T •TEMJE-WSIIVIEKMinr- Gift of "Rev. n. a. m 19*2 ULAASO>v (TOiMWjir ELEMENTARY COURSE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, TRANSLATED FROM THE WORK OF PROFESSORS STORR AND FLATT, ADDITIONS ' -J BY S S. SCHMUCKER, D. D. Professor of Theology in the Theol. Sem. of the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States, Gettysburg, Pa. Second Edition. ANDOVER: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BV GOULD AND NEWMAN, AT THE CODMAN PRESS. NEW- YORK : GRIFFIN, WILCOX AND CO. 1836. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1836, by GOULD AND NEWMAN, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. The work which is here presented to the public, is the result of the joint labour of two of the most eminent divines of the present age. Theophilus Christian Storr,1 formerly Theological Professor ' in the University of Tiibingen, was a very distinguished interpreter of the Holy Volume, and one of the most triumphant combatants of that fashionable philosophy with which Europe has been deluged. His numerous philological and exegetical works rank among the first critical productions of Germany, and few men have attained such profundity of erudition, and at the same time preserved so humble and faithful an adherence to the doctrines of the Bible, as are displayed in the literary and theological career of Dr. Storr. In his earlier life, after he had acquired a profound and critical knowl edge of the original languages of Scripture and the cognate dialects,, he confined himself for some time to the study of the Holy Volume to the exclusion of all other theological works. Accordingly his various productions display an extraordinary familiarity with the Bible, and in reference especially to Biblical learning, might with truth be applied to him what Casaubon said of his friend the great Salmasius, that he was " ad miraculum doctus." Nor is, in general, his colleague and commentator Dr. C. C. Flatt at all his inferior. These distinguished champions of the truth sustained the cause of i orthodoxy for upwards of twenty years, and published from time to time, the most able replies to the several systems of infidelity which sprung up in Europe. Having been harassed by metaphysical and speculative and infidel systems of pretended Christianity, they were taught the absolute necessity of building their faith exclusively on the word of God ; and the present work is purely of this Biblical l Dr. Storr was born at Stultgard, Sept. 16, 1746. Died Jan. 17, 1805. IV PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 'character. It is confined to the doctrines which are taught in the sacred volume totidem verbis. The various inferential, sec tarian views, which are used by divines of different denominations to complete their peculiar systems, are here omitted ; even those of the Lutheran church to which the authors belonged. The work is composed with the highest regard to exegesis, composed too in view of all the objections which the liberalists of the last thirty years have been able to raise. That such a work is peculiarly needed in the present day, must be evident to every reflecting mind acquainted with the course of theological discussion in our country. In regard to the dress in which the work is presented to the English public, it was the translator's wish that it might appear in the most favour able aspect. This he endeavoured to effect on the one hand by avoiding that servility, which whilst it hampered his diction would render the work offensive to the classic mind ; and on the other, by guarding against that liberty which degenerates into unwarranted license, and deserves the name, not of translation but paraphrase. In the management of the work, some important improvements have been attempted. The original is printed thus : first, the propositions or text ; next, notes ; thirdly, notes upon these notes by Storr ; then, notes upon all these notes, by Flatt ; which occasionally creates much perplexity and confusion to the reader. All these the translator has incorporated into one continuous and connected dis cussion, consisting simply of the text or propositions and the Illus trations or discussion of them. The extremely numerous references which abound in all Storr's works, are generally thrown into the margin. Numerous additions also have been made to the body of the work. The most important of these are the translation of the very frequent quotations from heathen authors, from the earlier ecclesiastical writers, and from the Old and New Testaments. In some instances the critical reader will perceive, that improved translations have been given to scripture texts. On these the trans lator spent much time and investigation, and it is hoped his decisions will be found to have been made not without judgment. Every thing also, included in [ ], throughout the work, is added by the transla tor. In a few instances in which the learned author's enthymemes seemed somewhat obscure, his reasoning has perhaps been rendered PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. more lucid by the insertion of the intermediate link in his'chain of reasoning. For the purpose of facilitating references, a caption or summary view of contents, has been prefixed to every Illustration in the work, excepting those only which were so brief as not to re quire it. The occasional original additions are distinguished by the letter S. To the article of the Trinity an appendix has been added, in which an attempt is made to prove that this doctrine, as now understood and defended, is perfectly accordant with reason, and cannot be assailed on any ground of true philosophy. Having undertaken this work, as he humbly trusts, with a su preme reference to the glory of the divine Redeemer, the Transla tor cannot but pray, most earnestly, that in his benevolent Provi dence, it may be made instrumental in the promotion of the interests of his kingdom. Theol. Seminary, Gettysburg, 1826. