the earth from whence thou wast taken. In the latter passage, there- fore, it can be only mortality which is spoker. of; and the theological distinction of spiri'ual^ 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 Caiovius, 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 thein 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, "Ac WAS like one oftis, 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 ? This certainly does not seem to agree with our present ideas of punistunent, 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 foi recompence ; and they feel a kind of satis* a73 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY faction when the cause of the injury done them, even if it be a lifelesa 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 epeak, sciisib/e 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 cat dust, is a figurative ex- pression, denoting /o be levelled with {he ground, laid in the dust, Is. xlix. 23. So, to eat ashes, Ps. cii. 10, and the phrase humum ore memordit, used by Virgil with respect to one struck dead to the earth. Cf. Hom. Odyss. xxii. 269. (3) Ver. 15, 1 will put enmity between thee and the ivoman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel, pnj in the first case denotes the posterity of the serpent — the serpent race ; in the second case, either collectively, the posterity of Eve, ycvvrjtoi yvi-aixuii', I\Iatt. xi. 11 ; or one of this posterity, a descendant or so7i of Eve ; for in this latter sense may yit 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 thp later Jews was denominated j;->r, 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. («) If these words are referred to the serpent here visible, the sense is, "It is my will that en- mity siiould 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. Ziichariu, Bibl. Theol., th. ii. s. 318, and llepert. iv. 250, f. (i) Everything which took place here was designed to give mural instruction to our first parenl3 In this way it wao 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 obvious to theii senses. Hence we 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 maj-ntain. 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 nn! come off uninjured, nor will they remain hereafter unseduced, and must always feel the injurious consequences of transgression." (c) If yiT 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 ha3 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 rtoj5,jto^fv. Respecting the manner in whicli 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 yit to one particular de- scendant of Adam, they might yet find in these words a consoling promise of God. And for this reason we rnay 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 ne 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 ^s 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, Giaubenslehre, 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 LXXVL 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 p/'y- s/cff/ influence in the propagation of sinful desires and raoral imperfection, and also a moral influ- ence, vhich is commonly considered as properly imputationem peccati Mamillci. These two do not necessarily belong together, although impu- tatio and peccatum on'ginale 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 iniptifes thr. sin of our pro- genitors to their posterity, means, that/or the sin committed by our progenitors God punishes their descendants. The term to impute is used in dif- ferent senses, (o) It is said of a creditor, who i^harges something to his debtor as debt; li'ke jrn, and ?.oyi,'^o^ou, and ijxoyiu, — 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, (ii>» 2c'n, Xoyl^ta^ai ay.ap- ■eiav, Ps. xxxii. 2.) The one punished is called ]y; Nirj, in opposition to one to whom npisS jcti, who is reirarded, 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 daric. 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- ment, 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 deatii 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 Adara 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 Wisdom, ii. 23, 24. Sirach, xxv. 32, drto y^'iatxoj &y>ZV o.j.iap'ti.ai, xal St av-triv arto» ^vroxoi.isv Ttdvtii. 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; su'h, for example, as the fact, that children must often sufl^erfor the crimes of their parents, in which they had no share; and that, according to the law of Moses, the iniquity of 874 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 them, ybr /yet'? 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; forbad he lived at that time he would have done the same that Abraham then did. II. Opinions of tne yew-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, 2-3. Vide Tollner, Theol. Untersuchungen, Theil i. st. 2, s. 5G. 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 tlien 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 miglit themselves have personally sitmcd, and so have been punished with death on their own account, it might be answered, that those who lived before the time of Moses nad no express and positive law which threatened the punish- ment of sin, like those who lived after Moses. The positive law of IMoses was not as yet given ; they could not, consequently, be punished oa 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 aays nothing, and is far from im- plying tiiat on account of a sin comn::tte'^ hy another man long before their birth, Goa pu- nishes men with eternal hell torments. On the contrary, he here speaks of bodiljj death merely, as the consequence of the sin of Adam And herein the learned Jews agreed with hini. And in the passage 1 Cor. xv. 21, seq., Paul shews that tlie 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 prG?f of our degeneracy through Adam. [On this passage, cf. Tholuck, Comm. iib. Rom. v.; Usteri, Ent- wickel. d. paulin. LehrbegrifTs ; Edwards, Ori- ginal Sin, chap. iv. p. 352; Stuart's Commerat- ary on Rom. v. and Excursus. — Tb.] III. Hypotheses of Tlieologians. The greatest difficulties with respect to thi& 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 scliolastic 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 wiiom in this particular he agrees, wse pu- nishment (zara'xptutt,) imputation of siii,k.C., in the same sense in which it is said respecting children, for example, that they Tire 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 philostphical 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, qre thus said to be puntshed 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 errcrs of his predecessors Louis XIV. and XV,, it would be coininonly 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 anotlier, is called, from some ana- logy between them, ihe 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, theriTore, mortality is the natural consequeiice of Adam's sin, but not \\\cix 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 ewAnxe, pu7iishmcnt 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. G, i. 18, seq.; Gal. vi, 5; 2 Cor. V. 10. In these he speaks sensu prnprio 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 uncorruptcd, and consequently all are rendered lirble to punishment. Vide Rom. v. 12; Ephes ii. 3. God would not treat all men as sinners did they not in ibis 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 imm-ediately 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 ^ f this term. Thus Chrysostom says, upon Ron. V. 12, 'ExfU'OD 7(i6ovtoi ('A6aju), xal ol /.irj ^d yoi'tf? drto z'ov ^v'Kov, yfydi'aoii' fl EXfU'Ov ^j'jjroi. And Cyril (Adv. Anthropom. c. 8) says, ol yi- yovots^ i^ av-fov ('ASuju), wj drto ^^aprov, ^^apto' ysyovafiiv. 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- piitare (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 tip' w (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 imputatio7ie 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 Traditciani, which TertoUian 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 976 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. zeal by Augustine, in opposition to Pelagius, and after his time was jrenerally rccf;ivecl in the Western church; aitliough Augustini; himself was often doubtful in respect to Traciucianism. 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- sias says, Omnes in pritno homine (Jff u>) pccca- viinits, el eulpx successio ah uno in omnes trans- fusa est. Augustine says, In Jldamo omnes pcc- earunt, in lumbis Mami erat genus Inimanum. Also, Infantes ab eo trahunt peccali rcatum, mor- tisque supplieium. 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 that 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 century, and until about the middle of the seven- teenth, when it was contested by the French re- formed theologians, .Toshua Placaeus, and Moses Amyraldus, who, however, were violently op- posed. In England, too, it was contested by Tiiomas Burnet. The advocates of this theory endeavoured to defend it by means of the theory of spermatic animalculx, which arose about the middle of the eighteenth century. When, 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 animalculas, participated in everything which he did, and consequently sinned with him. While, therefore, the Biblical theologians of the protest- ant church have justly held f\ist 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 Uiemselves or adopted from different authorities. (2) Many iiave inferred the justice of imputa- tion from the supposition that .\dam was not only the natural or seminal, bnt also the moral head of tne 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, arc imputed to his family or state, although they had no personal agency in his doings. In the same way, they suppose Ciirist took the place of all men, and that what he did is imputed to them. According to this theory, God entered into a kafriie or covenant with Adam, and so Adam represented and took the place of th« 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, "7<, Besides these, there were superior principles, th.it 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, inerf. 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- cfples, 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 lo 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 bo 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 oap| 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. 32 1 of the work cited above. But the reason suggested by Tholuck corresponds best with the view wl;ich has been given of the privative nature of the flesh. As the body is dead without the enlivening soul, so the spiiit of man is powerless and dead without the STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. SB highe: 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.— Tb.] 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 Vv'hat 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 tj be born in oi 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 ]t33r. Cf. Job, xxxi. 18; Ps. Iviii. 4. It may also be said here that David does not make an universal afRrmalion, 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. TKe 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 Musaeus and Morus 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, esse 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 v;hich 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 stale 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 ot sense and inclination to sin, from their youth up. Respecting the race of •84 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. man sprung from Adam before the flood, the scripture saith, Gen. vi. 5, Their wickedness was great, and every imagination of the thoughts of their heart {^th T\ydm nsi-'?3, all the thoughts, desires, resolves, arising within them, and car- ried out into action; — ^i"s nature, constitution, Ps. ciii. 11, [^ratUer, frame, whatever is made by an artificer, and so liere 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 thern, 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 (ja^p)? 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 nt'3 and (ja'pl (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 thry 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 firth 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, spq. He calls this innate evil, ver. \1 , ri oixovrya, iv f/xoi auapna, ver. 23, tVfpoj vojuoj iv roij fiiXfjt, fxov, ver. 25, rofio^ d^aprt'aj. In the text Kph. ii. 3, the term fvfrij is vari- ously explained. The exolanation of Morus, that it denotes the state of one who follows his sensual desires, as all men are niiturallv prone to do, is just, on account of the antithesis in ver. 5, 10. ^•vaij properly signifies (a) origin,birth^ from (j)vw, nascor f so in Gal. ii. 15, ^voft 'lov- 6acoj, Jews by birth, native Jews; and so too in the classics, (i) It is also used both by the Jews and classics to denote tlie original, inborn, and peculiar properties, attributes, nature of a thing or person, the naturalis indoles or itff'ctio ,- as Rom. xi. 21, 21, where the sense is, "even we who are born Jews, are, as to our nature — i. e., that natural disposition whic-h 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, and deserving of the punishment of all the sona of Adam — viz., death." After these texts, the passage, John, iii. 6, is easily explained : what is born of the flesh is Jlesh — 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 rei,'entrrt/e 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 LXXVHI. OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF THIS COR RUPTION ; ITS PROPAGATION ; ITS PUNISHABLK 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, IIL 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 well as they, vrrffpovi-tf j rr-i SdS>;j Qtov' also Rom. v. 12—21; Eph. ii. 3; John, iii. G. 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 rn .st 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 •nen; 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, (b) 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, ^von- ■tixva. opy^Jj. Vide s. 77, III. 1. Tertullian seems to be the first among the church fathers who used the term naturalis. 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 originale esse non acci- detis, sed ipsam substantiam hnmim's. 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 originale cum natura et substantia hominis intime conjunctum esse et eom- 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, alihough 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 Winy in the sense of innate, and as opposed acquisito sive aliunde illain, 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, (pn::, 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 radikai.e Bvse ; and Sosipater, according to the testimony of Stobffius, wrote in one of his letters, iwoil hi, wj ov^^vrov to (j.j.iap'faveiv av^pi^Ttoi,^. (3) It is hereditary. That this evil is trans- mitted from parents to children follows jiartly 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 difTerence 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. G, and other texts. Vide s. 77, III. 2. Note. — Human depravity does not, Jiowever, consist in definite inclinations directed to parti- cular objects, but rather in a general disposition 286 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 diflfer- 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 w propagated. (1) From what has been already said, it is plain lliat a /j/ii/.v/cff/ propagation of human de- pravity is adirmed in the scriptures, and it is in this that what theologians call original sin (Erbsiiiide) principally consists. This maybe proved from the following principles, which are undeniably taugiit in the Bible: («) that human nature was unquestionably more perfect and belter formerly than it is at present; (h) that our progenitors were corrupted, and as it were poisoned, by the fall ; (c) that the ^)rincipal 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 tiie 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 arc inherited by children from their parents. Parents could not beget children better or more perfect than they themselves were. Vide I Cor. xv. 48, 49. After the fall they had aufixa, or Oio/xa d.uapt'Laj and ^avutov, and consequently their posterity, begotten and born after the fall, possessed the same. John, iii. G, to ysyivvj^vivov ix (Japjc6$ cap^ (ijapxixoj) iati. 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 olTspring, 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 vi'as 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,) vitinsitatis cxpers, 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 o Sfiii'spoj ai'^pwrtoj, o taxo-toi 'Abdfi, 1 Cor. XV. 45, 47; also, o Ti6j rov dv^pcirtov, the preat Son of Adam, or of man. It was an 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 ])oint there was a violent dispute in tiie Runiisb 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 ira- 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 ne\\.\iex 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.uop- ■eia.) and of death (^'mroj) depends, according to the Bible, upon the derivation of all men from one progenitor ox father. Hence sin and death are always derived from Adam, Rom. v. 14 ; I Cor. XV. 22; and not from Eve, althouijh she, according to Paul himself, (1 Tim. ii. 14,) first sinned. U 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 hunian/a/Acr. Vide Num. I. STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 387 (2) Tiiere is also a moral propagation of this •Ippravity. In this are included, («) The imputaliim of the sin of Adam, of which we have treated, both doctrinally and his- torically, in s. 7G. 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 had 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 tiiat 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. 7D, No. 3,) and at a later period the Socinians and many Arminians. 'I'his opinion has found advocates also among some modern protestant theologians — e. g., Steinbart, System, s. 105, f . ; Eberhard, Apolo- gie, ii. 339, f. ; Jerusalem, Belrachtungen, th. ii. b. ii. s. 683, f. That example and education contribute much to the moral "mprovement 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 mako 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 radicale.) which soon strikes root, spreads round, and chokes the good. It is abso- lutely inexplicable how the preponderance of «ense 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 tlie 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 doniiqion 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 Punishahleness of Natural Depravity. This is the reatas or culpa vitiotitaiis, and was asserted by Augustine and his followers. Vide Morus, 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 pcccalum orii^tnale per se esse damnabilc ,- 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. (h) 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, l-l, is to be explained ; also Rom. vi. 23, '^dva-c^ 64'Wi'ta OjUapttas, or ver. 21, 'tixo^ (sfaprtoj) a^uap-' -riaj- so called because li followed upon Adam's sin, and, as far as he was concerned, was ?i. 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 liseM bad, (Germ, fehlcrhcftes, esse in vitio, viliosiun,') 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 it, and indulges it. Vide Rrm. vi. 12; Gen. iv. 7, coll. James, i. 15. This, how- ever, is the case with all men; no one hao 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, (ttxva opyr-i, Ephcs. 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 sinftil dispositions ar^d 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, siiful; for they are deep laid in the constitution which God him- Belf 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 correspondent 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, when 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 (o) man, feeling desires after forbidden things, seeks and finds pleasure in them, and delights himSelf in them, and so (i) 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, (f/) 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, tliat he not only sins for this once, but that he gives his appetites and passions the power of soliciting him a se- cond time m.ore importunately, of becoming more ▼(-heincnt 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, Ueher die Siinde, s. 865, f. But if a man repels and suppresses the involuntary desire arising within him becayse .t is evil, he cannot certainly be punished merely because, without any fauit of his own, he ftlt this desire. It were unjust to punish any one for be« ing assailed by an enemy, without any proFoca 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. G. 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 Erti^i'ju^ofts* 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 .Tames calls temptations, (elsewhere called axav- 6a?.a, Matt, xviii. 7, 8, Srs::, 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 wiiich would make us happy. This is expressed by i^f\x6- fitvoi and ffXfaCojUf joj. The image is here taken from animals, which are ensnared by baits (51- Tifop) laid before them, in order to take them. Tc these allurements all men are exposed, alihoagh STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 2^9 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 bait. Other- wise, hist conceives, {im^vula av^T^a^oiaa,) 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 contrar}'', the result of man's own will, and he is now deserv- ing of punishment. This is what is called pec- catiim actuale internum. But finally, desire bringsfurlh sin, the evil intent passes into ac- tion, and is accomplished. This is peccatum nciuale externum. Hence flows ^ai^aroi-, misery, unhappiness of every sort, as the consequence and punishment of sin. SECTION LXXIX. OR THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE ANCIENT CHUKCH-FATHERS RESPECTING HUMAN DEPRA- VITY ; AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EC- CLESIASTICAL PHRASEOLOGY ON THIS SUBJECT VND THE VARIOUS FORMS OF DOCTRINE WERE GRADUALLY DEVELOPED. I 1)The oldest Christian teachers were mostly agreed in considering death as a consequence of A lam's sin. Vide s. 76. [It should be ob- served, however, that in these early writers the term (j>^npa stands not only for mortality, but also for depravity. Vide Nennder, 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, Legat. c. 22; Clemens Alex. Strom, iii. (contra Er.cratitas.) " 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 aray-dpt^to^ o ?^6yo;' 37 ■to yap i^aixaptdt'iiv ria.6iv \(.i^vtov xai zoii/ov. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Commentary on Isaiah, says, ^vai.xov iv dv^pturtotj oix ih ai xazdv and in his Avork " 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, Pracf. ad libros mpi dpx^v, 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 ^vaa xai ov yi'to^u^. 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., Chrysostoin 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 inmar.y 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 ptccata, and not for aliensc (JIdami) nequitiaejlagitia.^^ 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 theosophy, by which sin was attributed either to an etfrnal SB 390 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, recos^nised 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 Jdami 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 depeccalo 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^ (^morssecunda,cujusnonestjinis;) 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- tretxtm ahsohiium.') 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 Alani, proceed from his confounding in his con- ceptions the niduntl 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 Manichcism ; he was led from it again hy coming to apprehend this opposition more and more in a moral light. Again ; it was in direct opposition to Manichcism that lie adopted the theory, the lirst gerniH jf which he took from Platonism, that evil ii only a sulijcctive deviation of created being from the law of the supreme and only true Being, and not, as taugiit hy Mani, an independent, self-sub- •isting existence." Allg. Ifirchengesch, b. ii. Abth. iii. s. l'-i06.— Tb.] where. Fulgentius Rusp. (De Fide, c. 29) asserts that children who had lived merely ia their mother's womb, and yet died without bap< tism, must suffer eternal punishment in hell, And 30 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 Soulier 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 scripture znd 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 Adam all have sinned, does not relate, according to his scheme, to any peccaium nascendiorigiiie contrac- tum; but to that acquired /jr(>p/er /m/te//o?ieffjex- empli. Vide in Libro de Natura, ap. August, ad Rom. V. And Julian said, (ap. August, contra Jul. ii. 54,) peceatum primum moribus, tion se- MiNiBus ad poster OS fuisse dcvectiim. 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 arbitriu (ap. August, de pecc. orig. c. 13) : Oinne bonum aut malum, quo vel laudilnles vel vitupcrabiles suinus, non nubiseum nascitur^ sed agitur a nobis; cnpaces uiriusque rei, non pleni nascimur, et ut sine virtute, sic sine vitio procrtj«5^ai, X. T. X. (4) Some additional historical illustrations of the Augustinian 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 i 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 ^vGii, 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 Anirna, c. 41,) where he calls depravity malum aninix 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 essential;, (a sense in which Tertullian would not use it, and in which even Cyril of Alexandria rejected the expres- sion ^voLxov xaxov, vide No. I.,) Tertullian adds quodammodo. The term naturale, as used by him, properly means nothing more than pro- prium, adherens, non aliunde contractum. Vide s. 78, 1. 2. Ambrosius, too, says, (Apol. David, c. 11,) Jlntequam 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 verj ^ first who uses the term peccatum criginale quia iriginaliter traditur, as indeed he himselj 392 CHRISTIAN TlIKOLOf.Y * says in "Opus imperf. contr;i lulianum," ii. After this time, this term, which perhaps may have been used by sonic 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 -IIG; and those who deny the doctrine de peccato originali, and its punishment, which is removed by baptism, were there denounced with an anallicma. But how came it to pass that the word ^jccca- 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 a,uap- f I'tt 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 tlie Greek ay-aptia. is employed not only with regard to sinful actions, but any fault or drfective state or nature of a thing; like tiie hzXln pecca turn and pcccare. Vide s. 73, II. In this sense, then, they might justly sny pcccatum originis, instead of vitium, meaning simply defect, fault, evil. TertuUian, however, did not use the word ;?ecca- ttcm, 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/uapna, and is c.dWed 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 an;^wfa, Heb, ix. 7. Heb. njjr, 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. Suoh 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 wnich act on the human will, and the re- lations of men with regard to them, and the situatio.i in which the offender is placed. Ac- cording to these circumstances must the degree of the sinfulness of actions bs 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, (s« absit con- silium peccandi.^ Among these are: — (ff) Sins of precipitancy, '■^qtix,'''' as Cicero says, (Officiis, I. 8,) " repentina aliquo motu aniiiii 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 the law 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 prtcipitancy, 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, (^pceeafa injlrmitatis.) These, in the strictest sense of the term, can take place only when one knows that what he docs 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 coiuinits them has used on his part a proper wutciiful- ness, and has resisted his evil desires, aiwl found, after all, that it was impossible tor liim wholly to exclude them from Jiis miml, or to fulfil his duties and his good intenlions. This is the case of which Christ speaks, Matt. xxvi. 41, "The spirit is willing (rtpo^v/ioi') ; but the fesh (i. e., the body, by which tlie sou! is so much influenced) is locak (da>£i-^s) ;" i. e., at 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 f.'us 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 ace 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. Bosheifssitnden.") 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 tliey 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 to the morality of such ac- tions, from that which 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, pcccata vohmtaria, or proxretica, (from rtpoai-'pEtris, foposilum, corif 2C 303 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. tilium.) These are committe] with a determi- nation of breakinff 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 voluntury ; 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. (ft) 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- 'one; and if I commit it, I form the resolution of br(^aking the law of G id 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 pA^s/c«/ 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 ivillingtiess,from mere wickedness, and for the sake of the sin it- self, (peccatum frivolum, or ixovciov.) 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 fxovai'wj, Heb. i. 2C>, where he speaks of just such a denial of «hc 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 o:" drunkenness, &c. Tiie term vice is used in two senses — viz., sometimes to denote the habit it- self of acting against the divine law ; sometimes to denote tlie particular actions which originate in such a habit. Thus when U is said, a man is guilty of a great vice, the meaning is, thit he has committed a sinful action which with iiim is habitual. Hence every vicious man is a sin- ner— i. e., a transgressoi 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- surgetits, 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 (dii:^), who willingly and cheerfully bows to the authority of God. Humility often stands fox 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 exttrnal. 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, (^ixoXvi^oi crapxoj xal Ttvsvfxatoi.') Pcccata actu- alia int. ma, are those which are committed merely in heart, or in thought. They are also called actioncs (pravas) animi, and are compre- hended by Paul under the term tpya, 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 difl^erent manner in which the disposition of ST\TE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 303 the soul is made known through the body, into peccata oris or lingua;, (Matt. v. 23 ; 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 (^■/jaavpoi) 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 decejve 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 hem into judgment for the one as well as for he other. Hence, in the Bible, the very signi- ficant epithet, xapStoyi^uxjrjjj (^S 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 commit 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 ■91 the external ] The decision in this case is lot difficult ; and if we, like the omniscient God, «new 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 alrea'^y in his heart. Oato pronounced justly a similar judgment: Furtum sine ulla quoque attreciatione fieri posse, sola MENTE atque animo, ut furtum fiat, adni- ••snte; Gellius, xi. 18, ad finem. SECTION LXXXIII. OF SOME OTHER DIVISIONS 01^ 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 hut 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- se/f, 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 acrainst 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 ve&'pect to their greater or less guilt and desert of punish- ment, into mortaUa or non-venalia ,• (unpardonr able), and venalia (pardonable) ; — oins 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 if 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, drto^avfta^t ev ■trj a^apria iijCtuii'. 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 ihe Roman and theprotestantchurch. In order that this term may be understood in a sense confirmed to the Bible, it must be ex- plained intlie following way; every sin, as such, deservi'S punishment, Qtdvatov aTtoxvd, 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 {venlam) 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, througli faith in.Tesus Christ; and tlie Christian knows, that through his faith his sins are truly forgiven liim. Vide Rom. viii. 1, ovdiv xataxfufia. 1 John, i. 9, coll. ii. I ; Ps. ciii. 8—18. (3) As the phrase to cry to Heaven is used in the Biljle with reference to particular sins, some have thence taken occasion to introduce the di- vision of sins into clamantia and nnn-clamantla. The texts are. Gen. iv. ] 0 ; 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 coelum vox sanguinis et Sodomorum, Vox oppressorum, nierces detenta laborum." But this cryin is with him to give occasion to sin, to tempt, Mat* V. STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 306 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 ofhce 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 ©tnission 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 axavSa-hi^nv 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 acceptiim is Gxav?ia%ia'^r^vat,ivtivi, Malt. 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 he to make out our title to reward in consequence of this participation. In this way many incautious decisions respecting these sins would bo 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 (|3>.ttc«j»j;tu'tt, or xdyoj jtj Tifsv' jxa oiytof) 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 — G; x. 29 ; 1 Pet. iv. H ; John, xv. 22—24, &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. Athanasiii.i 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 sine 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 (wcrks of the Holy Spirit.) So Theognos- tus of Alexandria, Hilarius, and Ambrosius, although the latter in one place explains him- self differently. In the I'astor 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 vexjf 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 (Hom. 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 hat 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 Cliristian 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. («) 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, (b) 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 tliese 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 acrain were followed by most of the German Lutheran theologians of the eigh- teenth century, after PfafT, 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 tt', declaration respecting the unpardonableness of the blasphemy against the Holy Gliost, according to the express informa- tion of Mark, c. iii. 30. The following remarks may serve to explain this declaration of Jesus: — (o) Bxewf;.""* '3 ^"y slander or calumny which aims to disgrace or dishonour any one whether it be God or created beings, angels an^ men, 2 Pet. ii. 10, 11 ; Mark, vii. 22. In thii passage it is used in the widest sense, and so includes both. (It is inaccurately rendered by Luther, in Mark, iii. 28, blasphemy agatiisi 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. (i) The phrase Son of man is sometimes ap- plied to the Messiah, considered in his whole character (^fcii/^ptortoj) ; 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. 31; Acts, X. 38. It is not, 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 luork of God and the work of the devil are here opposed to each other, and in Mark, iii. 99, 30, Ttvivjxa ayiov and rivivfia. axd^ofitov and in- stead of the phrase, to cast out devils by the spt- 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 economic 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. son or the Son. The Pharisees, therefore, committed the sill against the Holy Ghost not only by ob- stinately den ying, against their own convictions, the uiiracle& 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 eflect 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 he still comtnilled 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 Hieronymus, the opinions on this subject vary, (a) Some of them maintain the iffirniative. 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, (i) But the other side was taken long ago by some Arminian theologians, (e. g., by Limborch.) They maintained that only eye- wilnisses 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 undoubtingconvictionof their certainty. Those in our times who pursue the general course of the Pharisees, deny and ridicule events respecting the liistoric truth and credibility of v;hich 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 Pfafi' 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., vv'here 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 j)ne 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- lity of it must be admitted. (2) Why does Christ affirm, that this sin cannoi he forgiven ? and what does he mean hy this decla- ration? The theologians who adopt Augustine's hypothesis, understand here a real impossihiliiy. in the proper and philosophical sense, and derive it 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 ente? upon the question, tvhy it is impossible. Other? take the ground, that this language means only that this sin is forgiven with great difficulty So most of the theologians of the Romish churcb who ad pt this hypothesis; also many of tht Arminian theologians and commentators; like- wise Hejmann, Pfaff, and other protestants These again are divided in their opinions, sincf some suppose that Christ spoke conditionally, meaning that this sin could not be forgiven if i\ were not repented of; "nd others, that Christ here uses the language of feeling, which is accord- ingly to be understood hyperbolically, and not lit-erally Vide Koppe, Quo sensu peccato in Spiritum Sanctum venia a Christo negata fu6« rit; Gott. 1781. On this question we will give our own judg- ment. The words of Jesus are, ovx a^'^rflt-ttu tii tbv alUva — oiifs iv tovtcp nfa ai^ovt,, ovts ev ta fiixxovtv (i. e., according to the usns loquendi of the Jews, neither here x\ox hereafter); tVo;^dj ictiv aiuiviov xptofcoj, or, according to another reading, a^apna?, (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 whict: is not in strict accordance with truth. For the feeling which Christ exhibits is never accom- panied either by error or sin. The case properh stands thus : (a) all experience shews that s man who has arrived at such a point of wicked ness seldom comes to a knowledge of the trutl or to repentance ; hence Paul says, with regar* to such sinners, abivatov yap, x. i. X.; Heb. ti 308 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 4 — G. Vide other texts cited at the beginninjf ol" this section, (i) 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, Ouit 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 BV THE COMMISSION OF SIN, AND THE DIFFERENT KINDS AND NAMES OF IT. 1. The state 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, (^probos, honestos ;) but tliose 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; 7-eligious virtue, we are there taught, is the only virtue which has true worth in the sight of God ; and this we are taiight even in the Old Testament. Those who possess ^his religious virtue are tliere called a\pni, a-'iJi', D'Tpn, O'^c'^, bixaiot,, ayiot, rtpaEij, ivtyi<5sii, SovXot. &10V, X. i. X.; one of the opposite character is called aisf^rfi, aSixoj, x. r. %. But one who acts acconling to his corrupt desires, and does so ha- bitually, is called in scripture tlte servant or slave of sin; it is said of him that he Hues to sin, he serves it, he obeys it, he is sold under sin, and it rules over him. Vide Ps. xix. 14; I^om. vi. 1, 2, 6, 12, If), 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 liis appetites to reason enlightened by divine instruction, is nfree 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 Ihe same way. Three principal classes may be in general here distinguished, (a) Some adop! the appearance of virtue and piety ; tliey give a saintly appearance even to their crimes, in order to obtain the advantages connected with good- ness. These are hypocrites, and their fault ia called vnoxfi-iiii, -\,ir, y,p, n?:>x: ; opposite to which are rr.^, r\y\r.x, &%rhna, truth, sincerity. This is one of the most shameful, i. i^gravated , and dan- gerous crimes — the hatefu!.,ess and destructive- « ness of which are more f lly considered in the department of Morals. Cf. Matt. vi. and xxiii. ; Luke, xi. 37 — 54; 2 Tim. iii. 5. (i) Others have no hesitation in acting out before the world the ungodly desires and purposes of their hearts. Such are called ungodly, irnprobi, aStxoi, dafi3f 1.5, D'j'ch, because they do not fear nor regard (iod 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, scekratos. 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 serri- 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 thi STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 309 nigliest decree foolish. This is called the state of security — i. e., freedom from care, like the Latin securus ; — status sccuritatis, or lihertatis tarnalis, 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 witli such sinners reformation is far more difBcult. 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 Btate 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 feci 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 ujiselig) are terms which apply properly to the internal state — the well or ill-being of the soul ; fortunate and unfortimate, (glSc/ilich 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, (f) 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 tlie 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 impossitiJe. This state is called by theologians, statum indurationis per- feclurn. 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 healed — 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) i33, /Sapvi'sa^at, |3apvj. These words are literally employed to signify lohat 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 difficult}' of their use; Zech. vii. 11; Gen. xlviii. 10; Matt. xxvi. 43 ; lastly, they are app.'ed 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) rrS'p, literally, /(f/?v/,- Hiphilinuvn, ax'krpvi'iiv, nx'krjpvj'sa^at.' hence the term rtjcXr^poxapSia, from which obduratio is taken. The state of mind now under consideration is often indicated by this fjx7.r-pvvs6^ai., 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 /«/, denote also this state of in- sensibility and unfeelingness — e. g., ]cc'n, pin- gue fieri, rta^vvics'Siai, Is. vi. 10, and Matt. xiii. 15; as likewise the Latin /im^t/«s is synony- mous with hebes, stupidus, tardus — e. g., ingC' 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 ; xataw^i^, Rom. xi. 8, an- swering in the LXX. to the Hebrew ncTin. (5) One of the most common words used in the New Testament on this subject is rttipcoaij, and rtuipocd, rtiopova^at — e. g., Rom. xi. 7, 25 ; 2 Cor- iii. 15; Mark, vi. 52, xap^t'a fiincopcofiii'tj. Thisi word is properly taken from x^po^, which means, having a hard, indurated skin, (as in the hands of workmen;) c«//ot(.s, without feeling; and so rtcopcocrts figuratively denotes, according to Hesy- chius, the same as tj aiuia^rjala, and is synony- mous with (TxTiJ-pozapSLtt. All these words which signify hardheartedness are sometime? used*in reference to the understanding, (called :i^,) sometimes in reference to the will, an^i often with reference to both. A soft heart is, accordingly, susceptibility for reasons and con viction, the open car of the soul. A hard hear^ is the opposite, and indicates a want of knov;- ledge and capacity — the remiss use of them inactivity. With resrard to this status 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 (5f 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, titv'p'Ki^xtf o^^a^woiij avT'iIii' xai rtfrtwpwxf xap- fii'ai'. Rom. ix. 18, also i. 21. These and simi- lar texts were explained by the severe parlicu- larfafs 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 effi^cts ; 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 itsus loqiiendi of the sacred writers. Let the student consider the following particulars — viz., («) 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 ofien 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 htrdcr and more wicked by my efforts. Thus, Isa. vi. 10, "Make hard this people (by preaching), and let their ears be deaf." Vide Michaelis' note on Exod. iv. 21. We speak in the same way when our good pur- poses have miscarried. But, (i) 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 cofnmon 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 oood or evil, directly tn God himself, and regards him as the author and efficient cause of every event and of its cor^equences, because nothing takes place without his permission and foreknow ledge. Vide s. 58, II. 1, and especially s. 70, note, ad ^.nem. 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 n^eans which should have render- ed him feeling* and at the same time, the cala- mity whicfi now hefals him is regarded as a pu- nishment ivhich God injlicts upon him. This last opinion plainly shews that it was not the belief that God a'^ted irresistibly upon Pharaoh; for in that case how could he be punished 1 This langup.ge if 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 ofjudicia, 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, (sjtt- ^dxXcL xarihiyi',') that he inspires wisdom and fully, (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, Ztxij fpsya^ (i\sto, 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. ... A.Wt]KTllV TC KOKOV Tt Qvfiov ci'iaTn^taai Scot Siaav. . . Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? Amos, iii. 6. Note. — The text, Rom. ix. 18, Sv ^tXtv iXfci, ov is ^ixtt. ax\r;pvvei, means, according to many, he treats hardly, like Job, xxxix. 16, {arto6x%rj- pvi'ft tsxva;) and the principal reason for this is, the contrast of iy^tilv. This interpretation, however, does not agree with ver. 19; and iho whole passage alludes too plainly to the pas« sage in Exodus respecting Pharaoh to admit of this interpretation. This ianguage is thereforB to be understood here also in the common sense, and the verse may be thus explained — viz., "The good and the ev'l which bcfal men de- pend alike upon the divine will. Some (who are pleasing to him, as his children) he causes to prof5per: others he hardens — i. e., he suffers them to feel the consequences of their obstinacy STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 31i tjscnsibility, and indifference to his oft-repeated commands; as in the case of Pharaoh, ver. 17." The same thing which is called rsx^.rjpvvnp here, is called evSei^aci^ai opyjjv, ver. 22. Vide Rahn, ad loo. Rom. ix. 17—23; Halaj, 1789. SECTION LXXXVL WHAT PUNISHMENT IS, AND WHAT IS THE OBJECT CF 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 ts 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 sin;') 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- ffistrate. 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, allunJaw- j'ul actions. In human judicatories the external actions only are the objects of punishment; be- cause the knowledge o*" 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 sustinet) is called in the scriptures o^tAhtr^i, 6 Ix'^^ afiaptiav, t'i'o;toj vofiov, irto^ixoi ^£9, zixvov opy^s — otie 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 Micbaelis, that tlie 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. Notii. — Some modern philosophers have as- serted that God cannot punish, and that divine punishments ought never to I)e 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 12 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, II. Scriptural names of Divine Punishments, and the nature of these punishments. (I) 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 tlicir 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 n 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, 11. xv. 137. Nothing like this is taugiit 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, sucii as the revenge, the oalh, 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 easilj' 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., p|S, ]nn, nrn, 6py^, ^vfiog, Psalm vii. 12; Romans, v. 9, coll. s. 31, ad init. ; r^ys, Deut. i. 07; apj, fx8ixr;rsi.i, Isaiah, Ixiii. 4 ; Luke, xxi. 22. The opposites of these are the love, the favour, Ihe friendship of God, npn, ]n, aydrtyj, tXto^, %cipii, x, ■f. X. With refer- ence to announcing or threatening the divine puniishtnents, the sacred writers frequently em- ploy words which literally mean to rebuke, in- erepare, which the irritated man commonly does; especially, nyj, m:.'j, ini.ti.paui, irtifipia, Jnde, 9, seq. Again: the words which signify cursing, imprecation, are used to denote the same thing as n?"^^, xard^>a, mNr, &c., Deut. ix. 96, seq. ; Gal. iii. 20. Opposite to this is n^ia, fv^-oyia, li'Ko'/ilv, Deut. xxviii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 13. As vocabula media (used with reference eithei to benefits or punishments) all the nominu jtidi' cii and verba judicandi are often employed; more frequently, however, with refi.-rence to di* vine punishments, as otut, ]n, h, xpictj, x^ipa-, xatdxpipa. Gal. V. 10; Rom. ii. 3. The words, too, which designate a judicial declaration, are often employed to denote threatenings r;nd pu- nishments ; so even nan, %6yoi, lirfxa, ©:ov. Among the vocabula media belong also all the verba infiiejidi and aspiciendi, such as rv>, trtft- hsi.v, and especially -ipr, to which the word irttazirtrto^at answers in the New Testament, and in the Vulgate, I'isiiare ; in the good sense, to behold any one icith 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 mr":! and imoxonri signify often punishment — e. g., Isaiah, x. 3; 1 Peter, ii. 12. In the Old and New Testament the terms iDir, ids rtat- fifi'fti', casligarc, and rtatSfia, are used to denote the fatherly discipline and chastisement of God, which is the proper idea to be entertained of the divine punishments, nnd the ends for which they are inflicted. Cf. s. 31, II. Finally, all the Hebrew words which properly signify siii and guilt are often used to denote punishment — e. g., PV, r\>i-S7[, Di. Vide s. 73, II. 2, ad finem; ex- actly as, in Homer, "Attj signifies crime, and also its guilt and punishment, II. xix. 91. Cf. 136, 137. Aidj ivyarnp "Ari; >; nrdvra; dorat. — ^te, 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 vi'hich do not deserve it, or more strongly than is proper, and often quite unjusti- fiably ; their anger, therefore, may be, and oftei. is, wrong and sinful. But it is by no meana 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 i> in a very STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 31.' Eiipressive manner. He therefore is said to burti with anger, but his anger is a\ ways just. (2) The divine judgments are inflicted, ac- cording to the Bible, (a) in ike present life; {b) 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- sishments, 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 cource 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, j^pJ^tia ®iov totc xat' aXr^^siav. Vide also those texts which speak of the drfpocurto- f^rj-^Lo, Qsov. (/3) They have the welfare (f 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 ofTender, 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 fire ; 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 sufliciently severe to terrify the transgressor, and must meet him in the point where he can be most strongly affected. XII. Divisions of Punishments. (1) A very ancient division of punishments is \x\Xo jjccnam damni and sensus, in reference to the evil itself which is inflicted on any one by punishment. («) 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 regartJ thp loss of them as the greatest evil, the latter -vil' not suffer in the least from their loss. It is not here, then, of so much consequence, whethei the advantages are real or only apparent, as in what estimation they are held by him from whom they are withdrawn. This wiihdraw- ment now is called pxfia damni, or sometimes jDcena negaliva. (b) When, in addition to this, positively unpleasant feelings are caused and pains inflicted, this is ciiWe A pccna 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, zni positive 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 (arbitrium') of the lawgiver. These two kinds of punishment have been already explained, s. 31, as well as the doctrii... r^jpecting 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 ths 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 v/e 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 resnect 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 nw iurales are properly called laws,, (and wiiatever 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 theso laws are properly denominated punishments ? But these natural punishments may be distin' guished into two kinds: — (r/) Such as are the necessary an^l inevitable evil consequences of the actions themselves, and which would result equally from these actions? 2D u CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. were they not forbidden, and were the actions, ihereforp, 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 conKeijuf-nces of sin, and so to diminish them, that the divine law is given; and in this way it is, that wliat were before mere evils now become sins. Vide s. 73, I. {b) Punishments which result /rom the rela- tion nf huiH'in 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 ,.£i,'» 0£or.) Now because sin is universal among ' men, all have need of forgiveness and reforms 2 d2 318 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. ti'on—\he remission of sins and regeneration, (tt(})E(ji5, fiirdvoia. di'ayti'i'j^crij.) And since we never ?.ltain 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 ess?ntlal that we should have some quieting a'jsurance 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 oi sinful affec- tions is weakened ; so that reason will again at- tain to its dominion over them ; by which man will he placed in a situation to lead a holy and pious life, (5ixatwj xai fvcrf,3il>j ^r-v, x. r. X.) 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 oJ^v- vatov fov vofiov. 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 depra'dty, (Sinnlichkeit.) 'Ev cj i^^i- fsi 6t.a oopxoj. 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 coiTiforting 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 ] (6) 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 hoiiness 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, 'j. 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 o( 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 Gad 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 variotis and manifold. They are designed partly to weaken the pcwsr and dominion of sin; r>arlly to instruct m.en, 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, (rto?.i)^fp(I>j xai rtoTiDrportto^, 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 heAng, 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 I 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 'nankind 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- ce-.ving 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 cf their im- perfect knowledge of God, and of their jxilythe- ism, we often find true religiousness and piety, which, notwithstanding their erroneous views, are certainly acceptable in the sight of (iod. The ancient writers are full of such instances. The gracious care and providence of God is as clearly 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 hiin 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 thei7i ; 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 Nev/ Testament; there is flj ©foj xat, Jlatijp ttdvti^v, Ephes. iv. 5, 6 ; I Tim. ii. 5, seq. God has no partiality, (7ipo6i^rto7.'/;-^t.a,) Rom. X. 12; Acts, x. 34; all have equal right to the divine blessings, especially to ti.ose con- ferred by Christianity; John, X. 16; Ephes. i. 10; ii. 14,18; Rom. v. 18, seq.; and the texts cited by Morus, 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 b jt- ter times in future for the heathen than fo ' e Jews. (3) They are appointed by God w t'r. gieni 380 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- •itruction according to their capacity. He does not overload their infancy with such laws and precepts as they cannot understand, but saves tUe 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 Introduction. Nor is the education of the human race confined to this life; provision will doubt- less be made to enable those who are innocenthj deficient here to make up their loss hereafter. Note. — In the New Testament, the terms X°^'-ii X"-?'-s ®iov, Scopftt Qsov, are used to denote the whnh 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 xapti 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 1^^, 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 uydrer;, ;^p>;(jtor>7j, taar^corti'a, Tit. iii. 4; and (2) the conse- quences and proofs of this gracious regard ; in short, all undeserved divine favours; John, i. Hi, ^dpi; avti x"-iii-foi. These are elsewhere called ;^api5jua, Siopsu, x. -t. "K. Cf. Rom. v. 15. Inas- much as they are undeserved, they are contrast- ed with Qf^T-ixrina., Rom. iv. 4. Hence arise various other significations, by which certain great favours are called x°^\'"-'''''U 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. Xcipij rat a>.>;^fta, .Tohn, i. 7; Xoyoj ;j;a'ptT'oj, the benevolent doctrine, Acts, xiv. 3 ; x°-?'-i @eov, Tit. ii. 11, ;i;api5 Xpi'jrou, and ;^apij simply. Acts, xviii. 27, seq. (b) Certain employments. businesses, and oflices in the Christian churcr^ and the talents, abilities, and gifts besto-.vel '• j God upon particular persons in reference to these oflTices. Thus Rom. i. 5, ;^ap[j xal drfo- (j-toXr^' also xii. 3. In other texts, jfapwua is used, with which ;^aptj is interchanged as r.y 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 acliones .oj araraXXayv;;. Wetstein ad Matt, i 22, and Schottgen, in s. 89 of his book last cited Now if Christ, by his own example, authorlzea the principles which were embraced by the Jews, he himself must have considered them te be true. Whether we must on this acconn consider them as true, must be determined bj the alternative above stated. The principles Oi interpreting the Old Testament which man^ modern commentators have adopted, diHer alto gether from those which Christ and his apostlei* followed ; still these modern principles must not be ascribed to Christ and his apostles, but we must inquire historically, IVhat icere M* principles on which Christ and his apostles pro STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 3il seeded? These need not necessarily be the lame as those which modern interpreters adopt. (1) God determined/ro/rt eternity (rtpo xa,ta- Po>.^5 »:dcf;uov) to send a benefactor and saviour (2ut!;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 eposjtles 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, (d^n^^:;) thus making- the Israelites, as it were, the deposita- Ties 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 /?7er«/ 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. 10—12, 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 2l prophet, those of the Jewish prophets, (e. g,, of Moses and others;) and as ?i priest, those of he priests, (e. g., of Melchisedeo 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. Tiiis canon of in- ^rpretation s 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 tiie ancient privileges of the office, and from the history of his predecessors in it. Cf. Psalm Ixxxix. 27, 31—34. 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 Israeliiish 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 wiiich 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. 11, 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 Ruck (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- l)ols, 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 ti.3 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 hau not been given respecting so im- portant an object as tlie new dispensation to be instituted by the Messiah. That such instruc- tion was given, the .Tews 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. 3G. But we are very liable to go too far in the illustration and developmenfof 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 predications 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 «f our own age, should not be found in the New Testament. That the design of God relating 3 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 83 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 tlie fathers, who took this term from Heb. viii. 5; Rom. vi. 7; 1 Cor. x. G, 11. They were divided u\to tt/pos persoruilea^ certain persons (rulers, prophets, priests,) whu were the representatives of the Messiah ; and iypos 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, 1781, 8vo; and, most of all, Storr Commentar iiber den Brief an die Hebraer, particularly s. 100 — ^208. JVote. — 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 thai their doctrine is not agreeable to the scriptures, which affirm that both the Old antf 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 litre in another sense. Thus the text. Is. liii. 4, 5, "he removed oui sicknesses," denoting spiritual sicknesses, is applied, Matt. viii. 17, to bodily infirmities. The discourse of Christ, John, xviii. 9, coll. chap. xvii. 12, aflx)rds a similar example. Cf. on this subject, Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit, th. i. s. 235 ; Michaelis, Dogmatik, a. 122 — 123; Scrip. Var. Arg. p. G09, seq. respecting m.r^\>J^r^vcsA,, x. t. X. ; Kleu ker, Tractat. de nexu prophetico inter utrumque constitutionis divina? foedns. [Vide also Woods on Inspiration, Lect. ii. — Tb.] SECTION XCI. OF THE SUCCESSIVE DEGREES OF THE REVELA TIONS AND PREDICTIONS CONTAINED IN TUB OLD TESTAMENT RESPECTING THE MESSIAH. Divine providence frequently makes a lonj and secret preparation for great and iniportant 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, b jt gradually unfolds its desigi s 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 Hges, 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 liis 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 Christologie, s. 26, ff.] It was during the life of Abraham, and the times immediately follow- ing, if we judge from the Bi' le, that the general truth was made known, tha: his family would be the medium of communirating this great blessing to a future age. Here belongs the pro- mise. Gen. xii. 3, that " in Abraham all nations Bhould be blessed." This cannot mean that ^hey 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 AhraUam 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 seec? 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?-\r may be used collectively here, as Paul uses it, Rom. iv. 13. But, in Gal. iii. 11, he refers this try more especially to the Messiah, and remarks that it may be trans.ated 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 understoBd 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 nSir, 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 IMessiah, 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 "//^e 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,) ^ Haiti I at last the nS^'iT (to be descended from it) should come, and to him should other nations gather'''' — i. e., many other nations, besides the Jewish, should be subjected to him and dependent upon him. The best translation of rh^v 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, ".4 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 .Tohn, 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 effected in some future time in a special manner, by a prophet sent from God, (the opposite of which cannot be proved,) this word may b^ 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 Ilessiah 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 niimhor 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 verj' minute circum.stances 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. Somelhncs, 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. Jl^ain, 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, 1 1, and also in Ps. xxii. 25. It was during this period that the appellation n'u'r: (;^pi5r65) — i. e., king, hy way of eminence, became common; because the Messiah was de- scribed as a ruler appointed by God, as the repre- sentative of tiie Deity upon earth. At this time, too, it was distinctly jiredicted 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, how'ever, to the Jews only, liut 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 tlian 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. Cut 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, " Uebersetzung 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 Israelilish state is here meant by the servant (f Jehovah. Slaudlin understands it of Isaiah, explaining it from the Jewish story, that king Manasseh persecuted Isaiah, and at last caused him to be sawn asun- der. But this interpretation is /yrcef/, and the story itself a modern fable. Paulus refers the passage to the better part of the Jewish nation, which was called nirT- laj*. 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 of 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 t?ie seventy weeks 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 n'L''!: some have understood Cyrus, others, a STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTIOxN. 331 king. Modern commentators have laboured with the greatest zeal to throw light upon this subject. Clauswitz, Michaelis, Hassenkamp, Dathe, Blayney, Gerdes, "Velthusen, Less, Doederlein, and Berthold, have written upon it; but mucli 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 He'ngsten- 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. Tiius 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 tlfis su-b- ject first, as is done in many systems;) finally, the doctrine respecting what Christ has done for the good of man, or respecting the xvork and office of Christ (jJe 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, vnd in an entirely diflferent 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 ; AND SOME CONCLUSIONS. Before the man Jesus was raised by God to that illustrious dignity (6o|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, tiian the greater part of mankind. This gave occasion to t!ie di- vision of the whole life of Christ into two parts, or conditions — the state of humUintion, and the state of exaltation; or better, s/a/i/s humilitatis et glorice. 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 conditimis. (1) Tartfiroj, 'tartsivuciSi and v-^fO^, V'^ui^rp/ai. These, which are the more common theological terms, are taken from Phil. ii. 8, (itaTiiivcoatv tavtov,) and ver. 9, (0f6j arrov vTispv^ioai.) Tartftj'Of denotes, in general, misery, inferiority, indigence ,• and v-^o^, elevation, greatness, majes- ty ; James, i. 9, 10; Matt, xxiii. 12. Note. — The word i^^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 eraltandi signify also among the Hebrews, to hang up, publicly to execute a malefactor. Vide Gen. xl. 13, 19. (2) Sa'pl, and the opposite rtvsvfia. 2apf and ni*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 Ttvevfia denotes what is perfect, a perfect condi- tion.' Thus Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 50, calls the mor- tal body of man crapl xai al^a, which he after- wards calls tTiiystov, and aZ/xa r-artf ti-iicfcof. The heavenly body he calls rcvevfianxov, and the heavenly condition of Christ rtijv^a. Accord- ingly, the humble life of Christ upon the eartK is called ri^iifai tri^ ffapxdj, Heb. v. 7, and Bii"ro.i are contrasted. This phrase, then, is synonymous with the one used in 2 Cor. viii. 9, tTtrux^vat 6i.' i'fidi, se ipsuin 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. 'El' ufionapart oir^pwrtw;' jd'Ojxtvoi, ffler he ap- peared as man, he assumed tlie form of a ser- vant. Indeed, (ver. 8,) he went so far in bis 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. "7%e/-^/we" (in reward for his sacrifice and obedience) " has God hisrhly txalltd him," (this is explained by what follows,) "and raised him to supreme dignity," {pvofxa, 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 Kvptoj — audilo nomine Jcsu — 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, {KvpLov,) or universal ruler, (ver. 10.) Etj Solai/ 0COU IXarpdj, " this contributes to the honour and glorification of the Father," John, xvii. 4, G. 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.) "/'or it became God, from lohom 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 bestoio upon Jesus the highest blessedness, after he had endured sufferings, and had led so many children (worshippers of God) to "lory, (the enjoyment of eternal blessedness ;) and had thus become the author of their salvation- {oi(>xr;y6i (jujr>;pi'aj.) For he that sanctiies (5 dyta^toj', Jesus) and they who are sanctified (fiy^a STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 333 fo/tfi'oi) are nf one race, (or common human ori- gin, i% fid{ sc. rtarpoj sive ai/aa-roj, Acts, xvii. ■20. 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. Res~uits 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, (u avroj,) 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, ^^xcvovtai ii ^fdrjjj Iva. Z^prjtri yivrjtai Xtq d»'5^pcorti.»"jy ^vOii..'' 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 abdicaiio usus majestatis suae.) This is commonly called xivuaii, from Phil, ii., exhiodiv tavtov, which Luther renders, "£r dusscrte, or ent-dusserle 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 ek- vation; for he then entered upon the possession and enjoyment of all his rights and privileges, (i) 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. JVole 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 1616, 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 ixivuai. But the theologians of Tubingen maintained* that the xfrflis idiomatum divinorum existed in Christ even iJi statu exanitionis, although he never used them ; so that it was a mere xpi'^-ij. This controversy was in a good measure logcmachy. The theologians of Saxony rather favoured the views of the theologians of Giessen than of Tu- bingen. So much, however, is certain, tliat 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. 19-2, 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 wliile upon the earth, and is not clearly supported by the New Testament. He himself frequently saySj 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 comnnon 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 see7i, 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 evidently mentions the -r'artftVuffij, xc'i-woij, an(* ^lop^jj hovTjov, (ii. 8, 9,) as constituting only i part of this life. The incarnation is never men tioned in scripture as belonging to the state oj 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 resurr-ciion to be enumerated among the days of his humilia- tion, (^ittlpat oapxoj.) 334 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. (4) Tho state of humiliation is commonly di- vidtHi into five grailus, degrees, periods; and the state of exaltation into the same number. Some, however, sujjpose more, and oiliers fewer. The co/union division and arrangement is taken from the so-named nposlolical 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; hut to oppose certain doc- trines condemned by the orthodox church as er- roneous. The conccplion 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. — Tu.] We proceed now to treat of Christ considered as Dinn, or of the man Jesus, in the state of his humiliation upon earth, s. 93 — 9G; and then in the state of his exaltation and glory, s. 97 — 99, inclusive. SECTION XCIII. i;f the origin, conception, birth, and youth of jesus ; his true humanity, and the ex- cellences of it. .Tesus was the son of Mary, conceived by her in a miraculous manner (Sto, Ttviifiato^ uyiov,) (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 INIatt. 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 ^nd 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 ihey have their deeper origin in the invisible world, and tiiat the way is prepared for them by God, and that they are finally broug-lit 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 INIatt. 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 tiiem, 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 sntisfv 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 i)is apostles, confirmed by God. It deserves to be mentioned in this connexion that the Jews called the Messiah the second Jdam, (as Paul did,) and that ihey 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 @£ov, (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. Ili'fvua ayioi', (Luke, i. 35,) signifies miracu' luus divine power, and is synonymous with hivai- wij v^is-eov. 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 liim. The phrases, to come upon one (frtfXFvyrfroi), and, overshadow one (srtwxiaatt) amount to the same thing: "thou shalt 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 ix rii'fvuaT'o; (i^tiv ayiov. 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 tliis 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. Hasres. v., c. i. This same opinion has been advocated lately in a work entitled " Versuch eines schriftmassigen 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 Ttap^ivo; belongs ti/ her, even since the birth of Christ. Tiiis name, however, is not given to her in the New Testament after this event; on the con- trary, Christ is said to be ysvo/xiiuv ix ywa-Lxoi, 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 dftrtap^Ei'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 olood, 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'^portoj Xptcrros 'Ij^coijf, 1 Tim. ii. 5. Men are called his brethren, Heb. ii. 11 — 14. He frequently calls himself, o dIo^ ■rov av^ptortou ; the more proper meaning of which phrase is, the son of Mam, the great son of Mam, u Sfv^fpoj 'Abau, as Paul says. But in whatever way this pnrasc is understood, it clearly denotes the true humanity of Christ. The phrases, he came oi appeared in thcjlcsh, he became flesh, denote the same thing; John, i. 14; 1 John, iv. 3; Rom viii. 4, seq. But certain popular prejudices and incDrrcct philosophical principles led some to doubt, and others to deny, this clear truth. Hence the true humanity of Christ was expressly mentionc d 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 boxr^rjti, or ^av- tdsnati, 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 Docetx 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 shev/ed 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 exactlj that Christ indeed possessed the -^vxr^v, (animal soul,) which was the organ by which the Logos operated upon the human body of Jesus; but that he was destitute of the rtvtvfxa vovi, (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, flf., and b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 904; Abth. iii. a 1170.— Tr.] III. Excellences of the Humanity of Jesus. A. In respect to his body. (1) The beauty of his appearance. Many of 33G 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 sucli a supposition. Only \vc must be careful, if we adopt tliis opinion, not to consider it es- dential, and must remember the declaration of Christ, r aapl oix u/^f%et ovStv, John, vi. 63; and wirat Paul says, that yivuifsxnv 'KfiiOT'bv xata edf)xa is not the thing required; 2 Cor. v. IG. 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 ; Hom. 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 suflTer death. B. In respect to his siml. 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 rtpotxoTtti ao^la. 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- lessncss of his lite. Theolngi'ms call this, the iinkssncss (ai'a|),uar>;i/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 dor drey jetzten Lebcns- jalire Jesu. [Also the remarkable passage in liousseau's Conf. du Vic. Sav. in his Emiiius.] The most important passages which treat of the sinlessncss of Jesus are, 2 Cor. v. 21,, u^ yvdira ajxaprlav — i. e., peccali expertein esse (Is. lix. 8) ; 1 John, ill. 3, 5, ayi'oj iati, and a/xaptia oix i/jti iv ttvro. Heb. iv. 15, "He was like us, but a^topi'j rttiapri'a?' 1 Pet. i. 19, auvov d/iiO|Uov xal dflrtJxtn-. TSc texts also in which it is said that he was obedient to the will and command of God belong in tliis connexion; as Heb. v. 8, (which is called obedientiam adivam,') 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. Bann)garlen, Diss, de drap,uar>;'5ta. Christi; Halle, 1753. But, («) 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, witli the man Jesus, although he was without natural depravity. Vide s. 80, II. 2. (/>) If it should be imposstble for a man to live otherwise than virtuously, or if iiis 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 stedf\islly all the temptations to sin, ac- quires a real value and tnerit only on admission that he could have sinned. It was in this sense, doubtless, that Scotus made th:it affirmation which was alleged against him, humanam no- furain Christi nonftiisse drauaprrrov. (c) This opinion is, in fact, scriptural. For (a) we are frequently exhorted to imitate the example of Jesus, in his virtue, bis conquest of sinful desires, &e. But how could this he done ifhe had none of those inducements to sin which we have, and if it had been impossible for hirn to commit it. ()3) Improvement in knowledge and in perfections of every kind is ascribed in scripture to Christ; and Paul says, "that through sufTerinofS he constantly improved in obedience (^/to^fv irtazoi;'i-/," Heb. v. 8. (y) We read expressly, that Christ was tried — i. e., tempted to sin ; b'jt 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 i* had been impossible for Jesus to yield to it' And what merit would there have been in hii STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 337 resistance? 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- irmation 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 "infantia; 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, ap;^'^?^ ar^/xiiciv, ii. 1 1. Joseph was a mechanic. Hence Jesus is called o tixtoi'O? vioc. 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 utsxtiov, 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 was faber lignartus, fixtcov ^vXcov. Even in Hebrew, rhn denotes a carpenter, by way of eminence, 2 Kings, xxii, G. 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, rtH? oCroj ypti^ajuara o?Sf, fir; jttf^a^sjxtjj. 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. D. 501, seq. 43 SECTION XCIV. OF THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS, AND HIS OFFICE A8 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 ot men. Both together compose what is called the ipyoi/ of Christ, John, xvii. And it was that he might execute bulk 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- nasus, 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 ix /.ittftov toTtvivjua. The prophets had these endowments, but in a less degree; he, as the highest messenger of God, had them xviihout measure. Acts, x. 38, i';^pt(jf ir avtov b ®s6i rtv(Vf.ia.-e<, ayiat xai Svvdfiiv, Jesua 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. 13— 17 ; John, iii. 31—33, coll. Luke, iv. I, 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; ev nvivuati, as the New Testament expresses it. Vide Morus, p. 149, note. The name of z prophet, (i<-2i,') 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, ho 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 N^ain, o rtpo^r;rr^i, by way of eminence. Vide John, vi. 14; Matt. xxi. 11; liuL-e, xxiv. 19; Acts, iii. 22; and other texts. Christ commonly called his office as teacher, and indeed his wiiole office, tpyov, his work, bu- siness, (cf. John, xvii. 4;) also to typov tov rta- T\)oi, (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 ffcor^p (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, (a?.»j>fta;) and that his kingdom (ijaaafta) 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'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 furtlier 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, vuiv {esotericis) Sf'Sotat. yfuii>ai /xvurr^pLu. /BaTtXEta;* txf tVoij (^exoterieis) ov Sf'ioTot. His disciples were not, however, to keep any secret doctrines {disciplitia arcani) 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. 2G, 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 fur 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 Uieir inclinations. On the contrary, he exhibited these very hated truths with the most frequency and urgency, because they were the most important, salutary, and indisj)ensable 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. IG, 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 ail this, however, he was, as a teacher, in a high degree modest and unpre- tending. Vide Matt. xi. 29; John, vii. 16—18. 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 ap(v thegms, as in the sermon on the Mount, But he made the most use of purabls, which were very commonly employed by Jewish teachers in their instructions. Vide Vitringa, De Synag. Vet. 1. 3. Storr, De Parabolis Christi, in hia Opiisc. Academ., tom. i. He gave most of his instructions in the relu ixious dialed comnion with the Jews. And miKff 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 his 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 avyxatd- patjtj, aconomia, accomodalio. 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, G5. 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 Delief. 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- fenoach, 1792, 8vo; Storr, Erlauterung des Briefs an die Hebraer, th. ii. s. 53G, f., and Opusc. Theol. Iste Abhandl. (2) The contents o^ ihe public instruction of Jesus. On this subject , and on the plan of Christ in general, cf. Dr. Reinhaid, Ueber lien Plan des Stifters der Ciirist. Relig. (ff) He instructed his disciples in the doctrine respecting God and his attributes; especially re- specting his impartial and universal love to sin- ful 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. {b) He tauglit them with still more particu- larity 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 fulfihi:ent of these d.uties, 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. (fZ) 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 dcctrine 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 liis jniblic instructions, aimed principally at the im- provement and correction o( ihe Jtwhh 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. ; 'v. 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 tlie 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 dilficullies 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 j)romises to instruct them more perfectly after his departure, by means of the Paraclelus, 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 (jood or the good of others, John, xiv. 2G; Kvi. 12—14, &c. JViite. — Although Jesus frequently declares that his doctrine is of divine origin, and reveal- ed to liim 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 imparled 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 t4ie proph»^ts who lived at and after the lime of the Babylonian captivity. But Christ completed and amended these-, doctrines, m;wle additions to them, and placed them in relations and connexions which were entirely new and peculiar, thus giving ihem new weight and interest. Tliis was the ca-e with the doc- trine of the immortality of the soul, regenera- tion, prayer, &c. It may th-refore be said, with truth, tliat a great part of .ill the doctrinal and moral instruction which i< found in tlie 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. 1 1, seq. The question disputed by theologians. Whe- ther Christ can be called a new lawgiver, may be decided by these considerations. CW// 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 rjni.i, and the Greek i-ouoj. The ques- tion would then be, more correctly, whether he was a fiew religious teacher. The remarks above made shew that Christ is entitled to this name, and in a far higher sense than IMoses was. He himself calls his religion, and the ordinances and institutions to be connected with it, xaivTji' Sia^rixi^v, in opposition to the ancient INIosaic dispensation. Matt. xxvi. 28. And Paul calls Christ the author and fou7ider of the new dis- pensation, (^fi.cairrfi xcu-vrj^ 6ia^>;a;>jj,) 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 novua 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. Note 2. — Jesus always appeals to his miracles, and proves by them that his doctrine is divine; John, vii. 1 1. 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 l.ibour for the abolition of all posi live religion, and the introduction of the religion STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 341 jf 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- joelled to believe in any of his doctrines bccciuse he taitf^ht 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 Beliauptungen Jesu und siener Apostel ; Leip- aig, 1792, 8vo; especially the first treatise. SECTION XCV. OF THE HARDSHIPS AND SUFFERINGS OF JESUS. I. During his whole life upon the earth. Althouoh 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. W'e 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 attections, 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 lime in deep distress, and at another in great joy. His external trials and hardships consisted principally in his great poverty and indigence, Blatt. viii. 20; Luke, ix. 58; 2 Cor. viii. 9; the many diflSculties 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 eonsidered in No. IT. The following remarks tviil serve to (he belter understandinpf 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, (accessoriae,) 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. 0, 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 disadvantno-e 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 tliat a man of true piety and magnanimity needs none of those external ad- vantages winch 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, alaxvt'r^i xatafpovr^'sai — 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 f view of his 2f2 iJ49 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. great love to iinen. He became poor for our Bakes, that we might become rich. The proper elTect of this view is to lead us to gratitude and cheerful obedience. (3) Some are accustomed to particularize the sins for which Jesus atoned hy particular hard- ships and sufferings, and also the virtues, for the perfrirmance 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 I3ible 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 soul, 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 \mexampled 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 lai^ 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? We remark upon this sul)j(!Ct, (a) There is nothing in the conduct of Jesus at this time which is inconsistent with a great man. lie was far from that apathy and sto- cism which the martyrs pxhii)ited-, 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 iiim 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 everything 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 oi them. The example of Christ is instructive in this respect. But the most important consider- ation is the following — viz., (b) These sufferings, as Jejsus and his apos- tles always taught, were endured for our sakes, and were the punishment of our sins. This be- ing the ca.se, 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. Cft 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 ruspat oapxoj 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 /ns»rs;en/s, 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 ot Jesus, and calls it rartfiVuicrtj in distinction. Phil ii. 5 — 8; of. Heb. xii. 2. Every thintr was or- dered by God in such a way as to convince the STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. S43 world, beyond a question, that liis death had actually taken place. Vide the circumstances, John, xix. 30, seq. In that age no one doubted tiie fact. Jesus was laid in the tomb as plainly dead. He remained in the tomb until the third day, that tiie 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." Th*» 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 tlian his hu- miliation. N(jte. — 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 torture-S and death; but only iv hox'/^i5ii (seemingly, in his seeming body.) Vide s. 93, II. The Basilidiani maintained that Jesus was not crucified, but Simon of Cyrene in his stead. Cerinthus taught that one of the highest seons, Christ or the Adyoj, 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 meT' Matthew, xxvii. 46. This desertion {derelidio 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 witt; ai.xious 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 he 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, rsri- T.fo-r'at— -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 jtyj^poi^*' does in other cases, to the fulfilment of whal 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, (1) innocently, Luke, xxiii. 14, 15, and the parallel texts, 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 Pet. ii 22 ; iii. 18 ; {2) freely, xMatt. xvi. 21—24 ; John, X. 11, 17, 18; xiii. 1, 21—33; xviii. 1—8; (3) with the greatest patience and firmness, 1 Pet ii. 23; {A) from unexampled and magnaniniout 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 XCVL OF Christ's descent into hell. I. Meaning of the phraseology, " to descend into hell" C^iNU' Sx "n', KarafSaivciv ei; ainv,) 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 e.fter death. Tiie name of this place was S\v^', tit6>-5, orcus, (he under-world, the lcin<:;do)n of the dead. This word never de- notes the place of tlic damned, either in the scrip- tures or in the fathers of the first three cen- turies. Accordingly, the phrase descendere in oretim always denotes in the Bible the separation of the Hiulfroin the body, and, the condition nf the discoibodied npiril 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 bodv. 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 iyxaraXu'^fts tjji' 4^';^y]i' ixov eii iibov, which is always referred to Christ's death and continuance in the grave. The phrase xata-^aivnv ctj a.br^v 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) J]phes. 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. (b) 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 liie 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 tinder great obligations to him, by suffering and dying fur them. ver. 18; by what he did too alter death, while his spirit was in Hades, v^x. 19; (ver, 20 is parenthetic;) by his resurrec« tion, ver. 21 ; his return to (Jod, and his elevated situation in heaven, ver. 22. Tiie sense then is: the body of Christ died, but his soul was pre- served. (Peter always uses au^ and nviv^ia. in this sense; as iv. 1, G.) While his body was lying in the grave, his soul {iv u, sc. nvfvfxart) wandered down to the kingdom of ihe dead, and tliere 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 upon 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 Pe;8r really supposed that Ciirist descended to Hades appears from Acts, ii. 31. II. A SJketch of the History of this Doctrine. For the various opinions of commentators re- specting the descent of Christ to hell, cf. Die- telmaier, Historia dogmalis de descensu Christi ad inferos, ed. 2 ; Altorf. 17G2, 8vo; JSemler, 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 Messias demandalam 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'? 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 ixrfiv^i, 1 Pet. iii. 19. But since, in later times. Hades was understood to signify only the place of the damned; and since ^vXaxtj and sinjiers 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, (x>;,)v5'TfH',) to shew himself as a victor in triumph, &c. Such is the course which the investigation of this question naturally took. Now *he histori- cal sketch itself. STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 34Ji (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. lii. 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 Irenseus says, "Christ in this way fulfilled the law of the dead," v. 31. Clement of Alexandria expresses himself in the same way. Origen says, yvfivrj ai^fiatoi yivojxii'ri ■^vx'*}^ Contra Celsum, ii. TertuUian says, " Christus forma humante 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 ancienttibelievers who expected his advent — to the patriarchs, &c. Vide Iren. (iv. 45, 50,) Clement of Alexandria, TertuUian, Origen, and others. But Origen and some otiiers 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 \x\io the creeds. The phrase. xartX^oz/raftj to. 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 chur:;hes had not ad- mitted it into this creed before the sixth century. Rulfin says (Expos. S. Ap.), that the Romish church did not admit this doctrine into the apostolical creed, "nee in Orieniis ecclesiishabe- tur,'''' and adds, that the word buried which is there used, conveys the same sense. The rea- 6on 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 aje?, especially in ne Western church. The opinion, that the 44 separation of the soul from the body \^as 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 lirnhus pairum, (a kind of entrance to hell, status niedius.) 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 realcm prccscntiam (as to his substance), but only quoad ejftctum. This opinion had many advocates. The protestant theologians since the Reforma- tion have been divided in opinion \ipon this subject. (a) Luther spoke very doubtfully upon the subject, and was unwilling to determine any- thing decidedly. He agreed at first w ith Hiero- nymus and Gregory, in supposing a limhus 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 c?e- scent of Christ to hell as his victory over the devil, as was done in the Formula Concordias, 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. (i) Beza and other reformers understood the descent of Christ to hell to mean his burial. Rusa and Rambach among the Lutherans assented to this opinion. It is false, however; ford*" 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 iiis advent: others, to the wicked also, and tliat such as submited to him were delivered from the place of the damned ; almost like the opinion of many of the ancients. Even Seller thinks this opinion very probable. He supposes, with others, that both the body and soul of Clirist were in Hades. But Flac- cius, Brentius, Dreyer, and others, af^ree w'ith the ancients, that only the soul of Christ was there, while his body lay in tiie grave. But these dilfer 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, (Eder, and others, returned to the ancient opinion, and understood a.5r]i to denote in general t/ie place and condition c>f departed spirits. So most of the English and Arminian theologians. (/) John TEpinus (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 theolosians 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 tchat 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 I 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 {<\ivX;{, especially by Paul, 1 Cor. ii. 8, (i. e.,the glorious, adorable Lord, ni33n Ti'^r, 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 Ijonours thee more, and gives thee more privileges, than all the partners of thy dignity — the other kings, or sons of God, Niiie. — 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., Ki^air;, the Christian church being often compared with u body, Eph. i. 22, 23 ; v. 23 ; di'^p, vmriius, 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; and j't),u/o5, John, iii. 29. Also the appellation of a shepherd, and the comparisons taken from it, John, X. 12. So Christ is called by Paul, ftoiixeva -tov /.liyav, Heb. xiii. 20, and ap^iTCoiur^v , 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 rtot^t' if j xaiLv 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. IL The Nature and Extent of the Kingdom of Christ, the Administration of his Kcign which he carries on from Heaven. Cf. Noesselt, 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 •ome good remarks, together with many very unfounded ones, in Dr. Eckermann's Essay, Ueberdie Begriffe vom Reiclie und der Wieder- kunft Christi, in his Theologischen lieytragen, b. ii. St. 1; Altona, 1891, 8vo. Morus treatr 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 happinesa and welfare. Thus the stoic paradox; "omnem sapientem rcgnare, sive esse regem ,•" and Cicero : " olim cum rcgnare existimabamur." In this sense. Christians are called kings, 1 Pet. ii. 9; Rev. i. G. They are said ov^i'a^txsvfn' t^ Xpturti, to share with Christ the royal privileges, 2 Tim. ii. 12. In the parallel passage, Rom. viii. 17, they are said owbo^a.'i^r^i'a.i.. They are said, also, x'Krjpovojxilv '^arsCKaa-v, Matt. xxv. 34; and /3a5i^fv£ii' iv (^u,yj, Rom. v. 17. According- ly, when Clirist 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 nie," Matt, xxviii. 18. 'O :tarrjp ndvta, bibi^xiv iii ;^fipa5 ari'oii, x, -t. X., 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. 9—11; Eph. i. 20, 21; Col. i. 15—17; Heb. i. 4—14; 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., (ff) Rcgnum sensti latiori. Since the time when Christ was received into heaven, (Eph. i. 20,) he has reigned over all men, whethei they know and honour him or not — i. e., h? pro STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 351 vides for ihem 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. (i) RegnuiH se7isu stridiori sive angustiori, ex- tends over his worshippers, who know and love him; over the whole society {exxXr^ala, Snp) of those who are united, not by external power and compulsion, hut by the power of truth and by instruction. This community is therefore called, in the discourses of Jesus, jSaaiXsla ®fov sive ovpavoii, 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 rtp6j5aia IBi-a. 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 i'p;i;£7'a(. (xeta napafi^pr:6£u>i, Luke, xvii. 20. This kingdom was not extended and * . . widened till after the ascension. (3) The manner in which Christ governs or lules his kingdom. He reigns as (jwr>;p, Eph. \.23— 29. A. Now, 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 to nation 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 liie qualifications and the ministry {^x"-' ptf, ;k:ctp'a|UCfr'a) of teachers from Christ himself, as Christ also himself does, John, x. 1, seq. Q)) By that support, help, and assistance whicii 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 ix^po'' XptoroxJ. 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 ihem, and at the end of the present dispensation tvill 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 wliich time the greatest revolutions will take place in the whole uni- verse, 2 Pet. iii. 7, 10 — 13.) 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 tiien 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. 2G, 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 /zwe 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- poWa Xpitftov. 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 oi \\\e 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 ; aXr^iia., John, xviii. 37; ox Irr^jxa-ti, 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, (b) 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;^api-'c(ai'o avt<^ ovo^a, and hi'o avtov vrtipv' 4.wcfs, Phil, ii. 9. "We see Jeius, after he had endured death, crowned with glory and honour," &c., Hebrews, ii. 9, 10. The Father is de« 352 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. scribed as vrforoloj Xptuto na^ta, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 27 ; Acts, ii. 31 — 3() ; tlie discourses of Jesus in John, xvii. 5 ; ISIatt. xi. 27, seq. ; xxviii. 18 ; also many of the texts which speak of his sit- tiiiir at tlic right hand nf God, s. 99. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, frequently makes use, in relation to tliis subject, of the word rfXfiw^jji/ot, which is applied literally to the reward of victors. He cx])lains the idea in a very intellijfihle 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 Morns, p. 181, s. 9, for other texts and com- ments. This kingdom is therefore called, at one lime, the /.YHiff/o/rt (f God, from its founder; at another lime, the Jdngdom 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 (aiwnoj. 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 jtj roiij aiiLraj, xai r-^j fiafjiXsta^ avtov ovx iorai, I'aXoj," Luke, i. 33. The text, Ps. xlv. 7, 6 ^pdvoj aov tij -tov alCjva. tov otcl)i/o{, is explained in the same way, Heb. i. 8. Clirist himself says expressly. Matt. xvi. 18, TtiXai otSovov xatiisx^'aovSL r^j ixx7~.y]aiai — 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 fuj -tr^i avi'- tiXtiai toi) aiuivo^. His friends should enjoy his constant presence, support, and assistance, in every condition of life, until iho end of the world that now is. (d) 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 ena will then have attained the goal, and will be actually blessed. So Paul says expressly, I Cor. XV. 21 — 28, in entire accordance with the universal doctrine of the New Testament re- specting ilu; 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 rny right hand, until I subject to thee all thine enemies." The phrase, lo sit on ike right hand nf the Father, he explains by /3afji- lUvtw, and comprehends under this term all the offices of the Messiah and the institution* 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 governnient, 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 arguinenti, p. GO, 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 thetm as their Lord, and as the au- thor of tiieir 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 KINO 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 Formulx respecting the Kingdom of Christ. (1) We must begin with the principle, that many of the images, expressions, and phrases, which are applied to Cod and his government, arc borrowed from those applied to oarlhly 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, ovbiv aviv &(ov. 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. Tt/tfi (A(OT/)£p£oj /?oo-(Xi)Of) 6' ex Aidf un, i, does not mean, the greatest or Jirsl 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, npuro- toxoi must be rendered either king, ruler, Heb. i. G,and Rev. iii. 14, where we read uj>xri (i. e., ai^X'^v) xti,6£ui ©sou ; or, he who existed prior to all creatures, in which sense the Jews called God printijge.nilnm rmmdi. (b) 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, " Ae descended from heaven,'''' John, iii. 31 ; vi. 31, seq., ver. G2 ; 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 of wisdom, 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 E5 ovpai/ou (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 orfov rjv to Tipo-ttpov, John, vi. C2, 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, (raj)tum incoeUiin;) or considered the text as referring to xhe pre-existe7ice of the human soul; although not a trace of such an opinion appears in lh« Bii.le,. Here it might indeed be objected, "that Christ is described as an exalted, heavenly spirit, but nut as God; hf 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., ah aeterno,) John, i. 1, and xvii. Vide s. 37, in prin. Before the creation of the worlci STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 33T ootning 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 ^v ilxov rtpo -tov ■tdv xocniov dvac rtapa piort>;'7t;, Lat. incarnatio. In after times they denominated the same event rtpoaX^yi^'Si assumtio, the assuming of human natiire ; 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, artipfiaroj 'A,3paa.u e7(L%afj.j5dvBtai, Heb. ii. 16, means, that he assisted, took care of the children of Abraham. How could artipfxa 'ASflouu denote human nature? 'Erti>.au,3ai'£o^at and avtixau^dvca^at, t'lvoi 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) A^ot of such a nature as that either the deity or humanity was deprived of any essential and |)eculiar attrihutes, or in any essential re- spect changed. For, (r/) 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 lanciiao-e is never used in the Bible ; and the idea implied by it is inconsistent with the divine glory. Bui 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 iff the meanest of his works, to connect himself with them, and in and through them to exert hia power and agency. (i) 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., (ff) in a close and constant connexion of the deity of Christ with his humanity from the com- mencement of his existence; (i) 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 (rfpo jcata,3oX^j xoa/xov), was impart^ 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. 9—11. 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. (fl) 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. 'I'he 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, 9* 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 farth, his sufferings, death, &c. But in the date of exaltaiiun the sphere of the agency of lesus was infinitely ennobled and enlarged. There the influences and the effects of his divi- nity could appear more visibly. 'Jliere, in hea- ven, he is far more susceptible of its co-opera- tion and support, in the government of the world Bnd 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- cree 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- ticns 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, 8eq. (i) 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 prxscntiani arcliorem, or ?ipeculia- rem prxsentix gradum, and remark that a prae- sentia localis, or approximalio, cannot be under- stood. The sut)ject 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 upon things extrinsic to itself. The body could not act without the co-nperation 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 par(s remains, as to its ess( nlial nature, unaltered. Vide Ernesti, Progr, Dinnitas et Veritas incarnationis Opusc, Theol. p. 31(5, seq, 'I'his comparison casts some light upon the subject, but is not entirely apjilicable, 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 oiUy, (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 u7ie spirit luith anothei-. 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, I. on tiie 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 nmst be considered as one person. This union is represented in a similar manner by Origen, Ilfpt 'App^wi', 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 i nsufficient to render the subject entirely intelligible, or to explain the manner of this union in a satisfactory way. Morus gives the right view of ibis 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 (ro rtwj) tlian the holy scriptures warrant. Bui 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 [iretend to insist upon an explanation of things beyond the reach of their senses, and the sphere *G0 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, of human knowledge and science. They did not doubt or deny these ihinjfs 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 thfsy 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 vvitli 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 demons/rale 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 ihe 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 tiie 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 inore 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 formulse. One particular view may be very important to its, 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 de /oted xo 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 sjjliere. 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 difTer- ent systems of philosophy and different modes of thinking which may prevail. During the first ages of the cburcli 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, Jesiun esse Dei filium c Maria natiini. 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. Melanclhon 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 t> 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 alio qundam modo cognoscamus, quam exhibent seholastici." 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 F'ormula 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 apjily 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 tlie importance of this doctrine in a practical respect is still more illus- trated. Almost all men feel the necessity of STATE INTO WHICH MAN JS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 3GI having a human God It is difficult to love and heartily confide in that immeasurable, invisible, inaccessible God, whom we learn from philo- sophy. But Jesus Christ (the Logos become man) is n jt merely the immeasurable, the invi- sible, the inaccessible God ; he is a true man of our own race, and we are his brethren. It is therefore easy to love him, and heartily to con- •ide in him; especially considering how much, as 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. 14 — 18; 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 finem. It were enough to shew the nninbkness 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, Jo.hn, iii. 16. How opposite to this is the at- tempt to demonstrate this truth a priori! So thought Athanasius; and Augustine calls those siullos, 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 OQUst be given. Therefore the Son of God must become man, in order, as God-man, to aflTord this satisfaction to God." Vide s. 114, 2. Some theologians, eve^ 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 tvilh 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, v/hich 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 (c) to those who denied that Christ had a real human body (the Docetaj), or (i) 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- mulae 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 Christians 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 oflTence. 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 humaii body, and assumed real human flesh. Hence the earliest fathers and symbols are satisfied with the term, traapxcoaij, 2H 3(5-3 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. witiioutgoinfT into further explanations: rttffi'tvw tii Tiov Qioi) aan^xuj^ivra. So Justin the Mar- tyr, lrena?us, 'IVrtuUian, (Adv. Prax. c. 2,) and even Origen, (jttjii 'ApyCJv.) [Tiie general truth of the above statement of our author, that the early fathers supposed that the Logos assumed only a human budy, is con- firiued by the testimony of Muenscher, Dogma- tic History (Translation), p. G3; of nahn,Lehr- buch, s. \')G ; of Neander, Al. Kirchengesch, b. i. Ab. iii. s. 1003. 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 bodi/, t;'^w; xai ai'^pwrtov dXjjiwj tbv aifbit cx 4'^ar^5'^°y""?J **'' '^^' juaroj, oixooi"jiov r 9 rtarpi xata, -triv ^lorrjta, xai ufioovotov rbv ai'tbv *;fxtv xata ■friv ar^pcuTtotr^ta, xata. rtuvra ouolov t^jxiv X'^P'-i cfiaptiai' rtpo aitoi'ioi' fiiv cx tov rtafpbi yivvir^ivra xata. ttji' ^fOtJjTa, trt' t(j;^arcoi' Si tiliv T^fifpiov fov avrbv, 61.' ^/uaj xai bia. rriv r^ui-fipav OoitirpLav, ix Mapmj rijj rtap^tvov r^j ^torbxov xara triv di'^ptortbrjyta, sva xai Toi' avfbv Xpta-fov, vt,bv, xvpiov, fiovoytvr^, ix 5vo ^vatiov [av 6vo ^vdffft] aavyx'vtoii at pt t(- ruj, dStaipitwj, ax^^pi-St coi yvupi^oixc- vov oi'Sauov trj^ tuiv ^vaiuiv ii.a^opa; avrpr^fxivr^^ 6itt trjv tvuatv, aio^ofiivr;^ be jxaXKov r^f i8i6r>;- ro5 fxaripaj iJ)V(jftoj xat fij jV rt p d ffo rto r, xai ^lai' V 7t6 nt an iv ovvtpcxovnr^i, ovx li^ Bvo rtpo- Otorta ixfptijOuevov ^ 6iatpov,UEi'oi', dx^' tVtt xat Toi/ auroi' Diov xai /Aovoyivrj^^ibv %6yov, xvpiov I);^!;^ Xptffrov zaS-artfp ai'to^fv oi rtpo^/jtai rtjpi avtov xai avfoj J^uaj o xvpio^ Ijj^ovj XpKTroj £5frtai6£i;5f , xai tb tCjv Ttatepiov ■^^ulv rtapaSfStoxs cvfi(5oXov. There can be no reasonable doubt which of tlie two readings, ex bvo ^vaet^v, or iv 8vo ^vntai, 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 ix fiyo ^vanov. The reading iv 5vo ^ioiac 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 yvcopi^oj-isvov is of diffi- cult construction with tx, and, on the contrary, reads naturally with iv. Cf. Neander, b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 1110.— Tr.] V. The Theory and Sect of the Monothelites. 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 em])eror 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 parlies might assent, and thus become united. At first, many weie inclined to adopt this opinion, and among others, the patriarchs at Constantinople and Rome. Rut a number of councils were held upon the subject, and the catholics at last came to the conclusion thtlj this opinion would intro- duce only a different form of tlie 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 right 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 ir. 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 Ncstorianism ; 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, Kelzergeschichte. 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 CHL HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS CONTINUED; THE AN- CIENT ECCLESIASTICAL TERMINOLOGV 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. INIany ancient terms were differently defined and understood after that STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION 367 period. This indefiniteness of phraseology, and the various use of terms, were the principal occa- sion of these controversies. The terms employed ought, first of all, to have been explained and Uiiderstood. (1) Some ANCIENT general terms respecting the person of Christ, and the relations and actions of his deity and humanity . («) The ancient fathers were in the habit of calling the mutual relation of the deity and hu- manity united in Christ, olxovo/xia, 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 aconomia, and rendered it dispensatio. (b) 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 ^tarSpoj or ^fav^pcortoj, God-man ; as Tertullian had been accustomed to say, Deus et homo, and Origen ©foj xal ai'^purtoj. (c) They called the power which the deity and humanity of Christ had of working in com- mon, svepyiia. ^sarSpiz'/j, vis, sive opcratio 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 dcoviriles ,• also, aTiofs^es/xata. Vide s. 105. (2) Various terms were originally used to de- note the two subjects {rtpuyfiata, res, as Cyril of Alexandria calls them) connected in Christ. In the Latin church the oldest term was substaji- tia. So Tertullian, "substantiae duas, — 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 even 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- isteiiee itself 'dnd that ichich 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, m 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. («) 'Trtoorarrtj. This word nnswers exactly to the Latin substantia. It was used by Nestorius, and before him by many whose orthodoxy was never doubted. (6) ^ijai;. This word was used at the same time in Egypt, and was one cause of the controversy betw ren Cyril and Nestorius. Vide s. 102, iii. (c) Oista. This word was early in frequent use; butihrcuinrh the efforts of Cyril and the Roman bishop, in the fifth centur)^ the word ^vaii 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 foi this purpose; and this, being very definite and unambiguous, has been retained. Respfcling its definition, &c., vide s. 104. But the Greek church had a great variety of terms to express the same thing, which occasioned the greate" confusion. (a) Upoac^Tiov. This word was, in fact, tha least ambiguous, and answered exactly to the Latin ^crso?i«, (a suppositum intelligens, which has its own proper subsistence.) In man) churches this was originally the most common word. It was so even among the Syrians, who derived their word porsopa from it. Accordingly, Nestorius said, rtpocrcdrtoi' iv xal hvo vrcoa ■tdasii (natures) iv Xpia-tc), But the word was uncommon in Constantinople, Egypt, and elsewhere. In these places they used instea<^ the word — (i) 'Trtocrraatf. Among the Greeks this word means the actual existence (vVtapltj) nf a thing, the existing thing; also, aji 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 : sU XpKjroj, ^tta vrtocrrafftf, hvo ^ v s b t i iv Xptcr- •ry. This party prevailed, and introduced -irtorr- taoii as the common word by which the orthodox were distinguished. Even they, however, some- times still used the word Tipoounov. The word vrtoaTMii may also have been regarded as more scriptural, from Hebrews, i. 2, ^^apax'rrjp vnon-td- (jEwj; but here the person is not the subject of discourse. Vide s, 100. The Nestorians still adhered to their Ttpocn^Ttov znd parsopa. (c) 4'i'5tj. 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 fiia ^xaij 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 icords, comparisons, and established distinctions employed to illustrate the manner of the union of the two natures. 368 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. ' (a) The most ancient words used by the fathers to denote the union of the two natures ccr.vey the idea of a mixture of tliese natures. Amon;j others wzstbe word 9vyxpa.