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. In this edition the frequent repetition of literary references is avoi ded, whilst no work which had been cited in the former impression is entirely excluded in this. A few paragraphs of minor moment have been omitted in the text, and the whole is printed in a more compressed form. The work is again commended to the blessing of God,' and the continued favour of the friends of radical, biblical in vestigation. March, 1836. CONTENTS. BOOK I. OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Page. A. The New Testament. Part I. Of the genuineness of the N. Test. §§ 1 — 3. 1. Testimony of heathen writers respecting the early existence of the writings of the Christians, § 1 17 2. Genuineness of the homologoumena, §2 ... 24 3. Genuineness of the antilegomena, § 3 .... 61 Part II. Integrity of the books of the N. T. § 4 . . . 88 Part III. Credibility of the N. T. 1. Historical, § 5 93 2. Doctrinal.— Divinity of the N. T. § 6—12. a) Jesus himself maintained the divinity of his mis sion and doctrines, § 6 102 The truth of this declaration of Jesus, is established a. From his general character and conduct. — The plan of Jesus, § 7 . . 105 /?. From his miracles, § 8 109 His miracles were not allegorical narratives, II- lust. 3 118 — They were not the effects of human agency, nor a work of deception, Illust. 4. . ... 119 — Not the result of an accidental coincidence of circumstances, Illust. 5 121 — But are actually proofs of his divine mission, Illust. 6 122 b) Jesus assures us, that the doctrines qf the apostles also, possess divine authority, § 9 ... . 125 CONTENTS. Paul possessed divine authority : This is evinced by his own declaration in connexion with the history of his vocation to the apostleship, and his miracles, and the testimony of the other apostles in his favour, § 10 134 c) The writings of the apostles, also possess divine authority, § 11 142 d) The writings of the evangelists Mark and Luke, also possess divine authority, § 12 .... 146 B. Divine authority of the Old Testament. 1. The divinity of the Old Testament is proved by the declarations of Jesus and his apostles, § 13 151 2. The O. T. contained the same books, at the time of Jesus and his apostles, which it contains now ; as may be proved from the N. Test, from Jose phus, and from Philo, § 14 165 Inference : The Holy Scriptures are the stan dard of our faith, § 15 176 Confirmation of the divinity of the Scriptures from internal personal experience : inward wit ness of the Holy Spirit, § 16 180 BOOK II. OF GOD. Part I. Of our idea of God ; and its truth. I. Sources of evidence for the divine existence. 1. Even conscience points us to a God, § 17 . . . 187 2. The moral nature of man, connected with the con stitution of nature, necessarily leads him to the belief of a Moral Author and Governor of the world. — Combination of Physico-theology with moral theology, § 18 191 3. Our belief in the existence of God is confirmed by the miracles of Jesus and his apostles, <§, 19 202 CONTENTS. IX II. Biblical idea of God — he is Creator and Governor of the world, §20 206 III. Attributes of God. 1. Power, §21 206 2. Knowledge and wisdom, § 22 208 3. The goodness of God, and its compatibility with the existence of physical evil, § 23 ... . 212 4. Justice and holiness, § 24 214 5. Spirituality, § 25 218 6. Veracity, § 26 . 219 The truth of the Scriptures is a necessary conse quence of the veracity of God, § 27 .... 222 7. Unity of God — it cannot indeed be conclusively proved from reason, but from Scripture it can, § 28 ... . 223 8. Eternity and immutability of God : inferred from his absolute necessary existence, § 29 . . . 227 9. Incomparability of God, § 30 228 Part II. Creation and Providence. I. Creation. 1. Immediate creation.— ^a) Immediate creation out of nothing. — b) Immediate formation of the earth out of the materials already created, § 31 . . 232 2. Mediate creation, § 32 236 II. Preservation of the universe, § 33 237 III. Government of the world. — Providence. 1. Idea of the divine government — particular provi dence, § 34 239 2. Government of the world by the immediate agen cy of God. a) The possibility of it, § 35 240 b) The reality of it — proved from the miracles, § 36 . 243 Difference between miracles and other instances of the supernatural agency of God, § 37 . . . 249 2 CONTENTS. c) Necessity of admitting the possibility of the supernatural agency of God in the world, in ref erence to prayer, § 38 *>" 3. Divine government in the course of nature. — Per mission of moral evil, § 39 • • 254 The doctrine of divine Providence affords no jus tification for indolence or temerity, § 40 . . 258 Conclusion of this chapter, § 41 258 Part III. Doctrine of the Trinity. I. The divinity of Christ. 1. Its proof, §42 260 2. Importance of this doctrine. — Baptism in the name of Christ as the Son of God, §43 291 3. Personal difference between the Father and the Son, §44 295 II. Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and his personal dif ference* from the Father and the Son, § 45 . 299 III. The difference between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — the nature of this distinction is inexpli cable, § 46 . . [301 Appendix by the Translator. On the relation of the doctrine of the Trinity to reason . . 306 BOOK III. OF CREATED RATIONAL BEINGS. Part I. Angels. Connexion of this Part with the preced ing- § 47 321 A. Good Angels. 1. Their existence and attributes — power, moral per fection, and happiness, § 48 ... . . 321 2. Their destination to the service of God, and spe- CONTENTS. XI cifically to the promotion of the welfare of men, § 49 323 B. Apostate angels. 1. Their transgression and consequent fate, § 50 326 2. Their relation to the human family.— They are inimical to their moral improvement and happi ness. They exerted an injurious influence on bodies of certain persons in the time of Christ and the apostles, § 51 328 Their baneful influence on the moral character of man, may be resisted, § 52 334 Part II. Of Man. 1. Creation and fall of man. 1. The creation and original state of man, § 53 . . 