(3i;.,cnnimixtio, and misceri, which is used by Terlullian (adv. Pr.ix.) and by Cyprian, and even in the fourth and (ifili centuries by Gregory of Nyssa and Ephraoin the Syrian. This word occasionally escaped even from Leo the Great, the zealous opponent of Eutychcs. Of the same kind were tiie words which frequently occur in the writings of the Grecian, and more especially the Egyp- tian, teachers of the third and fourth centuries — viz., fiifaSoXr;, ^iifrttrtot/yatj, fifraudpijitoaij. But the word awu^na, was preferred by Nestorius and some otliers. But for this very reason it was rarely employed by his opponents. The other words avyxpaaii, x. r. X., which denote a mixture of natures, were rejected at the Council at Chalcedon, because they were used by Euly- ches, and the word ii'wjtj, tinin, was there esta- blished in their place. (i) The illustrations of the manner of this union employed by the ancients. (a) Comparisons and ima<^cs. Some of these are very gross, and exhibit very imperfect con- Teptions. TertuUian said, (Adv. Prax. 27,) ''The deity and humanity in Christ were mix- tura quxdam, ut e/ectrum ex auro et argento." Origen and B.isilius the Great compared this union to iron heated in tiie fire, (penetrated through and through by the fire;) Ej)hraem the Syrian, to a compounded medicine; Origen, in another passage, and Theodoras of Mopsuestia, to the marriage connexion {two, one Jlesh) — 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. (.3) Many new terminologies were invented after the controversies commenced, in order to distinguish one se?t from another, and to obviate various unscriptural representations. Thus, the natures in Christ were said to be connected ax^ptata^i d5ia:p£ruj, and aStaXvrco; — i. e., in- dissoiubly and permanently, and not merely for a season; f)r the Gnostics taught that the JEon Christ was separated from the man Jesus at the time of the death of the latter; and Marcellus tauglit that the Logos would at some future time return to the Father. In opposition to these and similar errors, the above determinations were tiierefore adopted by the Council at Chal- cedon. Thus, ton, in opposition to Eulyches, this union was said to be Mvyxvt<^i, (such that a third nature had not arisen from the union of the two natures, as when material things are min- gled ;) eich n.iture existed by itself, unaltered in its kind, irptrtruij. Christ, it was said, should be one, iv rtpojwrtoi', (xia, vrtotraitj ^^av^pujrtou. This iViodij was said to be ov^iwS^;, (not appa- rent, but real;) ■i'Ttoar'arixjj, (such that the two natures remained unchanged as tii their kind, although they were essentially united — a term used by Cyril;) I'rtfp^vaizrj, (supernatural,) &c. After the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the schoolmen of the West adopted these termino- logies into their systems. The orthodox Greeks also constantly preserved them, in opposiiion to the Monophvsites, Nestorians, and other here- tics. II. Later Distinctions. During 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 nnec were in- troduced. The occasion of this was, the contro- versy respecting the Lord's Supper between th»5 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 The- ologici" of Melancthon. On this subject the following particulars should be known — viz., (1) Luther affirmed the true and siibstanfiai 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/)// ?/s»ca/ presence of the body of Christ. Beza, on the other hand, and other Reformed theologians, shewed, as Zuingli 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) Agiinst 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 cnuld 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 mtich controversy respecting the omnipresence of the body (if Christ. (3) In order to render this presence of the body of Christ more intelligible, assistance was sought from the doctrine (/e communicntione idio- malum interna et rcali. Here Chemnitz wai STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 3G9 the most active. They proceeded on the ground tnat tiie human nature of Christ was united in the most intimate manner with the divine nature, that it was penetrated, as it were, by the divine nature, and received all divine attributes by com- munication. They invented for this purpose tlie "^c»us communicalionis idiomatum tnajes- talicum.'''' At length they displayed this fine web of subtilty and terminology in the " Form of Concord." (4) Hereupon new dissensions and schisms arose in the Lutheran church in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For the theologians of Brandenburg rejected the " Form of Concord" altogether, and the theologians of Helmstiidt 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 to the Lutheran church. SECTION CIV. A IIUIEF 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 liuman. 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 tiiese 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 Btethius 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 fr'->m 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 (tVuins) ; the beginning of this union, or the act of uniting, unitio, which is therefore synonymous with incarnatio, (ii'sa'pzw- otj.) 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 hwexe, penetrated hy i)\e 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, Tta^^ix^pyji^i-i, observing, how- ever, that no mixture {^vyxvaii) of the two na- tures takes place, and also that this union is in- separable and indissoluble, (axi^pcatu^.) 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 inipersonality, avvTio'^ro.oia, imperso- nalilas, 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 a.wtoata'toi, and that it has iwnoata- aiav 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 (a^' ia.v ■tov), 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, meac soul and body together. N'ote. — In this way, and in this way only, can we explain the fact that Christ should speiik of himself in the very same discourse, and iiideefi in the very same sentence, as man, and again i» such terms as the eternal and immutable Goa 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 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 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 whicii 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. (•3) Another consequence deduced from this community of the two natures is, that one nature communicates its own attributes to the other, {com- munic'irc idiomata.) (;^tarix6i', sive rnrijcstalicuiu, because divine attributes are communicated to the man Jesus — e. g., Jesus, or the Son of man, is almighly, omniprcscii!, omniscient, &c. The most probable texts are John, iii. 13; vi. C2, "Tlie Son of man will return to heaven, where he was before." IJut these do not teach that divine attributes are communicated \.o the human nature of Christ; and, in truth, the phrase Ttoj av^iirtov here denotes the whole person, the Messiah, although the appellation is taken from his humanity. Tiie texts. Matt, xxviii. 18, 20, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth," and " 1 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 whol: Christ speaks of himself, and not merely his humanity. For other texts, vide Morus, p. 141, 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 shoulil bo entirely discarded, because it has no clear authority from scripture. So Origen and many otiiers. 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 csppcially the genus propos. auchcmaticum, 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 eoncrclum natuvx, 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 thougiitless. 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 ofrensiveness of these prnj)osilions is removed hy using tlie name of tiie 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 tiiat they might be explained in 8ucli a way as to give a true sense. Cf. Morus, p. M5, n. 2. (2) The second class o{ propositiones idioma- ticx comprises those propositions in which th« works belonging to the mediatoiial office ct Christ are ascribed to the person, named from either of the two natures, or from botii united. This class is called genus proposilionum drto* 'tcXtOfiatixov, from drtorfXtVuara, tjfcclus siva opus, sc. mcdiatorium. This is thus described in the language of the schools : ^^ Jpolelcsmata, sive acliones ad opus medi'atorium pcrtinentcs tribuuntur subjecto, vel ab Immana, vel a divina, vel ab ulraque natura denominato.^^ Tiiis 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 nalurx. Thus I can say, Christ raises the dead, redeems and judges men. But I can also say, either that thf 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 accouns of the controversy in the sixteenth century be tween Osiander and Stancarus, theologians ot Konigsberg. Osiander taughithat Christ atoned for the sins of men only as God, and not as man. Stancarus, on the other hand, taught that tht human nature only, and not the divine, was concerned in the mediatorial work. The olhei theologians decided justly that both natures were here concerned. These two theologians, indeed, expressed themselves inaptly, but ap- pear not to have been so unscriptnral in theii 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. 140, last note. CHAPTER IV. THE WORK OF CHRIST, AND WHAT IIA8 BEEN EFFECTED BY IT. SECTION CV. SCRIPTURAL NAMES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF 'lU* WORKS OF CHRIST, AND THEIR SALUTARY EF- FECTS; ALSO, THE NAMES OF CHRIST AS THB SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. I. General Names of the Works of Christ for the good of Men. (1) "Kpyov is frequently used in the New Tes- tament in the discourses of Christ himself, John, STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 373 IT-, 34 ; xvii. 4. It signifies the business, works, which he had undertaken. In the passages cited, his business is called tpyov tov rtarpoj, or toy }iijA.-\'avtoi ; because it is considered as a commission given him by the Father. It is also called h'^ox-q, mandatum, commission, John, X. 18; xii. 49. (2) Many ecclesiastical terms were afterwards adopted in addition to these scriptural terms. Among thtse is the word munus, which is very appropriate, as it means business, work; and thus answers to tpyov. The word officium 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 prophetaR, nuntiantis divinam voluntatem." Hilarius, of Poictiers, in the fourth century, says, " Officium Christi proprium cognitionem Dei afferre," and " Officium Christi pcenale." These terms were retained in the protestant church, and officium and officia were the most common terms with Melaricthon, Chemnitz, and others. But he- cause, in Germany, tnunus and officium were commonly rendered by words which denoted offices, posts of honour, (Germ, Jimf, 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, (jU5j axoVKvn'^ai,') but shall become happy, (^to^r 4;^f£v.)" Also, Heb. ix. 15, where drtoXv-rpwcrtj means Uberatio ab in- fortunio, and ;i;X?;pojo^ti,'a, possessio beatitatis. Cf. Luke, xix. 10; 1 Tim. i. 15. Christ is said to have come, 1 John, iii. 5, 8, a/taprta? aipfir and "Kvav tpya -tov hia^aXov, pcccata. The word oiL^iiv which occurs frequently in these passages, like the Hebrew i"t;-in, involves the two ideas of freeing from misery and translat- ing into a happy condition. The same is true of the word ctotTjpi'a. (2) In other passages the benefits which Christ has bestowed, and his desert of the hu- man race, are comprised in a shorter descrip- tsoia, and only paniciiiai carts of his work are mentioned — e. g., John, i. 17, which treats of the great advantages which Christianity ha3 over the Mosaic doctrine and institute, (lo^oj.j Christianity bestows the greatest blessings, xdpLi xal a'kr^'^sia — 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 ///e" — i. e., I am he tlirough 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 o\xx 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." in. Scriptural Titles which are given to (Christ as the Saviour of the World. Tiie 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 Swf ;jp, (xoa- |tiou,) Saviour, Benefactor of men. The follow- ing titles imply more directly the idea of his being the Benefactor of our race. (1) 'lyjsovi. 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 : Scicrft. "kaov txvtov 0.7(0 a/taprttdi', 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 'l-/;aovi by the LXX., and Heb. iv, P The Hebrew name vii;'> or jnc'ini is derived from •;c'^, Hiph. j?^pn, which answers to auj^nv, (as 6iotr;pia does to ^d^) and signifies, according to J Hebrew and Greek usage, n:t merely a dtU^ S74 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. verer, but in general, a benefactor, one who be- stows blessiiigs. (2) Scr^p. This word agrees in signification Willi 'Irj'jovu and answers to liie old German word, Ileiland, (Saviour.) For owr^p 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. C3,) "Is est Soter, qui salulem dedit,''^ and remarks that it is " ila mas;num, ut latino unb vcrbo exprimi non possit. Vide Ernesti, CI. 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., Anliochus, Ptolemy Soler, 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, Scotjjp T'ou xoi^OD, the Saviour of the world, the Benxfactor of the human race, Luke, ii. 11 ; John iv. 42. So when the word oioffiv is spoken of Christ, it signifies to bless; and au)^6jxivov, the blessed, is a name given to pious Christians, 2 Cor. ii. 15; and tjcor'jjpta 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, scq. (3) MffsiVrj. 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 by Philo (de v. Mos.), and by Paul ; Gal. iii. 19, f.uoltr^i, in the sense of mediator, ambas- sador, negotiator {^internxintius, interpretes), as mediator between God and the Israelites ; because he 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 Mosps describes himself as standing ava. fxiaov Kuptov xal "Kaov, affords the orio-in of this appel- lation. With this the works of Christ were com- pared ; he was called, 1 Timothy, ii. 5, /.iialfr^i 0fov xai av^puiTiov, partly inasmuch as he treats witli 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. f>, /.ctnitr^i xpf trf oroj 8ia^>;- Sf^j- ix. \\,xaivr;i bia'^rxr;^, the fmnder of a new and more excellent dispensation than the ancient Mosaic disppusation. Cf. xii. 24. (4) 'O rt|)0({);^r>;5, s»3:, 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 fiom 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 drtorjroXoj. This appellation occurs Heb. v. 1, ttrto'aroXoj — tr^i o/uoXoytaj ruwp — i. e., the messenger, ambassador of God, vvli.oin we (Christians) profess. Christ frequently, espe- cially in John, applies to himself tiie phrase 6» a7ti6t(t%(v 6 0fo{, John, xvii. The various other titles which w^re given to Christ, from the particular benefits which he conferred upon men, including the figurative names, a,i;j;tfp£vj, djuvoj, afirtiXoi, ^upa, will be noticed in their proper places. SECTION CVL WHAT IS CONSIDERED IN THE SCRIPTURES AS PRO- PERLY BELONGING TO THE WORK WHICH CHRIST PERFORMED FOR THE GOOD OF MEN ; EXPLANA- TION OF THE WORD " REDEMPTION," AS USED IN THE BIBLE ; AND WHAT IS THE MOST CONVE- NIENT AND NATURAL ORDER AND CONNEXION FOR EXHIBITING THE DOCTRINE OF THE ENTIRE 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 the titles applied to him refer: aso rtpo^^r>;s, o artoa- toXoi, (s. 105,) 6t5aoxaXoj, x. r. X. Respecting 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 object of the advent of Christ; still it is represented as a great object, and as an essential part of his work 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 true religion ("that they sliould acknowledge thee as the true God") as belonging to the ?pyov which was given him by the Father to do; and in John, xviii. 37, he says, that he was born and had come into the world in order to propa- gate the true religion, {aXri^nav.) He every- where taught that he was lawgiver and king so far as he was a true, an infallible teacher; that he reigned over the minds of men, not by external power and constraint, (like the kings of the earth,) but by the internal power of the truth which he preached. Cf. John, iii. 34* xii. 49, 50. (2) ThesMj7erj\^'-sand d ath which he endured for the good of men. This, too, (~^lirist himself always mentions as an essential part nf this work — e. g., John, iii. 14, seq. In the allegory, John, vi. 51, where he compares himself with the manna, he means by the bread (f 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. 37» of men, (irtfp ^w>;j tov xdu^tov ;) 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 readily 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 inaxorj; 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 rtapaxorj 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 dorn, 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, (a) 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 ?in(^ eternal life are mentioned by Christ himself as the principal object which he had in view, John, iii. 16; Matt, xxvi, {b) As to the other assertion, that his doctrine was proved and eonjirmcd 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 ascension. The passage, Heb. ii. 10, cannot be appealed to in proof of this assertion; for 6ta ria.'^ri(xdii.civ means, offer 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. IT) myself to this service, in order to give them an example which they should follow in the proclamation of the true religion; tha 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 truth of the doctrine for which he dies ; 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 marlyrs 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. (f/) 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 disciples 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 foi 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 nevei 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 tlie prophets did, and afterwards the apos- tles themselves. He himself delivered only the 376 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Bniallest 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, lived through a long course of years, added to the number of the doctrines of the Christian religion, and widened their scope, disseminated them througii many countries, and saw the hap- piest results of their labours. In short, they did, as Christ himself predicted, greater things than he iiimself 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 iiere and hereafter. Even John the Baptist, whom Christ described as the greatest of all ])rophets, esteemed himself unworthy to offer him the mod menial service; John, i. and iii. 28 — 36. " Whosoever believes in him has eternal life." W^here 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 indructimi and ex- ample. Tiiey 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 toctrine. Paul himself protests against this idea, as derogstory to Christ, and abhorrent to the fee.ings of Christians, I Cor. i. 13. II. Explanation of the word diroXfirpoKrif or XCrpoxjij, (Redemption,) and a development of the idea contained in it. (1) The primary and literal signification of Xurpocj is, to redeem by the payment of a ransom of money or somelliing else. For Xvtfiov is pre- tium redemptionis, and is used by tlie LXX. to translate the Hebrew im, Exodus, xxx. 12, seq. Thus it is used, p. g., when speaking of redentption from captivity or slavery, which is «lTecled hy the payment of a ransom, or when speaking of a person's property which is in the hands of another, and which he then redeems. In tills sense Xurpocj frequently corresponds to the Hebrew words "rxj and mr, and Xvrpui5ts to the substantives derived from them — e. g.. Lev XXV. 25, 30, 48, 49. But, (2) Avtfovv and Xvfpwatj frequently convey the general idea of any rescue and deliverance from an unhappy situation, as from slavery ; or deliverance from any other, even moral evil, without either the literal payment of a ransom, or anything like it; precisely like m:; and "^sj. Slavery and captivity so often befel the Hebrews that they were in the habit of comparing every species of wretchedness with this severe cala- mity. Captivity stood with them for great ca- lamity ; as Job, xlii. 10, God freed Job from captivity when he restored him to health and prosperity. Captured people, Ps. liii. 7, signi- fies unhappy people. Every deliverance from misfortune, even where no ransom, in the literal sense, was paid, was with them ^.vrpuxrty; the deliverer, y.vT'puirjjs; the means of deliverance, Xvrpor, as INIorus properly translates it. It is not said merely of deliverance from bodily evil, l)ut is transferred to spiritual evil. According- ly, the LXX. frequently translate mo and Ssj by aCj^iiv, Job, xxxiii. 28 ; and by (jvirsbai., Is. 1. 2; which are then synonymous with ;ivrpoi}r. (3) The writers of the New Testament fallow this Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek usage, and em- ploy these words to denote any preservation and deliverance, even in cases where no ransom, in the proper sense, is paid — e. g., r^uipa d.-toXvfptj- asioi, Eph. iv. 30; syyt'^Et drtoZ-vrptostj, Luke, xxi. 28 ; and artoxi-tpcduts -tov oiouatoj, Rom. viii. 23; and Moses is called, Acts, vii. 35, the Xvtpuitr^s of the Israelites, although he paid no ransom for them. In this sense is drtoT-vrpwotj applied by Jews and Christians to the Messiah, and denotes, when spoken of him, the rescue and deliverance which he has procured for us. In all the variety of their opinions respecting the Messiah and his designs, the Jews differed also in opinion respecting this deliverance which they were expecting from him. («) Many Jews, who supposed the .Messiah would be a temporal ruler, placed this Xvrptoatf •Kaov, principally, at least, in a temporal deliver- ance of tiieir nation from its enemies and op- pressors. Cf, XvT'poi;!' 'I(jpa>;X spoken of the Messiah, Luke, xxiv. 21 ; which is expressed by drtoza^tatdi'ttt ^a.rn'Kciav fi^i 'l7pa>;X, Acts, i. 6. (6) But those of the Jews who were better instructed understood this d,-toXvrpu)5Lj which was ascribed to the Messiah in a spiritual and moral sense only. In this sense Christ himsr/f and his apostles always understood it. Nov; it was common to conceive of Sin as having a power and dominion which it exercised over sinners, (vide s. 85, I.,) and to ccnoeive of the STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 3Y' author of sin (the deceiver of our first parents) 'n 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 (o) from the power and dominion of sin by means of insiruclion and counsel received by us in faith. 'A'Kr^it.a £?.£ii^fp(ijcr£t vjxai — Tioj r^aj £X£D^fp«5£(., X. T. X., John, viii. 32 — 36. He accomplishes this deliverance by means of his doctrine and example. But (/3) 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 : — ffw^fii' drto afiaptLujv, Matthew, i. 21 ; xa^api^siv arto ti^apT'i.aj, John, i. 7, 9, &C. So also 7~.vt^i6u, and Xvtpuxjtj 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. iii. 24. What is expressed by the phrase 7<.vtpovv arto ttSixiaj, Titus, ii. 14, is expressed by i^aipslv. Gal. i. 4; and Christ himself says he gave his life xirpov avti TioX- jiwi' — i. 6,, 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, ayopa^fu', i^ayopd^tiv, 1 Cor. vii. 23. "The Lord that bought them," 2 Pet. 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 Rlerits of Christ may be most conve7iiently 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, {bcneficia Christi.) The first part exhibits the means which GDd eniploys to recover the human race through Christ; the seco«.., to be purified, ivashed, 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 riles. These phrases were used, first, in respect to men, and denoted self-purifi- cation {xa^ tovroi',) — i. e., moral reformation, 1 John, iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; 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 ;^^ 1 John, i. 9 ; 2 Pet. i. 9, (i) Some are not content with making the forgiveness of sins to consist in the removal of t\\G punishment of sin, but would have it extend to the removal both of the guilt (culpa) and pw nishment of sin, since both belong to the impif tution 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 Ansehnus (s. 101, 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 sufTei 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 puniihmcnt. 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. 115. 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^u- rifcation or washing aivay 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 of them ; without any special acquittal tf guilt connected with it; as Rom. vi. 7, seq. Vide s. 110, " De obedienlia Christi activa," from which the doctrine " De obedien- tia Christi passiva" must not bo separated. The obedience of Christ shewn in acting and suffering is one and the same. T).e fiuiis of this obedience we enjoy, as will be seen from the texts cited below. The Bible d^es not se- STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 387 parate one kind of obedience from the other; neither sliould 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. 7'hirdly. 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) AizaitocTi;, 8tzatoovi'?7 and 5txaiova^at, ^o- yi^en^a.1. fij hixaioovvr^v , x. t. %. These terms of the Grecian Jews can be ex- plained only from the Hebrew usage, pii", in Hebrew and Arabic, in its primary and physical sense, means, rectus, finrnis, rigidusfuit; then, in a moral sense, rectus fitit, in various modifi- cations, degrees, and relations — e. g., vertis et verax fuit, bonus, sc. benignus fuit ; scverns, asquiis, JUSTUS, innocens/u«7, 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^nxn, Sixaaovv, facer e justum; and 0? Sixaiov;j^ai,Jieri justum. A man maybe 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 ])hnse 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, ov 8i;i£atco^»;(TfT'at s'rtirttw crov rtaj ^uiv, and Ezek. xvi. 51, 52. This is cMed justifcatio interna. In this sense it is understood, in the important lassage 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, bixat-ovv sometimes signifies emendare, prubum rcddere. 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 justijlcation, pardon, accounting righteous, occur in the Bible much more frequently in this sense than in any other, and so are synonymous whh forgiveness of sin. This sense is founded on the judicial meaning of the word [^nifn, to pardon, acquit, pro- nounce innocent, spoken of the Judge (jy^'^'i inno- cens) ; and of the opposite, y^'i^nn, damnere, pro reo declarere (j'U'j?, reus) — e. g., Ex. xxiii. 7 ; Prov. xvii. 15, seq. This is transferred to God, who is conceived as i\\e 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; — antecedens (the part of human judges) — pro consequents The opposite of this, to acquit, pardon {hixa-iovv), is then to remove punishme7it. This is done, how- ever, as the Bible everywhere teaches, \\o\. 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, an^ in which hixaii^cii; and bixaioi^vv^ 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 Sizaiovv is used ver. 5; "Koyl^trs'^at, bixaco- cvvrjv, (to pardon, the opposite of xoyi^ta'^ai, a/xapt lav , to punish,) ver. 6 ; and dcfufvat d^uap- tiav, ver. 7. In Rom. v. 9, 11, 6t,xai.ov(;^ai, and xaTfaX^uttea^at, are interchanged in the same way ; and bixaioavvrj is explained by tXfi'^fpJa drto — ajUOipT'caj xai '^avutov.. The words Sixaiorv, bixa-Loavvrj, are also opposed to opy*; ©fov, Rom. i. 17, 18; to srardzptotj, Rom. v. 16, 18; to iyxaXilv, Rom. viii. 33. Cf. Storr, "De signi- ficalione vocis 8t;tatd5 in Nov. Test." Opusc. Academica, t. i. Note. — The writings of theologians present great diversity and difl^culty in determining th« idea of StxaJwcrij and Sixoio-Dv. Most of the an- 388 CHlllSTIAN THEOLOGY. cient Lutheran theologians, with whom Doder- lein and Seiler agiee, consider juslilication as being merely the removal of punisluncnt ; while Koppe, Zacharia, Less, Danov, and otiiers, 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 diS predestination, only that justification is the less definite word of the two. Vide Zacha- ria, Bibl. Theol. iv, s. 518, seq., and especially Danov, Drey Abhandlungen von der liechtfer- 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 pnx fre- quently means, benefit, blessing, rccompence, and construe the phrase npisS iOT, •Koyi^ia'^ai tl^ bcxaioavvt^v, 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 pii by jxia'^oi. 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 liis granting forgiveness. For when God forgives one his sins, the bestowment of the jMTOiTiised 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, 80 carefully distinguish and so logically divide these two ideas, which are so nearly related, as we do in scientific discussion. This is the less Btrange, as the words 6i.zaiouv and SizaJcorrcj have very many and various senses, one of vvhicli fre- quently runs into the other. The words arc sometimes used in the Bible exclusive, beyond a doubt, of the idea of blessing, and sometimes ilso inclusive of it. (.3) But this sliould not hinder us from dis- tinguishing these ideas, and considering them separately, tor 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 may be entirely acquitted, without, however, receiving reward, or any further jjrovision foi his welfare. The accused is absolved, and then left to seek his fortune win re he pleases. But this is not the manner of G )d. Upon every one whom he forgives, or whuin he counts right- eous, God immediately bestows, on the ground of faith in Jesus Christ, ail the goud and bless- ing which the subject of his grace is capable of enjoying. This is the reason why the sacred writers frequently connect these two ideas in the same word. Cf. Noesselt, Pfingstprogramm, De eo quid sit, Deum condonnare honiinibus pec- cala, px/iasque remittere? Hala:, 1792, (in his Exercilt.) Morus (p. 151, s. 5) has therefore well de- fined and explained the scriptural idea of the forgiveness ff 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 sufiVring or punishment consequent upon sin, and from this suffering and punishment itself, (urj arto'Kta- ^at, John, iii. ;) (2) the bestowment of bless- ings, (scj^c txft-v,) 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. IG, seq. Morus, p. 152, s. G. SECTION ex. 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 every vvhere 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 oC forgiveness through Christ is always enumerated by the apostles amcmgthe principal doctrines and elementary principles of Chris- tianity, which were never to he withheld in reli- gious instruction. Vide 1 Thess. i. 10, 'I^^aouj o ijvoLKvoi rfia-i drto r^j •'py'JS 'P^o,"*''''j5» fl alibi. The Acts of the apostles and their epistles shew that they always commenced with this doctrine, anil referred everything to it, both with Jews and Gentiles, enlightened and ignorant; becauM it is equally essential to all. STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 38» 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 "S'orld ; and that he accomplished this object; 1 John, ii. 1, 2 ; Ileb. i. 3, At' tavtov xa^apcaf^bv jtonqwusvoi tu>v a/xaptLuiv ijfitov. Heb. IX. 26, ♦' He has appeared before God {m^avsputai., ver. 24) with his offering, (6ta ^Dtrtas avtoii,) to take away sin, (ft? a^trrjciv a;UopT'ta5,)" — 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 (rtt'ortj) 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, •ka^eiv ax^isiv a^uap- tiuJv — rtKJfEt t^ cii ifii- ii. 38; Rom. v. 1, C^Lxaiij^ivrei ix rtJcrtfwf, tip'/ji'Jjv Ixofxiv ripbi ©lov (the favour of God and peace of mind) Sta XpLotoi), (which we owe to Christ.) Eph. i. 7, 'Ev 9 (Xptar^) t^ofiiv drtoXrT'pwffii' Sia at'/ta-foj avtov — i. e., ■iyji' d^soiv Tia^iU.rC'fto/.LUtiCiv. (3) The texts which teach that there is no other way besides this in which the forgiveness of sin can be obtained. Heb. x. 2G, " For those who apostatize, contrary to their better convic- tions respecting Christ (sxou^/ujj d^aprai'di'Tcoi', ver. 23; iii. 12, 13), there remains no atoning sacrifice (i^aJa rttpi ai-iaptiCji'y — 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 t^nv iv ixxoi auitfjpia, X. t. ^. Sco-fj^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. "Ovofxa. here is connected iv dy^pojrtotj, 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 (§e.d ovo/.iatoj aTJfot)) receive remission of sins." (Cf. Ps. xxii,, xl., ex. ; Is. liii.) Acts, xiii. 38, "Aid. Tov-tov vy.iv d(j>t(jij dfiapT'iuiJ' xarcyy ivKtta.L, even of those from which you could not be justified according to the law of Moses." 1 John, ii. 12, A^iwvrou. vyiv at, 'xu-nptiaL hi.a. to bvoya aiiroi;, propter Christum. Rom. V. 10, Kar>j>.?.dy);jUfi' T'ci ©fu 6itt rov '^a.vd- t"^ tov tlov witoi, coll. ver. 18, and 1 Thess. i iO; 2 Cor. v. 21, " God treated him, who had never sinned, as a sinner, in our stead, that wo might he forgiven by God ; yjiiojtu^a 8ixai,oavv^ ®iov (i. e., 6i.zatot ivuiTtiov ©cov) iv a-Oro," ox his account, ver. 19. But the passage which exhibits the mind o' Christ and tlie apostles most fully and clearly is Romans, iii. 21—28, 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 ta forgive aU, since all, as sinners, need forgive- ness ; but that men can never obtain a title to this forgiveness by their own imperfect obedi- 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 (Sixaio- ovvri ©£ov, ver. 22, 24,) without respect to the observance of the law as anything meritorious, (;^coptj i'djuov;) of which purpose frequent indi- cations ap{)ear even in the Old 'I'estament. 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. Ml are sinners, unwortliy 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, (Stopfci'i',) from the mere mercy {x^f'i) of God, through the atonement of Christ. God hath appointed Christ to be an atoning sacrifice, {Ixastr^pi.ov,') 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 {Bi-xMovvfa) every one (Jew or Gentile) who believes in Jesus Christ, (tov ix rttoffwj.)" 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 2 k2 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 virell 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 rnan, 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 clearTy 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 suflicient to say, in general, we obtain forgiveness of sin ihroiii^k 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'? 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? 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 'I'estament 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 suffcriiigs and vio- lent c/m///,- which is often called, according to the Hebrew idiom, alua Xptatov and cratpoj. 'I'his 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 aliqiio, 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 tho 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 JUSr 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 satisfactione. I. T/ie Sufferings and Death of Christ ,• and hoie far men are indebted to them fur their JustiJicH' tioii or Forgiveness, By the sufferings and death of Christ, accord insf to t!ie scriptures, many objects and ends which God had in view were attained, and thej STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 391 may therefore be considered in various lights, all of vvhith 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 ?ie\vs 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 coniidt red 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 siif- 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 tlie 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 up'on our re- forntalion and holiness, by wiiich 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 Christ 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, 28; 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 vTtaxori of Christ, Rom. v. 19, because he endured them from obedience to God, Phil. ii. 8. Theologians call them all obedieniia 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 /or all sinners, ox for all the sins of men; St a (jtapart-fti^uaT'a), jtspt (rtoXTi.uij'), but more commonly irtsp (a^apt'ui^.un/ or jtav- tZiv or d/.'-aprtcJi' r^jji.Zjv'), Hebrew, V?. E. g.. Matt. xxvi. 28, "The blood shed /or many, for «he remission of sins." Rom. iv. 25 ; v. G; 1 .vrpw(jn» cvpdfiivoi, 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 riles. 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 («) what dreadful consequences our sins incur, and (fi) how gracious God is, in forgiving us foj the sake of Christ." Ephes. v. 2, 7tai>(bu>xc» tavrbv vnip rjfiuv @ia rtpoa^opav, ^vaiav, drifiriv £vco5ia$. Romans, iii. 25, (ixa9r^ptoy.) Heb. ix. 7, 11— 28;x. 1—14; Acts, xiii. 38, &c. Hence the term alua (cxdes cruentn), which sa frequently stands for the death of Christ, is to be understood in its fill sense. It frequently stands in such a connexion as shews tli.U the fifjnre is [ derived from the blood of the sacrificial victim, and from the qualities ascribed to it — e. g., Heb. I IX. 13, 14, al/xa raupior xal Tpayior, in opposition , to al/ia XpiaTov — xa^apcft. 1 John, i. 7, "The STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 39^ blood of Christ cleanses,'''' &c. 1 Pet. i. 19, "The blood of Christ, a lamb without spot or hie mi shy 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), notonl}' 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, vTiiji Ttdvtcov arts- iKivr;. Ver. 19, "God reconciled the world to himself through Christ." 1 Tim. ii. 6, Sovi tavtbv avtL'kvtpov i'Tiep ridvtiov. 1 .lohn, U. 2, " He is the propitiator, not only for our sins, (i. e., those of Christians,) but also for the sins f)%ov tov xoa/xov,^' &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 rtoXKoi, or ol TioT^koi frequently stands for itdvti^. E. g., Rom. V. 19, ol HoVkoi 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 D12-1 in the same way, Is. liii. 12. ./3// 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 v.'as 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- ►arist? 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 c vn 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 ia 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 ivho 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 ac/ua/results of it, should be distinguish- ed. Jctu 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 a// sins. So the apostles declare. 1 John, i. 7, "The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin." Romans, v. 16 ; viii. 1, ovhhv xatuxpifxa -fot? iv Xiiwrco, Acts, xiii. 38, &c. But an apparent difficulty is here suggested, which must be answered from the discussion respecting punishments, (s. 8G, 67,) and can therefore only be touched here. Now there are two kinds of puniohments — 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 inilict such positive punishments upon the wicked, espe- cially in the future world ; just as he promises, on the other hand, to bestovi' 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 (h) 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 ofna/wra/punishments which may be called moral, ox the evil results of sin in a moral respect. 394 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Even the man who is reformed 8tiU retains the consciousness of the sins which he has commit- ted, and reflects upon them with sorrow, shame, and rejrrct. But the pardoned sinner linows that God, for Clirist's sake, has forgiven his sins ; and so is no longer suhject to that disquiet of mind, pain of conscience, dread of God and despair — ihe prim moralis of sin, which render the wicived miserable. The physical part of natural punishment in- deed remains, even after the transgressor is re- formed. If any one, by his extravagance, has made himself sick and poor, he will not, in con- 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 riglit to expect that the physical evils resulting from his transgression will be counteracted by 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 Tianner, in which it should always be taught. ^1) The Bible neversaysthat 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, N i. 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 f)llowed by the public teacher. Vide s. 109, ad finem. (4) But the terms /ifirr- don i\ni\fur<^ive7iess of sin are frequently used in the New Testament in a wider sense, compre- hending all the divine favours which the par- doned rect'ive fmm God ; they denote the whole amount of the blc:isedness — the snhntion — which the pvirdoned enjoy. Vide s. 109, Note. If, therefore, (5) the natural physical consequences of past sins are not removed, they siill lose their beverity ; they are rendered mild and in many respects beneficial ; they are vastly overbalanced by the various blessinns 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 sin3. 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 sida They say that the citfjijij rtpoyfyorortov oLfxa-ptr^ixd' ■fiov, Rom. iii. 25, may denote the remission of the sins which the Jews and Gentiles of that age had conjmilted before their conversion to Christianity. The rtapaScifffiy iyti fyj Ttputrj bia^r^xyj, Heb. ix. 15, may be understood in the same way, or may denote the sins which were irremissible during the Old-Testament dispensa- tion. Videver. 9. But the context of this pas- sage is more favourable to the common interpre- tation. Besides, the affirmative of tliis question is supported, (I) By tlie 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. 5G; 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 a// sins, and once for all. Otherwise, it would have been necessary that he should suffer more than once (rto^xazij) 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 Lceffler 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. IB, 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, ptrennis 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 nient of some particular sins, and \\h'> 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, thionirhout the whole body of the Romish church, but forTier- 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, ^o. I. Paul therefore shews, especially^ in his epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ had sacrificed himself o?;ceyor all (uTta^) for all sins, and that now no more sacrifices, penances, and expiations are necessary for men. Heb. vii. 27, Tovto iTCoirjsiv £*a'rta|, tavrov ui'fi'iyxa^. Ileb. ix. 25, 26 — 28, » He appeared at the close of this age, oirtal fts a^ity^aiv a^apnaj- and then oirtal Ttpoatvex^eii ftj to rCoXkuv avsviyxicv afiap- "ftaj. So also, X. 14, [iia rtpos^opa tstsT^sotoxsv fli to 8 irj ve X £ i tov^ dyta^OjUt'i'ovj. Accord- ingly, Christ is said, ix. 11, by his once enter- ing into the heavens, to have procured eternal tedempiton, {awvCav ^vtpoidi.v.') 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 remainino- particulars. I. The hifluence of the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ upon our Justijicatioii. We have before examined (s. 37) what is nniformly 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 (lavta ^r^v'), but for the honour of Christ, and according to his will, ta vrtip avtZv arto^avovtt. xai, tyrp^ei't't" (sc. vrtsp avtuiv) ', and Rom. iv. 25, " He died (according to the divine purpose) Sto. td ftapaTttajxata rjfiuiv, T^ysp^); fita tvv 8 1, X a I, oa vvrj V jyftQr." 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 (stj i^,rtCSa ^Zaav, 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 aljne 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 (rti'trttf) which you feel in him would be vain; Itv iats iv a/xoLptLat,; vj.iZv^'' — i. p., you could not be certain of that forgiveness wliicli 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 itsef 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 siif- fered. For since God raised and rewarded Christ, we must conclude that lie fully ap- proved of everytittng which Jesus taught and performed — ail'd that Christ must have accom- plished His designs. Did Christ s\ifrer 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 rttWtj xai iXrcis i^x^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, jjyt'p^}; f 15 hixawcvvr^v r^fiuiv — 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. Accordingly, the resurrection and exaltation (6o|a, as Peter has it), of Christ are the con- firmation 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, difllprent 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 cliurch, Chemnitz, Baumgarten, and others. These writers regard the intercession of Christ as a distinctwork performed by hiji in his st;ite of exaltation in heaven. They have very difl^erent conceptions, however, respecting the manner of this work, some of which are very gross. Many «96 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, af them contended for an tnlercessio verbalis — 'fii'i joined with the dative, means occur- rere alicui ; then, adire, convenire alirjut/n. Acts, XXV. 21; joined with xata (rtVoj), accusure, Rom. xi. 2; with irttp (nVos), medium st- alte- rius causa inlerponere, to interpose in behalf of one, to intercede for him ; as here, inlercedcre 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 evj;r reconciled with God and freed from the punishment of sin; and tliat, 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 (cfJ-^fu; tij to rtavtfXei) all those who seek the favour of God through his mediation, since he ever lives fij to ivtvyxo^ I'fti-" — i. e., since Christ ever lives with God in heaven we can always be sure of forgiveness and of every divine blessing; fur he is not in heaven in vain, but even there continues to be engaged for our welfare. The phrase intercessic sa.cerdotalis is taken from this passage; for the figure liere, as in the whole chapter, is borrowed from the Jewish high priest, who on the great d^y of atonement entered into the most holy place and made expiation for the sins of tho people, {pro populo intercedebat npud Detim.') He (lid 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 perforins 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. (d) Heb. ix. 21 — a parallel passage, which confirms the above explanation. " Christ did not enter into an earthly temple, like the Jewish high priest, but ir\to heaven itself, la-i' i fi^atiO' ^rjvat, ■fcj Ttpo'juiTtcp ®fov vTiip r-^uwv" — the very phrase applied to the high priest \vh(!n he pre- sented to God, in the temple, the blood of atone- ment for the pe(i|)le. 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 blessinors con- nected with forgiveness." The intercession of Christ before God in the STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 29 J heavenly world denotes, then, both the lasting and perfect validity and efficacy of his atone- ment, of which we obtain consoling assurance by lis 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 ■n 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. 21, 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. TflB 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 B. 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, (1) In respect to the persons to be pardoned. All 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 do notcomply with these conditions are excluded from the enjoyment of the benefit. Justification and forgiveness are not, therefore, universal in effect {adu), and this solely through the fault of men.* • [This is very ccnveniently 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 feeli7igs, which are frequently deceptive, but upon an actual com- pliance with the conditions on which God will forgive sins. If any one finds in iiimself the signs of true faith, of sincere love to (iod ano Christ, of a renewed heart, and of a virtuous Christian disposition, he is justified. Romans, viii. 16, "The holy, Christian temper (rtwO^ua) 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. 18—20. (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 perfccia, may be learned from s. 111,11. 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 o( positive divine rewards, and of the full enjoyment of them in the life to come. (c) In respect to time ?ind 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 live justification is the aot 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, th« latter not. — Tu.] 2 L 398 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. carr-lessness in sin. Foimerly many teachers, especially in the Lutheran cliurch, were incau- tious in the use of language on this subject. They used the general phrases, the door of mercy stands ever open ,• tiinn can obtain ai'oitr {for- giveness) in the last moment (f 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 a^uard, however, with equal caution, against the mistake of those who represent repentance and noliness as the meritorious ground of forgiveness. The frequent perversion of the doctrine of justification gave rise, at the end of the seven- leenth ami commencement of the eighteenth century, to the terminislic controversy. Job. 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, {terniinum gratix sice salufis pcremptoriiim,) 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 humanse," 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 groutid 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 wh.ch is in itself cruel. The conscience even of the good man must say to him on his death-bed, that hia 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. IG; 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, (a^frautXjjra ;^api,V^ara.) Vide Wernsdorf 's Dissertation on this subject in Coll. Dissertat. t. i. p. G07, 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 everywheru teaches, both in the Old and New Testament*, Ezek. xxxiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 9. Christ com rnands us to be forgiving to our neighbour wht- 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, IMatt. 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 ot the apostles, (as it was among the Jews, which indeed at that lime was necessary.) But now in the second and third centuries, Montanus, STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT CY THE REDEMPTION. 399 Novatian, and many others, began to exercise this prerogative very severely, and in order to invest it with more terror, insisted that the ex- ooinmuiiicati'd 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 imdetermined 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 che principle. Extra ecclesiani 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, tVa rCviv^a. aw^ij iv ijfiipq. xvptov. 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;ypjtot,) 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, Siopsai/, •f^ ;t«p''^' ©£ov" — i. e., from mere free grace, which we have not de- served, and which we cannot repay. Vide Matt. x. >^. Paul therefore calls justification, Suipoi/ 0£oiJ, Ephes. ii. 8. But the Jews and the Christian converts from Judaism in that age were particularly inclined to the opinion tha» the external observance of the divine law, espe- cially of the Mosaic ceremoinal law, the most perfect of any, was meritorious, and more than anything else procured forgiveness from Gnd. This mistake is controverted by Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Galalians, Ho shews that man is justified by God, ovx i% '|)yioi vofxav, oi; ;j;copij J'pyoi/ iio/iov, (not because lie il)- serves the law, Tit. iii. 5; 2 Tim. i. 9 ;) Rom, iii. 20, 21, 28, ch. vi.; Gal. ii. 16—21, se(i. 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 ol vnb voixov 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 be 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. vii. 21, in Scripta Varii argumenti, 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 (epyaffa^ai, 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 i"hould have but a ooor 400 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. prospect. For how imperfect is our obedience, especially during the early stages of the Chris- tian life ! Mow 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 ! Tl»e Chris- tian teacher who inculcates such an opinion knows not what he does. Melanclhon 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. 121, 125. SECTION CXIV. OF THE VARIOUS THEORIES RESPECTING THE NA- TURE AND JVIANNER OF THE ATONEMENT OE CHRIST; AND A NOTICE OF SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT WORKS ON ATONEMENT AND JUSTI- FICATION. The comm.m word authorized by ecclesiasti- cal usage for denoting the atonement is saiisfac- iio (Germ. Genugtfiuung.) 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 'J'ertuUian, who was himself a jurist, to the atonement of Christ. " Christus peccata humimtm, 0Hj)it satisfactionis hahitu expiavit" De patientia, c. 10. It has since been retained in tiie 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 sali'faccre and satixf actio relate originally to matters of debt, — the payment of debt, debiti solutio. They are then appliedyi;:,'-!*- raticely 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 (^satisfaccre pro alifjW) 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 officio, muncri, cxpectationi,promissis ; salisfacere -mpulo (to comply with its wishes), Ixavov Kctctv, Mark, xv. 15; accipere satisfactioncm, (to accept the payment or apology offered, or the request for pardon.) Sntisfacere often de- notes not merely payment w»tb miney, (though this is the ground of this usage,) but every otK«f mode of discharging debt or obligation. Now when Teriullian and other ancient writers found the words Xvrpov and avti%vri>ov applied in the Bible to the atonement of Christ, (s. lot;,) they were very naturally led to adopt the word sati.faclio. The two former words properly denote a ransom, pretium redtmptionis. 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 ofpntj^uara,. 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 INIorus 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 Xvti>ov, (xrto^.-ur'ptoat;, and simi- lar scriptural terms. The phrase, Christ kaa made satisfaction for us, should therefore be ex- plained to mean, that Christ by his de.ith has procured for us from God perfect forgiveness and the remission of sins; so that now we hav* no punishment to fear, but rather blessings t« 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 tht ecclesiastical fathers adhered, in a great mea- sure, to the simplicity of the scriptural repre- sentation of this sul)ject, and attempted no deli nite explanation of the manner of the atonemen* beyond what is given in the scriptures, and io 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 longtime the prevailing theory among the learned in the Greek and Latin churches. The advocates of this theory took the word Xvtpoi^ in its primary and liter.il sense, denoting release from captivity or slavery by the payment of a ransom, (jivrpoc, s. 106.) With tliis 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 ChrisJ STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 401 fioed ns from the power of the devil. Thus oritjinated tlie following theory : — Ever after the fall the devil had the whole human race in his power ,- he ruled over men like a tyrant over his vassuls, and employed them for his own purposes. Tims 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- nipotetice i 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, Nestorins, 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 birder to deceive the devil, as fishes are caught by baits. This view occurs frequently in the writings of Leo the Great, in the fifih 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 ih. 4. So prevalent was this theory in the Latin church before the twelfth century, that Abelard deidares, " Omnes doctores nostri post apostolus, in hoc conveniimt " and Bcrnhard 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 arre of Anselmus and Abelard ; and another theory was substituted in its place. Vide No. 2. Peter of Lonibardy, 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 oflTered 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 a« early as the fourth century in the writings of Athanasius, of the Grecian church ; and stil! 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 ths 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 debit* 2 l2 402 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. solutio. His system is exhibited most fully in his work, Cur Dcus Homo? He maintained the ahsnhite 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 irround 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. 2G, 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 wliich he withheld, but pay an ad- ditional amount, as amends for tlie dishonour brought upon God. Tims it stands with sin- ners. The payment of this debt is the scttisfac- 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 derised for the Son of God, as God-man, by his death to make this satisfaction. He was able to make tliis 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 satisHiction for them. Of. 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 tliat 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. Cod, 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 acceptilalio, when anytliinff insuffi- cient is accepted as valid and equivalent. Cf. Ziegler's Essay, Historia dogmatis de redemp- tione inde ab ecclesiae primordiis usque ad Lu- theri tempora; Gotlingen, 1791, 4to. (3) On the theories and explanations of this doctrine which have prevailed since the six- teenth century. («) 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 adoptpd, in main, though with the slight alteration of some terms and representa- tions, by a considerable number of prolestant 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 scliools than by the protestant church generally. The following are examples of these faulty representations and expressions: — God, it is said, ivas actually injured by the sins of men j he teas angered and enraged! iti 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 flow. 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 tlie guilt of siii is in- finite, {infinitum debitum, s. 81, ad finem, ) and that, consequently, Clirist endured infinite pu* nishmcnts, the pains (f hell itself, (Morus, p. lt>0 No. 4,) to the same amount as all sinners takea STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 403 iogether would have been compelled to suffer; that the satisfaclion 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. (i) 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 salisfacUo, and of all the figu- rative expressions relative to debt and the judi- cial processes respecting it which had been intro- duced by Anselmus, because they were so often perverted. At the same time, they did not deny any essential part of the doctrine itself, but only wislied 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- feuded 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 tlie 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 thinkiHg that the Bible must necessarily contain the doctrines approved as true on the philosophical principles ii their own particular schools — tLie 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 tl)eir 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 tiie- ories of the ditTerent 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 essential in 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. 150 — 155, s. 4 — G. (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; Halce, 1730, ed. Joach. Lange,) was the first thing done towards vindermining 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 pui'ishments 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 ov 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 o/the Bible and of the church. Thus Carpzov, Baumgarten, and others, made use of the Leibnitz-Wolfian philosophy. Vide also Reinbeck, Tract. Theol. de redemptione per lytron; Hallo, 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." Hut others, with equal zea., have employed tliese very same philoso- phical systems in opposition to tins 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- licheGenugthuunjrslehre; 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 elTect this object, though not with equal suc- cess. Among these are Ernesli, Tollner, Danov, Noesselt, (Vom Werlh der Moral,) Less, Gries- bach, (Praktische Dogmalik,) Doderlein, (Dog- niatik,) Michaelis, (Gedanken von der Siinde und Genugthuung; Gottingen, 1779, 8vo,) and Seller, (Ueber den Verscihnungstod Jesu, with some essays, &c., 2nd ed. ; Erlangen, 17S2, 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. Gotllob Christ. Storr, (Pauli Brief an die Hebraer erlautert; Tubingen, 1789, 8vo; 2nd Ausg. Tubingen, 1809. Second part, Uebcr dtn eigentlichen Zwec/i des Todts Jem, s. 303— 692.) He holds that the object of the death of Christ is not directly the rfformalion of men, and that their exemption from punishment is not the effect of their re- formation; but that tiie direct and immediate object of his de.ith is, to procure the forgiveness of sill, and to make (ttowment. Another writer is Schwarze, (in Gorliiz,) "Ueber den Tod Jesu, als ein wesentlichrs Stuck seines VVohlt- hatigen Plans zur Begluckung der Menschen; LeipTig, 1795, 8vo. The discourse delivered by Dr. Reinhard, at the Reformationsfestc, on the text, Rom. iii. 23, seq., containing a brief and practical statement of the scripture doctrine of the atonement, excited much attention, espe- ci illy 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 cH.stino,i395 ix^oXKit, triv ar/urtrv, 1 John, iv. 18,) some means must be chos' n to free men from their reasonable ye«r of pui,i.xhnient, and to give them a certain assurance tint 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; \.\\e 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 terrors. (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 xai Sizoioj.) 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 witli 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 obt lined 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, tliis will not bo diflil cull. 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 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 405 mast beneficial effects upon those who believe It from the heart, (s. 108, II.) So experience leaches. We see the most convincing proofs of the beneficial tendencies of this doctrine in those Christian communides, 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. 475 — 500. Bretschneider, Dogmalik, b. ii. s. 245 — 355. Neander, b. i. Abth. ii. s. 70 — 78. Flatt's Magazine, b. i. s. 1 — G7, Ueber die Moglichkeit der Siinden-Ver- gebung. — Tr.] SECTION CXV. OF THE ACTIVE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. I. What is meant by Active Obedience ,- mid a His- tory of this Doctrine. Christ's cheerful discharge of the commis- sion given him by God is called his obedierice (^vTiaxorj) ; according to the example of the Bible — e. g.,"PhiI. iii. 9 ; Rom. v. 19; Morus, p. 161, s. 7. Morus justly defines the obedience of Christ to be, peradio eorum, qux pcragere de- bait, et in peragendo surnma virtus. Christ ex- hibited this obedience in two ways — viz., (a) by acting (agendo'^ — i. e., by keeping and ob- siirving the divine laws; (i) by suffering, {pa- ttcndii) — i. e., by cheerfully undertaking and etidiiring 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 nbedientia activa, (not active in the sense of busy, which would be actuosa, but in the sense of acting, Germ, ihuender ;) the latter, ob':dicntia 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 diffieult 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 God, but also the positive divine commands which were laid upm him, to suffer, to die, &c. Obedience is never wholly passive, and what is simply passive IS not ob'^dience. But a person shews obedience jty iicting 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 the 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 culpx et pxnx. 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 pxnx. 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 acliva 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 tlie active obedience of Christ w.is denied by the Socinians and Arminiaii^, Tor these reasons, most of the Lutheran and Reformed theolo-rians accounted this doctrine essential to sound ortho- doxy. But doubting 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 erodliness. Bauuigarten and Ernesti have therefore justly enumerated this dispute among- those of second- ary importance. And, in fact, the difference among ilieologians 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 Piirsimotnus ,- 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- cai-ious. This opinion is defended even by Walch in the place just referred to. But since the time of TciUner the subject has been presented in a different light. He pub- lished a work entitled, "Dor thiltige Gehorsam Christi;" Breslau, 17GS, 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 " Zwsa/re ,•" Berlin, 1770. The best critique of this matter is that of Ernesti, Theol. Bibl. b. ix. s. 91 1, f. For the historj 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 numbe 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 Zachariii, Griesbach, Doderlein. n. The ivortk and uses of the Active Obedience of Christ. That Clirist 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 Binle, Matt. v. 17; .John, iv. 34,viii. 29; Phil. ii. 8. Cf. likewise tlie texts Ps. xl. 7, cited by Paul, Heb. \. 5. This perfect obedi- ence is useful to us in tlie following respects : — (1) This obedience of Christ stands in the most close and intimate connexion with hi« whole work for the good of mankind. His suf- ferings and death could not possibly have the worth and the salutary consequences ascribed to tliem in the scriptures, if Christ had endured them otherwise than as innocent and perfectly hoi}'. His innocence and perfect virtue are tiiere- 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 Clirist 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 ; I 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- ])ose it to be vicarious, in itself considered, or tiiat it will be imputed to us — i. e., that merely nn 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 oi>e 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 mentirm of the vicari* ous obedience of Christ, by which our impe^ STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION 407 feet obedience is made good. But nothing of all this ! For the consolation of the pious, he mentions only the death, resurreclion, and inter- cession 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 as 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 aa^dyixi^ixa 'ASa'jit and hLxaiu,(io. 'K^iGtoi 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 and die for us, Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8, 9, But in ihe passage cited, the apostle clearly com- prises under the word vriaxori the whole obedi- dience of Christ, and teaches that this, especial- ly as shewn in suffering for us, is for our good. Cf. Rom. K.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. (Jj) 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, («) That it is difficult to see how tliis is necessary; for our imperfect obedience to the divine law is either guilt less 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 guilly 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. (|3) 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, xata. ratpya av-tov, Rom. ii. 6. Here the imputation of the merit of uiv- othcr''s works is entirely excluded. The ancient prophets, and all the teachers of the New Tes- tament fri m the time of Jolin 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. («) 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. (j3) 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 luay 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 Murus, p. 170, 171, are directed to this point. The Bible indeed justifies us in saying, (1) that everylhirig 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 (fftor^jpta) is ike fruit in a special manner (f his obedience to (he 408 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, divine command, both in his suffering atvl in all the actions oj his life. Had We not shewn this jbedience, we should not liave allained to this happiness. So the scriptures every wliere teach. Tlie 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; Juhn, vi. 51; iii. 11— IG; xii. 21; 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 separated. Vide s. Ill, ad fmem. PART H. OF CHAPTER IV. ON REDEiMI'TION FROM THE POWER OR DOMI- NION OF SIN. SECTION CXVI. OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE ; ITS CON- FORVIITV WITH SCRIPTURE ; 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 tiie siglit of God. If Christ had not shown us such means, his work of redemp- tion v.'ould have been incr)mplete, 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. Tlie reason why this has not been commonly considered in tlie 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 nf Christ 1)1/ his stijfirim^s 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 t/j 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 considers' both of these things as belonging to the work of re- demption— e. g., Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great. Tiie 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 u.TCo%vTpccaii. Cf. s, 106, II, Therefore redemption (arto^-vrptooij) com- prises the two following parts — viz., (1) Deli- verance from the punishment of sin (ixarr.uoj, atonement, xataXKayri) ; (2) from the power and dominion of sin, 'i'he 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 iiis forgive- ness through Christ, he is filled witii the mo«t 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 frofn 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 exam|)le 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, bus are left ignorant of the means of becoming so. II. Tfils 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. 3J, 3G, seq. Cf. John, ▼». The writings of the apostles contain passages STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE RP]DE.MPTION. 4Cf9 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 («) that he died for us (i6uixsv tavtov vTi'ap Ti/xuiv) ; {b) that he designed to deliver us (xvtpu}arjtai) from all unrighteousness (anb rtuarji tti'o/iiaj), and make us the friends of God, and ready for all good works, (Christian vir- tues.) Here plainly arto'kv'fpioaii implies both the particulars above mentioned. So 1 Pet. i. 18, Christ delivered us (xvTpovv) ix juaracaj araatpo^iii, from a sinful, heathenish, vicious life. Ephes. ii. 9, 10, " We are xtia^tvtii iv Xpwrcj ?rti) tpyot5 dya^otj" — i. e., renewed, placed in a situation in which we can act virtuously. Gal. i. 4, " Christ gave himself jtipl afiaptiZiv ^fiHiv (to deliver us from sin), and to rescue us from our former condition in the service of sin, (ortuj i^iXrjtau ix toi attjvof rtoi'jjpov.)" 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 poiver 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 rtotwi/ afiaptMv ix Sta^ofjov tativ (diaboli filius, or diahulo simi- lis, ver. 12; John, viii. 44); for he sinned of old (art' apxrii). Again, Eij fovto i^aviput^rj 6 Tib; @iov, iia %v6rj tpya 6i.a|36^ov. The latter clause, tpya 6ta3dxov, is clearly synonymous with ajxaptMo. 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, i'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 its from Sin. If we would obtain definite conceptions upon this subject, we must come down to the simplest 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 Bvvaixti Xpcarov 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 theii 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. We allow sense to rule our reason. W'e 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. Sucft faults and weakness ofthe understanding and will cannot be corrected by any miraculous power affonled 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 m horn 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 tiie fixed resolve that, under divine guidance and assistance, he will govern his own will by what he knov* s to be the will of God and Christ. Only then, wlien he has done everything on his part, can he count upon the divine assistance. Until man has 2 M 410 CHRISTIAN TIIECLOGY. done his part, he is incapable of that assistance wliich God and Christ have promised to afTord. If we are vvantinjj in this thankful love to God and Christ, which lias been before insisted upon, we nnist also be wanling 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 \he 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 prefepts from the instructions and example of Christ, and suffer these to control our aflec- 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- sl)-iictio7i 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, (Swaitoj 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, *id 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, IMatt. 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 son 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, hava 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 eo 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 soinxes 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 sin, to weaken the power of sense, and to make constant ad- vances in holiness. Tit. ii. II, seq., "The sa- lutary system of Christianity is designed by God for all men. It teaches us (naLbdovaa) to renounce all irreligion (antiiaa), and all thu sinful passions that prevail among men (xoo/it- xai £rtt^v,u(,'at) ; 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 (^wj? xai fvat.^tia), and shews us the means of doing this by the knowledge of God," (i. e., the Christian scheme, whose I author is God.) Ver. 4, "By this knowledge we attain to pious and godlike dispositions, (©ftaj xoumoi ^rffiwj, 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 dpyot o\6e dxaprto/," ('• , I., ad finem, are properly Capa- ole of imitating tnis example of Jesus. Men who have not felt the consciousness that their sins were forgiven, and havR not l)een 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 iiow good and sa- lutary it would be for them to imitate it. PART III. OF CHAPTER IV. ON THE PRESENT AND FUTURE C0NSEQUENCK8 OF THE WORK OF CHRIST SECTION CXVIII. SCRIPTURAL TITLES OF THE SALVATION PROCURED BY CHRIST FOR MEN; ITS GENERAL NATURE; THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RE- SPECTING THE ABOLITION OF THE OLD-TESTA- MENT DISPENSATIOtf BV 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., Eti^oyt'a, nD-i3, denoting every kind of be- nefit, Ephes. i. 3; Gal. iii. 14. Xa'pij, ]n, tDn, John, i. 16, "Through his infinite love we have obtained x^-^'-v o-vtl ;k"P'^o5»" ^'^ 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 ;^Hpt»'. The word fto?j is also fre- quently used, vita vere vitalis, happiness. Also ^toortotftrr^at, ^^c, x. r. %.., in opposition to aHc^- %iia and ^Varoj, unhappiness, John, iii. 30; x. II ; Ephes. ii. 5, where the figure is continued, " Through Christ he has vivified and raised na 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, o STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 41? which 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 3nnoh!e the heart, and to procure the enjoyment Df 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 (jcpxtxoi,', 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, Ttdari iixoy'io, jtvivfia-t ixv^ iv iTtovpavioii." Tlvsvixcxtixo^ IS here opposed to aapxlxo^, and implies that the blessings spoken of are not designed for the body and the senses, but for the mind; The phrase 'Ev roij ijtovjiavioii (sc. ■ronotj* vide verse 20; ii. 6, 12) does not signify in the Christian church, 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 protnises made 'under the Mosaic dispensation, :^pjr-rro:'ad/ya^a'. In Heb. vii. 19, he says, that there is through Christianity, frtctffaycoyjj xpai-ctovo^iXTcihoi, (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 Genlilcf= in one common Re- ligion. (1) The Israelitish constitution and religion {vofioi) 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; »nd 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, es|)pcially of Paul. Vide the Introduction, s. 12, where we have cited the most important texts, which are principally contained in the e})istles 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. 10. He left the full development of this doetrine for his disciples.) Rom. x. 4, tt^.o^ tov voixov Xpw-ros — i. e., ti'koi t(*ifpf ta »'o^9. 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, XpKjroj ii;r]y6f)acsev r^j^a.^ ix tr^; xatupaf ■rov vofiov — 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. IG; 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 (jcati'^j Sia^r^xr;) commenced at his death, and was by that event solemnly sanc- tioned and introduced. Eph. v. 25, 2G; 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/to xMv/ji Sia^r^xYji, Matthew, xxvi. 28. Conse- quently, the ancient Israelitish dispensation ceased with the death of Christ, because at that event the new dispensation commenced. We see by this v\hat 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. (i) 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 Closes are of dififerent kinds; and many cf 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 2 m2 414 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY passajTrs of the New Testament which treat of the al)olitinn of the law there is no allusion to this ihrcefolcl distinction. Paul includes the whole under vduoj, Romans, vi. 11 ; Gal. iii. ID, 85. Besides, many of the laws of Moses, which are truly moral, are expressed and staled in such a way as to siiew plainly that they were de- signed, in thai form, only for the circumstances and wants of the Israelites at the time heing — e. g., " Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the hind," (Palestine;) and the law respecting the Sabhath. The mistake upon which this limitation is founded may be pointed out. INIoral laws are in themselves universally obligatory, and unal- .crable as the laws of nature. There are, doubt- ess, 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 tiie Mosiic code, and stand in tiie decalogue, but («) because they are founded in the constitution of human nature, which God himself has given us, and are therefore laws of nature, and (i) 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. 213, infra), that Chris- tians observe the moral precepts in the Mosaic code, quia ratio dictat, et Christi doclrina propu- nil, proponendnque confirmat. Judsei vera tene- bantur ea obscrvarc, quia ratio dictabat, et Moses, jussu divino, prsescripserat. 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, {yonov xai rtpo^)jT'oj,) 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 by 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 contioverted of late. {Vi. Thom. Boclo, Etwas uber den Decalogus, oder, von der Verbindlichkeit der zehn Gebote fiir die Christen; Schmalkalden, 1789, 8vo,- Hufnagel, Ueber den Religionsuntcrricht, nach den zehnGebotcn; Zacharifi, Bibl. Theol. th. •1; Less, Dodorlein, 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 fnm 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 morp 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. IC, "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 eiTect, 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 d«>clared to be thenceforward abolished. Without this, Jews and Christians could never be brought STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 415 together, or united in a common religious so- ciety. 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 Bays (Hist. v. 5), Odium hostile adversus omnes gentesi and, as Paul says, 1 Thess. ii. 15, a universal misanthropy, 7idai,v di'^piirtotj tvavti^oi. 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. G. 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. 12—19, 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 th.e kingdom of God ; this he did by removing the wall of partitinn (^fitaotoixov tov $pay/iov, 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, fo^oj ivto-ki^v. This he calls, in ver. 14, i;t^pa, the cause of enmity. SECTION CXIX. THE HAPPINESS W-HICH 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, 1 18, T. 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 ;he 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 conslilution 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 the undeserved Benevolence, the Con,' slant 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 iht divine blessings which are promised to such, and he can at all times be assured of the favour anc paternal love of God ; he will be treated by Goc and Christ as a friend, and made 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 diflTerent chapters or arti- cles. The following expressions are some of the most common — viz., sonship, the right of adoption, election, access to God, and imion with him. We shall now briefly explain these terms. (1) Tio^fffi'a ®iov. 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 oi 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 jio^fcrta — 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 <1C CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY traits of character. We hence conclude, with reason, that God loves and favours them more than otiiers who are unlike him. One who loves God as a son loves his father, and seeks to re- semhle iiiin as a dutiful son seeks to resemble his father, will he loved by God in return, as a dutiful son is loved hy his father. All the ad- vantajres and spiritual benefits, therefore, which we obtain thniugh faith in Christ, and obedience to his precepts, are considered as belongino; to Dto^f ot'a, because they are all proofs of the pater- nal love of God. Vide Gal. iv. 1,5; iii. 20; Rom. viii. 15 (rti'fv/iamo^fffLaj.a filial disposition), and ver. 23 (tlie 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 Xi-iaroj and Scor-^p. Hence .John declares (i. 12), "He gives to all who believe on him the privilege (f^otiuia) 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, hut 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 tlie more readily and frequently on account of the name of Christ, Tioj 0fov. God treats Christians as his peculiar friends on account of Christ, who is his most beloved and chief favourite, rtpurdroscos, fxovo- ytnjj. Vide Gal. iii. 2G, 27; iv. 4 — 7. Pious Christians are thus called the children nf Gad in a twofold sense: (a) because they love God as their Father, and obey him from love; (i) 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 somhip, is not merely a relation o( feeling, but also oi nature. This is sometimes illustrated by sayin the words ix^iyso^ai and txXexro^ in the same manner. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were denominated, hy way of eminence, the chosen or beloved (a'i'na) 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. 'ExXi- STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 417 y»5^i is therefore Chrt'sttanum facere, as 1 Cor. i. 27, 28. In the same way the verba cogno- acendi, in the ancient languages mean to love, to be friendly to any one. Thus Christians are aaid to be yvi^d^ivts'^ vjio ©tov, amici 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 ivith any one, denote a high deiyi-ee of his favour and love, and of the active display of these feelings, his assistance and agency; and so the williiirawment 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 n^ip denotes the friendship of God, Ps. Ixxiii. 28, coll. Zech. ii. 10, II. 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. 2\, ij.ifai'i.^itv. Thus Jesus consoles his dis- ciples who were lamenting his departure. Cf. Rev. iii. 20, and Matt, xxviii. 20. The terms, ijytifif eafiiv (or fifvofitv') iv ^£9, ^toj iativ (or i^bvst.) iv vniv, 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 faiUiful and devoted to him shall be treated by him in the same manner in return; he shall b« 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 {tinio mystica) with God and Christ. They commonly express this by the terms, the in- dwelling of God in the heart, sinking down into God, the enrnmunication 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. Luiher, 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 subject. In the holy scriptures these terms denote some times the agreement of the dispositions of thi/ pious with the law of God ; sometimes the pe- culiar Aivour 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 parlies 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 unenlightened 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, 7imo 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 the 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 {xsxpvHtat,) from the great multitude of men;" they do not regard it as happy or desirable be* cat se they have no taste for it. 118 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. II. Happiness and Peace of Mind, and a joyful Frosped of I he 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 rtO)j,j;jrrm, cheerful confidence in God, in opposition to an anxious and slavish fear of punishment. Thus Heb. iv. 16, 7tpo5fp;t''^;"£^<* l^fta rtap^jt^^Cai ta ^pova r^j ;j;aptT'o5, " We may now with joyful confidence expect unmingled good from God, and supplicate him for it." 1 .John, iv. 17, rtOjl^jrjniav t^c^v (v ^.ut'pa xptfffcoj, to be able to look forward to the day of judgment with cheer- fulness. Cf. 1 John, iii. 20, 21, peace nf God, or with God. Rom. v. I, 2, Elpr;vr;v Tfpoj tbv ®iov txoficv, Sixatco^irrf J — rtpoaaytoyjjr ftj ;^ap(,i/ Qiov, &c. Ver. 11, " We can at all times rejoice in the assurance of divine favour, (xai'xai.i(^a tv ©fo;) 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 his children, whom he is educating not merely for tliis short life, but for eternity, Rom. v. 3; viii. 23, 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, ixrtij 6o|^{ Qeov — 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 lohn, vii. 28; xvii. 24; 1 Thess. v. §—10. 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 heme, and our Father's house. We ought not, however, in hope of the future «orld, to forget the present. W >. should re- member that God designs that we should liv* 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, fV(jf/3f ta — (rtaYy(%ia,v (txfi') ?"^5 f >;5 vip xai ■fijj ^leXTMvar^i. 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 sinf\il 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 lament as the effect and consequence of sin. Now since Christ has delivered from the conse- quences and punishment of sin, he must also bb 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 liglit upon the doctrine of life beyond the grave, and the future restoration of the whole man, anJ STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 419 gifing 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 fuiTiaoi ^cjjjr xal a^^apstav 5ta tov svayyiXiov — 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 (iW xatapyr^<5ri) by his death the power of him who is tlie author of death, //^ef/ei'tV," (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, (vTiaxori, willing obedience to the divine will, especially to the divine ))urpose 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, ^a'tatoj xatirio^ri eii I'ljcoj, dmlh overcome (by him), henceforth ceases ; and also with 2 Tim. i. 10, xardpyy^aa^ tov Sara- tov, iahing away the power of death, vanquishing it — i. e., freeing men from it, and awaking Ihem 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, ^luto; ovx ta-tt-v tVt, 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 olessings resulting from the work of Christ, that all m; nkind 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 Bibl'e 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 curren* 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 punislk 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 ; 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. 12 — 20. 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 anapxn xexoifit^ixiruv, 1 Cor. XV. 20, 23, and Tipo^totoxo^ ix tCjv vcxpCjv, the first that rose, Col. i. 18, because he must be iv rtaoi jtpiorsvuv. Cf. progr. " de nexu resurrec- tionis Jesu Christi niortuis 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, r^ — 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 {xvpitvuv) 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 Deliva -vice from Punishment after Death, and our Happiness in the Future World villained throui^h Christ. The consequences and punishment of sin continue even into the future world; and it is there first, accordinnr 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. 0; 1 Thess. i. 10, /jvo/ifvoj r^fxa^ urto whole welfare and blessedness in the future world, (Cujj atwj'io;.) 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, t'^ito rjud^ o ©£05 ovx fij opyjji', a'K'K fij rtfpcrtoi'jjoij' (jcjT'>;pta-j (the attainment of happiness) 8kx Xpt^rou. 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. (i) 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. IG; vi. 51; 1 John, ii. 25, the great end of the Christian religion ({rtayysXt'a) is to give men l^u>r; aiiiiaoj. 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 fw^ and ^co^ aiioMo;, because it shews iSo^ !^<^rji', John, xvii. .3. But, (2) Our enjoyment of this happiness is de- scrilied as principally owing to Christ^s death ami subsequent exaltation. («) 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 he a consequence of this event. Heb. ix. 15, *' VVe obtiin through the death of Christ tnayyiJ.Cav aluiviov xXjjpoi'oiu'a;." 1 Thess. v. 10, "He died for us," Iva ahv avrJj ^jjatoutx. (6) Since Christ is exalted in heaven, he cares for the good of men. He is airioj awTjjpiaj aitoviOti t'oij vrtaxov- ovjiv avr9 rta(ji, Heb. v. I), 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 hi? followers into tiie abodes of the blessed. Vida Matt. XXV. 32, seq. ; John, x. 28, 21), ifwjjr ai• 2 43b CHRISTIAN THEOLOG\. considered in the following section. Now Christian faith, in a general view, embracing all. these ol)jects, is considered by theologians as consisting of three parts — knowledge, assent^ and Intsf, cr conjiclencc, {iwiitia, assensus, fidu' eiay which will now be considered. Whenever entire Christian faith is spoken of as compre- hending all tlie objects just mentioned, this di- vision is pcrfi'ctly applicable. But all these parts do not bclnng to Christian faith as direct- ed to each particular object. They all belong only to the f/tilk in promises. fCtwwledge and assc?it merely are requisite to the faith in events and doctrines; and a will and inclination to obey, to failli 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, (frttyvcotrij 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. (rt) Knowledge ff the subject to be believed \s, 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 cnnviclion ; 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 vTioataaii and Ixcyxoi, Heb. xi. 1, and rt;\.>jpo(|)0|)fia^tti, 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- struelion. (^xt^^vaanv,) and make faith a result or effect of instruction — e. g., Mark, xvi. IG. And Paul derives rti'ortj from dxojj, Rom. x. 17, &c. From these remarks we can easily see how far to admit the fides implicita of the schoolmen. They mean i)y 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 8. 120, ad finem. (i) Assent. This is divided into general (a*. sensus generalis), by which is meant the general reception of known truth as credible and sure; and inio particular (^assensus specialis), by whic./ 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. G. This is commonly expressed in the New Testament by 6f;^fa^ai and 7tapa5£;^j(j^ai, as Mark, iv. 20, where uxovnv implies the knowledge of the truth, 7tapa6t';^fo^at., assent to it, from whence the result xaprtoifopfti'. 1 Thess. ii. 13, where TCa()a'ka.a3dviiv Xoyov, merely to hear instruction, is distinguished from 6f;^f5>a(.. 1 Cor. ii. 14, the carnal man, obedient only to his passions, does not assent {btxid^at,') to the divine doc- trine, &c. Although assent should always be connected with the knowledge of the truth, because the will sho^jld 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. 42* ably to this gracious promise." All the three parts, thcretore, of which faith consists, are comprised in that faith which relates to the Jivine 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 ttsTtoi^rjaii, rta/3(j>;rfia, i^ii, x. i. %. 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 {bt.hmx(i,v), but, in con- nexion with this, they would always have an appeal made to the heart, (jta^mxo.Xilv.') So 2 Tim. iv. 2 ; 1 Tim. iv. 13 ; 2 Cor. v. 20, &c. They always em-ploy 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 Deginning 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- •ng, 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 cxxni. 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-i 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 hrmer, fdes dogmatica, with regard to the latter,y?c?cs h/storica, (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 trut.19 of religion evident, impressive, and prac- tical, than the history of Christ. In neglecting this method, or ohjecting 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 assoisio spccialis (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 wiiich 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 tiie example of Abraham, Rom. iv. 20; Gal. iii. 8, 16. Abraham had great promises made to him (irtayyiXiai,), 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 Ileb. 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 f.iith in Christian promises. The only difference in the two cases is the diffejence 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 diviwe promises (oi ix rti'drstoj,) Abrahanis children— i. e., like him, and capable of a similar reward. (2) The promises given to Christians, as such, have all reference to Christ; Rlorus, p. 203, s. 7. They are placed in the most intimate connexion with his person and liistory. Christ is therefure always deJBribed as the ground of our faith, (^fuHdamcntu//ifi(lci.) We are taught everywhere that Clirist dii d ibr 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. 21. Theologians call this kind of faith, or this firm conviction that God will perform his promises to iis, 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 ftapar XaiA-fiuviLv Xpiatov in Col. ii. 6, signifies, to be informed respecting Christ and his religion, to htar Christian doctrines. This idea is com- monly denoted by the terms, m-nxivnv r^ Ttoycji tov afavpov, ttf iivl/co^si'T'a, x. ■f . 7.. Vide MoruP, p. TJ03, n. 1. But in John, i. 12, the term ju)i,a- •^ixviiv Xpioroi' is used to denote this self-apply- ing faith, for it is directly explained bj' the term 7tl.6tiVilV. (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. He gives them, indeed, on condition of faith (6ta jti.'aT'ttoj), Rom. iv. 4, 16; but yet bui^idv and xa-ia. x^piv, and not as o^ii.'Kr^na. 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 XoyL^itat, ili Sixaioavir^v. Cf. Gen. xv. 6. For obedience to the di\~ne law is what we owe. Nor can we find anywhe.e, 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 (^justiftcani); as Paul says, in the passage cited, 6ixaiov;Uf rot Scopffii/ 5ta r^j rtiarfuj. Paul illus- trates this hy the example of Abraham. His faith in the divine promises was impu*'^*! to hinj STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 429 by God as a merit — i. t., 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' pardoned, and not perishing with the rest of the Canaanites, ov ovvaTtujXEro loij ansi^r^aa'ji, or, as James says (ii. 25), ibtxaiu,^. 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 laivs and rules of action must be as perfectly acknowledged and received as its promises. (1) Statement of the doctrine of the Neio 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, / ivill 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. 46 — 49; 1 John, ii. 3 — G, 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 sufiicient. This disposition of the Christian to live in entire conformity with the precepts of the Chris- tian doctrine is called fpovT^.ua rtvivfxatoi, Ro- mans, vii. G, 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 ^p6vy]i.<.a (japxoj — !. e., the disposition to live according to sinful prope.isities, Thia die- position is everywhere ascribed to God, or to the Holy Spirit, as the author of Christianity, the guide of the pious, and the promoti r of all Christian perfection. In Romans, viii. 1, this state is described by the phrase rtsptrta-rfti' zata Ttvsvfia, and in ver. 9, by rcvivfjia. Xptarou, 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 xapTtoj Ttitvjxaro^ is used, denoting Christian virtues, actions proceeding from a heart renewed by the Holy Spirit, through the influence of Christianity. In Rom. vi. G, &c., this charac- ter is called, metaphorically, xaivb^ ar^purtos, and the renunciation of the previous love and habit of sinning is called fittuvoia, 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, acluosa, opcrosa, practica. Paul himself speaks of a faith (hi dyUTi'/js) ivf^^yovixii'yj. Gal. v. G. (2) On the use of the tvords law and oospel, in the Bible and in theology, and inferences from it. Morus treats this subject as an Appendix to c. 3, p. 238—244. (a) When the words j'6^05 and ypdf.ij.ia are used in the New Testament in opposition to Evayyi'Kiov and jtvivfta, the former do not mean precepts respecting the conduct of men in gene- ral ; nor the latter merely the promises (i-rtayyt- Xtat) given to Christians. But w/ioj and ypa^i^iia frequently denote the Mosaic lata, or the whole Old-Testament institute and religion; exayyi- j^Lov, rtvivfia, 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. G; iv. 6, seq. ; Moms, 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 wordf vofioi and ivayyiuov 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 C/iri.-:li'(in law and the law of Muses 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 tvayytXiov, according to its etymology (joyful news), to mean, not the whole Christian doctrine, but only that part of it wliich contains the promises. This departure from the scriptural usage gave occasion to adopt the division into law and gos- pel'\n 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. 3—15 ; Rom. i. 16, 17 ; iii. 21 ; Acts, xiii. 32 ; XX. 24, fvayyiXiov ;^a'ptroj 0foi5, 1 Cor. ix. 23. In this sense theologians have always used it. Laio generally signifies in the New Testament the Mosaic law; but sometimes the precepts of God and of Christ, Gal. vi. 2, &c. (i) 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 laiv ; 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 ivayyi>.iov ;)^aptT'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 vofioi occurs sometimes in this sense in the New Testament, they called all moral pre- cepts the law ; and because ivayyiXiov signifies, ctymologically, 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 tiiis as the only scriptural use, and accord- 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 .hp- 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 Bil)le, 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 longtime retained by protestant tlieo- logians, even in their homiletical aiid 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. 210, 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 dilTerent 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 cnjoy- n.ont 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 diflierent 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 otlier, and thus overthrow all morality. Such were the doctrines of many of the fanatics at the time of the Reforfnation and afterwards. Morus, p. 241, s. 6. The same thing was charged upon Agrieola in the six- teenth century, and his followers, the Antino- STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE RFDEMPTION 431 niians. Hence the fifth and sixth articles were Introduced into the Form of Concord. (i) Others have supposed that the Mosaic oereuionial, or civil law exclusively, is intended in those passages where it is said that man de- serves nothing of God by observing the law — K. 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 doctrrne. Vide Progr. in Rom. vii. et viii., in " Scripta varii argument!," 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 ; AND THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH IT IS SAVING. I. The relation in ivhich the parts belonging to Faith staiid to each other. Here the following cautions should be ob- served— viz., (1) We should not separate one part of faith fro'.n another, or insist more upon one than an- other, or imagine that the different parts may exist at different times. This mistake has been .-nade by some with respect to the promises, (gospel,) and the rules 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 sufllciently 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. l^ie 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 diflerent ways both may come to the same result. Wlien 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 accounts of the conversion of parti- cular men arc very useful ; but we should be- ware of making tlie experiences of indiviJuals and the way in which they may have been led to fiiuh a rule for all. Vide Toellner, Theolo- gisciie Untersuchungen, st. i. ii. l_Xotc. — Neander has illustrated this import- ant point very fully in his " Denkwurdigkeiten," and also in his " Gelegenheitsschriften." The F'fth 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. — Tn.] II. Signs by which ivt 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) Ckristtan dispositions. These are called in the New Testament ^jiovrjjxa livtvixa-toi, or Ttvtv^a.. Vide s. 123. Rom. viii. 14, 16, "The renewed Christian temper (rtitu^a) pro- duced in us by God, by means of Christianity, affords us inwardly the surest proof (5v,u,uap- Tvpft) 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, 11, "Ye are sealed by the Holy Spirit — 1. 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 ^aiva3J)i') to you of future reward." Thus, too, 1 John, iii. 21, " By the spirit {\\\?iX renewed tem|)er 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 uioril 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, {xa^Ttoi rtrsv/taroj.) Tiiese, therefore, are infallible signs of faith. Vide 1 .lohn, ii. 29; iii. 7, seq. Christ said, Matthew, vii. IG, "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 stindard, while yet they 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 lie bo 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 Gefiihle. Note. — The common theological phrase, in- ternum testimonium Spirilus Sancti, is derived from Rom. viii. IC. (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 thtir sinful de- sires; and also (6) 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 Invc of the divinity of ike Christian doctrine. But this conviction arises only by way (f 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 dep'inds, therefore, on the experience of each individual Christian. He hiinseif must have felt the efficacy of the Christian doctrine in his own heart. Hence this is called the e.r- pcrimental pro(f o{ the divinity of the Christiar religion; and Christ himself insists upon it, John, vii. IG, 17; 1 Thess. ii. 13. Every true Christian must have this experience i 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 doctiine; still less can this experience be hnnitjht in proof of the divinity of the boohs (f the Bible. It only proves the divinity of the doctrine contained in them. Vide Less, in the Appendix to hia " Wahrheit der christlichen Reli -\inn n^UT!:, 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 fre(juently 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, (e| tpyiov v6jj.ov.) 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 tpya vo^ov, 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 J'pya aya^d — 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 ipya vo^ov — 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 rtt'ortj and gcxatow^ac as used by them, but solely in the use of the word J'pya. 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 g-eat seriousness, and ear- nestness. B. TVhnt Christ and the apostles teach as to shelving faith by good works. They are all agreed in saying that an indolent an*, inactive faith (vfzpa, 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. Hrs doctrine is, that every Christian must possess faith in God, (the knowledge of God, and that trust in him result- mg 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, (xaprtoi,) and prove by them that he truly fears God, Malt. 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/xivri tpyor dya^oy,) 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 ipya dya^a, Ephes. ii. 8 — 10. Thus he calls the virtues xaprfoii; rtwi'^aro;, (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 jtvtvfia Xpicftor. 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 the?^ STAND TO salvation; AND THEIR MERITORl- OUSNESS. I. The true nature of Christian good ivorhs. Their worth or capability of being rewarded (not theit merit) consists partly in their con- formity to the rules of conduct which God has given to Christians, {materiale aciionis,) James, ii. 11, and partly in the e7id to which they arc directed, and the motive by which they are per- formed, {formale.) An action, therefore, is not a good ivor/i, although it may be right and law- ful in itself, when it results from impure ami 436 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. unworthy mo.ives, such as vanity, ambition, the gratification of inclination, &c. The Christian performs i^ood ivorf,-s 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 thoy 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, 2G, 27 ; Acts, x. 4, 31, 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 (rti'fvfia, 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. Go'd 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, iiisio^nificant, 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 g(»)d 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 iiis judgment, good works. Vide Tollner, Ueber die Bescha'iVnheit eines guten Werkes, in his "Theol. Uiitersuch," th. ii. Note 1. — Good works ari' 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 iieart. Moreover, those just com- mencing a religious life, and who, though they have real faith, have it in a less degree, (s> 121,) 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 Gnd is the only infallible judge. JVote 2. — WMien 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 witiiout his own fault can be required to live according to its rules, or be punished merelj' because he does not. Nothing will be required of any one which has not been given liim. 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 thecen- turion Cornelius, Acts, x., and the declaration of Paul, Rom. ii. G — 11. In the former passage, (ver. 35,) Peter ascribes r^o^ov ®fov to the hea- tlien centurion Cornelius; and in the latter, Paul calls the actions of heathen ?pya a/)'a^ ; and both teach that truly religions actions in heathen are acceptable to God, and will be re- warded by him. The doctrine of Augustine, therefore, virtiites ethnicx esse s-plc7idida vitia, is f ilse. He taught that all which man does na man, without supernatural and irresistible grace, is sin. Hence he aflirmed that the heathen were condemned because they could not but sin. Vide SI ATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 437 1833. B 121, II. [Cf. "Bib. Repos." .Tan Art. Augustine and Pelagius. — Tr.] II. The Relation which exists between the Good Works of Christians and their Salvation. There was a controversy in the Lutheran ehurch 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 difliculty may be removed by considering in what the salvation of Christians consists. (I) 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. 113,11. But this blessing is forfeited by one who omits 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. (•3) Salvation consists in the divine rewards, or proofs of the divine favour; partly those which are natural, such as quiet of soul, peace with Ood, &c., and partly positive, bestowed both in the present and future life, as we are taught by the scriptui'^. 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 n\q^e these rewards are obtained, arid the degree of reward is regu- lated by th« 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 sal valion, 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 ; Also Storr, Commentar zum Brief an die Ho* braer, th. ii. III. History of opinions respecting the meritorious- ness of Good Works. 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 ;ta'ptj, 5top£a, trtau'o?, (appTobation,) 6o|a, o-r'i^at'os — 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 orexploded 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 tho 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, {pLxaiovv Swpsav, bia Tiia-ti'^'; XptoroiJ.) But here again a mistake was made on the other side, and Paul was understood to speak lifTJitly 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 Leipzig, 1791, 8vo; especially the 4th Essay, I thing has happened to Luther, Arndt, Spener, wSeligkeit beruht allein auf Glauben," u. s. w. [ and other Christian teachers of ancient and mo» 2o2 138 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. dern times, who have followed in his footsteps. Even in the age of the apostles there were 8ome false Christians, and even filse teachers. They lived a sensual, disorderly life, and justi- fied this on the ground that C/tristiatis are free from the law. Against such a sentiment there is mich 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, .lames, in the second chapter of his epistle, is strenuous in opposing this sentiment. He bhews that true Christian faith cannot exist unless it is exhibited by Christian virtues. Cf. the Essay above cited in " Scripta Varii Argumenti." (■3) 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 "mow be shewn from history. A. During the dark ages, after monastic prin- ciples became prevalent in the Western church, the worship of God,>-,)iety, 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 worksof beneficence, to almsgiving and presents, especially to cloisters and churches. They thus kept to the sense in which ipya di/ya^ 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. J21, 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 jukj- ^j, which is frequently used in the Bible to denote ivagei earned, as 1 Cor. iii. 8, where the Vulgate has meritnm; and also from many of the old Latin fathers, who had said, merere /jo- minein sahilem, &c. But by such language they meant nothing more than conscqui, iiiipetrare, in which sense mcrerc is use the New Testament, what is called ^lo^oj is aiso called* JitX XOipH and Scopfci in the same context. We are! said to receive ^la^v Swpsav. 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 (^acqutim, congrti'um) to recom- pense the act. This he called meritum de con- , gruo. (J)) Again, he appealed to the doctrine of Augustine, De gratia supernaturali spiritua sancli. 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- gener^--''^' •'^lot perform any such meritorious wr^O ca^cause 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 prifK;iple3 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 too little precision ar>'''^'. 1 0 WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 43!» and his associates did not know how to defend themselves against this argument, and did not sufficiently understand the difference between fj;ya (lya^a and the tpya v6/j.ov, which were re- garded as ..'eritorious. This is the reason why he and the aathors of the "Magdeburg Centu- ries," and some other theologians, spoke so dis- \ creditably of this epistle. iVo/e.— 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 shaIl^'j-|jg'i|iTiven and saved on account of their suppo riside"i^" dience to the law, and their virtuous coiiuLwt. Vide Luk«, xxiii. 40, seq., xviii. 9; Rom. iv. 5; Acts, xvi. 30. He must do this in order to shew thatsalvatiorv 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- icai, will learn wherein he is deficient. , He must take the latter course — that of re- ommending good works, or the fruits of faith — when he (}|y^^s with those who undervalue or neglect tl^ ^f '^luit of holiness either through levity, ind^ .,^^yj^pr the love of sin; who per- suade themsei'. ano*^ ^ mere external pro- fession of faith Wi I j^,> sufficient; who say. Lord, Lord; but obet^ Jil^t'' 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 thai j^ir sentiments are false, and that there are some infallible signs by wiiich 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 tme believer will never fail to perform whenever I.e has opportunity. Matt. vii. 1(5; xis. 21; xxv. 31 — 4C ; Rom. ii. 6; I Tim. vi. 18; James, ii. S gCTION CXXVI. EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS AV^ICH ARE USED IN THE SCRIPTURES TO DENOTE BOTH THE EXTER- NAr. PROFESSION OF CHRISTIANITY (fIDES EX- TERNA) AND INTERNAL MORAL IMPROVEMENT AND SANCTIFICATION. It is the general custom to treat of rfpei^fance, inversion, renewal, regeneration^ sanctijicatinn. in separate and distinct articles {loci) ; but thia was not the case anciently. Neither the eccie siastical fathers nor the schoolmen treated these/ qIj,!^ topics separately. It was not until the sixteenth) >t , ,. century that this method was adopted ; and the chief object of this at first was to explain more fully these scriptural terms and obviate difierent 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 cf these dis- tinctions are not to be found in the Bible. All of these terms denote the improvement of ir^n, 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 Morns, p. 220, seq., ;^. 6. The case is the same with respect to calling, iuuminatfon, and similar expressions, which will be explained in Art. xii., De operationibus gratix, s, 130. I. Scriptural idea of the tvords denoting Conver- sion, {maTpopwrt05, xcuvtj xti,ati, X. t. Jt.) The word rtaXiyyeveaia denotes frequently any entire alteration of state, by -which one is brought into an entirely new and reformed condition, or placed in a better situation. The change indicated by this term is, how- ever, as Morus justly oltserves, in every case, mututio in mclins, p. 223, note at the top. Vide " Scripta Yarii Argument!," Num. vi. Thus Cicero (Att. iv. G) calls his restoration from exile, HaXiyyiviaia., and Josophus (Ant. xi. 3) calls the restoration of the Jewish land after the captivity TtaXiyytviaia, rtarpt'Soj. The stoics spoke of 7ia%iyy sviaia. tC^v 6%^^v. In Ro- man law, the manumission of a slave was called his regeneration. In Matt. xix. 28, it denotes an introduction into a new and happy situation, whetlier the resurrection or the es- tablishment of the Messiah's kingdom be understood. AVIion the Israelites spoke of a person changing 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 received into their church, and obtained civil rights. Even in the Old Testament the term 17* is used in reference to proseli/tes, 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 disposition. 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 bor- row terms from the ancient Jewish phrasc- oKigy, and transfer them to Christianity. Hence wc find all these words used in the Now Testament in three different senses — viz., (1) To denote one's passing over exteniallp 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 re- nounces. Thus Paul says, Ephos. ii. 15, " Christ has united Jews and Gentiles into one church," (jtj xatvov dv^puiHov, Avhich can- not here denote internal reformation, as this could not be predicated of all.) Cf. James, i. 18. Thus Peter says, 1 Pet. i. 3, "God hath brought us to the profession of Chris- tianity {wayivvYjaa^ ^M"^?)- J'^ order to enable us to obtain salvation." Paul frequently says of those whom he had induced to make pro- fession of Christianity, that he had begotten them (yivvav), Philemon, v. 10 ; 1 Cor. iv. 15; and ciStVfiy, Gal. iv. 19. (2) To denote the internal or moral renewal of the heart and of the whole disposition ot 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 effected 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. 20—28 ; Ps. li. 12. In other passages the term circumcision of heart is used, I)eut. x. 16 ; elsewhere, a new heart, a new sjnrit, 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 7ie20 man, and putting off the old man, of a neiv creature, after the image of God, Ephes. iv. 22, 24, and Col. iii. 9, 10, and drnxaiiruxjis jjooj, Rom. xii. 2, and ava,viov6^a.i. rw rCviv^ati, Ephes. iv. 23, seq. Here belong all the texts, in John and elsewhere, which toach that man vmst be born of God, (n- the Holy Spirit — i. e., become his child^ove him, in disposi- tion 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 vio^joia, 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 oi iKiatpi^tiv. 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 divino 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 (jiaatXfia 0fov)." Hence baptism ia called. Tit. iii. 5, Xovrpof rtoXiyyt »■* oioj, because we are not onl}* solemnly admitted by this rita into the Chriitiau society, but are likewisi STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTDN. 441 thereby obligated, according to the precepts of Christ, ;? become refurmed in character; and on lliis 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 avayivfrjaii. III. Scriptural idea of the term ixtrayoia. This word is used by the Greeks to designate a change in a person's opinions, aims, disposi- tions, with respect to particular things. Thus the phrase, ttj fistdvoiav ayicv, signifies to in- duce any one to alter his opinion, and to adopt another. Polybius uses the word f^travoilv in relation to a general who designed to stake bat- tle, but afterwards determined differently. Plato ijontrasts jtftovoilv (to use forecast) and fiita- foetv, (to reconsider when it is too late.) In Heb. xii. 17, it is said that Esau could not ob- tain the alteration of his father's opinion, (^ura- voca.) In the classical writers, however, this term is not used to denote particularly an alter- ation in the moral state of the mind or heart. This use first prevailed among the Grecian Jews, and was derived by them from the Sep- tuagint. The Hebrew 2rc', is commonly ex- pressed in the Septuagint Version by fistaiotlv, as Is. XXX. 15, though sometimes also by f.-tt- ffrpi(ji£ij'. The Hebrew cm is rendered in the same way, Jer. iv. 28. These significations run together, since we determine not to repeat that which causes us sorrow. Hence the words ^litavoilv and fxc-ta/it^ca^ao are connected as sy- nonymous, 2 Cor. vii. 8, coll. Luke, xvii. 4. This word, accordingly, like erttdrpo^ij, and other similar terms, is used in the New Testa- ment, in a wider and a narrower sense — viz., (1) It denotes the forsaking of a religion which one had formerly professed, and is pro- fessing a new (the Christian) religion, (because there is in this case a change of view and opi- nion with respect to religion;) Acts, xx. 21, where it is said that /.ictdvoi-a tli @s6v is preach- ed to Jews and to Gentiles, in connexion with n^atis eii Xjjtotoi'. Thus Luke, xxiv. 47, and other texts. Vide Morus, p. 222. In the same way as the return of the Israelites from idolatry to the true religion was called fistuvoM, could the conversion of Jews or Gentiles to Christian- ity be so called. (2) It more commonly denotes a moral change. And (a) it expresses the entire moral renovation or conversion of men, in the widest sense; and (5) the commencement of this change, when one begins to abhor the evil which he loved, and to form the sincere purpose of for- saking it. It is frequently used in this nar- rower sense in the holy scriptures, and this is its most common use in theology, as will be 56 further shewn, s. 127. This change always presupposes an entire revolution in the views and feelings of the subject of it; lie begins thenceforward to love and practise good instead of evil. This was the great subject of the preaching of John the Baptist; Mitavo-dte was his continual theme. Matt. iii. 2, 11 ; Luke, \A. 