339 2. The fall of our first parents, a) Its history, § 54 * . . . . 343 b) Consequences of the fall, § 55 345 a) Its effects on our first parents themselves, Illust. 1—3. /?) Its effects on their posterity, Illust. 4 etc. . . . 347 3. Innate depravity. — Description of it, § 56 . . 350 — Its consequences. — Of death and the state of ex istence which follows it, § 57 . . ... 353 Future punishment of the wicked, and its endless duration, $ 58 358 II. The provision made by God for the salvation of man. Christ the Saviour of man, § 59 365 1. Description of the happiness which is provided for man through Christ, § 60 366 a) Happiness immediately after death, 367 b) Happiness after the resurrection of the body and the transformation of the earth, together with the objects connected with it, § 61 . . . 369> XII CONTENTS, c) Improvement of the blessed in intellectual and mor al perfection, through the influence of Christ and the circumstances in which they are placed, § 62 377 d) Different degrees of future happiness, proportion ate to the different conduct and the various situa tions of mankind in the present life, § 63 . . 380 e) Their participation in the felicity of Jesus, § 64 . 382 2. It is exclusively through Jesus Christ, that we ob tain salvation. He, as Lord and Judge, bestowed on men that salvation which he purchased for them, §65 383 3. This salvation is intended for all men, § 66 . . 389 — But not all actually obtain it, § 67 392 Little children also are saved for Christ's sake, § 68 394 4. Conditions of this salvation, and means to attain it. a) In general, faithful obedience to the dictates of con science, is the condition of salvation, § 69 . . 395 b) God, from the beginning, provided for the propa gation of saving truth, § 70 396 c) Those persons who have not received a revelation, and live in strict accordance with the dictates of conscience, will nevertheless be saved for Christ's sake, § 71 398 But the salvation of those who have become ac quainted with the revealed will of God, is sus pended on the faithful use of this divine revela tion, as moral agents, § 72 402 Salvation is not merited by obedience, § 73 . . 403 It is not God's fault, that some men ' fail of salva tion, § 74 408 BOOK IV. OF JESUS CHRIST, THE REDEEMER OF MEN. Part I. Of the person and different states of Christ. CONTENTS. A. His person. I. Human nature and supernatural conception of Christ, § 75 413 II. He is united with God in the closest manner, § 76, 77 417, 419 This close union with the Godhead must be presup posed in his exaltation, § 78 421 B. Of the states of Christ (status Christi, ) I. The object of both his states is the accomplishment of his appointed work, § 79 427 II. His state of humiliation. 1. It consisted in a diminished influence of the Logos on the man Jesus, § 80 427 2. Jesus voluntarily subjected himself to this state, §81 428 3. But in this state also, the influence of his higher nature was manifest, § 82 . . . ... 430 III. His state of exaltation. — Resurrection, Ascension to heaven, and Dominion over all things, § 83 434 Part II. Of the works of Christ (his offices.) A. His works during his earthly life — his office as In structor and Mediator, § 84 439 I. His office as Instructor, § 85 440 II. His Mediatorial office (Priestly office.) 1. In general — what it embraces, § 86 443 2. His Mediatorial office on earth. — He purchased, by his obedience, the right to bestow salvation on the human family. a) In his whole life, § 87 . 445 b) Especially by his death, § 88 448 a) Remission of sins is the chief object of the death of Christ, §89 449 n) Remission of sins on the ground of reformation, is not the object of the Death of Christ, § 90 . . 453 a) Deliverance from the punishment of sin, is the CONTENTS. immediate object of the death of Christ — his death is vicarious, § 91 456 j) The doctrine of the remission of sins on account of the merits of Jesus Christ, has a salutary in fluence on our morality, § 92 469 b) Other objects of the death of Christ, are either suspended on the chief object, or are connected with it, § 93 .' 472 B, Works of the Redeemer in his state of exaltation. I. In general ; — Jesus isemployed in bestowing salva tion on men, § 94 .... , 477 1. The prosperity of the worshippers of Jesus, is a part of his reward, § 95 479 2. Jesus promotes the vyelfare of his people by virtue of his dominion over all things, § 96 . . . . 480 a) He bestows salvation on them in the future world, § 97 481 b) He prepares them, in this life, for the blessedness of that which is to come,, § 98 482 II. His special providence over the christian church. 1. Idea of the christian church, § 99 484 2. Origin of the christian church. a) Origin of the church in general under the special influence, of Christ, § 100 488 b) Origin of individual churches under the author ity of the apostles, § 101 49Q The institution of the ministerial office by the apos tles was in accordance with the will of Christ vW2 491 3. Preservation of the church by the continual guid ance and protection of Christ, even amid cir cumstances of adversity, § 103,, 104 . . 492 494 4. Mixture of good and bad in the church. No ground for secession, § 105 ...... 498 CONTENTS. XV ,5. The genuineness of the christian church depends on the purity of her doctrines, § 106 .... 501 Hence, it is the duty of the church to provide ortho dox ministers, § 107 ........ 503 6. Means for the preservation of the christian church. — Sacraments, § 108 510 a) Baptism. a) Institution of it, § 109 . 511 /S) Baptism in honour of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, embraces both promises of the blessings which are bestowed by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, § 110 521 — and our obligations to God, § 111 523 y) Infant Baptism is proper, as it is undoubtedly em braced in the command of Christ, and has accord ingly been practised since the days of the apos tles, § 112 525 b) Of the Holy Supper. a) Idea of the Lord's Supper, §113 531 /?) Presence of Christ in the Holy Supper, § 114 . 534 Appendix to the doctrine of the Eucharist (by the Translator) 545 7. The influences of grace — (the consequence of the special providence of Christ over his worship pers.) a) God does, according to the testimony of Scripture, exert an internal, influence on the mind of man, § 115 553 b) This internal influence is exerted in accordance with the laws of our moral nature, and among Christians is connected with the use of the in structions of God's word, § 116 558 CONTENTS. BOOK V. REFORMATION OF MEN, AND ITS RELATION TO THEIR SALVATION. A. Justification by faith. I. Explanation of the proposition, " We are justified by faith, § 117 ... 564 II. Faith is a condition of our salvation which is per fectly consistent with the gracious nature of our justification, as being derived from the free grace of God without any consideration of personal merit in us, § 118 570 B. Change of mind and reformation of life. I. Reformation is the effect of faith, and consequent on it. ' 1. Faith produces an exalted idea of our destination to eternal happiness, a love and gratitude, and in every respect a proper disposition toward God and the Lord Jesus, § 1 19 575 -2. That repentance which is necessarily combined with true faith, produces.an aversion to sin, § 120 375 3. Faith is necessarily connected with a belief of the doctrines of Jesus in general,- and with obedi ence to them, § 121 381 II. Reformation is a necessary condition, though not the meritorious cause, of our salvation, § 122 . 588 CONCLUSION. Transition from Doctrinal to Practical Theology, §123 590 BOOK I. OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. PART I. OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. SECTION I. Testimony of heathen writers respecting the extension qf Chris tianity and the early existence of the religious writings of the Christians. It is evident from the testimony even of authors who were not Christians, that during the reign of Nero 1 and the period immedi ately subsequent, the Christians were not only augmenting their numbers in Judea, where Christianity had originated ; but were al so extending their influence into other countries(l) ; and used cer tain sacred writings(2), which were in part peculiar to themselves, and different(3) from the more ancient religious books of the Jews. Illustration 1. Evidence of the early existence and multiplication of Christians. Tacitus,3 in his narrative of the extensive conflagration, with which Rome was visited during the reign of Nero, makes use of the [l Nero flourished A. D. 54—68. S.] [a Caius Cornelius Tacitus, the intimate friend of Pliny the younger, was born A. D. 61 or 62. He was appointed to some of the highest offices of honour and confidence under the emperor Vespasian and his successors, and was con temporaneous with some of the apostles. In addition to this testimony, Tacitus, in his account of the incidents of the year of onr Lord 57, states that Pomponia Grsecina, a lady of eminent rank, was accused of what he terms a foreign super stition (superstitionis externa), which, as Lipsius (ad locum) observes, was very probably the Christian religion. S.] o 18 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. 1. following language ; — " Nero," in order to avert the suspicion that the city had been set on fire by his private command, " inflicted the most studied tortures upon a class of persons, odious for their vices, and known among the populace by the name of Christians. This name was derived from Christ, who was executed by Pontius Pi late the procurator, during the reign of Tiberius. But this perry* cious superstition, which was suppressed at the time, again burst forth and pervaded not only Judea, where the evil had commenced, but also the city itself, the place in which every thing that is shame ful concentrates, and every thing atrocious is practised."1 The testimony of Suetonius2 is very brief, and couched in the following words ; — " Punishments were inflicted on the Christians, a race of men addicted to a new and magical superstition."3 1 "Queesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, qui,Tiberio imperitante, per procu- ratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. Repressaqne in praesens ex- citiabilis superstitiorursuserumpebat, non modoper Juda3am,originem ejus mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aul pudenda confluuut, cele- branturque." Annales, XV. c. 44. [2 Cuius Suetonius Tranquillus, a Roman biographer and historian, flourished in the reigns of Trajan and Adrian. He was most probably born about the be ginning of the reign of Vespasian a. d. 70. This writer also states that between the years a. d. 41 and 45, Claudius the emperor, "Judeeos impulsore Chresto as- sidue tumultuantes Roma expulit," i. e. he banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus being their leader,— that is, as Grotius states, on account of the doctrines of Christ. For both TertuUian (Ap. onounced remarks i country or others who had embraced Christianity, might produce some disputes and dis turbances which came to the emperor's ear." Tet it must be confessed that Orosius, of the fifth century, was in doubt as to the meaning of this passage. S.] [3 To this version of the word maleficae, the translator is aware that some ob jection can be made. Its more commonly received signification is pernicious, mischievous ; and thus it has been rendered in the passage before us by the learn ed and excellent Lutheran divine, Dr. Mosheim. According to either version the passage proves indisputably the fact in support of wliich it is adduced. The version adopted has however these advantages ; it not only proves that Sueton ius was acquainted with the new sect called Christians, but it farther evinces the falsity of the insinuation which the unbelieving Gibbon advanced to inval idate the eyidencgs of Christianity, viz. that the great historians of the day have taken no notice of the pretended miracles