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, {.utavodv drib tujv djuaptiwi' or tpyutv vixpi^v. Acts, Vlll. 22; Heb. vi. 1. Hence, ton, /.utavoiiv and trti- O'tpi^nv 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 fiiidvoia together, since the object of an exter- nal change of religion is always the improve- ment of the heart. Acts, xi. 18, " God liath granted even to the heathen fxttdioiav fij ci'cojji'. Tiie ancient ecclesiastical fathers, even in the Latin church, also connected with this word the idea of repentance and reformation in the moral sense; and Lactanlius proposes well (Inst. Div. vi. 24) to render it by the word rcsipisccntiu. But the word commonly employed in Latin theology was pa:nite7itia, by which the Vulgate renders fistdvoia; 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 pocnitentia from punio or poenio ; because man himself punishes his own sins, and therefore receives forgiveness. Pccnitentia est qucedum dolenlis vindicta, semper PUNIENS in se, quod dolet commisisse, De PaMiit., c. 8. He was followed by other Latin teachers, especially by Peter of Lombardy and other schoolmen. The unscriptural idea tliat pani- 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 pajutentia is expressed in the Roman church by the German terms, Busse {pe- nance, jnmishment, in the shape of a fine or mulct'), Busse thun (^lo do penance), biissen (to ato7ie), 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 possibl& 142 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Even when we repent (ixctavoelv) — 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 Hsrunoia. 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, (^'tyiioavvii, ayiairfid;, k. t, X., also haiirrii, Saioi. Heb. uHp, with its derivatives.) The words oiytoj, dytaiffH/, tyip designate primarily whatever is singled out, selected, or best iti its kind. Vide s. 29. It was first applied in the ancient languages to e.T/crna/ 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 sanctilas externa, and interna. (i) All the Israelites are called by Moses D'>irnp, 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 iyiot, rtyianfiivoL, merely from the circumstance that they profess externally the Christian religion, and belong externally to the Christian community, and thus are distinguish- ed from .Tews and Gentiles. Hence all who were received into the visible Christian church by baptism, were called aylo^, 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 — IG. So ayian^ioi, in Rom. vi. 22, is the same as Sixawavvr] in ver. 18, 19, virtue, righte- ousness; ay luiiyvvrj, 1 Thess. iii. 13, and ayid^nv, V. 23. 'Ayiacr^oj, in Heb. xii. 14, is that with- out which no man shall see the Lord. The same IS true of o(Tto{ and orjiotjjj, Ephes. iv. 24 ; Luke, I. 75, ufiiorr^f xai bixaaoavvr;. It here denotes that blaiiielessness 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 .Tohn, iii. 7, Sixaio^ ian xa^wj cxflvog 6/xac6j if!t>.- Rom. vi. 18, 6ov7.fVfiv ^txoioTvvi;, coll. ver. ll>, "Ho IS dead to sin, and lives entirely for virtue.' In this way the Christian becomes like God, and loves him from similarity of di«» 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 w \th iu Vide 8. 51, II.; and when any one is admitted into the community of the saints, (the jews un- der the old covenant, and Christians unuer the new,) his holiness is the great object aimed at The church is designed to be schola sanr.titaiia Otherwise, his admission into the cnurch 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 oi 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 co)wersiun, regenera- tion, repentance, renewal, sanctification, which theologians formerly introduced into their sys- tems, vide Morus, p. 223. [Also cf. Hahn. s. 523, ff.— Tr.] SECTION CXXVII. STATiiMENT 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 understannuiir, and next, through that, upon the will. The lively conception of the evil consequences of past transgression o! STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 443 of habitual vice awakens sorrow for sin, aver- eion to it, and a determination lienceforward 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 fistdvoia is said expressly to consist main- ly in xi'rtrj xata Qiov, 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 saine 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 elearly 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 Dot. 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 Ciod 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 tiie uian who makes it persuades himself that he does not need reformation. {b) 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 huld of and embrace the undeserved forgiveness of God. Secondly, this parable shews how gracious and kind the feelings of God are, and how ready he is to forgive the repentant sinner. Vide Luke, XV. 7, 10. Cf. ToUner's Essays in his "Theoj Unters." Bd. i. th. 2, s. 390, seq,; " Busse und Glauben;" also, " Ueber die Parabel vom verlornen Sohn." (2) Sorrow for {he sins we have cantiitilted, (%v7(rj, 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10,) which is also an es- sential part of reformation, is called by theolo- gians contrition, brokenness of heart, (Germ. Zer/mirsckiuig.) Our older theologians justly render and explain this term by the phrase Rnte und Leid, (penitence and sorrow.) The term is taken from the Hebrew nn x3-t and -i3r^ 3^ (lit. wounded heart), Ps. xxxiv. 19; Is. Ivii. 19; Ps. li. 19. Both of these terms are applied to a de- spo7iding, contrite, troubled mind, whatever the cause of the distress may be. Cf. Is. Ixi. 1, and other passages cited by Morus, p. 218, n. 9. The lively knowledge of sin as a great evil, ne- cessarily involves unhappy feelings and sorrow, {dolor animi, xiftTj,) 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 me»ely 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, Xvnr^v xata ©sdr, acceptable to God, agreeable to his will mid purpose — because it 444 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, contributes to our salvation, (fij acor>;pi.'tti'.) And because it does so, it is a repentance not to be repented of, {a/xerauh.^^Tor.) But tiiis sorrow for sin is very different in de- gree both as to streiii^lh (iulensivc) and continu- aiicc, {exlensive.) Men differ exceedingly from eacii 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 affectuum. 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 st7i, remaining through our whole lives. It implies tlie sincere wish, JVould 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. 121, 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 liijble to mistake, and religious teachers iiave often, from the earliest times, been in fajlt here. Many made too much of the term contrition, and undertook to lay down do< finite rules on this subject, and appealed tc 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 sacl.chyth and ashes mentioned in the Old Testament, which, however, does not di MTJhe reformation of heart, but the public external rites emj)loyed 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 l)y which this moral change must be effected. It requires from each nothing but what is adapted to his nature. Peter u-ept, and considering his cha- racter and his crime, this was natural. The publican only sighed. Zaccha;us does not ap- pear to have done either the one or the otiier. 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 (oapxtxof), to be spiritual (rtifi-,ua- rixoj), 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, paniten* tiam primam, or magnam ; that of thfse who are in a better moral condition, but still need reformation, painitentium stantium, or secundum, or quoiidiunam. 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. All must acknowledge themselves sinners, deficient and imperfect. So the whole scriptun s require us to feel ; and everywhere insist upon sincere and unpretending humility, and condemn the opposite dispositions. (3) Sorrow or penitence for sin n)ust flow from the knowledge of sin — i. e., from a con* soiousness that we have acted contrary to tin divine law, \nd therefore deserve divine punish STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 445 meiits. Hence it follows that we should inipar- liiilly exainine our actions accordinor to the law nf God. Now when one sees that he has been ungrateful and disobe■* 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 \)re possibility of late repentance, and the worth o( it. Vide the history of tiiese opinions in He- gclincyer's Diss, "de sera poenitentia," p. i.; Tubingen, 1780. First. Most hold, with tiuth, 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. iJut 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 gratiie peremptoriinn, (s. 1 13, 1. 3 ;) there can be no doubt, in ahstracto, 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 tliat 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 times, 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 (i) Those who advocate this opinion often mis- take the want of perseverance in faith for the want oi sincerity in it. (c) The examples men- tioned do not prove that late repentance '\s 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 suhitanea or instantanea,) but requires time, ( arnestndfes, zeal, practice. Thi» STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 447 lb irue from the very nature of the human mind. But this only proves the great difficulty, the unfertainty 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 frecjuently 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 to 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 then came. The passage, Heb. vi. 4 — 6, 'Ahv- vatov — rtttpartfodi'7'aj — dva.xa.ivi(^(iv slifistdvoiav, has no relation to this point. This passage refers to those who persevere in apostasy, and the rejection of religion. The phrase, aivvatov tan, 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 allogeihcr 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 tlian that of others who have pursued a long course of active virtue. Thus we might conclude iti ubstrado; the determination in particular given cases must be left with God. Kote. — 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, Bvo. 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 /org-tfe?iess of «n, propUinting God, and the merit cf good works. Cf. s. 108, and s. 123, 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 (afopio^uoj) 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 public penance, {pojjiitentia pub- lico.^ 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 piini- tentix Sacramento. This was originally onl}'^ 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 448 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY they were unwilling to readmit a person who had been once excluded, did nut deny that he naight obtain forgiveness from God. II. Penance suppoicd 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. IMany believed (although the doc- trine was not as yet formally sanctioned by tlie authority of the church) that a person by being excomiminicatcd from the church is also ex- cluded from communion with God. But they also liold 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 tlian 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 rcadmission 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 tiie favour and forgive- ness of ihechurch and if! 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 churcli 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 (if auricular confession, anil then, slowly, the whole system of public penance. At first the lapd only were bound to confess their grosser ofTences to spiritual guides, before they could be reinstated and allowed to approach the holy sup- per. But in process of lime, every Christi.in was required to confess to the clergy all his sins, even tiie least of them, before he could be admitted to the Lord's table. The clergy and the monks confirmed the populace in the persua- •ion, 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 witli 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 i| the early church. But afterwards, when th| priesthood and laity had both very much dege- nerated, tliey were greatly perverted and mis- applied. IV. Penance imposed by the Clergy. At first the church imposed the sali.faciiun 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 Lcvili- cal priests, who, in God's stead, imposed pu- nishments for the purpose of atoning fjr 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 partii ular sin. V'ide Joh. Dalliius, De poenis et satisfa?tionibu3 humanis; Amst. iG49. 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 theii fatlier 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 insftitu- tions, to build ciuirches, &c. Tiiey were af*.'»''- wards sold for mere money. After some time the pope appropriated the trade in indulgences to himself, and during the thirteenth and four. STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 449 teentli centuries carried on a wide extended mo- nopoly in this business. Indulgences could now be purchased even iox 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 thesaiiru bonoruin 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 mnral refurmation and a chatige of heart was thus changed into a matter of external pcnanc. Tliis became the prevailing system of the Romish v-hurch, 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) ranitentia is derived from punio, accord- ing to Augustine, and therefore denotes the. pu- nishment of oneself . Hence originally the Ger- man Basse, which signifies, punishment, alone- meni, &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., confrilio, or compunctio cordis, con- fessio oris, (to the priest in God's stead,) and saiisfaclio opcris, (^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 conlritio. Cf. s. 127, 1. 3. (f)) 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 dclct minima et qunfidiann peccata. Sufficit oratio do- minica Cum cleemosynis et jcjunio. Vide s. 108. (()) This pxna satisfacloria, which must, in the usual course, be endured, may be somewhat remittpd, says Thomas Aquinas, by means of indulgences. But tiiis principle was afterwards very much extended. Vide No. v. (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 dull- ing the fourth century in the West, and univer- sally prevailed from the ninth to the eleventb 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 thej'- souls. Vide s. 150. ARTICLE XII. ON THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE ; OR THb Dl. VINE INSTITUTIONS FOR PROMOTING RE- PENTANCE AND FAITH; S. 129—133, INCLC 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, tvithout 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 — SO. 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 operatioM 2p3 450 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY of divine grace, (operationes graliae, German, Grutdenwirku ngcn.^ IL 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- Tersion. 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 gratia:.) This is opposed to the natvral state, (status na- lurcc, 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 term has since been retained in theo- logy, even by those who have discarded the er- roneous opinions of Augustine. Xapij is used in the Bible to denote (a) the undeserved, divine favour towards men in general ; (b) tlie result and proof of this favour in the par- ticular blessings bestowed; and (c) 7nore 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 ;i:aptj, as being the most distin- guished favours; although these are not the orily 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, aconomia graliie, the cecono- my or dispensation of grace, (Germ. Gnadenan- stalt, or Einrichtung.) Theologians distinguish here (a) actus, or operationes gratiw — i. e., the gracious, salutary influences (also called auxilia gratiic) by which men are brought to salvation, and (j3) the media, gratix — i. e., the means which God employs in exerting these influ- ences on the hearts of men ; the means of re- pentance or holiness. These means are, the Word of God — the divine doctrine, especially that made known tliroufrli Christ, Tlie tiicolo- gians of Tubingen have sometimes given t)ie name gratia applieatrix 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 gratix are sometimes called the office of the Holy Spirit, (officium, or munus Spiritus Sancti, or belter, his opus, busi- 7ICSS, 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., elenclicum, didacticum, pae- deuticuni, paraclciicum, 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 {i7.iy%ii,v) them of their unbelief. This passage, then, does not speak of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of o// 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 lime 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 suflicient for him to know (1) that he owesliis 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 ; (1) that in the case of those who er.joy the Word of God (revealed religion), the sav- ing change is effected by God, tlirough 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 tlie faithful use of the Word of God; and that, accordinorly, (G) 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 hi6 '(^'ork, " Contra STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 451 librum Lutlieri 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- erieJ has himself, of necessity, actually expe- rienced it, and the reverse. Nor is it either ne- cessaiy or possible, in particular cases, to deter- mine definitely how much man himself (jmiura) has coiitributed to his own improvement, and flow much i^race has done for him, provided he sincerely believes that he owes his entire re- newal ID the unmerited divine compassion. Vide Mo.-us, p. 229, note, and p. 23G, 237. SECTION CXXX. WHAT ARi- 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? 1. 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 vised, and then to treat particularly and sepa- . lately of calling, illumination, regene^-aiion, union with God, sanctijicatinn, 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, (yocafio.) (6) He now attains a pro- per, lively, and salutary knowledge of Chris- tian truth, (illuminafio.) (c) When the under- standing entertains just views, then the will is renewed. Good feelings and dispositions arise in place of sinful ones, (i-egeneratio.) (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, (^imio mys- tica.) The proper scriptural import of most of these terms was explained s. 12G ; and the unio mystica in s. 119, I. 3. Cf. Morus, p. 233. Calling and illurninaiion still remain to be ex- plained. (a) Illurninaiion. 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 efll- 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 aliquern is the same as cum effeclu salu- tari docere aliquern. 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, (^cctl^nv, tkh, means, (a) to instruct, teach. It is used by the LXX. as synonymous with hihaaxiLv, x. t. "K. 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, ti^iiv; and 2 Cor. iv. G; Heb. vi. 4, ^wttcT^uoj. For ^w; is intelligence, clear know- ledge, and the opposite, ozoroj, is ignorance. Of the same import is the phrase, avoiytiv roiij oqi^aXiiovi, Acts, xxvi. 18, &;c. All this is the same as the phrase, bovva.1 yvuiOiv ocor'jjpi.aj, 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 ^ton^ctf ibv xogfj-ov, and to be ^wj xoafiov, 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 enlighteiwd — i. e., converted. Hence ^iotio^ivm 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. (b) 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 d^ scribes the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom, or Christian privileges, under the image of a great feast, to which many guests (xs xTu^iuero*) are invited, many of whom despise the invita- 452 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, tion, arji only a few accept it, as ]\Iatt. xxii. 3, seq. Now some have undertaken to apply this beautiful figure employed by Clirist to all the cases in which x>.);ii{, x7.r^toi., xaXilv 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 xoXftv 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. V.Xr^ioi are those who have not only received an invita- tion to become Christians, but are real Chris- tians, (such as are admitted;) and xXriaii 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. K^^rtts 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, EXrt/j xX^dftoj. Heb. iii. 1, xXr^aii trtovpavtoj, &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 Nip and xaXslv. They were used to denote calling — i. e., accepting, 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, wliom 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 xXjjtoi. Tiius Paul uses the words xX^oij, and xoXilv 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 xaXilv 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 ; (//) to instruct him as to his welfare, to point out to him and furnish him the means of attaining it, (fr^i aiiovcov. This is calling in the stricter sense, [or effec- tual cM'ing,'] aniiregeneratioii (^convcrsio transi- iiva) in the theological sense; s. 126. When any one feels a firm and lively convic- lion of the truths of salvation with which he is ;icquainted, God grants him power to subdue his sinful desires, and cheerfully to obey the divine precepts. Thus («) the internal hindrances to fdith 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. 22G, 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 (^iXxvuv') men to believe in him — i. e., he convinces them, and renders them disposed to this duty, John, vi. 4-1. 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 stale resulting from these influences is commonly called illuniinatio regenilorum. (6) Those influences by which the Christian is ad- vanced in holiness and fitted for the practice of 6'hristian virtue, so as to attain a habit of good- «<,\!S, [renovatio and sanclifxalio, in the theolo- gical sense; s. 12G.') Both of these influcncM are noticed 2 Thess. ii. 17, ©coj — atrjpC^at ificif iv Tiavti %6yil 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. Hut, 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 (jSii"' 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 rtvtvixa Kpiotov, the Paraclelus, 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 W( re, to dwell with him. And all the good which such an one now thinks or does — his 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 sam« 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 extraordinaria.) Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 4—11, also s. 39, coll. s, 19, 11., 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 metaphysic-al 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 efl^ects the moral change and renovation of the human heart, not inimcdiatelt/, but mediately, and that the means which he employs is the Chrialian doelrine in all its extent, its doctrines, jirecepts, and promises. Vide No. 2, ad finem. But the Bible also teaches, that the cause of the eflTect wi;ich i» produced by this divine doctiine I'es not merely STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTt.^N. id7 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, ^^Divl.na e£icientia a dndrina ipsa, ejusqiie 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. 15—17; i. 11; Ephes. i. IG— 20; iii. 16—20; 1 Pet. i. 15; Acts, xvi. 14, and many of the discourses of Jesus, especially those recorded in John — e. g., iii. 13 — 17, &c. This now entirely agrees with the promise of Christ, («) 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 (i) 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 Xoy9 a^'^fiaj, 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 •^yx'^xoi dv^pwrtoj is not the natu- ral man, for which ^vaixoi 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, (crapxtzoj,) one who has no perception of the truths revealed by the Holy Spirit, (ta 'Tov rtvEiijUarof aytov.) No wonder, therefore, that he does not yield his assent to these truths, and that they even appear foolish- ness fjxupLa) to him. For such doctrines require to be differently discerned from those which are merely of human discovery; they must be dis- cerned ftvivixatLXi^i. We reject human doc- trines, or renounce them, when they do not i.> 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 («) all ability and pmvcr vvhich man possesses for perceiving the truth, and for choosing either good or evil, is derived solely from God. (6) 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 era- 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 in 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 aow God can or must con- trol 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 experienne, and especially to the instruc-tions of the holy scriptures, if we make them the ground of our knowledge. Nor must we renounce this doctrine because we can' not understand the internal modus of it. 3Q «()) CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. SECTION C XXXII. A SKKTCH OF SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL THEORIES RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE, AND THE FREEDOM (oK ABILITY') OF MAN IN SPI- RITUAL THINGS ; AND THE CONTROVERSIES ON THIS SUBJECT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. I. Opinbiis of Ike early Greek Fathers. In the earliest ajjes, shortly after the time of the apostles, there was no controversy on this subject, as Auom 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 fjfieient 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 (ffficacia) of grace on the heart is made by him to depend on the unconditional decree of God, (ab ekclione Dei,) and also the ojiposi- tion {resistentia) of men ; the latter on the de- crelum reprobationis. For God does not w ill 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 predestinatione 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, An. Augustine and Pelagius.] IV. Controversies on Particular Points in the Augustinian System. The system of Augustine respecting grace was, taken as a whole, made fundamenta^ 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 Manrus, Hinkmar, and others, who justly derived pre- destination from God's foreknowledge of tho 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 iMelancthon (as well as Calvin and Beza) were at first strong Augustinians; but tliey 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 ol' 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 Augustinian, 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- 3ans, who in this followed Thomas Aquinas. Out of this arose the violent controversy which prevailed in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- turies, de auxiliis gratia:, 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 Melancthon, 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 synergism, and its advocates synergists, 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 pjStimate, No. ii. ad fin. Many modern theologians have received this system entirely, and soine 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 ; alsc the works of Semler, Walch (Ketzergeschichte), Rosier (Bibliothek der Kirchenvater), and others. [Cf. Neander, Kirchengesch. b, ii, Abth. iii, Bretschneider, b. ii. s. C06.— 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 2q2 463 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. AufTiistinian or scholastic theory in an entirely ditVerent sense from what belongs to them, in reality denying physical inlluence. In this point, however, the protestant church is agreed, that the Holy Spirit does not act immediately, but vicdialeh/, through the word, s. 130, II. So clearly do the symbols teach. Morus, p. 231, n. I. 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 lohat tense. 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 enlightening and converting men. This power, however, is never exerted without, but always in connexion with the word. Conjundum cum nsu dodrinx auxilium Dei, quod ille fert utcnti- hus en, Morus, p. 228, note. The greater part, though not all of the early protestant and Lu- theran theologians, were of this opinion. So Molancthon. Some gave such a turn to this doctrine that they were suspected of f\inaticism. Tliis was the case with Herm. Rathmann, a Lutheran preacher in Dantzig, who affirmed in his work, '■'■Gnadenreich Christi,^'' 1G21, 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 heilignn Schrift lehre ; Dantzig, 1756, 4to. The author of the " Freundschaftliche Unterredun- gen iiber die Wirkungen der Gnade," 2te Ausg. 4 thl.; Hallo, 1774, 8vo. Also the "Briefe uber 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 efficientia, et de mo- mento ejus doctrinae;" Tubingen, 1777, 4to. Cf. Gehe, Diss, inaug. de argumenlo quod pra divinilate religionis Christiana; ab cxperientia ducitur; Guttingen, 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, H. 4. (2) Others, on the contrary, iiold that the divine and supernatural (though they do net 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 loi^ico-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 "Ilnterricht von der Kraft der heiligen Schrift;" Helmstildt, 1753, 4to. It was against this work that Bertling wrote. Cf. No. I. It was afterwards defended by Spalding, " Ueber den Werth der Gefiihle in Christenthum," and by Eberhard, " Apologie des Sokrates," thl. i., iii. The most copious and learned work on this subject is, Junklieim, "Von dem Uebernaturlichen in den Gnadea- 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 CXXXIIL 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 7m- provement and Perfection of Men? and in what consists the Divinity of the Operations of Graced (1) GoD does not act in such a way as to * How far I assent to this theory, either on scrip- tural or othor grounds, will appear J'rom the previous sections. Where I agree with it entirely, I shal/ state it as my opinion ; wherever it appears to mt> erroneous — i. e. not demonstrable from the Bible — i 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. 13, 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 influence would have no internal worth ; it would be compelled, and consequently incapa- ble 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, that man can resist; and so the Bible says ex- pressly. Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Heb. iii. 8, 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 ; and that man must be anything rather than pas- sive and inactive in this matter. The Bible teaches the same thing, and so requires of men that they should reform, change their heart. Acts, ii. 38; viii. 22. It exhorts them t-o in- crease in knowledge and virtue, Ephes. ii. 10; Tit. ii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 1, 2, seq. And for what purpose has God given to man the direct reve- lation of his will, if it is not to be used and employed by God himself in promoting the sal- vation of men 1 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. (S) 171 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 T How much does the moral culture and improvj- ment of man depend on birth, parentage, t-.irly 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 reas-m and of necessity prevails; in the moral world, the law oi 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 mariner 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 doo 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. Goo 464 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. gave us these instructions that they might have an effect upon us — i. e., that they miglit 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 load 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, tvayyixiov XptcJ-foi; is 8vra,uij @£0v ttj ouifrfiiav Ttairi 7'9 rtidtd'ovd,. 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 efiect from his instructions as we read of in Acts, ii. 37, and viii. 27 — 38 1 And whence is all this ] Some have thought it to be owing to the dirine authority on which the Chris- tian doctrine is published. This authority, they say, exerts more influence on one who ac/moiv- /erfifcs tV, 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 r/i/crna/ excel- lence of the religion itself, and the salutary na- ture of its doctrines. Tliese 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 produced 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 Up merely in the power and weight of the doctrinci of Christianity, and the evidence by which they are supported, but principally in the ulmii^hly power and injluence 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 {vh, rfftcacia) if the divine word. (3) Inferences drawn from the preceding state- ment. («) 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 iha 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 Christiin doc- trine in the same way as power to germinate and grow is given to seed, and power to heail, 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 believe, therefore, that there is an influxum {vim physicam, or as others express it, more guardedly, p/i^sjco-anfl/o^rtw,) is, according to what has now been said, not contrary to scrip- ture, but conformed to it. (i) But however powerful the operation of (he 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. 13, 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 inprove 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 uniforr* representation of the Bible. Vide Mark, iv. 20 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 465 seq.; Luke, viii. 15, Katix^'''^ T^oybv ev xapSia xaXv xai aya^jj, io embrace a?id obey the truth with an upright and sincere hearts (c) Theologians call the operations of grace supernatural. By this they cannot mean to de- note a direct, and of course irresistible, agency of God in the soul of man, or anything properly miraculous. This term cannot, therefore, be taken here in that strict sense in which philoso- phers use it. According to the Pelagian theory, these influences can be so called only because they are exerted through the divine doctrine which is supernaturally revealed, (in respect, therefore, to the means by which they are ex- erted ;) and hence are more efficacious than mere unassisted reason could be. Thus we call super- natural knowledge, that tor which we are in- debted to divine revelation, and natural, that to which we can attain through our own reflection. According to the theory of the ancient theolo- gians, which is more accordant with the holy scriptures, with Ciirist, and the apostles, these influences are also called supernatural, because they cannot be explained by any of the hnoivn laws of nature i John, iii. 8; 1 Cor, i. 2. Vide s. 131, II. 4. In respect to the manner in which the influences of grace are exerted on the human soul, a manner entirely suited to its moral na- ture, the operations of grace may, indeed, be denominated natural, as they are by Eberhard, in his " Apologie des Socrates." (rf) Theologians distinguish between nature and o-racf. In this they follow Augustine. Vide s. 13-2, II. But they have differed very much in determining what are the motus gratise, and what the motus naturse, and how they can be dis- tinguished. The common opinion has been, that the doings of the unconverted, even their vir- tues, flow from their nature, and therefore, ac- cording to Augustine, are not pleasing to God, or capable of reward. Of the actions of the re- generate only can it be said that they are accept- able in his sight, and flow from the influences of grace. Vide Spener, Vom Unterschied der Natur und Gnade; Erfurt, 1715. But there are difficulties attending this opinion, s. 125. To determine the marks by vihich nature and grace may be distinguished, the matter can be stated as follows: — Everything which we owe to the right use of the Christian doctrine, and to the agency of God through his truth, is the effect of grace; and everything in us which has not its origin or foundation in the use of the divine truth is the effect of nature. If, then, we can ascertain how much we owe to our being in- structed in divine truth, and to the influences of God by its means, we may also know how much we owe to grace. Proceeding in this way, we do not treat nature (or that essential constitu- tion which God has given to man) with con- temptuous disregard ; nor are we compelled, in 59 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 dispute's 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. And 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 v;hich 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. 46S 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 standards are at variance among themselves on the doctrine of the operations of grace. Cf. s. 32, Note. Ilenke, 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. ISjJ, 133) makes the renewing grace of God to consist procurationc instilutiunis sahifaris, cxcitatione per exempla virtuiis illustria, pauperlale, ealamitatibus, admonitionibus amico- rtiin 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 atte-\tive 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 — l)ut that man also is active in this work; and that it is an unwarrantable assumption to undertakr. to settle immovable limits to these two ccnspiring agencies, or to solve the mystery belonging to the secret ope- rations of grace. Again: Schleiermacher, Marheimcke, and others belonging to the more appropriately phi- losophical school of theologians, have restored the entire system of Augustine as to iuimediate and efficacious grace, and the absolute and un- qualified dependence of man upon God fur the very commencement of faith. With regard to tliis class, it is remarkable, tliat wliilc Augus- tine and Calvin rested the proof of tliis doctrine mainly upon scriptural authority, these have been led to adopt and now maintiiin it on grounds purely philosopliical. The weight of the names of such writers lias raised the Augustinian and Calvinistio theory of grace far above the con tempt and reproach with which it was hereto fore treated by the great body of Lutheran tlieo 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 lacid and popular writers. The statements of .Schleier- macher and others of the same school upon thia 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 he 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 poa- sihility 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 STATK INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 467 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 ail the divine operations." ♦ * " With what truth now is it presupposed that these influences must hamper the free agency of the mind, and reduce the subject of them to a mere machine? D(5es not the very nature of the case require that reason, the reci- pient, 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? The teacher, it is said, makes use of words. But cannot God, by an adloquium internum, cause new thoughts in the souls of men 1 Or are words the only possible way by which a Spirit can impart his light to other spirits, and teach them." Dogmatik, b. i. 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. COO. 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 niore to be expected in the moral world, since this is a far more conge- nial sphere for divine operations. "In the ma- terial s])here, 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. iv 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 reH/«/_i/ 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 onljf 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. s. GOO. 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- soph)'. The belief in such influences he held to be useful in awakening the hope that God would do for us what we ourselves might be 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 belongs rather to Christian ethics than to theology, it has by some llieologians 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 pliilosophical 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 tliem upon us, and this is tlie 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 tc 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 n-ndered favourable towards us and beciunes intimate with us. To the philosopher all tliis 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 tiioughts, 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 eff*! ct on oui 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 wliich 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-repealed 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 tvill 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 tnjlucnce. 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 precaiionis morali pertinentia," by the same author, and published at the same place, 1790, 4 to. STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 469 Two points deserve particular consideration in this connexion. («) The feeling that prayer is necessary is absolutely 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- ly religious and virtuous than other religions which make prayer of less importance, and at most prescribe certain public prayers and set formulas. 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- vout worshippers of God. [Cf. the work of Tholuck on Ssuffismns, or the doctrine of the Ssuffis — a Mohammedan sect in Persia. — Tr.] (A) Christ makes it the special duty of his followers to supplicate God in his name, and promises 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 apostles 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 in 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. CN 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 l^ord's Sup- pe"-, 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 ; its object; its names; and the divisions of THE church common IN THEOLOGY. I. Idea of ike Christian Church; its Object; and an Explanation of its Scriptural Nantes. 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) 'ExxXrjdia. This term is used by the Greeks to denote an assembly of men, called together on the authority of the magistracy ; from ixxaXioi, 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 tx- xXr^aca. The same is true of the Hebrew sipc. The term h7\p (nin-'), 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 ixxXrjsla to denote (a) particular societies of Christians in particular cities or provinces — e. g., ixx'Kiqaia, sv 'itpowT^vpoi?, x. t. %., Acts, viii. 1 ; (b) the religious assemblies of these societies, and i\\e places in which they met — e. g., 1 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) Sui^aytoyj; and ijtiavvayutyr^' and these, too, are used by the Septuagint to render the words Snp and r\-^i. 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 Nev/ Testament, to denote the religious assemblies of Christians, and the 2R 470 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, places where they held tl,em — e. g., Heb. x. 25; James, ii. 2. These terms, however, were never used, like the precedinjr, to denote the whole of Christendom. (3) There were also various figurative names employed — e. g., /SastXfia -fwr oipai-cJi', or roi idiov. So frequently in the discourses of Christ. Vide s. 99, I. ]?ut 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 Ciirist, in this life and the life to come — e. g., John, iii. 3; Matt. v. 3. 2wtia XpKjt'oi} (of which he is the xf^aXt-) — 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. Naoj 0fou, 1 Cor. iii. IG, 17, — used to de- scribe the dignity and holiness of Christians, and the inviolableness of their rights. O?xoj 0*ou, 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 ?tfptov5t05, Tilus, ii. 14; Jiaoj fiV rtfpi- rcoirjaiv (^rtipixoir^niuii), I Pet. ii. 9; ixXsxtot, x. t. X. The Israelites were iht ancient people of God, (under the rtaXaul dia^r^x?],) in opposition to the new people of God, (under the xaivri Sia- ^,xr-.) And this ancient people is always re- garded as the stock from which the new sprung, Rom. xi. 17, seq.; Acts, xv. IG. And on this very account Paul earnestl}'^ warns Christians, in the passage cited, against despising or un- dervaluing the Jews. II. Divmons of the Cliurch. ( 1 ) Into universal ?i.'m\ particular. The church universal comprehends within itself all who profess the Christian doctrine, No. 1. 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, diflering 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 cccksix 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 fnUe churches, and their subdivisions. This division must be retained in abstracfo, althongh it should be ap» plied very cautiously in concreto, 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 ao-ree- 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, 21. 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, has the most truth, in which there is found a nearer agreement with the doc- trine of Jesus and the apostles than in other churclies. 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: — (ff) 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. (J)) Nor is there, on the other hand, any Christian church which is wholly v/anting 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 th^t there are often good Cliristians 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 as more or less errors or false principles are em- braced. We also speak of a corrupt church, i)y which is meant particularly a church in which false //ior«/ principles, exerting an injurious in iluence upon the life and Christian walk, are minsrled with Ciuistian doctrine. It remains STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMITION. 471 Uit/efore true, that the separate Christian com- munions are of difl'erent value and excellence according to their greater or less purity in doc- trine, and according to the greater or less adapt- edness of their exterijal 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 be made in them whenever and wherever there is a necessity for it, and that it is an entirely false maxim to adhere invariably to what is an- cient, and never to alter. It does not belong, however, 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 refurniatiune ecclesise, in the abstract, its practical application is attended with very great difficulties. {(l) To unite externally all the different churches is not practicable; and even if it could be done, would occasion more injury than bene- fit. 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- vi^ib/e. This division is entirely rejected in several of the new systems — e. g., in those of Gruner, 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 Christ 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, JVhtre 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 |)eriods, although they had not always been known. It was from this just observation that this division arose. Cf. Confess. August,, Art. vii. anu viii., and Apol. A. C. Protestants understand by the invisible church true Christians, who not only know the precepta of Christ, but from the heart obey tnem, 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 respeciu. 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 ixxXr^cia 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, ayia, a/xut/xoi, ixrj t^ov^a anL7.ou y; pvti-ba, &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. Malt. XV. 22, seq. That in the visible church (|3aotXfi.'a tav ovpaviiv) 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. JYtite. — 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; xriL 472 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 2, 6. The l)etter, 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. (1) Tiie 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 tiiese 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 ove/ — 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 (tstiXnui- fiiviov btxoLMv), 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. JVote. — 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 Eecksia, (Jense, 1675,) deserves particular men- tion. SECTION CXXXV. ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH; 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 churt-h the four attributes, wjia, sanela, catholica, aposto- lica. In tlie apostolic symbol it is called a holy Christian church, the society of the saints; in the NicHH"' 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 wliich tliey 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 rigiitly ex- plained. The doctrine of«the perpetuity of the church may be most conveniently considered in connexion with these. 1. Unity of the Church, This predicate has an entirely different mean- ing in the New Testament from that which it bears in thecominon 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 coinmon 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. 3—5. This unity of the church is mentioned in those passages in the New Testament in which warnings are given agiiinst disturbers of the peace and ag-ainst controversies; and in those also in which it is tauglit 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, n. The principal proof-texts here are, John, xvii. 20, ua rtdvTii tV Zatv John, x. 16, "one- fold, one shepherd ;" and Ephesians, iv. 3 — 6, and ver. 13, tf6tr;i; nvfvuatoi, because all wor ship one God and one Christ, have one baptisiu and one doctrine. The tio'r>;; rtt'irfioj 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 Jv'ho ought therefore to love each other as bre- thren. Galatians, iii. 28, nuvtei fij iv Xptstci. Rom. xii. 5, HoXKoi ev a^ixa, tafiev, coll. ver. 13; X. 17; 1 Cor. i. 12, 13 ; viii. C. 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 whicli were handed down from the times of the apos- tles, through the churcli^s founded by them, and in the external connexion and fellowship of tlie particular societies founded upon this agree- ment. The most ancient passages relating to this subject are found in Irenaus, (i. 10,) Tertullian (De Pra3script. Ha?ret. c, 20, ad fin.) and Cy- prian, (in his Book, " De Unitate 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 oishops now established a kind of college or se- cret society; and this imity ofihechurch 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 ecclesiani illain unicam et veram ^extcriiam or visibilemi 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 EcclesiK, in his "Opuscula." But there is no such socictas 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, (^eccksias.) 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 Ecclesiaft Dei," by Franc. Oberthiir, vol. i.; Salzburg, 1790, 8vo, vol. ii. 1799. He pro- ceeds on the definition. Quod sit ecclesia schola qusedam, quam Deus erexerit, nutriendx ac pro- movendcc internx 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 oiyiot. 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. I 4. 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 2 r2 i74 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. be trulj 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 wliich it is made the duty of every Christian to be iioly, 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 ciiurch which tolerates witliin itself unholy or unregenerate persons cannot l)e a true church, and so is to be ex- cluded from Christian fellowship. It was on these principles that the Novatians proceeded in the iliird century, and the Donatists in the fourtli 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 tiie Omniscient only can discern and distinguish the hypocrites, who are much more injurious than the openly vicious. And 80 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 tiie 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 {seminariuiu), 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 c ily to participate who have a like object and possess similar dispositions with them- selves, excluding all others, the ecclesioix in ecck- 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 oihers, and against regarding those who do not jnin them, and are not enrolled among them, as worse Christians than themselves. It does not belong to the government to interdict such asf.ociations, if they do not disturb civil peace and order, any more than to forbid and binder ither private associations of citizens for other lawful objects. The reasons for and against these associations are canvassed in Burkhardt's "Geschichte der Meihodiblen;" Niirnberg, 1795, s. 123, f. The history cf tha church teaches that these smaller associations have had, upon the whole, a highly beneficial effect. In times of ignorance and unbelief they have been the depositories of uncorrupted Chris- tianity. Without the Waldenses, the Wick- lifites, and the Hussites, the Reformation would 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 Ciirist belong to it, and because Christianity is not merely a national religion, or the religion of a country, but one which may be professed by all men without distinction. The church is called apos- tolical, because the members of it profess to adopt the doctrine taught by the apostles, and contained in their writings; according to Eph. ii. 20, "built upon the foundation of the apos- tles." But anciently xa^Xizoj was synony- mous with op^dSoSoj, znd fides 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 qux habet fidem stve veritatem cathtllcam — i. e., the right and pure doctrine and constitution, in opposition to those churches which have not the pure aposto- lic doctrine, but belong to the heretics. They 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^' o•^.•r^v olxovjxivriv) had gradually formed a separate church union. Whatever agreed with this was xo-^xixov, otherwise al^itixov. 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 appeai was therefore made, in the controversies ir. 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 apostolie church, because they all agreed in the doctrines and regulations prescribed by the apostles to STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 475 the ch irches founded by them — e. g., by Peter to the church at Rome, by Paul to that at P]phe- fius, &c. The earliest passaofes relating to this subject are found in Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres, 1. iii., and especially in TertuUian, De Praescript. Haer., c. 20, 21. It is there said, for example, Tot ac tanise eeclesias, una est ,■ ilia ah apnstolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnesprimx, et omnes aposlulicse duni una; omnes prohnnl uniiatem, etc. Vide the Essay of Henke before cited. Note. — 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 ckcu- 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, ziir Beforderung einer freyern Priifungdes 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, .ill the powers of decay and destruc- tion shall not get advantage over it, TivXai ahov (where all which perishes or is destroyed upon the earth is collected) ov xa,-(i.6zv6ov6i.v a.viri<;, 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 partiiular forms of doctrine which prevail at any particular time, and the particu- lar church communions originating from them, will be of perpetual duration. Changes nuist 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 exisling 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 CHUKCH ; AND OF THE INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED TO MAIN- TAIN AND EXTEND IT, ESPECIALLY THROUGH THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC TEACHING. L 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 Morus, p. 278, s. 2. Those who profess his doctrine are brethren, and as such have equal rights. Vide Matt, xxiii. 9. Hence he is called o rtoL/xr^v, d();^irtot/(>;j', x. -f. X. John, X. 12; 1 Pet. v. 4; Heb. xiii. 20; and xifa'Kri ixx%^ctai, Ephes. i. 22, iv 15; Col. i: 476 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 10. Nor is he called by these titles merely in a figurative sense, but because, in his exalted Btate, 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 tpottles 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. I — 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 Ihis rock I will build my churchy 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- ;ial power over the church, or that of his suc- cessors. Peter is here spoken of as a disciple, md not as a ruler and governor. Morus ex- jlains this passage very well, (p. 284, seq. n. 3.) It is therefore justly affirmed in the protestant shurch that Christ has constituted no visible ^sad 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, JVhether the Christian church has not the right to commit to some one the charge and government uf 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. Iiius it was in the apostolic church. But the oi»fc, or the many, who are appointed to this duty, a.id who constitute an ecclesiam re- praesentativu », possess this pre-eminence not jure divi/io, but numano. They ought not therefore to ^jive out their decretals as divine, and in the name oi ood. Their enactments are merely human, ai i- ought to have no more than human authority mey may be altered, im- proved, &c. Since, moreove\, .n every well-organized so- ciety there must be juhordi nation, no good rea- son can be given wi.y this sliould not be intro- duced among the o.Hcors and teachers of the Christian church, anci 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 w^as called the liead 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- 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 cliurch, (rtpoj xataptii^nov — ttj oixobofirjv cto^uaroj XpKJtoiJ.) They are hence called vrt);p£'ra$ and Sta'xoi'ot ©fov and X.pt,atov — 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, {awspyot,) 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 cliurches, directly by Christ himself; and they again, as ambassadors for Christ, appointed a perpetual office of teaching, and the pubiic 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 and 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 perm.ment officers and teachers of each particu- lar church — were inlaxoTtoi, rtpjtJ.Svffpot, rtoi- ^f T J, btbdaxaXoi, (of which the general name is ijyoi';tifi'ot, 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- hyteri regentes, rioifiivi^,) and others were more especially employed in instruction, {presbyteri duccntes, bihaaxaXou .^ But for a more particular account of this matter we must refer to church history. These officers and teachers were not appointed immediately by Christ himself; and in the first church they were not always appointed in the same way and by the same persons; certainly 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, b\it left to the ciiurches 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- presentatives, were regarded in the New Testa- ment as appointed by God, or the Holy Ghost, or Christ — e. g.. Acts, xx. 28; Col. iv. 17; be- cause their consecration took place on his autho- rity, and according to his will. It is common to denominate the naming and consecration of any one to the office of teaching, \\iscalling [yo- eatio), because Nip and xaXelv are used in the scriptures with respect to the designation of prophets and other teachers, and the divi le com- missions entrusted to them. And this calling, even in application to the teachers of religion at the present day, may be denominated divine, so far as it is accordant with the divine will, and with the order which God has established; in the same way as the institution of government is -■".ailed divine, Romans, xiii. 1. At the present time, however, this calling is never immediately from G\jd. 