of the first Christians, &c. For this passage of Suetonius proves that he had heard of those miracles, although hav ing for obvious reasons not examined the evidence of their truth, he ascribed them to a magical superstition. This translation is adopted by Dr. Watson Lardner, and many other men, and in support of his opinion the learned Bishop of Landaff says*— " The Theodosian Code must be ray excuse for dissenting from such respectable authority ; in IX Cod. Theod. Tit. XVI. we read; ' Chaldaei ac Mifgi, et ceteri quos vulgus maleficos ob facinorum multitudinem appellat Si' quia magus vel magicis contaminibns adsuetus qui maleficus vnlgi consuetudine nuncupatur.' Nor ought any friend of Christianity to be astonished or alarmed at Suetonius' applying the word magical to the Christian reliwion ; for the mir acles wrought by Christ and his apostles, principally consisted in alleviating the distresses, by curing tho obstinate diseases, of human kind; and the proper $ 1.] TESTIMONY OF PLINY, ETC. 19 And Pliny,1 in his well known epistle, makes the following re marks, whieh prove the extensive diffusion of Christianity ;— " ftlany of every age, and every rank, and even of both sexes, have been accused, and will be accused. Nor has this contagious superstition pervaded only the cities, but it has also spread through the towns and country."3 The reader may consult Haversaat's Vindication of Pliny's Epis tles concerning the Christians, against the objections urged by Semler. [The testimony of Josephus,3 the celebrated. Jewish historian,- from the universally acknowledged veracity of his character and the- factthathe was contemporaneous with the apostles, is.of the utmost importance. As the biblical student in Arrjerica cannot always have - access to the original work of Josephus, we will insert the celebra ted passage entire, and add to it a translation. riverai Si xazd zovzov zov tqovov 'Irjaovg zlg, ooq>6g dvrjg, e'lyt avdgu avzov Xiyuv %Qr\. Hv yag iraoado^'cav I'gymv rroirjtrjg, didaa^ xakog dvd-gatnwv zmv aw qd'ovfj zdhrj&rj de^Ofiivrnv. Ka,l nok- Xovg fttv lovdaiovg, noklo v g c) £ x al 'EXktjvixovg in rjy ay 'fro. 'O Xg igz o g ovzog rjv. Kal avzov ivd'fi^a ¦zmv ngwziav avdgrav nag yp.lv ozavgco imzigrjxozpg UilazQv, owe inavaavzo oi'yt avtov ayanrjoavng. 'Erpuvrj yag auzoigzglzijv tjrtov rj/xtgav nakw £mv, zuv &elojv ngoq)t]zcov zavza if xal a).Xa /wpta Oavp.daiu mgl avzov ilgrjxozmv. Fig tzi zs vvv ziav Xgioziuvmv, duo tovde (avop.aafjtivmv, ovx tnthtnt zo cfvXov. Lib. XVIII. Antiq. Judaic, cap. III. 3. " Now there lived about this time, a certain Jesus, a wise man, if meaning of magic, as understood by tho ancients, is a higher and' more holy branch of the art of healing." Flatt also in his Annotationes ad Philbsophi- am Kantii &c. says, that this testimony of Suetonius undoubtedly does author ize the inference, that the miracles of Jesus and his apostles must have been his torically true. S.] " Afflicti suppliers Cbristiani, genus horninum superstilionis novae ac mal- eficae." Nero, c. 16. [l Caius Plinius Caecilins Secundus was born A. D. 61 or 62. He enjoyed the particular friendship of Trajan, who made him consul. His celebrated letter, from which the extract in the text is taken, was written A. n. 107. It is the testimony of one of the most enlightened men of that age, which establishes the important facts, that the ground of the persecution against the Christians in Pon tus and Bithynia was, that they drew men away from the worship of their dei ties; that in less than seventy years after the disciples first preached Jesus to the gentiles, Christians abounded in Pontus and Bithynia to such a degree, that the Iieathen temples were visibly neglected, and their remaining friends began to fear " whereunto this thing would grow ;" that they were in general remark ably constant in their profession ; and many other facts of the deepest interest to the Christian heart. S.] 2 " Multi omnis aetatis, omnis ordinis, utriusquc sexus etinm, vocantur in periculum et vocabuntnr. Neque enim civitates tantum, sed yicos etiam, atque agros, superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est." Lib. X. ep. 97. 3 [Josephus was born a. i>. 37, died 93.] 20 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. indeed it is proper to call him aman. For he performed many wonderful works : he was an instructor of those persons who receiv ed the truth with willingness. He induced many to become his fol lowers, as well among the Jews as also among the Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when on the accusation of our principal men, Pilate condemned him to the cross, these did not cease to love him. For he appeared to them again, alive, on the third day ; the divine prophets having foretold these and a myriad of other wonderful things concerning him. And even at the present time the tribe of Christians, so denominated from him, still subsists."1 S.] III. 2. Evidence that the Christians had sacred writings. MichaeJis, in his Introduction to the New Testament,2 quotes from Lucian's3 workDe Morte Peregrini,4 the words which re fer to this subject ; ztav piffXwv rag ftiv t^ijytizo xat dtcouqti Ht- Qtygivog, i. e. Peregrinus explained and illustrated some of their books ; and he is of opinion that the writings here alluded to, may have been the books of the Old Testament and the Hebrew gospel of Matthew ; because this passage of Lucian refers to Nazarene Christians, who were resident in Palestine, [and who are known to have received these books.] III. 3. Evidence that the sacred writings qf the Christians were in part different from the more ancient books qf the Jews. Celsus,5 a writer of the second century, in his work against the Christians, not only assails Moses and the prophets, whom he knew the Gnostic sect of Christians rejected ; but he also introduces a Jew as disputing with the Christians out of their own books, and makes the Jew conclude his disputation with the following words ; — ravza fiti> vvv vfiiv ix ziov vptTtpwv avyygaptpazoiv, itp olg ovdevog aXXov pdgzvgog ^gjjaofttv' avzol yag iuvrovg nigtmnzizt6 i. e. all these objections are derived from your own writings, besides which we need no additional evidence, for you confute yourselves. From the quotations made by Origen from Celsus, it is apparent I [The authenticity of this passage is ably vindicated by C. G. Bretsc&neider, Parerg. ad Capita Theol. Judaeoram dogmatic»e e FI. Josephi scriptis. collects ; — translated and printed in the Christian Spectator for March 1825. S.} 2 Third edit. p. 40. 4th edit, p, 41. 3 [Lucian was a native of Samosata in Syria, and flourished about 176.} 4 C. 11. 5 [Celsus was contemporaneous with Lucian (176). In reply to his work against Christianity, Origen at the request of his friend Ambrose, wrote his ex cellent Apology for Christianity, about A. D. !246 or 249. S.] 6 Origines contra Celsuin, Lib. LI. § 74. § li] EARLY EXISTENCE OF THE N. TEST. 21 that the Christian writings, to which Celsus alluded in the passage above quoted, contained a biography of Jesus : for the Jew whom he introduces is represented1 as addressing Jesus himself, and urg ing the following accusations : " that his pretensions to being born of a virgin were false ; that he was born in Judea of an indigent female, who was the wife of a carpenter, and had been convicted of adultery and discarded by her husband, and who gave birth to Jesus as she was wandering about; that poverty compelled him too seek employment in Egypt, where he became skilled in Egyptian ne- cromacy (dvvdpttg) ; and that being inflated with his magical at tainments, on his return to his native land, he called himself God." It is evident from the objections advanced by Celsus, that our four Gospels formed a part of the sacred books used by the Chris tians when he wrote against them ; for some of those objections have a reference individually to each of the evangelists, and others are derived from a comparison of the four. Thus Origen says, " And after these things he recurs to what followed the birth ef Jesus — to the narrative of the star and of the Magians who came from the east."2 And it is well known, that the acconnt of the star and of the Magians from the east is found only in Matthew. In other passages of the work just cited,3 Christ is himself termed rixzoiv i. e. carpenter, an appellation given him onlv in the gospel of Mark 6 : 3 ovx ovzog iaziv o zixzatv; i. e. is not this the carpenter, etc. Again he remarks — " Celsus says that those display a great deal of presumption who trace the lin eage of Christ from the first progenitor of the human family, and from the Jewish kings ;"4 — and this is done no where but in the genealogy of Luke 3 : 38. Again, the same writer says,5 " Cel sus reproaches the Christians for pretending that the Son of God is the loyog or word (avroloyog), which is an evident re ference to John 1:1. A case of an objection derived from a comparison of the four evangelists, is that in which he accuses the historians of Christ of contradicting one another, ivavzla orploi xptvSia&ai, and he adduces, as an example, the several accounts of the resurrection of Christ, some mentioning one and the others 1 Origen. loc. cit. Lib. 1. § 28. s Kal find xctvza avazgtxii (nl to ejijc zfj yivian zov 'itjcrov araysygap- l_dvov — to ntgl zov aazigog 8irjyr)pa xal tw ii.rjXv&ot(or arco avazoXi\g payor. Lib. I. contra Celsum § 40. 3 Lib. VI. §§ 34,30,37. 4 .'Itjcrl (sc. KeXaog) ajzrjvd-adijir&at zovg ysrsaXoyijo-avzag anb zov ngmzov (pviiroq xal %aiv iv'lovdcaolg (laotXiani zbv Zrjoovv. Lib. II. § 32. 5 Lib. 11. § 31. 22 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. two angels as having come to the grave and spoken to the women.1 This is a reference to Matt. 28:5. Mark 16 : 5. Luke,24: 4. John 20 : 12.2 But Celsus' knowledge was not confined to the gospels ; it is ev ident that he was likewise acquainted with the other writings (avyygdppara) of the Christians. This is evinced by a passage3 of that writer, in which he is assailing the words of the Saviour : " there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall perform great signs and miracles."4 He there endeavors to prove from them that the miracles of Christ are not divine, and adds : k«2 2,'aravdv riva zoiavza nagapriyavrnprivov ovopu£tt i. e. Jesus men tions a certain Satan who should also perform such miracles. Now neither in the above passage relative- to the " false Christs," nor in any other, is there any such assertion contained as Celsus attributes to Christ. Rut in Rev. 12 : 13, the power of working delusive miracles is ascribed to Satan, 6 dgdxmv. And as this book professes to be " the Revelation of Jesus Christ,"5 Celsus may have alluded to this text, and therefore have ascribed it to Jesus. But as Celsus -frequently attributed to Christ whatever he found in the writings of his disciples ;6 it is more probable that he alluded to" the passage of the apostle Paul, 2 Thess. 2: 9. And this is the more plausible, as he in another place, while speaking of the power of Satan to perform delusive miracles, quotes the passage above refer red to relative to Satan, and in connexion with it uses the following' words which very much resemble the context of 2 Thess 2 : 9.— " The Son of God apprised his followers that Satan would make his appearance in a manner similar to his own ' coming,' that he would arrogate to himself the glory of God, and display great and marvellous works, to which however they should pay no atten tion, but determinate!/ rejecting them should believe iri him (Jesus) only."? Comp. 2 Thess. 2: 4, 11, 12, 13. Other traces of allusions to several epistles of Paul in the writings of Celsus, are pointed out by Hug in his Introduction to the New Testament."8 1 Kal p,i)V ngig zov avzov tovSs zdtpov iX&uv ayyeXov, oi piv Sva, ol de dio (Xsyovo-i) zovg anoxgivopivovg talg yvva!£iv, ozi avioiri. Lib. V. § 52. 2 See Hug's Introd. N. Test. pt. I. p. 31, Andover ed. 3 § 49. . 4 Matt. 24:24. 5Rev. 1: 1. 