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. 2—7; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Titus, i. 5—9; 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 tiiat thenceforward he rnay begin his work, and enjoy his rights Morus, 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 ;tf tporoja'a, and was taken from mili- tary life among the Romans, like the word or- dincs ; for Christians were called milites Christi. It was therefore synonymous with constilutio, constituere ad munus publicum, 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. 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 /8 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. was given, to whom anything was promised, or for whom any blessing was implored from God, as a si^n of blessing, invocation, &c. — symhu- ium coUalioniH. 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 ckunicter indekbilis 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 olTice, 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. 23 ; I Cor. ix. G — 14. The church and the government may, however, if they see it to be best, confer still other rights, privileges, and immunities upon teachers. Xote. — As to the manner in which the church shall 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 sacerdu- 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 tothe/cM;jyt/)r/e67s(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- sors, to whom these gifts were net imparted. Among these is especially the office or the power of the keys, {potcstas clavium.) This in- cludes 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 collaliva, 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 nffi- cium claviuni. Vide Morus, p. 2ri', coll. Eph. V. 26) belongs in this connexion. (3) To r6wp, because baptism was adminis- tered with water; John, iii. 5, coll. Acts, x. 47; Eph. V. 2G, seq. (4) Among the church fathers one of the oldest names was ^unrw^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 tovi artal ^utia^ti'T'aj (Heb. vi. 4), those once baptized, wliich version Michaelis follows, though it is a doubtful rendering. Bap- tism is moreover called by the church fathers, o^payi'j, sigillum, (^character Christiani,) ;^a'pij, xdptafia, tvbvfia a^^apaiai, x. -t. %. 11. 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 {Havta. 't^vri) 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 {ixa^ritivnv) 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- 434 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. tize ye, and say, T baptize thee in the name of the Father, Sun, 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., .lohn, iii. 5; Titus, iii. 5; Acts, xxii. IC; Gal. iii. 27; Rom. vi. 3,4; Ephes. V. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 21, &c., will be ex- plained in the following sections. ni. 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 {povxvi Qtov), 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 tlie 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 tliemselves from impurities. Vide Wetstein on Matt. iii. C. 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 tiiat 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- arj 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 Uie prose- lytes, as well circumcised, as uncircumcised, were initiated by baptism into the worship of 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- dered as Ijorn again — exactly the expression used by Christ (John, iii.) and by Paul (Tit. iii.) respecting Christian baptism. Vide s. 12G, II. The Talmudists make this practice very ancient, and place it as far back as the time of Moses, and even further, (which pro- bably is going too far, as their way is.) The oldest passage respecting a religious cleansing, or sort of baptism, occurs in Jacob's history, (Gen. XXXV. 2,) when he puts away the idols in his house, and builds an altar to Jehovah. This passage may certainly have induced the Israelites to adopt this custom. So much is certain, that as early as the second century pro- selyte baptism must have been very customary; since in the Dissertations of Epictetus (ii. 9), published by Arrian, jifjiaujj.ti'Oi signifies a Jewish proselyte, and rtaptt,3artria^fi,'j, one who had not sincerely embraced Judaism. Others, however, are inclined to think that Christiana are here meant, and that Epictetus confounded them with tlie 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 arttiquilate baptismi iniliationis Israel, in Meu- schen's N. T. e Talmude illustrate, 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) .Igainst. 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 in Philo, — not in Josephus, even when he speaks of the conversion of the Idumeans, under John 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 neai the age of Christ, (b) In favour. The unani- iTious testimony of all the Rabbins, — the univer- sality of this practice among the Jews of the second century, since it can scarcely be thought that they would have borrowed it from the Christians, who were so hated and despised by 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 {regencra{i()), — also 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 argi ment, however, is invalidated by the remark, that it is known to STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 4Ba 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 from the question, why haplizest ihuu theii? and from his being called the Baptist. Ziegler has lately maintained, with very jirobable reasons, that the antiquity of the Jewish baptism of pro- 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 dilTerence, 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 thai 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 (^ffaioia) 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 p-flc/'/ce 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 tliis was considered as having been already done. Hence we do not find that any apostle or smy other disciple of Jesus was the second time baptised; 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, anaong wliom 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 v^'ith 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 thern 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 Sabffiis, 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. dnd 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. SECTIOxN CXXXIX. how and by whom baptism is to be adminis teued; 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 4SG CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Ephes, V. £G. But after baptism in itself con- sidered, and simply as an ;r^j, Hiatevoiv,) Acts, ii. 41, 44, and entitled to ail the rights of other Christians. 1 Cor. xii. 13, "Whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; li; iv a^fia i^a.Ti-tCo'^iqjxiv'''' — 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 iV j3d7trt.ai.ia., (one common baptism,) and tv crw,ua, (one church,) and juia ixrti'j 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, es|)ecially in the instructions which they gave to catechumens and new converts — e. g., in Greg>.'ry of NazianieOi STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BRvJUCI!T BY THE REDEMPTION. 439 Cyril of Jerusalem, and even earlier, in Ireneeus and Tertullian. Cyril of Alexandria went so far as to say that the water became changed {fistastoixii'Ova^aL), 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- cupiiceniia 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 (A.cts, ii. 38) exhorts his hearers to suffer themselves to be baptized fi<; afrj^t^v d/iapT'ctJi/, but he ex- pressly requires, as an essential condition, the fiffai/oftv, (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 eTH-xaXiGd/xtvoi ■to ovofia tov Ki'pioD. 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 intc 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. 12G, II. (i) Titus, iii. 5, where Paul means to say, God had bestowed salvation upon them (Hat^atv^ by leading them to etnbrace Christianity. We become participators in these Christian bless- ings in a twofold way; first, 5ta T-ou-fpov rtaXty- ■yfvftn'aj' so baptism is called as far as one ex- terrtally 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, xai 8t,a ai'axaivaosi^i Ilvivj.iatoi ay tov — 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, (cfiifjt;) not, however, as an external ivashing, but inasmuch as we pledge ourselves in this rite, and are assisted by it, to maintain a good 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 fAcfdvota dytwrj-ui'};. 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, c ui^f tSjjfjftdj dya^>j? s rffpw7'>j/xa ei'j &i6v, and makes this one object of baptism. 'Erttpiofj^^ua is pro- perly stipiilatio, and so denotes any solemn obli- gation which one assumes (before God). Hence the meaning here is: "By baptism we take upon ourselves the sacred obligation, in the presence of God, to maintain a good c( nscience, 490 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. tj be watchful ajrainst sin, and to strive after holiness." The passaj^e, Romans, vi. 3, 4, seq., teaches the same thinj,', 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 tlie pardon of sin on account of the death of Christ; and so, when we are baptized, take upon ourselves the oblitjation to die to sin in a spiritual manner, as Christ died and was buried bodily, ^'c The image is here taken from hapiized 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 longrer perceived. So then by baptism we profess to receive Christ as our tf'jchcr, Saviour, and Lord — i. e., we tbus 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 Thu ler him a dutiful obedience. This is what ii meant in the New Testament by being bapfived in the name nf Christ. Vide Morus, p. 21fi, s. 1. But since now all these blessings whiiih 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 baptise 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 duly to pay them religious homage. Secondly. Through baptism we receive tlie assurance that the divine blessings which the Christian doctrine promisi^s concern even us, and ih it even ive may participate in them; or, in ollirr words, these blessings are by this rite particularly applied to our own personal state, and we learn in faitii 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 lliat 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 l)aptism as with circumcision. This Paul calls (Rom. iv. 11) a arnxilov and a^^aylha. for Abrabaui and his posterity — i. e., a token of assurance and a proof that God was favour- ably disposed towards him, and justifii^d him on account of his f.iith. So baptism is to every one the token of assurance that he may partake \v dil those spiritual blessings which Christian- ity promises. Whoever, therefore, is baptized receives the assurance that his «ins are foigiven 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 be, 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. IG. 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 ; avti-cvTioi, image, likeness.) Kven as the pious at the time of the deluge (ver. 20) were bodihj 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' tirwlions and terminologies respecting baptism. («) 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 ia produced in regard to both the objects which belong to Christian faith, the law and the go*- pel. Still this is not wrought through any mi- raculous or magical influence of baptism, or of the Holy Spirit in baptism; for, (6) This effect of baptism depends upon the Word 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 JVord. 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 Biblical doctrine (s. 130, '31) 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, materia (better, res) terrestris, that which strikes the senses externally — the water ; and materia eoeleslis, 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, (oi- staculuni.y^ 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. (cZ) Baptism is frequently represented as a covenant 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 irtfpi!itrj^ia is translated covenant by Luther. Of. 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 CXLL OK THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM, AND WHETHER IT MAY BE REPEATED. I. The Necessiti/ of Baptism. (1) An internal and absolute necessity of kaptism 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 eflfect 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 {necessitas 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 (f3or?.)J ®iov) 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 jGarttia^a'j 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 ytwrjaii ex Ttvivixafo^ is represented as the principal thing (ver. 6 — 8), and the ylv- vrjr!t.i ix -uSaroj 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- tuHlan 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 •^2 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. oC express testimony and evidence from the apostolical age concerning the baptism of those bom of Christian parents. This inquiry has been lately revived; and Teller (Kxcurs. 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. 110, and may also be concluded from the analogy of circur/icision, 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 Heedlessness 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 VVassertaufe ein Gesetz Christi;" Berlin, 1774. (6) Among the old catholic fathers in the Christian church there always prevailed very higli ideas respecting the necessity and advan- tages of baptism. They were accustomed, how- ever, to defer baptism as long as possible (^pro- cra.stinarc) ; and this is recommended even by Tertullian, De Bapt. c. 18;) and many would not be baptized until just before their death — e. g., Constantine the Great. They supposed that baptism removes, in a kind of miraculous way, all the sins previously committed; while, on the oilier hand, the sins committed subsequently to baptism could be forgiven only with great dilTiculty, 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) Wlien now the position, exlra ecchsiam visi- bilein nondarisahttem, vvilli all its consequences, become more and more prevalent, especially af- ter the time of Augustine, and in the Western church (vide s. 128, H. and 135, T.), they began to inaint-iin the doctrine of llie absolute neces- sity of baptism in order to salvation; because baptism is the appointed rite of initiation oi reception into the church ; and they gave out, that whoever is not baptized, and so is net a member of the visible church, could not become partaker of eternal happiness. So Augustine had before judged, not only respecting tlie 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, foi the first time, the so-called hnptisni of necessity (administered when a child was thouglit in dan- ger of dying) became common. It happened also not unfrequenlly, 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.) Everj' 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 1 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 ; altl\ough we find some examples, even at that time, of great sinners and of persons excommunicated. (f/) We do not even find that the baptisv.i of John was repeated, (although, at the present STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 493 time, the Sabeans in the East yearly repeat it;) snd 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 plar-e once for all ; not merely that they were bap- tized {haptizari ;) 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- trovers)' 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, v/ho 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 of Juabap- cists, 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, (JViedertaiifer.) The ojiinions 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 bai)tism 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 tiiird 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, II.;) wherefore they rebaptized all who came over to their sect. For they maintained that the gratia baptistni does not exist among heretics ; that the ordination of teachers outof 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. G72, ff. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 556, 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. Geseh. b. i, Abth. ii. s. 533—63; also b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 680, IT. ; for the more recent history, cf. Plank, Gesch. der protest. Lehrb. b. V. th. 1.— Tr.] SECTION CXLII. OF THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS. Manv of the ancients and moderns have dis- approved of infant baptism. It was first ex- pressly dissuaded by TerhiUian (De Bapt. c. 18), althoiio[h be does not entirely reject it, as it was at that time in common use. Hut it was also quite common then to f/e/ay 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 ajre. 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 na^yj" TivHv 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 grourids — 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 v/zs 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, tCjv yap toiovtc^v iativ ri ^arsixna rov 0fov." This is indeed no com- mand for infant baptism ; but if children may and ought to have a share in the Christian shurch, and in all Christian privileges (^jSaai^sia Qcov), it cannot be impicper to introduce thera into the Christian church by this solemn rite of initiation. Indeed, if it is according to the de- sign of Christ that children should have a share 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 cir- cumcision as that the one was the rite of initia- tion into the ancient church, the other into the new; s. 137, II. ad finem, and Morus, p. 253, note. But Christian baptism represents and imparts far greater spiritual benefits than cir- cumcision. Now we know that the sons of .Tews and proselytes, according to divine com- mand, were circumcised on the eighth day, when they certainly had as yet no idea of the intent and meaning of this religious rite. Accord- ing to this analogy, children among Christians may be baptized, even during those years when they cannot as yet understand anything of the» design of the rite, or make any profession of their faith. At least, this analogy must have been very clear to the first Christians, and to the apostles, who themselves were .Tews. When therefijre in the times of the apostles a whole family was baptized, would not the children be baptized too? And did not Paul say without limitation that all were baptized, at a time when 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 proselyte baptism was common during the life of Christ, this circumstance would establish the position still more; for the children of proselytes were also baptized? But even if proselyte baptism was not introduced until the end of the second or beginning of the third century, and was then adopted in imitation of Christian baptism, even in this case it might still be concluded that at that time the baptism of infants must have been common among Christians. (3) The most decisive reason is the follow- ing: Christ did not indeed ordain infant bap- tism expressly; but if, in his command to bap- tize all, he had wished children to be excepted, he must have expressly said this ; Matt, xxviii. Since the first disciples of Christ, as native Jews, never doubted that children were to be introduced into the Israelitish church by circum- cision, it was natural that they should include ciiiUiren also in baptism, if Christ did not ex* pressly forbid it. Had he therefore wished that this should not be done, he would have said so in definite terms. (4) That infant baptism was very commoc shortly after the times of the apostles, both in the Eastern and Western churches, admits of na 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 fmd 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- 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 aposlolica tradiiio, and says, tulam ecclesiam id traditum tenere- (t/) 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, (rtapd6oat{ artootoXiz^.) 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 Irenseus is thought valid and incontrovertible by Neander ; vide K. Gesch. b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 549, 550.— Tr.] 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 Infantum, and John Walch, Historia Pffidobaptisrni, Sffic. if pri- orum; Jen^, 1739. II. 77ie Uses and Effects of Infant Baptism. Although children at the time of tlieir 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 doe:^ not fol- low that infant baptism is without advantages, any more than that Jewish circumcision was. It has twofold advantages: (1) Fur the children themselves. The advan- tages to them are both present d^ndi future. (a) The present eff'ect, 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 far 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. (6) As soon as their mental powers begin to unfold themselves in some degree, children are capable of an obvious inward, inoral 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. lo the acceptance and obedience of which they arc obligated by baptism. This is called the eonfirmalion, (of the covenant of baptism.) It has upon many, as experience teaches, the most salutary efficacy tiirough 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. (•3) 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 bo 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 greai 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, (b) 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 apon iheai, 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 T^IE OCCASION AND OBJECT OF ITS INSTITUTION. I. Names of the Lard's Supper. (I) The scriptural names, (ffl) Kvpiaxov Ssirt- vov, the festival which Christ appointed, and which is held in his honour, and is commemo- raUvo of him, 1 Cor. xi. 20. Hence the com- Boa appellations, the Lord^s Supper, cwna do- mini, or sacra cacna, because it was instituted a< supper time. Entirely synonymous with this is the phrase (i) Tpa?tf ^a Kvpi'ov, 1 Cor. x. 21, where we also find the name Ttorr^^^iov Kiy/ov. With these the term zy.aatj toi aprov, Acis, ii. 42, is frequently meniioned. But this seems rather to apply to the feasts of love, (Agapes,) after which the sacrament of the Supper was frequently, though not always, administered in the primitive church. Cf. ver. 4G, ^fraXa^xfSci- viLv T'po4)-/j5. The term bupia trtoupai'toj, Heb. vi. 4, is rendered by iNlichaelis heavenly manna- and applied to the Lord's Supper. 'I'his term seems, however, to denote more generally the 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) Kotj'wiaa, communio — a festival /;» com mon. This name is borrowed from 1 Cor. x. IG, where, however, it denotes the profession which Christians make, by partaking //j common of the Supper, of their interest in Christ, of the saving efficacy of his death for them, and their own actual enjoyment of its consequences. (h) Ev;tapwritt and tvXoyia, (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 jaat, according to Luke and Paul,) he again offered a prayer of thanks, as was customary at the commencement of a festival («v;^apt5T'^5a?,) 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 pc»» 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 differ! 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. Nute. — Christ recommended the observance of the Supper, not merely to the apostles, but to all Christians. Vide Morns, p. 259, s. 1, ad finein. 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 words. 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 "h'Tches. 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, {o.x\ni ov tTi'^^ o Kiipioj.) 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 v/ho 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. (ff) 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, owfta irtep vnHv SiSofievov, (or, as Paul has it, xXui[a.£vov, "inr, Ixdere, vulnerare, to which the breaking of the bread alludes,) and ai)Ua vTiip xi^wv, (or rtsfti fto%xZv, according to Mark and Luke,) ixxwoiA-ivov, ilia^eatv a^tapritoj/. 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 sakes," (pdvafov Kvpiov xatayyi^cts.) 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 {xat.vi^ Si-a^r^xrj) began with the death of Christ, and was thereby solemnly consecrated. Cf. the texts cited s. 118, II. 1. Hence Paul says, Heb. ix. 14, 15, that even as Judaism was inau- gurated by sacrifices, so w-as 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 if 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 to al^ia xaiviji Sta^jjxijj (or, as Luke and Paul plainly have it, to rtotij- ptov (etTTc) tj xaiprj ^La^r^xirj sv rcj aXfxwtt, juov) are to be regarded as explanatory of the words tovto ia-ii to atofia fxov, to a'iy.d /xov. The meaning therefore is, " ye celebrate, while ye eat this bread and drink this wine, the me- mory of my body ofiered 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 tovto iati a^fxa and alfia refers, therefore, principally to the act itself, like the following tovto rtoi- titi — 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 I died for us. This is illustrated by the formula used by Moses respecting the passover, Exod. xii. 11, 27, Nn nso— i. e., by this act you •olemnly commemorate the deliverance from Eirypt. 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. (i) 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, M'as 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 w-ere 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/o/- Chrisfs sake — i. e., be- cause it is the will and the command of Christ, their common Lord. Vide Job. Gottlob Worb, Ueber die Bundes-und Freundschaftssymbole der Morgenlander; Sorau, 1792, 8vo. But we must remember, in connexion with tliis, 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, (IMatt. 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 fielc this festival with his disciples then living, and (le then took the lead. But while he commands all his fol- lowers to continue to observe this rite until big 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 prxsentinn suani suis in sacra caena dcclaral adspectabii.i pignore. So cer- tainly as they see the bread and the wine, even so certain should it be to them that he still lires, and that he is especially near to tliem, as he was formerly to his disciples while upon earth. Note. — From what has now been said, it ap- pears (n) that the theo;-y 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 dvai here in the sense of sii^iufy- ing, shelving 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 fatJ in a similar connexion, instead of o);,ucu»'£4, .John, XV. 1. The objections to this explanation which are of any weight may be seen in Storr's '* Doc- trina Christiana," p. 305, seq. Cf. also s. 146. This particular theory ought never to have been made an article of faith, but 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 ibserved. Tiiis false idea became gradually prevalent in the Romish church. Vide No. I. of ihis section, ad finem This sacrament may indted 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 BETWEKN 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 BROVGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 501 Supper; others ^reuiiessential, or conli7ige7it. 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 vSupper, 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, e/ementa, symbo- la) 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 Lord's Supper. (1) With regard to the nature of the bread to be employed in this sacrament, the opinions of theologians have been diverse. (tt) It has been asked whether the bread should be leavened or unleavened, or whether this is -d 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 (Haer. 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 aiways 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 poinl 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 |)apal decretals. The opposite ground was taken by the Greek church, and is still maintained at the present day. Vide Job. Gottfried Herrmann, Historia Concertationum de Pane Azymo et Fermentato in Coena Domini; Leipzig, 1737, 8vo. (b) 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 I Cor. xi. 24, (coll. x. 17, il^ aptoj, from which pieces were broken off,) that this custom was retained in the primitive Ciiristian 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 ivine, 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, {merum.) 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 fOS 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 Lcrd's Supper, neither the bread nor the wine must be taken without the other, but both must be used, (cunimunio stib ulraquc specie,) though one separately from the other, (^separatim.) (rt) As to the latter point, it is probable from the institution of the Supper by Christ that he distributed each of the elements scparalely 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. (b) 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 sacriltirium, and is very strong in his opposition to it. But when the doctrine of transubstantiation began to prevail in tlie West, especially after the eleventh century, the schoolmen suggested the question whether, considering that the bread is chiinged into the body of Christ, the blood is not also there, and so, whether it is not enough to partake merely of the bread"? 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 brtjad. 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 " ith great z^al by Thomas Aquinas. Some churches in the West becran, therclore, to introduce tlic custom of withholding the cup from the laity, and giving it oulj to thfl clergy. The first examples of this occurred in some English churches about the mit/dle 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 century 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 cominunione sub una was zealously op- posed by WickJiff and Huss and their adherents; and this led the Council at Costnilz, 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 tliis 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 Allalius, Schmid, 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. 2G. 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. 115, I.:) and because it may be, and is designed to be, a means of promotingachange 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 tiiis sacrament. Nor do wo hnd that persons who gave no evidence of a regene- rate mind, and who were yet members of thi STA.TE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. i03 visible church, were excluded from the sacra- ment in the primitive Christian church ; although such persons were advised to abstain from the sacrament, so long as their hearts were not in a proper frame, still it was left to their own con- 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- bration of this ordinance; and thus taught us our duty with regard to this subject. Many have indeed denied that Judas, the betrayer of Christ, partook of this sacrament with the other 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 doubts as to uniting with unconverted men in this ordinance, and have become separatists. In respect to children, however, it is main- tained tiiat 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 Eucharistiae Infantium ; Berlin, 173G, 8vo. It cannot be 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- teied 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 extreuie cases, therefore, where no regular teachers can be obtained, tnis sacrament may be administered by other Chris- tians to whom this duty is committed by th». 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 rtpo- satwtfi consecrated and distributed the ele- ments; and Tertullian (De Cor. Mil.) says 7iec de aliurum manu quam pr^sidentium sumi- mus. (3) The question has been asked, Whether private cuiumimions (e. g., in the case of sick persons) may be permitted, and whether they accord with the objects of the Lord's Supper T 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 Krankencotnmunion, mit besonderer Hinsicht auf ihren Misshrauch und ihre Schad- lichkeit;" Leipzig, 1803, 8vo; in which, how ever, the practice is not whuliy rejected. These writers have been led to make their objections by seeing the frequent abuse of private commu- nions, by knowing that tiiey 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 — 3i. 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 Morua 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 projier observance of the Lord's Supper, for it was held at its first institution in a private 504 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. nouse; nor is the number of Christiana present at all important, since it was first celebrated onCy by z select few of the five hundred disci- pies 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 nouce; and they, too, might perhaps receive a ealutary 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 Riles 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, biaxfiviiv to cCjfxa tov Kup/ou. 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, (ev;KapKjT^(jaj, or fi3?woy9ji7aj,) which was probably one of the Drief thanksgivings common among tiie Jews, a« 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 Ciirist is properly followed in the administration of the Supper. It is customary to otler 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, Ttorrfiiov tvxo- y/af, o fiXoyov;tt£i' — i. e., the wine in the cup, which we consecrate to this use by the prayer of thanks. It is also said elsewhere res])ecting those who thank God for the enjoyment of other food, that they partake of it /.itt' f-ij?ioycaj, J Tim. iv. 5; Luke, ix. IG. This solemn opening of the Supper with 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 ia 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 vi^ords 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 ayid- ^n,v and sanclificare, 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 othe'- contin- gent and arbitrary usages, .some of which are good, and adapted to promote the ends of this ordinance, and others are extiemely liable to 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 been retained in the Lutheran church, such as the singing of the words of consecration, the marking of the bread and wine with the cross, the holding a cloth beneath. Sec. These and other usages originated for the most part in tbs STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 505 dfctrine of transubstantiation, and the extrava- e^ant opinions respecting- the external holiness of the symbols resulting from this doctrine. They admit, however, of a good explanation; and where they are customary, and must be re- tained, they ought to be so explained by the religious teacher. Marking with the cross, e. g., should remind us that this ordinance is held in commemoration of Christ crucified, &c. SECTION CXLV. OF THE USES AND THE EFFICACY OF THE LORD's supper; and inferences from these. We must here presuppose much of what was said, s. 140, respecting baptism. The uses and efficacy of the Lord's Supper, as of baptism, are twofold — viz., external and iiHernal, and may be easily deduced from the design of this ordi- nance, as stated s. 143. I. External Uses and Efficacy. By celebrating the Lord's Sapper, a person publicly professes himself to be a member of the external Christian church, and as such re- ceives and holds all the rights belonging to Christians, to the enjoyment of which he is in- troduced by baptism. For Christ enjoined this sacred duty only upon his followers. Every one, therefore, who partakes of the Lord's Supper, by so doing professes that he is a real member of the external church, that he believes in Christ, and yields him reverence. Hence Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 16, that bread and wine are psotftona aijuatoj xal aJajxatos Xptotoii. Paul here, and in this whole passage, teaches that the symbols (bread and wine) stand in the most intimate connexion with the body of Christ slain on the cross for our sins, and are the means by which we become partakers of the benefits of this death, and testify our interest in them. The meaning is, Whoever celebrates the Lord's Supper becomes partaker of the body and blood of Christ, and professes the same; >r. By this ordinance he gives it to be under- stood that he believes in Christ, and especially ihat he believes that Christ offered up his body and shed his blood for him ; and he thus be- comes partaker of the benefits of this sacrifice. The terms xotvcovoi ^vaiaatyjplov, spoken of those offering sacrifice, ver. 18 of the same chapter; also xoivun/oi SaLpioi'Mv, ver. 20, are used in the same way, and are explained ver. 21, by the phrase jxerixn-" -tpaTti^rji Kxipiou xai Sat^oi/fcoc. The opposite of this is seen ver. 14, ''flee idol- atry," have no fellowship with idolaters! and ver. 17, " while we all eat of one and the same bread, (a portion of which is broken for each,) we profess to be all members of one body" — i. e., of one church. The same is taught by the passage 1 Cor. xi. 26, " for as often as ye par- 64 take of the Lord's Supper, tbv ^dia-tov Kvpio* scaToyyE/.Xf'r'E," 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. Inteimal Uses and Efficacy. (1) With regard to the effects of the Lor-i'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 {y.i-eo.n'Coixi^ovo^o.i, 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 Ireiiaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basilius the Great, Ambrosius, and others. It was on this account that the invocation {in(x'Kriai{) 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 defunciis, 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 ia 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 operatiim, 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 tlie 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 tlie 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. 13.3. 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 tiiis 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- 3rament is justly called verbum Dei visibile. Some of the most weighty doctrines of religion which are commonly taught us by audible tvords, Uirougii the outward ear, are here inculcated by exkrnal visible siij^ns and actions. Avnong the doctrines more especiaHy exhi- bited in the Lord's Supper is the doctrine of the redemption of man by the death of Christ, and ♦he universal love of God shining forth from this event, (Romans, viii. 32; John, iii. IG,) and all ihe 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 enjiy 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 res|)ecli(ig the manner of the presence of tfie body and blood of Christ in the symbols. Hence it appears that the internal e.l jacy of the Lord's Supper, or of the word of God through the Supper, is twofold. First. This ordinance is the moins of exciting and strengthening ihe 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 w« are reminded by this ordinance, (a) Of the death of Christ. He instituted thia 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 blood. 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. (d) 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 therefor^ may participate in all the salutary results of hi, death. This is the xotfto^ta ai.uaroj and (jui/xaros Xpintov, 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 How 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. Ai fidlowers of Jesus they are all brethren, and all equal, and mutually bound to live in peacei 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. t5hrist is the Lord and Master of them all, and 's the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Cf. 1 Cor. X. 17 ; xii. 1 3, " For whether we be Jews or Greeks, bond or free, we are all baptized into one body, and made to drink into one spirit (trto- rt'a^jj/if;')"— i. e., we partake of one festival, so that we compose but one church (fij tv c^y-a), and are mutually obligated to cherish the most cordial brotherly love and harmony of feeling, iv fvt. Tivivyatoi. 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 xpfitr'oi'f j trtayytXiat. 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 mysteriuhi. Re- verence and love for God do indeed go together ; and in this sense such representations' are proper. But anxiety and s'avish fear are inconsistent ■with love, 1 John, iv. 19, ^0|3oj ovx iotiv iv aydrtr]. 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. What Paul says on this subject, 1 Cor. xi. 27 — 29, and 34, is very true, but often niisunder- 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, (ju»j 5iazpu'oi"ff j aCjjxa Krptov, 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 ava^^uii (a^ieiv xal Tilviiv — i. e., indecore, in tin unliecoming, 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, tvoxoi tutai cfu/xaroj xai ai/xa-fos Kvpiov, 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,) xpifia iavt6 ia^Ut, xai, rtCvsi, 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, (jufrai'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, Sozt/ta^t'tu ai'^purto; tavrbf, xai ovVwj) i. e., after he has examined himself) ix ■fov aptoD ia^utt^' cf. ver. 31. The meaning is, "Let him examine him- self, to see whether he appioaches the Lord's Supper with pious feelings, really designing ta do what this action implies" — viz., make a pro- fession of the death of Christ in the fullest sense of this term. JVote. — Times for confession, or rather, for pre- 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 t-o SOS 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 80 to do. Vides. 141, II. It is his duty, how- ever, to warn such a person, and represent to him his case, as Paul does, 1 Cor. jci. (5) IIow (if ten should ihc Lurd^s Supper be cele- brnled? 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 sjjirit 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 of 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 (/«//(/. 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 ease in Corinth ; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 20 — 30. The zeal with whicii this ordinance was first observed gradually abiited, 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 durinfT 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 CXLVL 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 the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. (1) It may be remarked, in general, that the opinions of the ancients on tliis subject, from the first establishment of the Christian church until tiie eighth century, were very diverse. After the eighth century there were some controversies respecting the ntodc and manner of this presence of Christ; and in the thirteenth century, one of the many theories on ihis subject v/as established as orthodox. The church fathers in the first centuries agreed on many points relating to thii matter, and on other points differed, witliout, however, mutually casting upon each otiier the reproach of heterodoxy. The first germs of the Roman-catholic, the Lutheran, and the Calvinistic theories, are found 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- sions in the ancient fathers which sound like those which are used in our own times, that they adopted the whole theory of one or the other mo- dern parly. 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 thenry; thus iMelancthon in opposition to fficolanipadius, 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 transubstuntiation; 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 Antimuratorius, (Oj)us. Theol. p. 1, seq.,) has collected many passages from the ancients in behalf of the Lutheran the- ory, and in opposition to transubslaniiaiion, &c. ; also in his " Brevis Repetitio et Assertio Sen- tentiae Lutheranae de Prassentia Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Sacra Ccena," (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, J 764. It is a very easy matter, how- ever, for any one to find his own ideas express- ed in the vague and indefinite phraseology ot the fathers. The testimony of the sacred writer* 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 STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 50<> fery plain and lucid, though brief manner, in his "Doctrince Christiana3 pars Theoretica," p. 305—318. [The later works of most value on this de- partment of historical theology are, Phil. Mar- i.eine«ke, Sanctorum Patrum de Praesentia Christi in Coena Domini, Sententia Triplex; Heidelberg-, 1811, 4to. Neander, Kirch. Ges- chichte, b. i. Abth. ii. s. 577 — 596; Abth. iii. s. 1084 ; b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 697—712 ; 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 Hahn's Lehrbuch, s. 570, ff. ; also in Bretschneider's Syst. Entw. s. 728, ff.— Tr.] (2) Sketch of the history of this doctrine from the second to the ni?ith century. (rt) 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 xou'oj ipfoj, oiiSs jcou'ov yiojxa. 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, Irenseus, (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 tiie 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 the terms ^fraSaxXscr^at, /i£*a,3o>,?j, ^uffoyuop^ovcf- ^ai, jU£raaT'oi;t;£ioua^at., jUsfaOT'otj^Etotjis, ^tto.- 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 transuhstan- tiation, in the proper sense of the term; neither does the Grecian church, vi^hich employs these terms, especiaWy /xita^oX'^, but still opposes the djctrine of the Romish church. Some of the fatiiers understood these terms in a -perfectly just sense, and meant only to say that the bread and wine cease, by consecration, to be H)mmon bread and wine. (i) Again ; it was maintained that the Word of God (Adyos 0£ov) is added to the bread and wine thus ennobled and endowed wilii divine power. If by the Word of God is meant the Christian doctrine, it is very true that the effi- cacy of tiie Lord's Supper is connected with it, and depends upon it. Vide s. 145. So it was understood by many of the ancient fathers, e. g., Irenffius. But some of them understood by o Adyoj, 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 tiiey 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 hia 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 jij a^ofia tov ©fo-u Aoyov juftartoftrai." 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 tlie writings of John of Damascus in the eighth century, and others. Still the opinion that the consecrated bread and wine lone 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 ^sra^oXr, to denote the change. Vide Kiesling, Hist. Concertalionum Grsecor. ct Latinor. de Transubst. ; Leip. 1754. (3) IILstnry if this doctrine from the ninth to Ike sixteenth century in the Western church. It is known from BedaVenerabilis, that during the eii^hlh 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 jf 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 dilTerent 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 \.\\e\x 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 Johp 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 immutatio of the bread and wine is not of a car- nal h\ii 2i 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 bcdy and blood of Christ are redly present in the Lord's Supper. In short, he took a midiT.e course between Paschasius and Scotus, and came very near, in the main points oJ his doc- trine, to the Lutheran hypothesis. Vide Les- sing's work, Berengarius von Tours; Braun- 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- though he still speaks somewhat doubtfully respecting it. The inventor of the word traiv- substaniiatio is supposed to be Hildebert, Bishop of Mans, in the eleventh century. Before him, however, the phrase commutatio panis in sub- stantiam Christi had been used by Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres. This term became current in the twelfth century through the influence of Peter of Blois. It was not, however, until the thirteenth century that this dogma became uni- 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 Calixlus, De Tran- substantiatione; Helmstiidt, 1G75. (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; {b) the theory, that the bread and wine are merely symbols nf the body and blood of Christ, advocated principally by Job. Scotus Erigena; (c) a theory which lakes 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- istic words, transubstantiatio,figura, unio. The Greek church still adhered to its old woii ;Ufra,3oXj;. Both the German and Swiss reformers wei» agreed in rejecting the doctrine of transubstan- tiation as wholly unfounded. In this too they were agreed, that the body and blood of Chris are really present in the sacramental elements, and are imparted to the communicant when a« 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 prx- sentia reali d substaniiaK , in such a way, how- ever, as to exclude traasubstantiation. His doctrine at first was, that " in, zvUh, and under (in, cutn, 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 spirilually merely, but (and here is the point of difference between him and the Swiss Reformers) realiter ct suhstantiuliter ; 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 unio 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 Cunsubstantiaiion. 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 manducaliune 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 ct ejficaciter represented under the bread and wine ; dari non substantiam corporis Christi in sacra ctr.na, sed omnia qiise in sua corpore nobis bencficia prxstitit.'''' Accordingly the body and blood of Christ are not present in space, and are not orally received by communicants, but spiri- tually, with a kind of manducatio spiritualis. Zuingle, however, maintained that the bread and wine are mere symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and seemed wholly to reject UiS 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 iati. 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. 2t)6, s. 8. Tiiis was wholly denied by the Swiss theologians, as being contradictory. Tiiey 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 iari they remarked that, accord- ing to common use, even in the New Testa- ment, it often means to signify, skew 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 ot 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 prsesej\tia corporalis Christi, or to the man- ducatio oralis, but only affirmed prseseniiam re- alem et ejftcacem Christi in sacra coena. He therefore chose a middle way betvt'een 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 forsi 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 llieories of the Lutheran and the Reformed church, by applying the new distinctions introduced into the doctrine of the union of the two natures in ftl9 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Christ, and the communicatio icliomatum. Vide ». 103, H., and s. 101. The Lutheran theolo- gians of that period, especially Andrea, Chem- 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 eve'^y where present, even as to his bodily nature, and that therefore he might be present at the sacrament of the Supper, and imight unite himself with the elements, and through them with the communicants, and thus act upon them. This doctrine was called ubi- quilatcm orporis C/irisli, and the advocates of it were named contemptuously by tiieir oppo- nents Ubiquilistx. The manner of the union of the body of Christ with the bread and wine was declared to be a mystery, (mi/slcrium unionis sacramentalis.) And on this account the framers of the Fornnda 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 fatliers, (vide No. 2,) nor is it consubslanfialio ; still less is i't a union in which a change of the substance is effected, {Iransubslanfialio ;^ nor is it a union in which the body and blood of Christ are in- cluded in the bread and wine, {impanalio ;) 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, Geschichta des Protestantischen Lehrbe- griff's biszur Kinfiihrungder 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 tiie Lutheran theologians are more inclined to the moderate theory of Melanc- thon, or rather, have approximated towards it. Morus truly remarks (p. 208, 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, is jusio subtilior. II. Critical Remarks on these different Hypotheses. (I) All the different theories here stated are attended with difficulties. Transuhstantiation contradicts the testimony of our senses, and has no scriptural authority, since tiiese 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 many things whose utility we cannot under- stand which are yet useful. But beardts this, there are other objections to the Lutht^ran theory. If the substantial body and blood of Christ ar« present in the sacramental elements, and are received by the communicants, how, it might be asked, (ft) 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 tiiey saw this body before theii eyes, and he, yet alive, sat with them at table ' (b) How can the body of Christ be ])rcsent. as to its very substance, in more than one place at the same timel and what object is answered by such a supposition 1 The conclusions de- 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 their being eaten and drunken by communicants, 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 blood flowing in it; still less of his glorified body ifk heaven, but of his body slain on tlie cross, {yjiif i'fiZv bLb6f.ifvov,) and of his blood there shed, (alutt ixxvvoncvov.) If, therefore, the substan tial and corporeal presence of Christ were meant it must be the substance of that martyred body 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 Mel.incthon, 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 pears to be so easy and natural, is also attended with difficulties; for even he admits of the pre sence of the body and blood of Christ, only not as to their substance, hut, according to his view, believers alone receive the body and blood of Christ. But as soon as I admit that llie body (if Christ is jiresent to believers only, this cannot be reconciled with 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29, as the op- ponents of Calvin have always remarked. The better way, therefore, in exhibiting either t!ie Lutheran or Calvinislic doctrine, is, to avoid these subtleties, and merely take tht general position, that Christ, as 7nan and as the Son (f God, may exert his agency, may act wherevr , and in whatever maimer he pleases. He thereff>re may exert his power at his table as well as elao- where. This is perfectly scriptural, (vide s. 38 and s. 113, ad finem;) and it is also the sense and spirit of the protestant theory. And this doctrine respecting t^ie nearness of Christ, his assistance and strengthening influence, in his pre- sent exalted state, secures eminently that jiroper inward enjoyment which Lutheran and Reform- ed Christians, and even rnfholics, with all their 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 Chiistis 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 thinidng respecting the influences of grace. On this subject, vide Art. xii. They contend that in partaking of the Lord's Supper we are f7ierfi(y 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 liim, improperly so called. Tide s. 98. They go on to say that Paul, indeed, in 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29, uses the words Gu>ixa xal al^ua Xpioroi; 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 altliough 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 Cerereji, vinum Libef:um dicimus, (pa- nem, corpus Christi, vinum, sanguinem Christ!,) genere nos qtiidem sermonis utimur usitatu ; sed quern tarn amentem esse pufas, qui il/ud, quo vcsca- tur, Dnun (corpus Christi) credat esse? The difficulties in the way of this Pelagian theory, which leave.'* 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 Chris*. ?ind 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 dift'erently 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, " ui a qiisestionibus illis jiivenlutem 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 hispresentstateof 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, TertuUian (De Anima, c. 27) gives this definition : Mors — dis- junctio corporis animxque ; vita — conjunclio cor- poris animxquc. Cicero (Tusc. i.) defines death, di.sccssiis aiiimi 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 bod^y loses feeling and motion, it is henceforth use- less to the soul, wliich is therefore separated fiom it. (2) Scriptural representations, names, and modes of speech respecting de^*' . (a) One of the most common in the Old Te.<»" tament is, to return to t/ie dust, or to the earths Hence the phrase, the dust of death. It is founded on the description. Gen. ii. 7, and iii.. 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, tlie spirit to God." (b) A withdrawing exhalation, or removal of the breath of life, Vide Ps. civ. 29. Hence the common terms, a^rjxci rcapiSuixs •to TtveifMi reddidit animam, i^ijtvBvatv, exapiravit, &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 co.mmands us to travel on. Vide .Job, iv. 21 ; Is. xxxviii. 12 ; Ps. Hi. 7, where see my Notes. Whence Paul says, 2 Cor. v. 1, the fVtiytioj t^jxtjv olxia ■tov axr^vov^ will be de- stroyed ; and Peter calls death uxo^faii tov axr^vJifiato^, 2 Pet. i. 13, 14, Classical writers speak of the soul in the same manner, as xaraa- xr]vovv ev ta (jijua-ft. They call the body ozjji'oj. So Hippocrates and iEschines. 2 Cor. v. 8, 9, ixSrji.ir;oat, ix rov au),waroj. {d) Paul likewise uses the term ixbvtrj^cu 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; .Tohn, xi. 13, et seq. Nor is this language used exclusively for the death of the pious, as some pret«^nd, though this is its prevailing use. Homer calls sleep and death twin brothers, Iliad, xvi. 672. The terms also which signify to lie down, t» rest, (e. g, -yy^-, oecumbcre,) also denote death. (/) Death is frequently compared with and named from a departure, a going away. Hence the verba eundi, abcundi, discedendi, signify, to die ; Job, X. 21 ; Ps. xxxix. 4. The case is the same with vrtayu and rtoptvojuai in the New Testament, Matt. xxvi. 24, and even among the classics. In this connexion we may men- tion the terms ava'Kvilv and aiuXvisii, Phil. i. 23 ; 2 Tim. iv. 6, which do not mean dissolution, hut discessus. Cf. Luke, xii. 30. Vide Wet- stein on Phil. 1. ]\'ote. — We have before remarked, in the Ar- ticle respecting Sin, that death, wlien 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 x STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 515 scythe, or as a skeleton, &c. ; but the Jews before the exile frequently represented death as a hunter, who lays snarts for men ; Ps. xviii. 