22: IC. 6 Thus, for instance, he attributed to Christ what the evangelists had related that, al his baptism, something descended from the air like a bird, and rested up on him. Origen, L. I. § 41. 7 'O zov d-eov Ticiig nagayogswi mg aga 6 Sazavag xal aizbg opoloig wa- vug, BltMi^Htti (dyaXa'sgya xal &avpaaza, o- Comment, in Es. 53: 12. Proem, in Ep. ad Gal. 7 Homil. VI. in Ep. 1 ad Corinth. 8 [Bataneotes was a name given to Porphyry by both Jerome anil Chrysostom; but the reason of this appellation seems to be but imperfectly known. Heumann supposed it to be a fictitious name affixed by Porphyry himself to his work against the Christians ; and Fabric! us thinks it derived from Batanea, a town in Syria, in which he supposes Porphyry may have been born. S.] 9 Praep. Evang. L. XI. c. 18, 19. 24 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. ceding illustrations, when we recollect what TertuUian1 says to them in his defence of the Christians against the heathen, c. 31 : " Read" says he " the words of God, our Scriptures," from which he soon after quotes some words of Christ, and c. 32, of Paul, " which we ourselves have no disposition to conceal from our view, and which have, in various ways, fallen into the hands of those who are not Christians." SECTION II. The genuineness of the homologoumena or universally received. books of the New Testament. If we listen to the testimony of the Christians themselves, we find that not only the age of Eusebius (the commencement of the fourth century), and the earlier age in which Origen lived (the third century)(l), but also the tradition of still more ancient times(2), that is, the concurrent opinion pf all those writers whose produc tions had fallen into the hands of these Christian Fathers(3), unan imously declare the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostks, thir teen epistles of Paul, and theirs* epistle of John and first of Pe ter, to be the genuine productions^) of those disciples of Jesus to whom they are ascribed. Nor have we any reason to doubt their genuineness. For in the few fragments of those earlier writers which have reached us, we find that they did actually view these books in that light, in which Origen and Eusebius report these earlier writers to have viewed them(5). Moreover there is nothing found in these writings incongruous either with the age in which they are said to have been written, or the authors to whom they are attributed(6). , And even those (heretics) to whose interest the authority of these sacred writings was extremely prejudicial, did not at first presume to dispute their genuineness ; but endeavoured to extricate themselves from their difficulties by arbitrary interpreta tions^) of the odious paragraphs, or by the alteration, or erasure l [TertuUian was born at Carthage soon after A. D. 150. . He flourished in the time of Sevorus and Antoninus Caracalla, A. D. 194—216. He is generally con sidered the most ancient Latin Father extant, for he was well skilled in Roman law and in the Greek and Roman poets. S.] <§> 2.] HOMOLOGOUMENA. EUSEBIUS AND ORIGEN. 25 of them ; thereby pronouncing these writings not spurious but only adulterated(S) ; or finally, they sought refuge by denying the- au thority of the writers(9), while they confessed the genuineness of the books. And when, in the course of time, they began to dis pute even the genuineness of the writings, they did not urge the want of ancient testimony in their favour, or attempt to impugn their genuineness with any historical objections ; but they were content ed to adduce some trifling pretended doctrinal objections, extorted from the writings which were the object of their hatred. Illustration 1. The testimony of the ages of Eusebius and Origen.1 The principal passages of Eusebius and Origen, containing their testimony on this subject, and which will frequently be referred to in the sequel, are the following. Eusebius says f — "It seems therefore proper here to give a cata- 1 [Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilius from his friend the martyr of that name, was born at Cesarea in Palestine about a. d. 270, or perhaps earlier. He flour ished principally during the reigns of Constantius and Constantine ; and as Je rome states " was a man most studious in the divine Scriptures, was very dil igent in making a large collection of the writings of Christian authors, and pub lished innumerable volumes." He was made bishop of Caesarea about 315, and died in 339 or 340. Origen, the son of Leonidas the martyr, was born in Egypt a. n. 184 or 185, and early made gruat proficiency in knowledge. He taught at Alexandria and Caesarea. His writings were so extremely numerous that Jerome says, " He wrote more than any other man could read." After having spent a life of aston ishing activity in -the cause of Christianity, and suffered much in the Decian persecution (a. d. 250) he died in the 70th year of his age. S.] 2 EvXoyov 8' ivzav&a ysvopivovg, uraxetpaXaiiio-aa&ai zag S^Xto&ila-ac* trig xaivSjg Si-aS-rjxrjg ygaqpdg, xal Si) zaxziov iv ngoizoig, zrjv dytav %Sn> eiayycXlmv zszgaxzijv' olg enszai f] zwv rrgu&tnv zmv AnoazoXw ygav8' iv vb&oig avza xazazaxzeov, dXX' ug azo-rzu ndvzrj xal 6Wo-s/S?; Tiugatzrjziov. Euseb. EceL Hist. III. 25. § 2.] HOMOLOGOUMENA. EUSEBIUS, ETC. 27 ters. , And again, that we may discriminate between these and such as the heretics brought forward, under pretence of their being pro ductions of the Apostles ; such as the gospels of Peter, and Thom as and Matthias, and some others, and the Acts of Andrew and of John and of the other Apostles; which not one of the whole list of ecclesiastical writers has ever thought worthy of being quoted. The character of their diction is very diverse from the style of the Apostles : and the spirit and tendency of their contents deviate so entirely from the true doctrines, as clearly to prove them to be the fabrications of hereties. Hence they cannot be classed even with the spurious writings ; but must be denounced as absurd and impi ous." The principal