5, G ; xci. 3. After the exile they represented him as a man, or sometimes as an angel, (the angel of death,) with a cup of poison, which he reaches to men. From this representation ap- pears to have arisen the phrase, which occurs in the New Testament, to taste death. Matt. xvi. 28; Heb. ii. 9; which, however, in common speech, signifies merely to die, without remind- ing one of the origin of the phrase. The case is the same with the phrase to see death, Ps. Ixxxix. 49 ; Luke, ii. 26. n. Scriptural senses of the xvords " death" and " to die,-" and the Theological distinctions to luhich they have given rise. (1) Death frequently denotes the end or the destruction of everything. It is therefore applied to countries and cities which perish. The inha- bitants of them are compared with dead men. The restoration of them is compared with resur- rection from the dead. So Isaiah, xxvi. 19, 20; Ezek. iii. 7, seq. (2) Hence arise the figurative modes of speech, to be dead to anything, as to the law, to sm, &c. ; Gal. ii. 19 ; Rom. vi. 2, 5, &c. (3) But this term is used with great frequency in a moral sense — e. g., to be dead to all good- ness, to be dead to sin — i. e., to be disqualified for all goodness by the sin reigning within us, Ephes. ii. 1, 5; v. 14. Likewise the opposite, to live, to be alive fur goodness — i. e., to be active in virtue and capable of performing it. (Mors et vita spiritualis et moralis.) (4) Death is conceived to be the substance and sum of all misery; and the punishment of death as the severest punishment. Accordingly, death denotes («) every unhappy condition in which human beings are placed, as to body and soul. The opposite, life, denotes welfare, prospe- r?"/!/, Ezek. xviii. 32; xxxiii. 11; Rom. vii. 10, 13. (i) Punishments, as the unhappy consequences of the transgression of the law. In this sense, KID is frequently used in Syriac and Chaldee, and death in the New Testament ; Rom. i. 32 ; 1 John, iii. 14 ; James, v. 20. (c) 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 of the Old Testament, and very frequently among the Rabbins. In this sense is 6 bivts^oi; ^avaroj used in Rev. ii. 11 ; xx. 6, 14; xxi. 8. Vide Wetstein on Rev. ii. So, too, o^f^poj, drtw^sia, K. -t. >,. From these various senses of the word death theologians have taken occasion to introduce the •livision of death into temporal or bodily, spiri- tual, (by which is meant a state of sin and in- capacity for virtue,) and eternal, Tthe punish- ments of eternity.) The latter is what is other- wise called the second death, mors secunda, cujut nulla est finis, as Augustine ^-emarks. Vide s. 79, No. 2. The Bible, tot ^ives the name of death (mors spiritualis^ to the stale of sin, inas- much as it is (fl) an unhappy state, and (i) a state which incapacitates sinners for all good- ness. Hence sinners are said, Ephes. ii. 5; Col. ii. 13, to be nxpol ev TiapaH-tJ^jxaac, 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, (ivvrtvca^opsvoi.') III. The Universality or Unavoidablcness 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. 8—12; 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. («) 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, (xocjUjj^jjooi'T'at,) but shall be changed (a^Xayrjaovtai,) — 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, £T(Ei'6vaaa^av olx-i'/ipiov 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 disoiw 516 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY dered and dying bodies to all tlieir 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- inan race. And so, in all cases, the Bible de- rives death from the sin of the first man. Rom. V. 12, "Throut^h one man came sin into the world, and death by sin, and so death became universal among men, (ttj rtai/taj dr^pwrtovj fii^^f.)" 1 Cor. XV. 21. Here the question is thrown out, ivhdher the dtath of the posterity of Adam z.s to he regarded as the punisliment nf 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 («) 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 o £;i;^po5, 1 Cor. XV. 26; and considers it one of the cala- mities befalling our race, with regard to which even the pjous 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, !£ 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/)crsona/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. 70, III., s. 78, III. 3, &c. This was remarked by many of the church fa- thers, especially before the time of Augustine; anci 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 luiii, in general, that the terrors of death are mitigated with regird to those who believe on hiiii; and in particular, that our bodies are re- stored at the resurrection. Cf. .lohn, xi. 25, if>. This is what is meant by the redcmtio a mnrte corporali per Christum, s. 120, coll. s. Ill, II. 1. From the necessity itself of dying wo could not be freed, unless God should produce an entirely new race of men. Cf. Cotta, Theses Theologica? de Novissimis, Speciatim de Morte Naturali ; Tiibingen, 17G2. [Also the treatise of Dr. W"m. Bates, "On the Four Last Things," and particularly on Death," chap. iii. and iv. — Tr.] SECTION CXLVm. OF THE JSHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE CONTFNU- ANCE OF THE HUMAN SOUL, AND ITS STATB 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 fir 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 dU suasive from sin. IVote. — The strongest philosophical proofs in behalf of immortality are derived from the im- possibility of reconciling the destruction of th« whole man with the object of his existence, and STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 517 nUh 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, Fhilosophi rem hanc i^raiissiniam promittunt, magis quani 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. Hence the remark of Paul, 2 Tim. i. 10, is very true, that Christ by his doctrine has taken away the 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 ((^uirj xau u.^opaj'; the pious Christian, ^lorjv aiwMov." 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 nf things — a period which no one knows beforeliand. 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. Viile Luke, x. 12; Rom. ii. IG ; 2 Cor. v. 10. Ht'fore ibis time shall arrive, the disembodied spirit will be in a certain intermediate state. The exact nature of this state is not indeed par- ♦wularly described to us, and we are unable even to conceive of it distinctly; but so mucb the Bible plainly teaches, that immediately after death the soul passes into Ihat state for which, from the nature of its previous life, it i» prepared. Immediately after death, retribution begins ; the pious are happy, and the wicke-^ miserable, each in exact proportion to his feel- ings and actions. Vide Luke, xvi. 22 — 25, (the parable respecting Lazarus.) This truth, 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, avaxiisat. xai avv Xptdr^ slvat,; 2 Cor. v. 8, ix- byjfirjaai, ex tov ocj^ua-r'oj, xai ivSr^firjaai rtpoj "tov Kvpiov, 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, the Bible teaches us only this, that their pu- 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, 2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude, 7. Vide s. 63. For the fate 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 ladyytXoi, Luke, XX. 36. Since, now, the destiny of man is decided im- mediately after death, and since among men such a decision is usually made by a judgment and sentence, there is no more proper way of re- 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 partirulnrc, or antecedens), which denotes nothing more than the determining of the fate of men imme- diately aft£r death; and universal or subsequent, ( judicium U7nversa!e, or conseqtiens.) It is re- specting the former that Paul speaks, Heb. ix. 27, "It is appointed to all men once to die, (UfTtt 6i tovTo xpi'tTij" — i. e., then follows th« determination of their destiny, whether it shall he happy or miserable. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 10. Th« Pharisees also, according tc Josephus, (Antiq STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 519 I>lii. 2,) taught that the soul is immortal, and after death is judged under the earth, and re- warded or punished according- 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 v^hich 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 o^ 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- ix\g 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, rrtfp vix^Cjv rtpo(;£t';fK7^at. 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 (bixa-iov^svoi.), and who go out of the world with pious and godly dis- positions. Vide 2 Cor. v. 6—10; Phii, i, 21, 23; John. xiv. 1 — 4; 1 John, iii. 2, 3; 1 Peter, i. 4, 5, &c. SECTION CXLIX. HIRTORICAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE VARIOUS OPI- NIONS WHICH HAVE PREVAILED IN ANCIENT AND jrODERN 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 anc 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 inca])able 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 (11. 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, — omp ix Aioj ioti, U. 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 CeltaB, 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. && ;) 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 cuhu 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 ia the Old Testament. This was especially main- tained by many S «inian writers of the sixteentk 580 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. and seventeenth centuries. Otiiers have gone 80 far as to construe llie supposed silence of the Old-Testament writers on this suhject 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 tiiat all is over with man at his death — e. g., Eccl. iii. 19. seq.; Is. xxxviii. 18; Ps. vi. G; xxx. 10; Ixxxviii. 11; cxv. 17; Job, vii. 7 — 10; x. 20 — 22; xiv. 7 — 12; 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 Beytragen zur Geschichte und Literatur ans 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 iliis supposition we must draw the contrary concliision. For, not to mention that the Israelites -uid their ancestors were in Egypt, where this faith was very ancient, (accord4nor to Herodotus, ii. 123, the Egyptians were the first who entertained it,) it is proved that the Jews held this doctrine («) From the laws of Moses against itccrnmmicy, or the invocation of the dead, which was very commonly practised by the Canaanites also, (Deut. xvfii. 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. (Z») From the appropriate ancient Hebrew name for the kingdom of the dead S c' {q£rii), which so often occurs in Moses and the other books of the Old Testament. Tliat 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 kim. These passages have been collected by different writers with different success. Vide Michaelis, Argumenta pro Immortalitate Anim' c Mose Collecta, in Syntagm. Comment, t. i. ; Gottingen, 1759. Liiderwald, Untersuchung von der Kenntniss eines kiinftigen Lebens ire Allen Testamente; Helmstiidt, 1781. Semler Beantwrortung der Fragen des wol fenbuttel'schei Ungenannten. Seiler, Obserr. ad psychologian- 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 kirn, 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, tc which he attained without previously suffering death. Vide s. 147, iii. 1. Gen. xxxvii. 35. Jacob says, "I will go down into *?«<•>:• 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 gc id hi.s fathers, Gen. xv. 15; or, to be gathered tc 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 — IG. Only he says, very truly, rto/j,jto^«»» Ihovtti ra; trtayytXias. 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. 13 — 17. And this passage was interpreted in the same way by the Jews after the time of Christ. Vide Wetstein, ad. h. 1. In the subsequent books of the Old Testa* ment tiie texts of this nature are fa/ more nn merous. Still more definite descriptions are given of Swr', and the condition of liie
  • partea there; e. g.. Is. xiv. 9, seq., also in the Psalms and in Job. Vide s. 150. Even in tliese 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 developeo 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 onlj STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 521 obscure intimation, so that the Pauline rtopjjio^iv iBovrti is applicable, in relation to this doctrine, to the other books of the Old Testament as well as to those of Moses. In the Psalms there are some plain allusions to the expectation of reward and punishment after death, particularly Ps. xvii. 15;xlix. 15, 16; Ixxiii. 24. There are some pas- sages in the prophets where a revivication of the dead is spoken of, as Is. xxvi. 19 ; Dan. xii. 2 ; Ezek. xxvii. But although these do not teach a literal resurrection of the dead, but rather re- fer to the restoration cf the nation and land, still these and all such figurative representations presuppose the proper idea that an invisible part of man survives the body, and will be hereafter united to it. Very clear is also the passage Eccl. xii. 7, "The body must return to the earth from whence it was taken, but the spirit to God who gave it," evidently alluding to Gen, iii. 19. From all this v;e draw the conclusion that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was not unknown to the Jews before the Babylonian exile. This appears also from the fact that a ge- neral expectation existed of rewards and punish- ments in the future world; although, in com- parison with what was afterwards taught on this point, there was at that time very Utile definitely known respecting it, and the doctrine, therefore, stood by no means in that near relation to reli- gion and morality into which it was afterwards brought, as we see to be the fact often in other wholly uncultivated nations. Hence this doc- trine is not so often used by the prophets as a motive to righteousness, or to deter men from evit 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 nppcar 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 C6 upon this subject, and .nust 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. 43 — 45. 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 Josephus, 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 prcelio aid supph'cit's pcremptorum aeternaspulant. Cf. an B^ssay 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 Glauhens 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 Moses, 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. Accnrdinfr to the testimony of Cicero, the first Grecian philoso- pher who investigated this subject was Phere- 2x2 S39 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. tydes; but accordinnr to Diocrenes Laertiiis, it was Thales. The followers of Socrates, how- ever, did the most for this doctrine, and espe- cially Plato, in his Pha^don. The Platonic ar- guments are found collpcted in the Tusculan Questions of Cicero (i. 23), and also briefly stated in his Treatise, De Senectiite, c. 21, seq. With regard to these proofs, it is difTicult 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, Dicaiarchus ; among the later Aristotelians, Averrhoes, in the twelfth century, and Peter Pomponatius, in the fifieenth and sixteenth centuries, in his book, " De Animi Immortalitate," edited anew by Prof. Chrisli. Gottfr. Bardili; Tubingen, 1791, 8vo. He endeavours in this work to shew that, according to tiie 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 Systems 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 philos'>phers of modern times, espe- cially by Wolf, that three tbitivn m^nnn, as in Homer, rrfo yarai', vrto xFv^tai yaiaf, and the entrance to it is placed by the Greeks in the extreme west. Where the sun goes down, and his light and fire are extinguished, there, it was naturally supposed, is the place where all Ihingt perish, and where darkness reigns. Both the Hebrews and Greeks describe this under-world as a great kingdom, and both us« the phrase, gates of death, or Iladcs. Cf. Homer. Here, according to the ideas of men in the tar liest ages, the shades of the good and the bad dwell together, without any distinction or any marked separation. Thus it is where Sw 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 lowei 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 damned. So it is with Plato and others, who are followed by Virgil, JEn. vi. In the same way did the conceptions of the .Tews 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 tvide gulf, (;ta'5;ua ^f'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, Ta'prapoj. Vide Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 7; 2 Pet. ii.l; where Taprapdw 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. TJiey, 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., («) as a dark, desolate, silent region, the land of forgetful ness, rpst, 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 gaye rise to the idea respecting the sk'p of the soul in after times. (/*) Again it was described as a kingdom full of motion and activity, and as resembling as nearly as possitle the presen' 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 togptiier 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 giave, 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 method, 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 v;ho 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, Dc Inferno ejusque Sede; Tiibingen, 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 ^neid, and other works cited below. Note. — To any unprejudiced observer it can- not but appear a great excellence in the Bible, iind especially in the New Testament, that it takea 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 ligii. in burying-grounds, lest the spirits of the saints should be disturbed. II. Opinions respecting the state of Departed Soub. (I) 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. 38!), 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. 27—31. 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. xxiii. 66, seq. 107. This may be justified also by an appeal to scripture, Luke, xvi. ; Heb. xii. 23, and Reve'^ation. The soul, indeed, is no longer 626 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. regarded as a fine material substance, as it often was in nncient limes ; but these delightful views lose nothing on this account, as some have most unphilusophically supposed. For one may be recognised otherwise tlian 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 1 (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. Cf. Meiners, Geschichte der Religioiien, s. 171 — 178. With regard to what the Israelites in the earliest times knew on this subject, while they yet saw the promises in an obsnure distance, cf. s. 119, 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 vory favouAbly, but would rather till the field on earth, as a day labourer, than rule all the hosts of the shades; Odys. xi. 187. 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 ox\\y— 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, ^neid, 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 Jlbraham'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 ihem 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 Morns, p. 230, 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- nffius, 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, ra iv ^iXa%^ 7iviifx.a.ta,. Vide s. 96. Thither Christ went, and rescued from thence the patriarchs and other pious men who had died before his atonement was made, 'i'his place was afterwards called limbus {supe- rior or exterior pars inferni) palrtim ; and a lim- bus infantiuin 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 actualia, 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 sieh- 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 (za>apat{) by water, air, and fire; and represented this state as an inter- mediate one. Vide Plato, Pha?don, c. 62; and Virgil, jEneid, 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- cording to the testimony of Irena?us, ii. 51,seq.,) in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, in the second century, and of Origen, in the third. But after the fourth century it was more widely dif- fused through the Latin church. It is found in Ilieronymus, Lactantius, Ambrosius, and even Augustine; the latter of whom, howevc, STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 137 thou };h he speaks of ignis ptirgatorins, regards the siihiect 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 comm»t no deliberate sin after baptism are ex- empt from this punishment, or such as become mariyrs, or who, by assuming the monastic life, have made atonement for their sins. Gross af- 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 end-savoured to support it by such texts of scrip- ture as the following — viz., 1 Cor. iii. 13, (as by fire ;) .lude, ver. 23 ; Malachi, iii. 2 ; 2 Mace, xii. 39. This doctrine became connected with many opinions and practices equally unscriptural, es- pecially witii 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 souk 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 v;hich 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 telieve, are not of perfect virtue. (6) According to Origen and the Platonic idea, the whole design of thij 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. jVute. — Works on this subject, (w) Ilisturt- cal: .lac. Windet, S^pw^affij ^rttoroXtxciy de Vita Functorum Statu ex Hcbraiorum et Grce- corum comparatis Sententiis concinnatus; Lon- dini, 1663 — 64. Systeme des Anciens et dea Modernes sur TEtat des Ames separees de Corps; ;\ Londres, 1757, 2 tom. 8vo. Thorn. Burnet, De Statu Mortuornm 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. Cotta, Recentiores quasdam Controversiae de Statu Animi post Mortem ; Tiibingen, 1758. (b) Fhilosophical and doctrinal works : Wernsdorf, De Animarum separatarum Statu, earumdemque cum Vivis commercio, in his "Collec. Disputt." tom. i. No. 15. The best and latest works on the state of the soul after death are collected by Loscher, Dresden, 1735. Meier, Philosophische Be- trachtung vom Zustande der Seele nach dem Tode; Halle, 17G9. 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. Bvo. 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, a^aDv^y, xoijXTpivtii, s. 147, I. 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 bod}' — e. g., in Hebrew, the terms Dip, a^in, and in Hellenistic Greek, a*'*' atyjixt,, a.vu6ta6t,^, (with the Rabbins, npipn), tyfipw, and i'yfp'jtj ix vtxpujv. Of the litera. sense of these terms, examples may be found everywhere; cases of the derived signification occur where these terms are used with the qua- lification fx I'lxpiiv — e. g., where the resurrec. tion of Christ is spoken of, and that of otheri ftSS CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. whose body is to be restored like his. Vide Johrt, V. 21, 28; I Cor. xv. 3, 1, 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 Hcb. i. 5. Again, a.vi)jTr;ui was used even by the ancient classical GreeKS to denote tlie 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, (aiadfjjcroi'T'at.)" Cf. II. xxiv. 756. Cicero and Livy designate this idea by the phrase ab inferis exsistere. In TEschy- lus, the term avdataaii 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., phijsicaUij — e. g., a sick man rising from his bed and recovering his health is said dmar^^vai, Is. xxxviii. 9 ; and again in a moral sense, used with reference to the reformation of a man who rises from his/«//. And so (2) the terms resurrection from the dead, and being raised from the dead, denote, figura- tively, («) external and physical restoration to a happy condition, death being the representa- tive of iiiiscry, and life of happiness — e. g.. Is. xxvi. 19, 20; Ezek. xxxvii.; where the subject is tiie restoration of the Jews after a long and terrible persecution, and the reward of the vir- tuous, Cf. Dathe, a. 1. (A) A moral restora- tion or renovation of men — e. g., Eph. v. 14, eyfipt .... ai'tt'Tttt ix viXfUtv, coll. i. 19, 20, and Rom. viii. 10, &c. II. Doctrine of the Jews respecting the Resurrec- tion of the Dead. (I) There are obvious traces of the doctrine that the soul will survive the body, even in the oldest Jewish writings, (vide s. 149,11.;) 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 8ul>jpct. The passage, Job, xix. 25, seq., is in- deed cited in behalf of this opinion, and such a coostruction of this passage is strenuously vin- dic.iled by Michaelis and Schultens. Accord- ing to tiie Vulgate, which Luther for the most part fdllows, 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 appealed to this passage which appears so plain to UD. This explanation, therefore, appears to have been unknown to them, nor can there be found any trace of it in the Septuagint. (i) 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 renrular gradation one after another. (c) If Job had such distinct expectations and hopes, it is hard to account for it that he did not earlier express them, that he did not oftencr 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. ((/) 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 a life after death (he speaks of Ssc') ; but there 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 to the words of the original, and is contrary to the whole usus lotjiiendi of the Bible. This Mi- 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 restora- tion to health and recovery from sickness, which he so ardently wished and hoped for. Vide Morns, p. 293. This text would then be illus- trated by one still more plain in the same book, viz., ch. xlii. 25. He refutes the national preju- dice which his friends were continually object- ing against him, that sickness and other external calamities are always to be regarded as the con- sequence of sins committed by the sufferer. He pleads that even piety and rectitude are not al- ways exempt from these calamities. It is on this account that he ctierishes 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 Critica ^e Interpretatione loci, Job, xix. 25, 27, in Antiqjra 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 ■& 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 manl" Ugen, in his work, "Jobi antiquissimi carminis Hebraici natura atque virtutes," p. IGl, seq., thus translates: " Vivit, scio enim, causa mea; patronus. Qui cantenitus in pulvere jacd, victor caput attolct, Hffirebo adhuc in cute, dira hac vi contusa: ex hac cuticula videbo Deum. Quern ego mihi videbo propitium, quem hisce oculis cernam animo non alienatum. O quam enecat renes desiderii ardor !" There are no distinct intimations of the doc- trine of the resurrection of the bod)^ in the writ- ings of ]\Ioses, 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 d! Uinctly 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, th=ire is nothing in the Old Testament which coniradicts 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. P'or 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 undjer 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 avast as lu 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 mortuts et mor- tuorum," in Scripta Varii Argumenti, 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 and ver. 14, rtdxw avaijir-aia^ai, vrtb @(ov, and avd(3taai<; cli fw>;i', 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 no*, rise again. And so we find, both among tha 3 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 Schiittgen's Hor. Heb. ad Joh. V. It is the same frequently in the New Testa- ment— e. g., Matt. xxii. 31, where the a.vmtatjt.i rtxpHiv is aro^ued 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, cl vtxpol oix iyiCpovtM, ^dyoi/iiv xai ftCuifisv, x. t. X. But wherever dmuraaij a a [i,at o^, or oapxoj 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 Flato,) e. g., in the Chaldaic para- phrases. Job, xxxviii. 14, &c. So Paul, ov yvfivoi ivpr^r^rjOf.Li'^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 believed 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. Tiiis 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 issociated 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 th»dr 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, 0f 6; xoixlav xai /SptOjUata xatapyr;oti — 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 ISIatt. 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 (^avo.^iu>- aat) ;" and again, (Bell. Jud. ii. 7,) "they maintain that the souls of the pious pass into other bodies, {j.iita3ai,vsi.v it's ircpov ouj^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 he 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 notp^.ss into other bodies, (i. e., that the wicked would not rise again,) but that they would bo 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. 53J P'nrrisees and other Jews (in opposition to the Sadducees) in maintaining the avdataaiv, and that not only of the righteous, but also of the wicked (^bixaCuiv -ts xai dSJxwj'.) 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, d''1'u'"\ ij,i''"«"', Sept. ovx av(i6Tr;aovtai oi d(Tf|3fi,'j. Indeed, many main- tained the entire annihilation of the wicked, both as to soul and body. Vide Theod. Das- sovii Dissert, qua Judaeor. de resurrectione mor- tuorum sententia explicatur, c. 4 ; also Menasse ben Israel, De Resur. Mort., 1. iii. ; Amst. 1G36, 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. JVdte. — The term avdatrjvai ix rfxpdiv 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- bion, 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 aprisun 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 Joseph ns carefully avoids the words avdataaii and dvLatt^/.u 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 iheir 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, mortaks sciernitale dunarc, et in vitam revocare defuncfos. 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 Cliriiit and the Apostles have done for tkta 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 533 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. most intimately ccnnected with his death, his resurrection, and his exalted state in heaven. Vide s. 119, ad finein, and s. 120, I. The apostles rested the doctrine of our resurrection mainly upon that of Christ, (cf. 1 Cor. xv. ; 1 Thoss. iv. 14;) they preached through Jesus (iv f(I) 'Irjaov) 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 Christiani Cre- dunt, e Tenebris in Lucem Revocasse et De- nionstrasse," in his Dissertations "Ad Hist. Eccl. Pertinent," vol. ii. p. 58G. 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- nsus and Philetus, Xtyov-ffj trjv ai'dataat,v rj8rj yiyovivat,. They probably understood the term dvacrooij, 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 (I 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 nf the Jews. Niill the opinion that there will be no restora- tion of the body has always found place among 9ome 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 sj)iritual resurrection, or a resurrection of the soul. And so in all succeeding ages there have always been those among Christians whohave either secretly doubted oropenly reject- ed this doctrine. Cf. Dr. Hammer, Morluorum in Vitam Revocatio, Sermonibus Christi Histnri- cae Interpretationis ope Vindicata; Lips. 1794. (2) In modern times, niimy protestant theo- logians— e. g., Eckermann, Henke, Amnion, &c. — have endeavoured 1 1 explain away from the New Testament the d ctrine 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 .lews 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 Chri.st, 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 ^corjv tzfi- tv lavrcj) (i. e., is the original source of all life, and pos- sesses, as Creator, all-quickening power) he hatli jjiven to the Son also power to quicken the dead." And in John, xi. 25, where he is about to raise the lifeless body of I^azarns, he says respecting himself, that he is r; avaaraaii xai r Ciojj, the one who would raise the body, anrf STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 533 give life to the dead, Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 14, and Rev. i. IH, t^^i, xKil^ toil a,8ov xal tov ^aiar ou. (2) A/ the dead will hereafter be raised, witli- out respect to age, rank, or moral character in ihis 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 •A5u.,a Tidviii ano^vri'^xovat, to which is opposed iv Xpio-fcp Tidvtii ^utOTiovr^^r^aovfat,. Acts, xxiv. 15, clmoT'atTtj vsxpav 8ixat<^v is xai adixoiv. 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 ixTtopevGovtai stj avaataatv fw/j5, (i.e., «tf S'^'J^'O those who have done evil, fij avd(yta.ai.v xptafcoj. This was a common mode of speech among the Jews, (vide Mace. vii. 14, coll. xii. 43, avda-taavi tii ^'wjji',) 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 Christ; hence Martha says, John, xi. 24, "that she knows her brother will rise at the last day, (tv -t^ iazdft] t^ixifia.y 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, avast r^tjoi [sty ^lor^vl ev tv io^^-fy] rjfispq.. And so in 1 Cor. xv. 22 — 28, the resurrection is placed in obvious connexion with the ,-tapotJcri,'a of Christ, after which the end of the world will immediately come; and in 1 Thess. iv. 15, it is said that those who survive the rtapovaiav of Christ will not attain either sooner or later to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness than xoLfir^^ivtfi; 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 attempt^to shew that the resurrection will take place immediately after death. The same hypothesis has been advo- cated in a work entitled, " Auferstehung der Tod ten nach der eigentlichen Lehre Jesu Christi," by Joh. 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. .S9, 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 tlie term Ayasrajif but this is not all which is comprised in this term ; and the dvdataaii will not be com- plete and perfect until the body also is raised Vide s. 151, II. 2. Again; these Pauline texts are opposed tj the opinion of the Chiliasts, that there is a two- fold lesurrection; an earlier, that of the pious, and a later, that of the wicked, or of the hea- then. An avdataaii nputtrj is, indeed, mentioned in Rev. xx. 5, (5, 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 cf 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 'vas 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 mse* 2 y 2 634 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. •he term iv ia%u-tyj oaXrttyyt, {'jaXTti^Ofi. yap,) — vexpoi fy^p^^oorrai. The same poetic phrase- ology is employed in 1 'I'hess. iv. lO, "Christ will come with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and '» adxrtiyyt &iov (the trump given him by G;d),xai oi vix^oi u.va.(;■er^wvfal.'''' 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 tlie 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 — 0. 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 tVepyfi*. his omnipotence, which surmounts all difficulties and hindrances, and brings to pass what appears to men impossible. (i) The possibility of the resurrection of the dead is illustrated by Paul, in opposition to those who regarded it as impossible or contra- dictory, I 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 ]" (rfwj iyilpovrai wxpot.) He re- plies: "The grain of corn cast into the ground cannot rise (^loortotfirat) until it die," (drto^'i'?;, 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, xatayyixXiLv iv tu, 'Iriaov trjv avdarani'V vfxptJv. Cf. Morus, Diss. Inaug. ad 1 Cor. XV. 35—55; Lipsia;, 1782. iVo/e. — Many modern writers also have en- deavoured in various other ways to shew the possibilily cf 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 pnliuij^enesia of plants, or their restoration from their ashes, by means of a chemical process, which, in fact, is nothing more than an exhii)ition of the image «f the plant. Vide Wiegleb, Naliirliche 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 revives again, only under forms which are ever new. liul 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 1 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 h 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, (juch 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. St:CTION CLIII. UOCTRINK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RESPECTING THE NATURE OF THE BODY WHICH WE SHALL RECEIVE AT THE RESURRECTION; AND THE OPI- NIONS air THEOLOGIANS ON THIS POINT. I. Difference of the Future Body from the Present. That there is a difference between the iwo in respect to their entire constitution and tho objects of their existence, we are taught by the New Testament. The body received at the re- surrection will be immortal, and is designed foi STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMl'TlON. 535 an entirely different world from the present. The chief characteristic of the resurrection-body is placed by the New Testament in its d(5>^ap- eia, 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, oapl xai al/.ia jSacriXji-'ai' 0fov x'Kr^^ovoj.ulv ov dvvatM — i. e., man, in the present imperfect state of his body, (Theodoret well says, jj ^i-j^rij ^vat.;,) is incapable of hea- venly bliss. For the mortal body ((J'^opci — i. e., ffwjua ^^aprdi',) cannot partake of eternal life, (d(j>^apai.'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 aia^ixovfi.) 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, jSpofo/, 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. Gti, II. And so was tiie 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 rnarry 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 tiie learned often mistake in rejecting certain Ideas merely because they are the common con- ceptions of the people. Not so Christ ; he inly 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., 7toc'9 aafiatt, tpxoi'tai. ; sc. c sepukris. («) 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. (6) 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 eartlily. Ver. 43, seq., urts/pET'at (i. e., sepelititr, sc. oto^a) iv ^^opS — i. e., ^^apro'i', perishable. The sequel is to be explained in the same way : for iv att-ixia read a-d-jAov, deformed, disfigured ; ac^svi^, feeble, powerless ; -^vxi-xo, carnal, animal; be- cause in this life the animal propensities must be indulged. But when it is raised it will be a body iv d^^apota — i. e., a^^a-^tov, immortal, indestniclible ; ivbo^ov, beautified, glorious ; Sv- I'ardi', strong and mighty ; and rtvivf^atixov, 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, (ex yr;, XOLxov ;) ihe future body will, like that which Christ now possesses, be a heavenly budy, [i% ovpai'ov.) And here Paul makes the observation, that Christ had not at first (rtpwrof, while he here lived upon the earth,) that more perfect spiri- tual body, (rtt'fv/?; Is. ii., xii., xl. — lx*'i.; Zech. xiv. 9, IG, 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. G ; ix. 10. These passages, in- deed, have all been differently interpreted in modern times. Cf. Doederlein's work, "Giebi uns die Bible HofTnung zu einer allgemeinen Judenbekehrung?" But the Jews understood STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 541 ihese 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, TVhelhcr the New Tesiament teaches this doctrine ? Vide Schottgen, in the book, "Jesus, der wahre Messias;" Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenlhum ; 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 »ttt; 'lapar-jX crco^Tjcrfrat thus : all " Israel can be delivered ;" but this does not accord with ver. 31, t'ltt avtoi s7i.sri^iiai, and ver. 32, tovi rtavtai, fV-/j(ji;. 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 /.ivntripi-ov. It is also equally unintelligible, if this were all, what sliould have induced Paul so solemnly to cele- brate and magnify the divine wisdom, ver. 33 — 3G. 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 a// 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 (rtXr^pw/xa i^vC^v) shall have bolieved in Christ. (This will therefore first lake place.) But when this is first brought about (xttt oi>Vio for xai tots or tjtuta, vide Koppe) — i. e., when all the Gentiles have first become believers, (now follows the y.vatr^fiiov,') then will the nation of the Israelites also experi- ence salvation, (rrw^jjofrat,) 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 wiiich 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. SECTIOxN CLV. OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT, AND THE END OF THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD. I. The GeJieral 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. 7—13; 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 i^s 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, H. 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. xu. Before the exile the doctrine of the judgment as a solemn, formal transaction at the end ff 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 lighr. Vide Ps. ix. 5—9; Eccle:. 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 342 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 88 true, and as constituting a part of his reli- jfious system ; in such a way, however, as to ex- clude the false aiiditions of the Jewish teachers. (3) Tlie holilinnr of this judgment as well as the raisin^ of the dead is commonly ascrihed 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, Ilom. ii. 16, ©e6j (cf. ver. 6) xpivft ■to. xpurtta ai'^pwrtwi' hia. I)jtov, and Christ himself says, John, v. 22, 25, xptcrii' rtaiai' 6i6iox£ fcj vl<^. Vide Matthew, xvi. 27; Acts, X. '12; xvii. 31. Cf. s. 98, H. 3, and Morus, page 294, note 8 ; and page 296, note 3. Christ himself assigns it as the reason why God iiad entrusted to him the holding of this judg- ment, that he is a man, (v toj ar^pwrtov ;) John, V. 27, coll. Acts, xvii. 31, aijjp. God has con- stituted him the Judge of men, hecause he is man, and knows from his own experience all the sufferings and infirmities to which our na- turo is exposed, and can therefore be compas- sionate and indulgent; Heb. ii. 14 — 17, coll. 1 Timothy, ii. 5. (4) Xames 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, r;uipa (m>) Kvpiov or 'lr;aov, Xpts- tov, X. t. %. ; also rifiipa. ixfydxrj ('7nj cv), Jude, ver. G ; xpioij (sometimes written zaraxpt'Ttj), xpt^ia, Tta^-iovrjia XptaroxJ, 1 Thess. iv. 15; 2 Thess. ii. 1 ; in^dtyj jj/utpa, John, vi. 39, 40, 44. Ifence the ecclesiastical name of this transac- tion, yi/c?«cmm cxiremum, or novi.ssimum, ike last judgment, because it will take place at the end of the world that now is. The term, the last judgtnent, is not used, however, in the New Testament. Nor are the phrases ir^xo-tri rjfiipa. and to inxdiov tuiv rjfiipcjv 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 a^pTi n-nns, Genesis, xlix. 1. They sometimes also denote ike last period of the world, or the times of the Messiah — e. g., Heb. i. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 20, like rixr; a^lOI'tol', aiwv fitT^'Ki^v, Heb. Njn dSij'. (5) The time of the judgment, or of the end of the world, and its sigjis or precursors. Vide Morus, p. 301, 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- ricved that their temple and city w-ould stand until the end of the world. Vide s. 98, H. 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 ike 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 amongthose ivhom 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 aposiies — that they could not determine the lime 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 wHh 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 multitudoa 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, 'n 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, 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. IS — 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 scriptura. 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, xvii. 71. Vide 6. 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 tkc 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 Jinal 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. j\ote. — It has for a long time been disputed among theologians, whether the judgment of the world will be an exierrfu:, 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 bota 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 mexe\y 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 ot 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 ot Christ knev/ 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 ancient 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. Thex^ 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 ceate a new heaven and a nevf earth 644 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Vide Ps. cii. 10 — li, where this is described, in opposition to the eternity and unchangeable- ness of God. Cf. Heb. i. 10—12. Our seeing the constant fluctuations and shanges 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 tliis phraseology; for this period was naturally conceived of as far distant, since changes of this nature are found by experience to require a long time. Moreover, in the prophets, such expressions as the destruction of the heavc7is 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 suti, &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, tom. ii. p. 144, ed. Mangey,) via ava^aivstai ri y^, jUfro- xa^ci|:- aiv, the earth shall appear new again, after its purification, even as it was after its fi-rst creation. He calls this renovation naXi-yytviaiav, vito-eipis- u'ov twv aroixf^^v, x. t. X. ; as the Greeks also denominated the same thing, rta>.iyyf ifcriW i^v oXuv — 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 own a\ithority. Vide Matt. v. 18; 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 tills change would be pfTocled by a general conjlagration. 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 tiie approximation of a comet, 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: JVafer and fire are the two most powerful and etTicient 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 fearfu' element — the f re, 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 philDSO- 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, Qua:st. Nat. ii. 2S— 30. This doctrine of the perishing of tiie 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 Ilfpi d^^apsi'ttf xosfiov. 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 xonfto^. 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 worhl is to be understood figuratively, as \\«Hstpin 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 "-ould be expected. And so he says that originally, at the time of the creation, the whole earth was cover- ed and overflowed with watt r, (Gen. i.,) and that from hence the dry land appeared and the same was true at the time of Noah's flood. Bu< there is yet to come a grezt fire-revoludon. Tli« STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 545 fieavens 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 (rtap£p;t£5^a[.) 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 " «;e 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 be 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 JS'ames 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 righteaus 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 -jpon the state of full retribution. The formtr 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 miilefactors while yet in prison, before the final judicial sentence is pronounced upon them. The place in which they are confined is pro- perly called Tap-fapoj, 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 69 called fd(j)Of, or crzot'oj, in the epistle of Jude and in 2 Pet. ii., and ^vXaxr; 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 after 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 ah-qi is not used in the scriptures to designate specifically this place, for Sixd' and a6?;j 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 %if.ivri rtvpoj xal ^ilov ; Rev. xx. 10, 15; and ytivva,. 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 leach, 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 oT^f^poj aiwi'toj, 2 Thess. i. 9 ; opyjj /xi%Xovaa, Matt, iii. 7; x6xa- 5tj atiLrtoj, Matt. XXV. 4G ; (idaafoi, Luke, xvi. 24, 25. The more figurative names are ^dvatoi, John, viii. 51 ; xi. 26; ^dvatoi devtipo^, Rev. XX. 6, &c. Vide s. 147, II.; oxorof and ^ofof tov (jxoTODj, Matt. XXV. ; Jude, ver. 6, seq. ; Ttvp aidiviov, ^Xo^ Ttvpo^, 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; jtopcvsa^at, drib ®£ov, in oppo« sition to beholding the countenance of God, Matt, XXV. 41 ; having no rest day nor night. Rev. xiv. II, &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 imaores to describe great and unending misery. The name adopted by the schoolmen, damnatio seterna, is founded upon Heb. vi. 2, where W6 find xptfta (i. e., xatdxpifxa) alavtov, Cf. 2 Thess. i. 9. II. Nature of Future Punishments. It is certain from the plainest declaration o\ the holy scriptures (cf. s. 155), and may als» 9zS M6 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. be proved on orrounds 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 come are to be regarded as the salutary and hap- py consequences of the present life and 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- itiral and posilivc, or arbitrary, and both these kinds belong to future punishment. Vide s. 31, 66, 87. (1) Among natural punishments we may reckon the following — viz., (a) The loss or deprivation of eternal happi- ness, pmim damni. Matt. vii. 21 — 23, artoxiopitts lift' iuov. Matt. xxii. 13; xxv. 41 : in all of these texts the representation is figurative. Cf. 2 Thess. i. 9, Bixyjv -tirsovriLv — drto rtporrcortou tov Kvpi'oD — i. e., removed from Christ, and from the h.ippiness which he enjoys. (Jb) The painful sensations which are the na- tural' consequence of committing sin, and of an impenitent heart, pana 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 his unhappy situation. He will pass at once from the noise and tumult of the things of sense into the stillness of tiie 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 whicli 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 ])romised. But these desires and propensities can no longer find satisfaction in the future world, where man will be placed in an entirely diflerent situation, and surrounded by a circle of objects entirely new; hence they will become tiie more inflamed. From the very nature of the case it is plain, therefore, that the state of such a man hereafter must neccsnarily be miserable. Shame, regret, remorse, iiope- 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 a3 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, 86, 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 ancienf'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 tiie Legislator; as, on the other hand, 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 thero 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 we may see why it is that the New Testament says little of natural punishments, (alfliough 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 tiiose which are merely natural are not suflicient 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 ihey affect even the body. Hence the words of Christ, drtoXsaat ■^vxr^v xal eu.ia, Matt. x. 28. For since the impenitent will be ao^ain 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 itis 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, 8. 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 representa^on 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. iVWe. — 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 sacredness 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, dens nnn 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 sufiicienlly 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 Seek glauhcn ? Was soil ich hofftn hey den mannichfaltigen Meinungen der Gelehr- ten?' 1790; s. 83— 96. III. The Justice and Necessity of the Punishments of Hell; the Sins ivhicti being Condemnation in their train,- and the diffei-ent Degrees of Punish- ment. (1) That there will be punishments in the future state nas 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 condunt M8 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, VL, ad finem. Also Michgelis, Ueber die Lehn; von der Siinde, s. 314. Such, accordingly, is the uniform representation of the New Testament. Vide 2 Thess. i. 5, seq. ; Rom. 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 irreligioiisncss (an ungodly dis- position, forgelfulness of God, aaiiinu), 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— IG; Gal. iv. 8; Matt. xxv. 41, seq.; 1 Cor. vi. 9 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1—3. Especially is amu-tia or drtft^tio represented as a cause of condemnation. So Mark, xvi. IG, 'he that believeth not is condemned." John, III. 18, and ver. 36, o drtfi^tJv vi(^ dvx o^/ffat. ^(^rjv, dxx' rj opy? 0foi) fiivii irt avtov. 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 Chris'-ian doctrine when it has been once received and acknowledged as true; Hebrews, x. 20, 39. Everything there- fore which draws after it punishment in the fu- ture world may be comprehended under drttan'a and avojXLa — a criminal disbelief and transgres- sion of the divine precepts. Whoever, then, is drtiatoj or avofioi, will be unliappy hereafter, however diflTerent the degrees of unhappiness may be. On the contrary, niarii and tiiouoi /Si'oj (fva£',3fta) will be followed by blessedness, however great the diflference in degree may be. It will be understood, of course, that among the unbelieving who will be put:i^^hed those are not included who have no op|> jrtunity to become acquainted with the divinn will or with the Christian doctrine, or who ;ire 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. iWe. — 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. 1 G ; 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 (xXTjrot) ; 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 be proportionately varied. Now this is the uniform doctrine of Jesus and tha 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 lo 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 lule, that this difierence of degree will be ap- portioned xaia yi'watj/, rtiff-fti', and t'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 CLVIL DURATION OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS ; REASONS FOR AND AGAINST THEIR ETERNAL DURATION. Reasons in favour of the Eternal Duratmi of Fu- ture Punishments, and w/uit 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 rtvif aiJ^vwv and xoXaai^ aiJjvtoi op- posed to ^tojj atwj'ws' in both of these sentences, therefore, must aiiJctoj be taken in the same sense, per legem disjunctionis. And so, if in connexion with ^w^, it means unending, eternal, it must mean the same in connexion with Ttvp. In accordance with this must other texts be ex- plained ; as where it is said respecting the fallen angels, that they are bound in Btafiol dtfitot, Jude, ver. 6, coll. 2 Pet. ii. 4; Rev. xiv. 11 ; oXf§-poj aiuvioi, 2 Thess. i. 9 ; Mark, ix. 44, 46 ; Rev. XX. 10. So in John, iii. 36, where it is said respecting unbelievers, fxivec ^ opyr; @(ov — ovx O'^itat. ^tdjj'j/. In Matt. xxvi. 24, Christ says respecting Judas, " that it would have be^.Tn better for him never to have been born." With regard to these texts we shall here sub- Js'in some observations. (a) On the texts in which aiJov and atwiioj are used. These are regarded by some as not decisive. For dSij' and aiuv are used to denote any long duration or period of time. Sometimes they refer to the past, and denote ages gone by, ancient days, antiquiiy ; thus, Ttv'Kai aiwixa, Ps. xxiv. 7, 9 ; ttrj aioita, years of an/iquily, Ps. Ixxvii. 5; xpomc aiai'iot,, Rom. xvi. 25; art' 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 oi eternity. Cf. s. 20, III., respecting the eternity of God. Thus Paul, 2 Cor. iv. 18, opposes a.lav\,ov to rfpoijxaipor. Thus bLo.'^r^xyj atoiaoj is used with reference to the Mosaic institute, although it came to an end, Ex. xxxi. 16 ; the same as to Itpati'ta, atcji/ioj. Num. xxv. 13. From this, as some suppose, it follows, that xoXaoLi atcji/ioj may mean either the pain and condemnation ordained by God (f old (as Christ says, with regard to the blessedness opposed to it, that it was Tipor^toifxatsfiivri, 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 aiaviov and dtSto)'. 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 ilie remark, that Ttvp and xojMai.^ aiQi'ioj properly denote the place, the kingdom, the residence of the lost — the state of condemnation; as jSaitTit/a ©toi and fw^ aiuj/ioj 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. (b) 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 fievei in John, iii., the idea of eternity is still less implied in this. As useu 650 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. by John, it may stand for elvai, and denote only the certainty and inevitablenesss of future pu- nishments. (c) In the passage with regard to Judas, Matt, xxvi., the ianguatre employed, it is said, may be proverbial -AnA popular, not admitting of a strict construction. It is as much as to say, ♦' such an one maiies 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 ftojj aiortoj and xdxaatj ato^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 temporisy For since ^ujj aicbiioj in all the other discourses of Jesus is understood, without contradiction, to denote a blessed life lasting /or ei'cr, there is no reason for under- standing it differently here. And if ^w/j aioiaoj here means eternal life, then, per les^em diajunc- tionis, must xo^arrtj aiuiaoj 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. (fl) 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. Aniiwer,—T\\exe is no infinitus reatus pcccato- 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. (J) Kvery 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, therefore, 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 eternil, since something will always be de- tiacted from the happiness of the sinner for his kaving sinned, even if he repents, and all posi- ^Tt punishments are removed from him or re- pealed, as it cannot be otherwise than that tha 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 wa3 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. Ansioer. — 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 waa 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 i^ this world. Nothing like this is taught us iii the Christian doctrine. According to this, God punishes only -ta ipya, or a trtfo^iv ixa.'sroi Rom. ii. G; 2 Cor. v. 10. {d) 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 impossil)Ie, repentance becomes. Besides, the use of the means (f grace is confined I: the pre- sent life. Hereafter there will be no preaching STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 551 i)f,the word of God, and no sacraments, and the grace of God will no longer be there given to bring men to repentance. Jinswer. — In these statements there is much ivhich 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 v,'ho 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- nisliments, 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- tra(ttion, or fury, thai? -omote their repentance, hfi dots not consider ; i such a statempnt can hardly be reconciled with our ideas of the ju3« 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 Finiten ess 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 ;^poi/M drtozafas-raffEwj ridvti^v 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. (i) The finiteness of future punishments is in- ferred by others from the ellicacy 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 ^avaroj denotes viisery and the punishmeiit 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, (rt) The passage in 1 Cor. xv. treats o^ death in the literal sense, since ^a'larcj 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. (h) 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, y\A finem. The meaning of this passage is aa follows: — "The heavens have received Christ, or retain him within themselves, as long m (a;i,-p:5 ov') the happy period if the New Testament cotitinues,''^ He will not come again to found ar^ earthlv kingdom. In ver. 30, these xfovot 552 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. artoxa-tafji'uaiuti rtuituv are called xatpol ai-o^v- Jfwj olrto Kvjiiov, and in Meb. ix. 10, xatpoj 6top^ui- ofwj. Thus it is said in Matt. xvii. 11, 'Hxtoj (i. e., John) aTtoxaraotr^rscv rtdvra, where the phrase is taken from the Sept. Version of Mai. iv. 6. riaira refers to everything which needs reformation in religious aflfairs, and to every- thing winch is predicted by the prophets. Cf. Moras, 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 a/eiv 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 1 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 m 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. (/>) 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 oflender himself may not always be benefited by the di- vine punisiunents visited upon hiui, but his ex- ample may yet serve for the warning of others, and thus conduce to their good. Cf. Rom. ix. 17,2-2. Tlius the eternal punishments inflicted upon some may perhaps serve, through all eter- nity, to deter from sins n»any 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 iiis work, " Von del 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 rtapa6ct,yiA.a/fa, iva aXkoi, opwvrs?, ^o,3ovi,ujwi |3fX- •fiovj yf I'tovrat." 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 anp against the eternal duration of futurb punishment; and a sketch of the history of this doctrine. I. Result of the Reasons for 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., («) 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 WlllCm MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 653 nas established. When, theicfore, natural pu- nishments are spoken of, it is ohvious to reason how an eternal duration of cL'sm may be affirm- ed. Indeed, reason cannot conceive it to be otherwise, since thete is no promise of God, either in the holy scriptuies or elsewhere, that the natural evil conaeqacnces of sins once com- mitted will v xai acrfjSwv ai'^pwrtwi', and rtpoaxai- pov (Ivat, xoXaniv aailitJv av^patrtiov, ^nd 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 Cel- 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., Diociorus 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, Joiin 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 ot 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 durinjr the dark ages and among the * [Ncander, while he concedes that Origen taught this (loctriiio, thinks it is one of those points respect- iiip; which his Dpiiiion afterwards chanfreii. Cf. Ne< niider, Allg. Kirch. Gcsch. b. i. Abth. Lii. s. lOiB.— Tu.] STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. «59 •choolmen there wero some v.'ho 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 Cuture 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 hoth 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 Poenarum jEter- narum; Halle, 1742: Schubert, Verniinftige Gedanken von der Endlichkeit der Hollenstra- fen, 3te Aufg. .lena, 1750; Heinr. Meine, Gute Sache der Lehre von der unendlichen Dauer der Hollenstrafen ; Helmstadt, 1748 ; Schlitte, Ueberlegung der beiderseitiger Griinde fiir und wider die unendliche Ungliickseligkeit der Verbrecher, &c. Cf. also Michaelis, Von der Siinde, &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. 636; 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, ^- ratoj, or o^f^poj aiojvioj, or divtfpo^, is not anni" hilation, but eternal condemnation. ON ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS SECTION CLIX. INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCTRINE ; AND EXPLANA TIQN 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 ar« 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 U 550 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 clieerful 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, perha|)s 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 born 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 mora/ 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- ing conli nuance 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 slate 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 brouorht 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. 28; 1 John, ii. 25; Rom. ii. 7, and s. 148. 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 hnppiness, and in whose society we shall enjoy it. Cf. the sections above cited, also s. 1-20, II. II. Nature and Names of Future Blessedness. On this subject we have no very clear and de- finite knowledge, nor can we have in the present life. Men, indeed, usually conceive the joys of heaven to be the same as, or at least to resen)ble, 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 whit-h 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. We 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 every- thing upon earth is vanity and vexation rf spirit. If it were appointed to us in our present condi' lion to live /or ever upon the earth, in 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 blessed 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 diflTerenl 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 1)6 experienced by us here in their full extent, we have of course no words in our lansruasre to STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 55T express them, and connot therefore expect any clear description of them, even in the holy scrip- tures. Of. Morus, p. 298, s. 7, ad fincm, 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 amo^g 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 ^rreat felicity, which, as it is expressly said, will transcend all our expectations and con- ceptions. Vide I John, iii. 2; Col. iii. 3, ^w^ ^/tu)j/ zcxpurtrat. 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. Zco^, ^cotj atiit'ioj, which, according to Hebrew usage, signifies, a happy life, vita vera vitalis, eternal well-being. Hence the term 6py>7 ©tov is opposed to it — 3. g., John, iii. 16, 3G ; also xatdxpiai^, xoXaui?, ic. t. %. Ao|tt, 6d|a @iov, reward, Rom. ii. 7; V. 3. 'A^^apffta, 5o|a, tifiy] xai d^^apijia, Rom. ii. 7; and lipr^vtj, ver. 10. Alu>viov )3apoj 66|'/;j, an eternal reward of full weight, 2 Cor. iv. 17. '^uirrjpia, aoitrjpCa, atwi'ioj, 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 ; this, therefore, is frequent" ly employed by the sacred writers. It is there that the higliest 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 calls it the house of his Father, and says lliat 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 ^/a?!e/, or world, but as the wide expanse of heaven, high above the atmosphere, or starry heaven ; hence it is sometimes called the third hetiven, 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 ccclo 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 (frtovipai'wj, xMvri, f] avio) ; 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. 2G ; Hob. xii. 22 ; Rev. iii. 12. BasiTiEia oiJpai'u.i', or @iov, Matt. XXV. 34 ; James, ii. 5 ; (5a.aL\tLa inovpavioi and acai'LOi, 2 Tim. iv. 18; 2 Pet. i. 11 ; ovjji^a,- ac-Keveiv tc, Xptarci, 2 Tim. ii. 12 — i. e., to be distinguished, honoured, and happy, as he is, — to enjoy royal felicity. Cicero says, turn nos rcgnare videhamitr. The stoics say, oinncm sapi- entem regnare. Kx>;por'0;Uio and zXi^poj, (accord- ing to the Heb. trii and '^nj, possidere, to attain to possession,) the possessing and fully enjoying happiness, as the ancientlsraelites did Palestine. Hence x%r]povof.u'a ■tftrjprnj.ivr! tv ovpaioij, 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 Abrahani's bosom — i. e., to sit next to Abraham, Luke, xvi. 22 ; Matt. viii. 1 1. Vide Wetstein, ad h. 1. SajS/Barto^os, or dmrtooKJcs, dvfutj, Heb. iv. 10, 11, where it denotes the happiness of pious Christians, both in this life and that to come. Sra'^'avoj Sixatosvj'jjj, 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 sonls 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 tht 3 a2 658 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. ordi.iary 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 earlh. 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 tlie body,) be letdown (zata.Sai-Vfu') to liie 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 TUTURE BLESSED- NESS 1 The sum of what we are taught by reason and scripture on this point may be comprehended under the three following particulars : — (a) We shall hereafter be entirely freed from the suffer- ings of this life ; (i) 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., avfcrtj, avUTtavai-i;, 5a,3,3aT'i(J/td;, (not inactivity, entire freedom from employment, or indolence; vide s. 159 ;) vide 2 Thess. i. 7, " God will give to you, who are troubled, avrntv. Heb. iv. 9, II ; Rev. xiv. 13, " they rest from their labours," where xdrtoi, like labores, signifies moleslix 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. 18, Ijvattai fis drto rtovrdj tpyou rto^-jjpov, (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, (zc;^u)pt(ju£roj,) Heb. vii. 2G. (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 tliis life are of such a natcrc that they lead to satiety and disgust when tliey are long continued. Vide s. 159. But in the world to come it will be different. The bliss of the saints will continue witliout interruption or change, without fear of termination, and without satiety ; — i}ti^a.vos oKf^aproj, a/tiavroj, d^uparroj, a crown ever new and beautiful, in opposition to the fading crowns of earthly victors; 1 Pet. i. 4; v. 10; 2 Cor. iv. IG, 18; Luke, xx. 3G; 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- fogy 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 inoontrovertibly 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 s. 153. According to 1 Cor. xv., our body will no more then be aw^ua -^vxi^xov, but jtcjv^o- 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 innt/- 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 »o confirna the saints in goodness. 11. Continuance of the Happiness of ">£ 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. ft59 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 tliat 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 dij/trence 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 uf whom had devoted his whole life to virtue and piety, while the other had put otT 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 diiferent 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, {xata tbv iSiov Pfortov;) Rom. ii. 10, "to him who worketh good, glory, honour, and peace, will be given, 'lovSaucf, rtpwrov, (since from his greater know- ledge he could do more good,) xal "E^x>;w," in opposition to the punishment spoken of ver. 9. This sentiment is not contrary to the de- claration of Christ, the last shall he first, &c.. Matt. xix. 30; xx. 1 — 16, the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. For all which Christ there says has respect to the mercenary question of Peter. What shall wc 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, ortly because God, of his mere good mercy, has promised it. Cf. Cotta, De Diversis Gradibus Glorise 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, 3G, 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 ha|)pines3 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 ahvays 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 sc little fruit, and which, poor as it is, many good men, from lack 660 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 aTepom'tivc 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 tliese positive rewards. Vide s. 159, L 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 i\\e 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 wiiich 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- ral 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 Kome 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 l)e made by God in the future life, that each indivi- dual will there develop more and more the ge.-ms implanted within him by the liand 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 every thinir worthy of being known, of which he could learn only the simplest elements in this world ; and ho will be able to do this in such a way tliat 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 a!)le 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 vvarwts of men in the future Avorld 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 wliich 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 want^ 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 wo may have never before thought of. Some theologians have supposed that the saints in heaven may be taught by immediate di- vine revelations (^lumen glorix) ; especially those who may enter the abodes of the olessed 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. 120, 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 reg-ird to the point introduced in the foregoin'i paragraph. The importance which the learned and educated man attaches to the culture of his intrlleetua. powers, and to tlie increase of knowl(>dge, may easily lead him into the mistake of insisting, even in his religious discourses, too much on the importance of thisy^r every one, and of repre- senting it as constituting a chief part of th« STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 561 employmentsand joysof the future life. But the great mass of mankind liave but little taste for this intellectual culture. They even associate willi it the idea of severe labour and toil, be- cause thinking and learniny^ 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 satisf\iction 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, (^visio Dei in- iuitiva, or sensitiva, or beatifiea, or comprehen- siva.) 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 — i. 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 diflTerent 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 (dopatov), 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. 1 8 ; iii. 2 ; iv. 12, coll. V. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 16; and Paul uses /37.lrt£H' and yivt^cxiiv as synonymous, 2 Cor. xiii. 12, 13, coll. v. 10. — Again, they express the idea of /e/tcj/?/, the enjoyment of God's favour, the being thought worthy of his 71 friendship, &c. Still more frequently are both of these meanings comprehended under the phrase to see God. The image is taken from oriental princes, to see whose faces, and to be in whose presence, was esteemed a great favour. Cf. Matt. V. 8; Heb. xii. 14, "Without holi- ness ovSftj o^itai tbv Kvptov." The opposite of this is, to be lemoved from God and from his face. But Christ is always represented as one who will he personally visible by us, and whose per- sonal, familiar intercourse and guidance we shall enjoy. And herein Christ himself places a 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 oi 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 THEOLOGY. shall ye be also." Cf, 1 Pet. i. 8. According to John, xvii. 24, we shall be high witnesses and participators of his glory. (i) Paul says expressly, 1 Thess. iv. 17, that we shall be with Christ, in company with our friends who died before us (a^a avv avroij) ; 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 wn some Psychological Questions, denies, in tis second essay, (whether, in the future life, we shall remember the present,) that we shall hereafter have any recollection of our lives oo 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 whicli they will feel and acti 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 naturfe 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 I 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 Colta, in his "Historia dogmatis de vita seterna." 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 scripturev 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, Unterredungfen iiber die Gliickseligkeit des zu- kunftigen 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 Betrachtunger 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, tom. ii. of bis Opusc. Academica. INDEX. PART L— SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. Page Actual sins, true idea of 297 Adam, original state of 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 i, 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 , employments of ... 211 , names of 213 , present state of . . . . 209 . ■, worship of 214 Ariu 3, 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 thfe 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 , ^ects of infant 495 ■, external advantages of. . . 488 -, formulas used in 486 , institution of 483 Baptism, internal advantages of . . , John's the same as Christ's , knowledge requisite for . ', lawfulness of infant . . . , mode of ', names of , necessity of , not to be repeated . . . , origin of •, usages incidental to . . . Bible, see Scriptures. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost . . Blessedness eternal, continuance of pre- sent happiness , exemption from suf- ferings -, nature and names of -, to be expected . . -, rewards of ... . Body, human, origin of , original excellence of Children, salvation of . . . . Christ, active obedience of . . , ascension of ... . — — , deity and humanity of , , descent of, into hell ■ , divine attributes ascribed to — — — , divine honour claimed for , divine names given to . . , doctrine of his person . . , doctrines of, their truth , glory of, in heaven . . . , happiness derived from, on earth ■, in future -, influence of his example -, kingdom of ... . -, last appearance of . . 488 485 487 494 485 483 491 492 484 487 305 558 558 556 555 559 200 195 421 405 348 357 343 138 139 136 355 57 350 415 413 411 350 538 3B 555 ft€6 INDL^L OF S-b EJECTS 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 Confessiufl, 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 detcriptions of . . . 514 , senses in whi 4. used .... 515 , state after 516, 518 , universality of 515 , whether or not r 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 Doctrines, Christian, fundamental . . 34 Eden, its character 188 Edwards, President, views of, on original sin 282 Eve, the creation of 188 Faith, analogy of 35 — -, attrib ites of 434 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 103 , 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, 463 , opinic:ss of Latin fathers on . . 458 , scriptUffll 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 449 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 Imm»rtality, scriptural proofs of . . . 517 Inclinations, evil, origin and punishable- neesof 288 Indulgences, futility of 449 Inspiration, idea of universal .... 66 I ■ , 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 general ... ... 541 Justification, an unmerited favour . . . 399 , effect of Christ's exaltation on 395 , only of Christ 388 , universality of . . . . 397 Keckermann, B., his vievir 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 cf . . . . 499 ■ , external uses and efficacy of 505 — — , history of opinions of . 508 Pa8« Lord's Supper, institution of ... . 497 , internal uses and efficacy of 50fe , 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 . . . 22T .^ , meaning of . . . 226 ■, records of, in the New Testament 229 K8 INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. Prayer "^ mean of grace Predi:^on3, Messianic, accommodations of , denrrees of . . , how interpreted — — ^— ^— ^— , principles of, act ed on oy Christ and his apostles Prophecies of Christ proofs -^f Christian- ity ...... . Providence, definition of . . . , history of opinions of i ■ , its benevolence — , its universality , its unsearchableness — , proofs of . . . — , scholastic views of Punishment, its nature and object , positive divine , removal of . . , scriptural names of Punishments, division of . . Purgatory, opinions on . . . Rationalism, character and design of Reason, definition of , use of . Reconciliation, nature of ... . Recovery of man, divine institutions for . . , purpose of God respect- -, requisites for Page 467 325 328 325 326 61 235 236 253 252 253 233 239 311 314 387 312 312 529 14 38 38 501 317 320 317 440 Regeneration, meaning of the term 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 . . Sacrament, nature of a 173 479 Tag* Sacraments, object of Christ in instituting 483 Sacrifice, universality and design of . . 389 Salvation, conditions of 420 of children and the heathen . 421 Sanctification, its nature 443 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 — , manner of 405 , 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 Spectres, question as to existence of Spener, proceedings of, at Halle . Spirit, Holy, divinity of . . . ■, meaning of the term . , names given to . . ■, personality of . . . Teachers, Christian, rights of . . . Testament, New, collection of books of • • , external proofs of . ■ , inspiration of . . , Old, authenticity of . . , cautions in reading , completion of canon of , external proofs of . , inspiration of . . . ', origin of canon of . 523 233 9 143 140 143 141 478 53 47 63 48 77 51 44 64 50 INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 569 Page 52 274 44 26 43 39 155 130 144 133 131 — — , terms employed respecting 151, 154 > , views of primitive Christians re- specting 148 Understanding, original excellence of man's 192 Testament, Old, reception of canon of Theo.ogians' hypotheses on sin . . Theology, course of study of . . . , how distinct from religion , scientific treatment of . . Tradition, the use of Trinity, distinction of persons in . . — — — , doctrine of , history of doctrine of . . . , how taught in New Testament -. Old Testament Pag« Urlsperger, Dr., his views of the Trinity 161 Will, original excellence of man's . . 194 Works, good, connexion of, with salva- tion 43** ', 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 .... HI 71 3Ba PART II.— SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATED. CHAF. VERSB FASE 1. 1,2 .... 176 1. 26 169 2. 4—24 . . 185, 271 3. 14, 15 . . 272, 329 3. 19 271 6. 7 113 17. 1 93 49. 10 329 Exodus. 3. 13 93 33. 32 343 Numbers. 6. 24 133 Deuteeonomv. 4. 7, 8 . . . 29 6. 4 91 18. 18 329 2 Samuel. 16. 14 227 Job. 14. 4 283 19. 25, &c. ... 528 38. 7 207 Psalms. 3. 7 132 14. 1 89 16. 10 344 19. 1—6 .... 28 32. 2 444 33. 6, 9 . . 102, 133 51. 7 283 90 101 119. 89—91 ... 114 •39. 15, 16 . . . 200 Proverbs. CHAP. VERSE 8. 22—30 PAGE 108 ECCLESIASTES. 8. 8 99 12. 7 99 Isaiah. 6. 3 , . . . . 133 28. 23-29 ... 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 10. 18 476 16. 19 478 20. 1—16 . . 127,559 23. 35 52 24 538 25. 41—46 ... 300 26. 41 301 26. 63 57 28. 18—20 ... 133 Mark. 3. 28—30 . 306 Luke. 1. 37 102 11. 51 52 15 443 16. 8 251 18. 9—14 .... 443 JoHir. CHAP. 1. 3. 5. 5. 5. 7. 8. 10. 10. 13. 14. 14. 14. 15. 15. 17. 20. 20. 20. VERSE 1,2 , 3,5 , 23 . , 39 . 39—47 15—17 44 . 28 . 34—36 19 . 6 . 16, 17 26 . 22—24 26 . 5 . 23 . 25 . 23 . Acts 3. 20, 21 . 13. 48 . . 17 27—31 FAOI 136 441, 489 , 140 , 76 , 324 . 59 , 224 . 137 . 93 62 . 373 . 141 134, 141 . 300 , 141 , 138 478 , 234 137 349 128 28 Romans. 9. 9, 10. 3,4 19,20 14, 15 21—28 4 . 6 . 11 . 3,4 15 . 29,30 34 . 5 . 18 . 14 . . 138 28,33 . 32 . 399 . 389 . 116 391 386 490 . 77 . 125 . 396 . 137 . 310 . 337 571 572 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATED. CnAP. TERSE PAGE 11. 33—36 ... 541 12. 6 35 1 Corinthians. 1. 30 373 3. 11 33 10. 6—11 .... 121 11. 27—34 . 121,507 12. 4—11 .... 142 2 Corinthians. 3. 11 42 5. 21 392 7. 9, 10 . . . . 443 13. 1 14 Ephesians. 134 1. 4—14 . . . . 112 2. 3 . . . : . Philippians. 285 S. 6 137 3. 8,9 . . . . 333 S. 10 140 Colossi ANS. 1. 94 . . . 391 1 Thessalonians. ciiap. terse page 1. 8—10 .... 34 4. 17 562 1 TlMOTHT. 5. 22 304 2 Timothy. 3. 14—17 ... 64 Titos. 2. 11 410 2. 13 138 3. 5 489 Hebrews. 1. 1 40 2. 9—11 .... 332 2. 14 . . . 225,373 4. 13 114 6. 1 34 6. 13 115 7. 9, 10 ... . 274 7. 25 396 9. 24 396 11. 3 ..... 167 11. 13 .... . 41 CHAP. 12. 12. 12. TERSE 1,2 . . . . 5—11 .... 27 James. TkOit 412 122 43 1. 17 1 Peter. 101 1. 3. 3. 2 19 21 2 Peter. 134 344 489 1. 1. 2. 3. 3,4 . . . . 19, 20 . . . . 4 7—13 . . 101 1 John. 410 65 219 ,544 2. 5. 1 7,8 . . . . JOOE. 396 134 6 . . . . 219 Revelation. SO 33 . 1—8 . . . 18. 539 74 INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. Geni !SIS. PACK 283 OHIP. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 11. 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. VERSE 5 PAGE 219 1, 1 6 288 1 86 1, 2, sq.. 1,27... 2 99 2,9 2,17.... 3 3, sq. . . . 3—31.. 136, 162, 166 168, 174, 181 174, 175 169 , 166, 168, 176 544 287 166 102, 177 178 176 172 169 .132, 189, 190 .169, 182, 190 197, 198 185 168 200 15 16 17, 19 . . 19... 186 19, 21, 2^ 20 21 22 22, 24 . . 24 271 !, 24 .272, 329 188 195 , 514, 521 ......271 188 186 187 195 . . 213 11 14 ^.,.197, 380, 381, 382 .186 22, 28... 7 287 26 10 304 26, sq... 26—30.. 27 28 20—22.. 25 1—3 1, 3 3 22 22, 24... 24 2 135 272 189 186 277 29, 30... 193 200 31 2 1 171 184, 283 .162, 163, 175 169 172 185 186 iii. 24 185 195 520 515 211 2,sq.... 2, 3 . . . 4, sq 4—24. . . 4 — chap. 5 7 12 1... '.'.'.*." .185, 284 113 278 .381, 382 105 5 20, 21... 22 2 3 6 1, 2, 5, 9. 6, 7 7 7, 8 3 6 15 2 7—12. . . . 388, 380 5, 15. . . . 183 .278 284 7 8—15... 9 9,17.... 177,514 189 195 268 197 186 189 211 15, sq.. . 189 185 15—17-. 16 16, 17.. 17 18, sq. . . 266 186 .193 .195, 271, 515 184 132 247 322, 329 424, 428 520 19 19,20... 8. ...184, 196 193, 197 187 bis, 197 224, 283, 515 266 168 204 482 218, 1. sq.. . . 1 21 1 93 482 .1—6.... 268 194 187 271 2, 8 ... . 14 102 3 20 24 304 8, 19 . . . 195 .132, 247 CHAP. VERSB TXOM 22. 2,sq 115 8 329 18 322 24. 60 179 25. 8 520 28. 12 204 16 91 29. 3 93 35. 2 484 29 520 37. 35 520 39 248 40. 13,19 331 41. 26,27 500 46. 26 200 47. 9 520 48. 10 309 49. 1 542 10 329 25 177 50. 20 246,248 Exodus. 1. 7 179 3. 2, sq 96 6 520 7 304 13 91,93 4. 11.... 244 12, 15, 16 65 21 310 22, 23 415 6. 3 93 7. 1 93 3 309 13 809 10. 23 120 12. 2 176 3, sq 499 11, 27 500 13, 23 205 26,27 498 13. 9 498 14. 17, sq 310 31 424 16. 2,8 144 23 173 19. 6 358 20. 4 98 bis, 172 7 804 INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. CHIP. VERSB PAGE 20. 8—11 172 11 174, 175, 177 12 247 17 288 21. 4, 9 93 22; 232 23. 7 387 24. 8 498,499 26. 26, 27, 35, sq 188 28 396 SO. 12 376 81. 8 109 16 549 17 174, 177 32 172 32 243 33. 19 112 84. 6,7 116 7 386 Leviitccs. 4. 2,13 301 10. 3 121 11. 43,44 117 44 182 16. 21,22 392 17 396 19. 2 117,182,442 20 232 7,25, 26 117 19 392 27 232 24. 15 392 25. 25,30,48,49 376 26 124 39 260 Numbers. 6. 24 133 26 235 10. 35,36 94 14. 17,18 116 16. 22 200 30, sq 168 30, 33 344 20. 14,16 207 24 520 21 428 22. 22—34 208 23. 6 68 19 113 25. 13 549 28. 5, 29 120 32. 25,27 93 Deuteronomy. 1. 27 312 2. 30 310 4. 7.8 29 15—17 172 35, 39 91 57 416 5. 6 374 6. 4 91 13 139 9. 26, sq 312 10 16 440 13. 13 222 18 232 9—12 620 10 232 CHAP. VERSB P>GE 15 374, 379 18 65,329 21. 23 342 28 124 15 312 30 540 31 49 11, 12 78 32 211 6 135 8,9 211 11 177 31 319 39 91,102 33. 2 212 34 49 Joshua. 6. 17 207 8. 31 49 10. 13 56 11. 20 310 24. 26 49 Judges. 5. 20 163 EOTH. 4. 22 273 1 Samuel. 3. 13 304 6. 6 ,..309 10. 5, sq 68 10 227 25 49 12. 8—12 49 15. 23 270 29 113 16. 14—23 227 18 224 10 68 20. 25 355 23. 6—14 103 28 232,520 7,Bq 234 2 Samuel. 7 353 12, sq 330 14 137 11. 4 117 12 398 10, 11, 14 123 23 234 14. 17,20 209 16. 21 304 23. 1,2 99 24. 1,16 205 1 Kings. 2. 19, sq 355 8. 27 107 12. 9 132 18. 28 382 21, 24 94 19. 12 96 22. 19 204 20, sq 132 CHAP. VERSB FIGB 2 Kings. 1- 2 222 „ 9 66 2. 11 515 12 135 3. 15 68 6. 16,17 205 21 135 7. 9, sq 260 8. 10 260 17. 27, sq 822 19. 35 204 22. 6 337 1 Chronicles. 16. 1, sq 498 21. 1 205 14,16 204 29. 12 247 2 CHR0NICI.E8. 10. 9 132 23. 18 49 24. 21,22 52 25. 19 309 Ezra. 4. 18 132 Job. 1 210,213 6 207,222 21 200 2 210,213,222 4. 18 210 21 514 5. 10,12 124 24 260 7. 6 628 7—10 520 9 .344 9, 10 234 9. 24 260 25 528 10. 8 169 8, 11, 12 243 9 186, 200 20—22 520 21 614 12. 10 200 14. 4 283, 284,bi3 5 243 7—12 520,628 12 544 15. 22 520 16 2.50 19 107 22, sq 528 17. 11—16 528 19. 25, sq 628 24. 1, sq 523 29. 16 135 31. 18 283,285 33. 4 169 6 186, 200 23 211, 214 28 376 36 109, 253 87 87, 96, bifi, 253 88 268 INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. 3 CBIP VERSK FACE 38. 7 207,209 14 530 28 136 39. 16 112, 310 40. 41 101 41 87,169 42. 10 376 25 528 Psalms. I. 5 581 2 324,330,366 2, 6,8 323 7.... 132, 137,156,348 5. 5 117,260 7, 8...,. 117 6. 6...., 520, 629 7. 12 312 8. 87, 169, 182, 239, 332 1 162 3 302 4 168 5 235,312, 332 6 207 6—9 190,198 9. 6, sq 121 6—9 541 12. 6 81 14. 1 89 3, sq 283 10 356 15. l,sq 117 16 330 10 181, 334 bis. 10, 11 330 17. 14 163 15 521 18. 5 222 6, 6 515 26, sq 117 31 117 19. ..38, 87, 96, 108, 239 1 94 1—6 28,162 1—11 30 7—14 30 8 72,81, 114 8—12 118 13 260, 433 14 308 22 322, 324, 330, 389, 390 1 343 5 247 7—14 330 25 330 28 640 32 169 24. 7, 8 350 7, 9 549 25. 7 105 9 302 29 247 30. 10 620,629 31. 15 243 32 443 1 386 1, 2 386 2 273, 444 3—5 383, 444 3—6 445 SS. 4 114 6 133, 168 CHAP. VERSE PAGE 33 6,9 102,133,167 9 126 10, 11....101, 113, 126 13 235 18 117 34. 7 204,210 8 205 19 443 36. 6 252 6,7 126 7 116 37 250 16—40 l20 37 120 38. 18 l68 39 250 4 514 4, 6 243 7 l86 40. ...322,330,389,390 7,sq. 260,321,328,406 45 330 7 132,352 17 354 49 250, bis 2 163 8—12 615 9,16 181 15 529 15,16 621 50 41,440 8 381 16 117 16, sq 121 6L 381,385,388,440,443 2—19 433 4 386 7 283,293 8, 12, 17 383 12 169,440 19 443 52. 6, sq 121 7 614 53. 7 376 65. 14 417 16 344 56. 8 103 58. 4 283,285 5,6 231 69. 6 260 65. 8 360 68 330 1 94 6 135 17 205, 209, 212 69 330 2,8 483 6 260 28 243 71. 11 343 72 132,330,364 2 137 73 250, bis. 2, sq 316 2,23 301 13 387 16 253 24 .....621 24, sq :....120 26, 28 621 28 417 76. 7 514 CHAP. VBRSB PAOB 77. 6 649 78 49 22, 32 424 25 209 49 204,205,209 69 351 80. 2,sq 350 81. 12,13 249 82. 6 93,190 86. 10 91 87. 5 440 88. 10 529; 11 620 49 205 89. ■ 330, 353 27 132,137 27, 31—84 327 49 515, bis 90. 86, 96, 100, 101, 239 243, 247 2 166 3 243 4 101,639 8 386 11 385 91 239,243,247 3 615 11 210 11,12 204 15 107 92. 1 172 94. 8—11 165 9 97 11 103 97. 7 140,207 99. 1 213 102 96,101 10 272 10—12 544 19 169 24—28 101 25—28 96 26 139, 166, 168 26—28 86 28 101 103 169, 250 3 386, 397 8, sq 116 8—18 304 9 105 11,12 398 11—13 116 13 ..135 14 284 20, 21 203 21 94, 163 104. 87, 96, 108, 169, 239 464 1, sq 169 4 203, 207 5 168 5—9 177 6—9 175 8—16,27—29 242 19 179 24 258 25, 26 179 29 186, 614 29, 30 186, 529 30 168, 169, 177 32 247 105 454 INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. CHAP. VERSK PAGE 105, 1Q6 49 106. 9 177 12 424 31 273,388 109. 6 222, bis. 110. 322, 324, 326, 330, 389 1 132,352, 355 1, 2 351 2 351 4 379 113. 5,6 252 114. 2 353 115. 3.... 102, 107, 109, 166 15 162 17 520 116. 13 498 119 454 21, 61 302 .39 122 67, 71 121 75, 138 114 89, 91 113, 114 105 72 128 247 3, 4 179 130 385 3 386 131. 2, sq 180 132, 8 94 136. 3 93 138. 6 252 189 ..96,103,165,239,243 6 96 7—10 106 13—16 169,243 15, 16 200 16 105,243 143. 2 387 145 169 9 116 17 126 146. 6 86,162 147 169 6 102 19, 20 29 20 119 148 169,252 1—6 204 6 169 7—13 204 8 204 13 94 Proverbs. 8. 2, sq 120 18 187 19, sq 108 8 168 22—26 114 22— 3C 108 10. 2 260 16. 1, sq 249 1, 33 247 17. 15, sq 387 24. 16,17 266 28. 13 445 80. 3 96 ECCLESIASTES. 1. 18 109 2. 6 188 24 183 CHA1-. VESaB PAGE 3 249 11 253 12, sq 183 19, sq .'620 5. 17 183 7 249 29 194 8. 8 99 10,11, 14 523 17 253 9 249 1—3 623 9 183,541 11 249 10. 11 234 11. 5 253 12. 7,99,180,181,186,200 bis. 614, 521 13, 14 541 Isaiah. 1 440 2 381 2. ...319,322,830,540 4. 3 117 6. 1 96,211 1—5 327 2 204 2, 6 213 3 133 8 132 9 117 10 309, 310 7. 8—10 144 8. 19 232 10. 3 312 21 640 11 322,324 1, sq 330 6 198 6—9 186, 187 12 640 13 544 10 644 14. ...234, 524, 425, bis. 9 344, 620 15 344 19. 11 109 22. 14 304 26. 9 121,180 19 521, 528 19, 20.... 615, 528, 529 28. 16 424 23—29 122 29. 4 232 30. 15 441 31. 3 99 34 544 11 176 13,14 224 37. 86 211 88. 1, sq 113 9 528 10, sq 234 11 163 12 614 18 520 18,20 529 40 38,96 40.— 66 830, 540 40. 6 278 CHAP. VERSE PAOI 40. 13, sq 108 21—26 87 22 96 26 98 28 102 41 38 4 100, 167 26 105 42. 6 86,166,200 6 117 8 94, bis, 189 43. 3,4 392 7 168 11 94 12 247 21 94 25 386 44. 6 100 7 167 8 105 45. 3 140 6,21,22 91 6, sq 86 9, 10 112 18 168 21 114 23 332 46. 3 139 5 96, bis, 98 48. 4—8 105 7 169 11 94, 139 12 452 16 133 49 440,641 14 343 23 272 50. 2 376 51 440 63. 260, 322, 324, 330, 386 389, 390, 392 4 392 4, 5 328 4—6 392 5, sq 391 9 343 10 109 12 393 64 440 65. 8 125,126 57. 19 443 68 41,382 10 109 69. 1, sq 102 8 336 20 540 60 41 61. 1 65,443 63. 4 312 10 141 16 135 17 310 64. 4 657 6 443 65. 17 544 20 244 25 198 66 319,830 1 107 22 644 24 545,649 INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO A.ND ILLUSTRATED. ^AP. VERSK PAGE Jeremiah. 1. 6, sq 65 3. 12.13 439,443 13 2eo 4. 26 441 6. 20 381 10. 7 94 10—16 86 12 102 11. 18-20 103 23. 5,6 323 23, 24 107, bis. 31 1, sq 540 19 443 29, 30 275 31—36 41 32. 17 102 38. 17—20 103 61. 39 514 Lamentations. 5. 7 392 EzekieIi. 1 96 5,sq 213 22, 23, 26 179 3. 7 309, 515 19 439 6. 11 179 7. 11 260 10. 1 179 11. 19,20 440 12. 14 188 14. 6 439 16. 51,52 387 17. 19 288 18. 4,20 275 20 392 21, sq 443 21, 22 397 22 398 26 434 32 515 20. 25 310 22 544 25. 6 179 27 521 29. 3 179 32. 2 179 33. 11 398,515 16 398 36. 26—28 440 37. 528,529 Daniel. 2. 18,30 480 7. 10 204,209 13, 14 353 8.— 12 214 8. 4 167 9. 2 49 4 445 17 132 18 443 24, sq 330 IC. 13 211,213 H, 20 211 11. 8,16 167 U- t 213 2 521,629, 533 CHAP. VERSE PAGE IIOSEA. 1. 7 132 2. 21 169 3. 5 439,540 6. 7 276 Joel. 2. 12,13 439 Amos. 3. 6 310 7 65 5. 8 86 Jonah. 3. 4 115 4, 9, 10 115 9 113 4. 2,9—11 115 MiCAH. 5. 1 330 Nahtjm. 3. 4 232 Habakkuk. 2. 1 424 Haggai. 2. 7—9 330 2^CHARIAII. 1. 11 213 2. 10,11 417 3. 1 211 7 213 7. 11 309 9. 4, sq 323 10 540 10. 12 132 12. 12,13 330 14. 6 540 9,16 540 Malachi. 3. 1 330 2 527 6 101 4. 5,6 330 6 552 Matthew. 1. 1, sq 334 16—20, 25 286 18 334 20 334, 335 21 373, 377 23 335 24 211 2. 1 371 13 211 3. 2,11 441 6 484 7 484,545 7, 10 445 9 382 li 141, 485 13-17 337 CHAP. VERSE P/OB 3. 16 306 4. 1 224 1, sq 336 9 219 10 139 11 209 5 340,429 3 470 8 98, 561 10 251 10, sq 125 16 434 17 340 17, sq 77 17—19 414 18 544 19, 23 326 21, sq 410 22 298. 303, 545 24 385 28 288, 298, 303 29, 30 304 33—36 143 45, 48 97 48 117 6 243,308 2,5, 16 252 12 386 12, 14 260 19, 20 250 25 169 25, sq 87, 245 25—32 239 26 96, 103, 243 31 247 32 103 7. 1, sq 299 1—5 299 3—5 298 13, 14 548 16 432, 439 16-24 485 19 300 21 429, 471 21—23 546 23 260 28, 29 59 8. 11 557 12 353 17 328 20 341 28—32 229 28—34 208 29 220 9. 2,6,6 386 4 302 6 478 14—17 483 10 243 5 133 8 399 14 494 15 543, 549 16 269 18 62 19, 20, 63 23 538 26, 27 217, 338 28... 180, 302, 517,645 647 29 103, 239 29, 30 262 INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. e«.\»" TKRHE PAOB Vj. 29—31 239 42. 120 n. 2—6,20—24 60 3,8(1 60 6 305,306 11 76, 212, 272 12 351 21—23 103 22—24 298, 553 23, 24 543 26 86 27 139, bis. 27, sq 352 29 338 30 411 12. 20 81 22—31 217 24... 221, 222, bis. 232 26 221 27 227 28 230, 306 28, 29 229 31 143 81, 82 305 34, 35 303 40 326 43, 45 217 13. 3, sq 474 11, sq 338 12 194 15 309, 439 24—30 121, 471 24— 31, 47— 50.... 474 29 249 32 542 36—40 121 89 217, bis. 220 39, 41 211 52 340 64 337 55 337 57 305 15. 18—20 303 19 223 22, sq 471 16 538 13, 16 371 16 137, 138 18.... 42, 352,475, 476 18, sq 469 19 478 21, sq 62 21—24 343 23 222 25 251 27... 127, 211, 542, 543 27, 28 538 28 515 17 227 l,Bq 341 19, 21 229 20 424 27 304 18. 6 304,305, 423 7, 8 288 8 545 10,... 98, 204, 210, bis. 211 xl 662 18 478, bis. 20 107 •^i, 22 398 26, 27 402 CHAH. VEHSB PAOB 19 188 2 424 6 188 14 423 21 439 26 447 28 440 30 659 20. 1, Bq 839 1—16 559 14 452 16 127, 548 18, 19 323 20, 21 323 21 355 22, 23 483 28... 377, 392, 398, 401 21. 8, 9 323 11 338 25, sq 353, 484 25, 32 424 43 353 22 530,531 2—13 127 3, sq 452 13 546 14 548 16—46 338 20 562 23 620, 532 24, sq 430 29 340 30... 207, 208, 530, 635 562 31 530 43 326 43—46 143 44, sq 73, 355 23 308 4 482 8 475 9 135 12 531 15 549 85 52 24 62,534,538 3 538 4—25, 80 538 13 484 24 416 29,8q 544 88 809 25 ."."!35i,"625,543V545 14 559 20—29 437 31 211, 541 81, sq 638 31— 46... 439, 538, 643 32, sq 420 84 350, 354,657 84, 41 549 85, 36 559 87, sq 659 41... 209, 220, 618,543 545, 546, 647, 648 41, 46.... 220, 221, 800 649 44 659 46 221, 545 26 375,389,398 24...419, 614,549, 650 26 498 26—28 497 CHAP. VERSK PAOl 26. 28... 840, 342, 875, 891 bis. 393, 418 37—44 342 39 247 39—44 342 41 278, 301 43 309 53 209, 210 64 328 62, 63 324 63 57 27. 4,sq 61 40 137 43 109 46 343 28 34.486,491,494 11—13, 15 347 18... 139, 350, 351, 352 18— 20.... 33, 351, 872 476, 483 19... 130, 142, 144, 486 494 20... 107, 351, 352,409 417, 475, 500 Mark. 1 485 4, sq 489 15 441 3. 4 300 28 806 28—30 305 29 386 29, 30 306 4. 10,11,34 340 20 426, 464 28 464 34 65 6. 3 837 49 234 49, 60 234 62 309 7. 3, 4 488 21 303 22 306 9. 12 323 38—40 471 44 546 44, 46 649 10 14, 16 494 15 853 29, 30 120 12. 38 109 13. 11 63, 68 82... 138, 210, 358,365 14. 3 436 22—24 497 15. 15 400 16. 14 61 15 42 15, 16 483 15, 16, 20 255 16.. .110, 111, 127,420 422, bis., 423, 426 490, 491, 648 17 64 17, 18 255 19 355 20 60 LVKK. 1 210 1 66 INDEX OP TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. aUT. TERSE PAGE 1. 11,26 211 13, 28 204 15 68 19 204 19, 26 214 30—38 824 31 373 33 352 34 286 35.... 94, 138,334,366 371 36—40 337 37 102 46, 47 180 47 374 54 332, 358 08, 78 312 70 168 75 ....442 77 451 2 210 1 334 9 211 11 374 21 373 26 515 30 323 49 135 52 335, 336, 358 8 485 3,sq 445 8 441 10—14 443 23 337 23, sq 334, 335 38 334 4. 1,14 337 13, 14 121 18 386 5. 11 230 21 388 6. 9 300 46—49 429 7. 21 221 30 484 47 408, 445 8. 5-15 247 11, sq 454 12 223 13 426, 433,434 14 245 15 465 17 338 30 221 30, 31 220 9. 16 504 20 137 56 372 58 341 10 1, 10 338 12 518 17—20 230 17—21 229 21 341 24 394 11. 2 109 20 306 24 221, 224 37—54 908 38 483 60 33 51 52 CHAP TERSE PAGE T' 10 305 11, 12 63 36 514 40 538 46 549 47 300 47, 48 298 48 553 48, sq 422 13. 2—5 299 2, 4 124 6—9 247 7, 33 337 11, 16 222 16 .226, 230 23, S(]Hi 548 26, sq 559 28—30 548 15, 122 443, 445 7, 10 443 10 .207. 210 18, 21 ...:..94 16. ..652, 561 8 .....251 16 47 19, sq 522 19, 22, 23, sq 517 19—31 346 22... 204, 211 212, 517 657 22, sq 618 22, 23 234 22—25 518 23— 2a 524 24, 25 545 25 .251, 618 27 519 27,28, 30.... 531 27, 30 234 27—31 525 31 .347, 531 17 4 441 9 339 10 125 382, 399 20 351, 353 20, 21 323 18 9 339, 439 9—14 443 10 251 13 383, 443 31 343 31-33 .62, 323 33 348 19 10 373 16—19 559 "^O 630 25 479 27 617 36 210, 518, 658 38 617, 661 39 630 46 109 21. ..62,625 14 63 22 312 28 376 33 554 m 17 498 19 498 19 20 . ...497 20—22, 603 24 476 CHAP. TERSE p^Q- 22. 31 217,225 S2 433 37 323, 343 41—44 342 42, 44 335 43 211 44 375 23. 14, 15 343 34 300, 306 35 137 40, sq 439 40-43 446 43... 323, 617, 618, 557 46 335 24. 11,22—24 347 19 338 20, 21 348 21 323, 376 26... 332 27 323 32 59 37 234, bis. 39 234 44 47 47 441 51 348 John. 1 138,354,366,376 485 1....138, 176, 356, 358 1, 2 136 1—3 138, 168 3, 18, 357 4 451 7 320 7, 9 377 10 168 12 428 12, 13 416, 440 14... 382, 333,335, 357 358 14, 18 356 16 320, 412 17... 340, 373,412, 429 18 96,661 19—41 324 25 323, 484 29... 353, 889,392, bis. 33 484 45 329 61 212 2. 11 337 19 346 24, 25 139 25 308 3. 60, 338, 339, 353, 377 464,- 484, 549 1, sq... 340 1—21 446 2 60, 661 3 470 3, 5 440 8,6,7 491 3—21 280 5....483, 484, 485, 486 489, 495 5, sq 143,457 5,14—21 445 6....279, 281,284, 285 286, 338 6—8... 491 8 INDEX OF TEX1\S REFEERED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. OHAP. TERSB PAGE 3. 8 226,464,465 13 857, 372 13, 14 331 13—16 394 13—17 457 14.... 81, 326, 374, 389 428 14—16 408 15, 16 388 16... 116, 361, 373, 375 377, 385, 388, 420 445, bis. 506 16, 17 157, 321 16, 36 557 17 139 18 422, 548 18—21 422 22 483 25 483 27, 32, 34 353 28, 36 376 29 350 31 356 31—33 337, 373 34 306, 337, 374 35 139 36.. 412, 422, 548, 549 4 339,375 1, 2 483 2 487, 561 7, sq 340 14, 34, sq 338 20—24 107 21— 24.... 98, 413,415 23, 24 482 24 98,136 25, sq 323 25, 26 324 25, 42, sq 322 84 373, 406 34, sq 338 42 374 6. ..60,135,339,357,531 533, 541 4 212 8, 10, 17 137 10 356, 357 17 357 17, sq 138, 333 18 137, 226, 357 18, sq 137,138 20 561 21 532,533 2i, sq 419 21, 23,27 351 21, 25—29 419 21, 28 528 21, 29 532 22, 25 542 23 139, 332 24 517 26 139, 359 27 361, 542 28, 29 533, 537 34, 34, sq 324 38 343 39 73, 76, 78 89, 46 323 39-47 324 43 57 44 465 46 326,329,424 CHAP. VERSE PAGE 6. 60, 338, bis, 388, 408 4 407 14 338 15 323, 347 31, 31, sq 356 37 471 39. 40 532, 533 39,40,44 542 44 453, 456 45, 65 455 46 139 47,50,51, 56 497 51 408, 420 51, sq 101, 374 51, 63 497 62... 348, 356, bis. 357 372 63 336, 464 7. 11 340 15 327 15-17 59 16, 17 432 16—18 338 17 31,58,432,463 20 227 28 418 29, 34, 36 357 31 323 42 323 8 60,205,338,339 531 3, 7, 10,11 251 12 451 21, 24 303 23 356 26 139 28 331 29 406 31, 32 454 32 353 32—36 377, 408 32, 36 459 34, sq 308 36 309 38, 44 217 38—47 217 40, 57, 58 357 43, sq 465 44,.. 218, 220, 223, 224 bis. 225, bis. 226 267, 409 46 260 46, sq 58 47 59 51 517, 545 56 329, 394, 5J7 68 136, 138, 357 9. 2, 3 275 3 124 35—38 60 10 333,338,339,357 I, sq 351 11 412 II, 17, 18 343 12 350, 371,475 16... .42, 319, 354, 413 414. 472 17 348 17, 18 515 18 336, 346, 373 20, 21 227 28, 29 420 ClIAP. TERSE PAOt 28—30 .137 30 135 30, 33 138 31, sq 3.57 34, 35 143 34-36 98 11 341,517,531 13 514 24 530, 533 25 418, 419, 532 25, 26 516, 517 26 545 47 61 12. 60 24 408, 534 24—26 517 27 342, 375, bis. 31, sq 225, 409 32 414 32, 34 331 34 323 40 309, 310 41 327 43 296 47, 48 422, bis. 49 ]39, 338, 373 49, 50 374 13 357 1,21—33 343 2, 27 225 3 350, 356 5 481 12, sq 481 17 25 19 62 27 226 34 472 37 391 14 60,357,358,561 14.— 16 63, bis. 14. 1 361 1—4 519 2 557 2, 3..348, bis. 411, 517 3 561 6 31, 373 6, 9,13, 14 357 9 332, 333 10 338 11 60 11—14 255 12 376 13 469 15 435 15, 21 436 16 141, 142 16, 17,26 141 16, 26... 142 17 143 23, 24 107 26 64, 73, 134, 157 340 29 62 31 375 15. 1 417, 500 1, sq 409, 472 13 343 14 429, 435 16 456 22—24 300, 305 26....141,bi8. 156, 157 16 60,411 INDEX OF TEXTS EEFEREED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. 9 BAT. VRJSB PAGE 16. 1 304 7—11 63 7—15 ....450 8, 9 260 11 225, 230 12 375, 538 12, 13 225 12—14 340 12—15 64 12—15, 25 340 13 64, 143, 157 13, sq 142 14 142 15 157 23, 24 469 27, 28 57 28... 142, 356, 357, 371 30 308 17. ...327,337,356,359 374, 561 1—3 135 1, 4, 5 332 2 133, 351, 420 2, 6, 471 3 91, 114, 331,420 3, 4 374 4 338, 373 4, 6 332 0....138, 350, 352, 357 369, 370 5, 22, 24 358, 359 5, 24 136, 168 11 117, 135 12 328 17 114, 375 17, 20 454 19 375 20 472 21 417 24... 101, 352, 418, 502 18. 1-8 343 9 328 14 804 20 338, 340, 472 36—38 323 37... 338, 351, 374, 379 19. 11 298 30 343, bis. 36 328, 482 20. 9, 24, 25 347 19, 26 349 2} 347 22 67 22,23 478 25 234, 347 28 137, 5-56 29 427 31 54, 63, 138,427 81 234,347 15, sq 445 Acts. 1 348 2, 3 347 5 483 5, 8 334 6, 323, 376 7 , 542 7, sq 340 9—11 348 11... .. .349, bis. 351 CHAP. VERSE PAGE 1. 22 348 24 140 2. ...346,476,485,493 14—37 59 16, 25 323 22 60, 61, 340 22, 23 371 22—38 325 23 126, bis. 24—31 344, 346 24, 32 346, 847 27 844 30 830 31 334 31-86 352, 355 82, sq 355 33—36 350 86 248, 350 37 464 38... 389, 463, 485, 486 490 41 485,487,492 41, 44 488 42, 46 496 S 347 6, sq 140 15 346, 371 15, 26 320 17 300 19 386, 489 19, 26 441 20, 21 349, 551 21 549 22... 329, 338, 374, 379 4. 2 419,632,534 8—13 347 12 389 28 126, 247 5. 3 225 3, 4 143 5, 9 123 21 140 6. 2,3,5 477 5, 8 424 15 209 7. 35 376 37 329, 374 38 47 61 141, 305,463 63 208, 212 59 140 8. 1 469 12, 36, sq 487 13 492 14—17 256 18 823 22 441, 463 26—35 826 27—38. 464 28 78 9. 15 416 17, 18 487 35 439 10. ...319,847,436,476 4 105 4, 34, 35 436 34 319, 323 34-48 487 85 415, 422 38.... 60, 157,226, 230 t)U6, 337 40, 41 847 CHAP. -VERSE PAGU 10. 41 347 42 494. 542 43 326, 389 47 483, 486 48 486, 487 11. 18 489, 441 29 126 12. 7 211 15 211 23 204 13 347 2,4 133,142 3 r 477 23, 32 323 29 343 30—34 x32 32 430 83, 84 348 34 330 37,38 395 38... 384, 389, 392, 393 46, 48 126 14. 3 .320 15 439 15, sq 87 16 249 16, 17 28, 30 15. 3 439 10 482 15 73 16 470 23, sq 64 16. 14 455, 457 15, 33 492,494 30 439 17. 18 221 24 28, 86, 107, 162 160 24, 25 101 24-23 87, 239 25, sq 169 25, 26 247 25, 27 243 26 182, 184, 383 26, sq 28 26, 28 243 27 30, 87, 239 319 27—31 88 28........ 97, 197, 239 29 98 30, 31 320 31... 348, 849, 351, 423 542 32 531 18. 8 337 25 485 27, sq 320 19 486.493 1, sq 485 1—5 455 4 134 6 486, 487 32, 39 469 20. 21 489, 441 24 430 27 73, 109 28... 138, 142, 371, 477 478 21. 11, sq 142 22. 16 484, 489 23. 6—8 53(J 10 INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. rnxP. VKRSB VAOK 23. 8 181, 203,206, 208 531 19 358 24. 14, 15 c 532 14—16 419 15 630, 533 25. 24 396 26. 6—8 531 18... 225, 389, 439, 451 22 23 323 23 532 23, 24 531 28 418 27. 23 211 28. 26,27 144,309 Romans. 1 465 3 371 3, 4 132, 138, 332 4 348 5 139, 168, 320 7 452 16 42, 464 16, sq 42 16, 17 430 17 420 17, 18 387 18... 120, 121, 260, 275 18, sq 319,394 19 28, 86, 87 10, sq 30 19, 20 465 19, 20, 32 88 19, 32 30 20.. .28, 30, 33, 38, 89 95. 98, 101, 139, 162 20, 21 96 21 30 21, sq 421 23 98, bis. 24 249, 810 25 137 26 310 28—31 302 32 385, 515 2 434,465 1—3 385 2 313 3 312, 313 4 116, 441, 463 4, 5 116 4—6 121 5 309 5—12 121, 5J8 6.... 275, 407, 434, 439 550 6, sq 548 6, 7 351 6-10 120 6-11 127, 436 6, 16 543 7.... 434, 435, 556, 557 7—10 435 8 120 10 557, 559 10, 11 120 12 28, 260 12—16 88 13—16 543 14 42 CHAl". VKRSE PAGB 2. 14,15 32,465 14, 26, 27 436 16 89, 618, 542 27 33 3. .'.'.387,' 425,' 42'9,'430 434 2 30, 47,119 3 114, 442, bis. 5 382 8 437 9, sq 283 9, 19 284 9, 22, 29 393 9, 23, 24 259 10 283 13, sq 302 14 303 15 428 19, sq 387 19, 23 314 20, sq 435 20, 21,28 399 21 828, 430 21, 22 420 21—28 389 23 284, 397 24 371, 385, 399 24, 25 435 25... 385, 391,392, 394 26 384 28 399 4. .'.'.'387, 425,"4'2'o','434 3 114, 273 4.... 116, bis. 320, bis. 388, 399 4. 16 428 5. 439 5—7 387 11 490 13 329 15 259, 260,298 16 424, 428 17 102, 167 18 424 19 433 20 424, 428 21 426 22 273 24 428 25 391, 395 6 387 1 309, 388, 389 1, 2 418 1, 3—10 314 1, 18, 21 388 2 418 3 251, 418, 557 5 424, 453, 455 6 391, bis. 6—8 343 6—12 116 8 385 9 312, 420 9, 10 377 9, 11 387 10 371, 389 11 386, 418 12... 195, 275, 287, 515 516 12, sq 285 12—14. ,185,2^8,274 287 CHAP. vERsns ?Aog 5. 12, 18 393 12-19 893 12, 19 225 12—21 284 13 298 14 286 14—19 419 15 294, 320, 397 15—17 423 16 393 16, 18 387 17 350 18... 267, 319, 389, 407 18, 19 394 19... 270, 874, 391, 393 405, 407 6 399,481 1, 2,6, 12, 16, 20... 308 2,5, sq 515 3 486, 487 3, 4 484, 490 4 95, 409 6 429 6, 16 279 7 328 9 535 9, 10 350 12 285, 287, 288 12, sq 278,285 13 260, 275 14 399, 414 14—23 278 15 437 18 309, 442 18, 19 442 19 260 20.... 308 21 287 22 435, 442 23 195, 287, 336 7 ...278,308,406,429 431 5 287 6, 8, sq 323 6, 18, 24 518 5, 23 278 6,7, 18 429 7 288 7—23 296 7—25 31,444 8 285 8,9,23 279 9 260 10, 13 215 14, sq 284 14, 24 308 15 262 17, 23, 25 284 17, 24 285 18 293 18, 23 279 18—25 279 21 399 23 225, 45£ 25 281, 297, 444 8 125, bis. 406, 429 431 1....304, 314, 393, 429 1, sq 281, 444 1, 5 279 1—6 454 1, 13 485 INDEX OF TEXTS EEFEERED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. OBJLP. VSRSK TAGS 8 2 429 3, 4 411 4, sq 335 7 302 9.... 127, 141, 157,429 10 409, 528, 661 10, 18—23 314 12, 17 428 13 285 13, 14 455 14, 16 432 15 77, 416 15, 16 135 16 58, 397,432 17 251, 350, 352 17, 18,24, sq 418 18, sq 558,562 18—22 557 19, sq 545 20—23 266 23 376, 416,518 28 251 28, 29, sq 126 28, 32 418 29 126, 354 29, 30 125 31—39 426 32 385, 506 83 387 33, 34 407 34 395, 396 9. ...111,112,125,126 1 140, 143, 455 4 30, 415 5 137, 332,334 11 126, 275, 452 17 ....310 17, 22 552 18 310, bis. 22 116 24 452 10. 3 443 •3—15 430 4 407, 413 9 348 9, 10 427 12 310,415 14... 426, 427, 452, 454 15 78 16 4.30 17 426, 473 17, 18 454 11 550 2 126, 396 6 116 7, 25 309 8 309 12 260 17 470 20, 23, 30 422 21, 24 284 22 122 25 !!..139 25—36 541 29... 101, 113, 125, 398 4.'S2 33... 102, 109, 126, bis. 33, sq 142 33, 34 , 253 3— 36.... 101, 125, 319 12 i ...109, 118,436, 440 3 320 CHAP. VERSB PAGE 12. 6 470, 473 13 473 17,sq 125 19 121 13. 1 477, 479 18 287 14. 4 299 7 455 9 419 10 351 11 340 17 453 26—25 305 21 305 23 298, 423 24 308 15. 4 319 5 455 6 135 14 476 16. 25 549 1 Corinthians. 1. ....42,457,464,494 1.-3 361 1 2 109,465,471 4 320 8 455 9 139, 168 12, sq 492, bis. 12, 13 473 13 376, 391 13, 15 134 16 487, 494 20 109 23.. 306 25 108, 109 27, 28 417 30 373 2 360,464 8 3.50, 371 9, sq 135, 557 9-13 143 10 125,142 ll'..; 102 13 64 14... 279, 281,426, 457 465 16 125 3 34,360,457 1 279, 433 2' '"' 34 4 281 6" 7 33,457 8 120,438,559 9 476 16, 11 33 11 34, bis. 13 527 16, 17 470 17 117 4. 1 36, 481 5.... 120, 139, 303, 543 7 244, 256 15 440 6. 3, 4 106 5 , 399 6, sq 476 7 482, 498 10 561 13 479 CHAP. VERSE PAGB 6. 3—5 123 9 548 9, 10 437 11 397, big. 13 53S 17 507 7. 5 223, 226 11 385 14 494 20—24 479 23 377 25 69 8 298 3 417 4—6 91 5 93 5, 6 354 6. 135, 473 10—13 305 9 298 6—14 478 8, sq 81 9 235 23 430 10 498 3 134 4, 9 327 6, 11 319, 328 11 121 15—21 498 16.... 496, 499, bis. 504 505, 506 16, 17 497 16, 21 502 16, 26 499 17... 500, 501, 502, 507 20, 21 221 21 496, 498 33 393 11 188,504,513 7 190, 191 6, 7 189, 190 8 184 8, 9 188 17—22 507 18 469 18, 20 496, 508 20 496 20—30 508 20—34 503 23, 24 .499 23—25 497 24 501 24, 26 498 25, sq 493, 498 26 499, 502, 505 (27—29, 34) 507 27.29 512,613 28* 513 28, 31 507 29 503 32 121 12 143, 478, 494 3, sq 141 4-11.... 142, 143,456 11 112 12,27 488 13 488, 500, 607 28 469, 476 13. 1 210 2 557 8 .265 12 INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. WAP TnSK PAGE la. y, sq 5G0 13, 12 501 U. 12 141 19, 28 4(J'J 15 ....349,420,532,538 541, 544, 551, 558 1 63 2, 3,14 427 3 391, 427 3,4, 20,53 528 5, sq 347 5--7 348 10 454 12, sq 532 12—14 534 12—20 419 14, 17 ,...348 17 395 20 532 20, 23 419 21 419, 516 21, 22... 195, 274, 419 22... 286, 287, 418, 515 583 22, sq 532 22—28 533, 551 24 42 24, 27, 28 352 25 351, 355, 475 25, 26 351, 419 26 516 26, 27 351 28 137 30, 57, 58 419 32 530 86, sq 534, 535 35—38 537 85—55 584 39-41 535 42—49 294, 535 42—53 349 42, 52, 53 537 45, 47 286 47 184, 356, 371 48, 49 286 48—50 277 49 349 50 331, 354, 535 51.... 86, 195, 515, 536 52 533 54 536 56 419 58 484 16. 13 562 2 Corinthians. 1. 18—20 .......114 2. 5—10 479 11 225 15 374 i. 1—4 59 6 43, 429, 454 11, sq 41,42 14 4G, 309 15 309 16 439 17 144 18 454 4. 4 225.309,356 6 429, 451, 561 7 518 CHAP. VKRSK PARS 4. 11 442 14 419, 542 16, 18 558 17 557 17, 18 251, 557 18 183,549 5. 1 514 1, 2 558 2-4 515,530 3, 4 514 4 516, 536 6—10 518 8 518 8, 9 514, 517 8—11 149 10... 275, 518, bis. 543 550 14 391 14,15 391, bis. 398 15 395,411, 486 16 336 19... '....127, 386, 389 20 427 21... 260, 336, 343, 389 392 6. 2 849 15 222, bis. 7. 1.... 182, 802, 386, 434 1, 4, 8, sq 418 8 441 8—11 443 9, 10 443 11 439 8. 9 332,333,341 10 69 19 477 9. 6 437, 559 11 256 11. 2 350 3.. ..135, 189, 191, 194 267, 269 14, 15 225 19 504 12. 2 409, 557 4 557 8 140 9 409 13. 14 184, 142 Gailatians. 1. 4 135,377,409 8 73 2 484 2 433 15 284 16 424 16— 21,sq 399 19.... 515 20 411, 481 21 391, 399 3. ...381,429,430,481 484 6 424 8, 10 428 11 329, 388 13... 312, 342, 372,377 392, 413, bis. 14 412 17, 23 399 19.. 208, 212,374, 381 19, 25 414 CHAP. TERSE PAOfl 3. 20 ..312 20, sq 40 21, sq 394 23 424 24 75, 445 26 416 26, 27 416 27 . . .484, 486, 488, 490 493 28 473 4 881,430,431 1-4 ,77 1-5 41 1—9 75 3 77 3, 9 41 4 335, 357, 371 4, 5 413, 416 4—7 416 8 548 9 417 19 440 21, sq 81 24 48,326, 500 26 557 5. 6 415, 429, bis. 10 312 13 437 16 272 16, 17 285 16, 22,23 141 17 279, 285 19 302, 437 19—22 281 22 429, 436 22, 25 435 24 288 25 436 6. 1 301, 476 2 480 5 275 7 437, 559 7, 10 518 8 141 13 ....279 Ephesians. 1. 125 3 135, 412, 413 4 125, 168 4, 11 321 4-14 112 6 125, 126,416 5—11 112, 126 7 385, 889, 391 9 36 10... 319, 351, 354, 367 11 109, 126,455 13, 14 432 16—20 457 17, 18 455 18 451 19 102. 454 19, 20 454, 523 20. 355, bis. 412 20, sq 350, bis. 359 20, 21 350 20—22 355 21 -213 22 139, 470, 475 22, 23 35€ INDEX OP TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. 13 9HAF. VBRSS PACK 1. 23 354, 457 2. 1,2 217, 421 1, 5 515 2.... 220, 223,224, 409 454 2, 3 225 3.... 275, 278, 279, 284 285, 291 6 397,413, 515 5, 10 455 6, 12 413 8 399, 435 8—10 435 9, 10 409 10 435, 463 10, sq 415 10, 15 169 11, 18 42 12 89 12—19 415 14, 15 413 14, 18 319 15 440 16 413 20 33, 474 8. 3 36 3, sq 64 3, 9 480 9 169 10 109, 210 11 321 12 427 15 207, 413 16 455 16—20 457 19 139, 354 20 102 4, 194,478 3, 6 472 4 452 4, 5 488 5 139 5, 6 319 6 135 9 344 11, sq 476 11, 12 476 11, 16, 16 351 13 255, 472 13, 14 433 15. 16 475 17—19 309 18 465 20 436 22 278, 281, 429 22, 24 440 23 191, 440 24... 117, 189, 191, bis. 442 30 141,376,455 6 470 2 392 5 351, 353 14 309, 515,528 17 109 18 68 19 476 23 350 23, 24 470 23—29 351 25, 26 413 26 351, 483, 490 CnjlP. TERSE PAGE 5. 26, 27 473 27 471 32 480 6. 2 120 4 476 11...217, 220, 223, 225 11—18 226 12 209, 221, 225 13—17 454 Philippians. 1. 6 455 9 426, 434 11 436 16—18 453 21, 23 519 23 514, 518 2 356 6,sq 412 6—8 342 6 137 6, 7 341 6, 9, 11 140 6—11 332 7 333 8!!." .343,' 875,* 391, 406 407 8, 9 331, 333 9 351, 359 9, 10 350, bis. 9— 11.... 350, 358, 370 10 140, 351 11 94 12, 13....455, 457, 464 13 256 3. 9 405 12 433 14 557 14, 17, 20 413 15 30 20 183 20, 21 354 21... 139, 349, bis. 532 536, 537 COLOSSIANS. 1. 2, 3 434 13 225, 351,353 14 385 15.... 98, 332, 354, 356 561 15, 16 356 15— 17... 138, 168, 350 16... 163, 169, 208, 213 17 239, 350 18... 138, 139, 354, bis. 419 19 139 21, sq 415 24 391 2. 3 109 6 428 8 38 8,20 41,77 9 139 10 475 11, 12 482 12, 13 490 18 386, 515 14 26, 413 CHAP. WRSE PjIgb 2. 15 225 17 328, bis. 18 281 18, 19 214 3 194 1 411 1—4 183 3 417, 471, 557 3, 4 351 4 351 9, 10 440 10 97, 189, 192 17 53 4. 3, 4 507 16 54, 78 17 477 5. 6, sq 0 36 1 Thessalonians. 1. 8—10 34 9 439 10... 349, 388, 389, 394 420 2. 9 399 13 54, 432, bis. 454 15 415 15—17 457 17 455 3. 10, 11 247 13 ....442, 453 4. 3,7 117,182 8 144, 305 9 455 13 532, 538 13, 18 419 14 419,532, 533 15... 515, 533, 536, 542 16 213, 351, 534 16, 17 541 17 562 5. 1, sq 351 2 542 8—10 418 9 398, 420 9, sq 408 10 420 14 476 16—21 223 19 141 23 180, 453, 442 2 Thessalonians. 1. 3 432 4—12 121 6 854, 543 5, sq 548 6, 7 121 7 209, 211, 558 7—10 541 9.... 545, bis. 546, 549 11 457 2 349,538 1 542 2 53 3 351 3—12 543 11 310 13..... 426 18, 15 420 14 452 u INDEX OP TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. OHAP. TKRSK FIGB 2. J5 63 15—17 457 17 453 3. 10 422 1 TiMOTUT. 1. 10 420 13 300 15... 298, 321, 373, 397 15, 16 426 16 397 17 98, bis. 101, 108 18 434 19 433 2. 4 110, 446 5 335, 360, 374 5, sq 319, 542 6 392, 393 • 13 188 14 269, 286 3. 2—7 477 6 219 9 36 II 222 15, 16 332 16... 138, 207, 348, bis. 357 4. 5 504 8 120, 418 13 427 14 477 16 454 5. 10 481 21 210 22 304 24, 25 434 6. 6 278 16 96, 101, 561 18 434, 439 18, 19 518 20 38 21 433 2 Timothy. 1. 9 125,126,399 435 10 321, 377, 419 617 13 73 2. 2 477 7 140 12 350,352, 557 18 532 21, sq 434 24 477 25 455 26 433 8. 1 542 5 308 12 125 14—17 64, 76 15 74, 78 16 27, 67,454 i. 2 427 6 514 7 472 8 120, 543,557 13, sq 69 IV, 18 140 18...354, 420, 557, 558 CHAP. TKRSB PAQK Titus. 1. 1 25 6, sq 477 6-9 477 9 27 16 422 2. 3 222 10, 11 445 11 320, bis. 11, sq 340,410 11— 14... 116. 321,409 18 138 14 377,470,473 17 463 3. 3—5 472 3, 6 435 4 116, 320, bis. 4—7 453 5.... 399, 440, 484,489 Philemon. 10 440 18 273 Hebrews. 1 354,359 1. 2 138,327 1. 1 40,206,319,642 2 354, 367 2, 3 139, 168 3....102, 239, 332, 356 372, 389 3,4 332, 355 4 332 4—14 350 5 528 6.... 139, 207, 350, 354 356 8 352 9 350 10, sq 86, 139 10—12 544 13, 14 355 14...204, 207, 210, 212 2 168,354 2 208, 212, 260 5 212,214,354 7 207 8 351 9 332, 375, 515 9, 10 351 9—11 332 10... 139, 168, 332, 375 11—14 335 14...222, 225, 373, 419 615 14—17 642 14—18 861 15 419 16 358 3. 1 452 6 427 8, sq 463 8, 15,8q 309 12, 13 885,389 13 349 14 434 4. 1 428 2 426 CHAP. TERSB That 4. 8 373 9, 11 558 10, 11 557 12... 114, 180, bis. 514 12, 13 73,313,554 13 103 15 286, 336, 361 16 418 5. 1 374 7 331 7, 8 342 7—9 332 8 336,352, 375 8, 9 407 9.... 320, 332, 420, 557 12 34, 434 6. 1 34,434,441,487 2 .545 4,4, sq...389, 433,451 483, 496 4— 6.. ...305, 307, 309 447 10 120, bis. 12 434 13, sq 115 17 125 17, 18 101 18 114 20 372 7. 6, 10, sq 200 9, 10 274 16, 25 350 18, 19 413 25 396, bis. 420 26 658 27 336, 395,406 8 328 6 328 6 374, 413 6, sq 41,506 7, sq 41 10 33, 491 9 328, 392 7 260, 301 7, 11—28 392 10 552 10, sq 349, bis. 10,11,24 348 11 395 12 377, 391, 392 13 381 13, 14 392 14 374, 406, 411 14, 15 413, 499 14,24. sq 349 15...340, 373, 385, 388 389, 394, 418, 420 557 24 389, 396 25—28 395, 600 26 389, 394 27 515, 518, bis. 28 315, 392 10 328 1 381 1—14 392 5 406 11 482 13 251 14 395 22 886 23 38S INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO AND TLLUSTIATED. 15 MAP. TERSB PAGE 10. 25 470, 476 26 260, 302, 389 26, 27 385 26, 39 548 29 305, 445 30, 31 313 31 386 36 434 38,39, sq 420 11 78 1 425,426, 428 2, sq 427 3.... 102, 165, 167, bis. 5 615 6 114, 425 13.... 41, 272, 325, 329 13—16 520 13—17 520 31 429 12. 1, 2 412 2.... 341, 342, 355, 406 411 2, 3, sq 332, 412 5—11 122, bis. 6—13 251 9 200 10, 14 182 14.... 98, 183, 442, 561 17 441 18—24 77 22 207, 557 22, 23 472 23 332, 525, 561 24... 304, 340, 374, 397 26 313 27 42 29 313 13. 7,17,24 477 20... 350, 413,476, 502 20, 21 457 James. 1 2 251 5,18 457 6 426 9, 10 331 13— 15... 223, 247, 256 272 13, 17 116,249 14 226, bis. 270 . 14, 15 288 15 287, 302, 304 17... 101, 244, 256,356 18 440, 454 22 426 22—27 25 2 435, 439 2 470 6 364, 657 10, 11 299 11 435 17, 20, 26 425 19, sq 91,207, 220 222, 426 21 388 25 207, 429 26, sq. 437 8. 435 2 803, 433, 658 9 189,190, 191 18 434 CHAP. YERSB PAGB 3. 15 220 17, sq 467 4. 4 302 7 226 12 299, 388 13—16 249, 266 17 300 5. 4 304 16 445 20 615 1 Peteb. 1. 2 126, 134 3.... 346, 396,418, 440 4,5 519, 557, 558 8 562 10 76, 374 10, 11 394 10— 12.... 65, 325, 327 11... 323, 827, 332, bis. 12 109, 210, bis. 14—16 117, 442 16 457 18 377,409,411 19... 336, bis. 393, 406 20 321, 642 21... 143, 347, 395,419 23 454 2. 1,2 434,463 9 94, 350,416, 473 11 279, 411 12 312 13—17 479 21 406 21—23 412 22, 23 343 24 392, bis. 409 3. 12 103 18... 332, 343, 344,391 406 18— 20... 344, 345, 346 19 344, 526 21 . . .484, 489, bis. 490 491 22... 213, 348, bis. 350 856, bis. 4. 1—3 476 1, 6 344 2 832 10 820 12—14 251 14 140, 306 17,sq 470 5. 1—3 476 2, sq 477 2, 3 478 4 350, 475 7 236 8 217,220,226 8, 9 226 10 466, 658 2 Peteb. 1; 3 452,464,455 3, 4 409, 410 5—7 410 9 386, 483 9, 10... 897 11 364, 567 13, 14 614 CHAP. TERSK PAGB 1. 19... .62, 76, bis. 323 327 19, 2U,. 65, 325 20 67 21 66, 68 2. 1 S!il, 893, 397 1—3 .548 4....209, 219,220, bis. 518, 524, 543, 545 549 5 175 10, 11 306 11 207, 209 19 278, 308 20 434 20, 21 298 20—22 ,433 3. 3 542 6 175 7, 10—13 351 7—13 541, 544 8, 9 101 9 446 10 542 13 568 16 64, 72 19 645 1 JOHK 1. 1, sq 61 1—4 63 1-5 117 7 891, 392, 393 8 285, 814, 445 9 304, 386 2. 1.... 304, 325, 896, 469 1,2 889, 894, 396 2 393 3—6 429 4 411, 489 6 411, 436, bis. 12 389 13, 14 222 16 279 24 434 26 420, 556 28 427 29 432 3. 1, 2 416 2 98, 117, 518, 557 2, sq 183 2,3 117, 519 3.... 386, 406,409, 411 431, 489 8, 6 8.36 4 260 5 392 6, 8 373 6 437 7.... 897, 432, 436, 442 8.... 217, 224, 225,230 267, 272, 372 8, 9 411 9 440, 454 12 218 14 814, 515 20 103 20, 21 418 24 417,429,432 4. 1 73 2 332 16 INDEX OF TEXTS REFERRED TO AND ILLUSTRATED. 4. 3 / 335 4 ./ 351 8, IG../ 115 9..../. 408 9, 10,. 116 10, li 385 10, J9 431 17 418, 420 18 404 IS, 19 421 •19 507 20 264