passage of Origen may be seen in his Commenta ry on Matthew and John, preserved by Eusebius.1 It is true that in these passages, neither Eusebius nor Origen specifies the number of the universally received writings of the apostle Paul. But it is evident from other passages of Eusebius, that the epistle to the Hebrews is the only one which was not received into the number of the homologoumena. He says,2 " The fourteen epis tles of Paul are well known (ngoSvXot xal oayiig') ; yet it ought not to be concealed that some have excluded the epistle to the He brews, alleging that the church at Rome deny (avziXtyia&ui) it to be Paul's : and in another passage he remarks, that the epistle to the Hebrews nagia' Pwpalwv zitslv ov vopifezai zov' ' AnoozoXov zvy- Zavsiv,3 is by some Romans not regarded as a production of the apostle (Paul). And he elsewhere4 classes this epistle with the antilegomena, i. e. with those books which were not universally re ceived. In like manner Origen5 excludes none but the epistle to the Hebrews from the universally received apostolical writings ; and all the other epistles of Paul, he attributes, without the least hesitation, to that apostle, in innumerable instances; excepting that to Philemon, which from its extreme brevity would naturally be but seldom quoted; and yet even this epistle is in one passage express ly ascribed to Paul.6 Yet Origen was much disposed to express his doubts relative to the antilegomena ; and it has been proved that he distinguished them from the homologoumena, by his manner of quoting them.7 Thus in his Commentary on John,8 he quotes the first epistle of James with these words, wg iv rfj tpegopsvyzov 'laxo')§ov 1 Eccles. Hist. VI. 25. 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. III. 3. 3 Euseb. VI. 20. * Hist. Eccles. VI. 13, 5 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. VI. 25. 6 Jn the 19th Homily on Jeremiah, § 2. 7 See the Apology for the Revelation § 6, note 2 ; and the work " On the Gos pel and Epistles of John," p. 106, etc. 8 Tom. XIX. §6. 28 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [bK.. initizoXri dviyvupiv, i. e. as we read in the reputed epistle of James ; and in his Commentary on Matt.1 when citing the epistle of Jude, he adds, tid(.xalri]v lovda ngaoolzo zlg iniozoXjv i. e. if we ac knowledge the epistle of Jude. Thus also in his letter to Africanus, although he there undertakes to prove Paul to be the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, still when pressed with the objection that it was not genuine, he waves the quotation which he had made from it, and passes on to another proof from Matthew. But still stronger are the terms in whieh he expresses himself when citing the Pastor of Hermas, which he regarded as a divine book f il Si xQV toXpnouv- za xal and ztvog yigopivijg piv iv zy ixxXt/ola ygacpjg, ov naga udtn St opokoyovpivag clvai &i!ag, x. t. X. i. e. if we may venture to quote from a book that is commonly used by the church, yet not received as divine by the unanimous consent of all. And he him self informs us, that he cited passages from such books, " non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem propositi quaestionis," i. e. not for the proof, but illustration of the point under discussion.4 The principal passages of Origen, in which he quotes the Epistles, are the following ; — For the Epistle to the Romans and the first of Corinthians, see Orig. contra Celsum, Lib. III. <§> 46 — 48. For the second of Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians, idem Lib. I. §48.47.11. <§> 1. For the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians, Lib. VI. <§, 54. Lib. IV. § 49. 18. Preface, § 5. For the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, Lib. V. § 17. Lib. VI. $ 44, etc. For the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, Lib. I. <$> 63. Lib. IV. §70. Lib. TIL •§» 48. In like manner also the Acts of the Apostles, Origen expressly attributed to Luke ; tog 6 Aovxag iv talg nga£ioiv zcbv unoatoXoiv ?y$aq:t,5 i. e. as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles has declared. And the reason why he did not mention the book of Acts in the passages which Eusebius quotes from his Commentary on Matthew and John, was that Origen there wished to speak only of the Gos pels, of the writings of the apostles Paul, Peter, and John. 1 Tom. XVII. § 30. 3 § 9. 3 Lib. X. in Epist. ad Romanos, § 31. * Vide Mag. fur christliche Dogmatik und Moral, Stuck 9. S. 17—26. 5 Lib. VI. contra Celsum, § 11. See also the passage which Eusebius quotes from his Homilies on the Hebrews, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. VI. 25. § 2.] HOMOLOGOUMENA, EUSEBIUS AND ORIGEN. 29 III. 2. The reference of Eusebius and Origen to the ecclesiasti cal tradition respecting the homologoumena ; together with re marks on the nature of this tradition. The passages in wliich this reference is contained, are those quot ed in the last Illustration ; together with another passage,1 in which Eusebius remarks, that the Gospel and first Epistle of John, which were classed with, the homologoumena in ch. 25, were without the least hesitation received as genuine by the ancient and the present church. Relative to the nature of this tradition, Eusebius, in his princi pal passage above quoted at length, uses the following language : al xuru ztjv ixxXijoiaazixiiv nagaSoaiv aXrj&ilg xal dnXaazoi xal avmpoXoyripivat, ygatfai ; i.e. the books which according to the tradition of the church are generally received as true and una dulterated ; and Origen says (Euseb. Ec. Hist.' VI. 25.) oig iv nagaSoan pa&div ; i. e. as I have learned from tradition. That by this ixxXtjaiaonxt] nuguSoaig is not meant the oral declara tions of the contemporaries of Eusebius, is proved in the Apology for the Revelation,2 where it is evinced that th s phrase of Eusebius signifies the testimony of writers, and especially of those prior to his day. This opinion is more fully discussed by Dr. Flatt in his Mag azine,3 and vindicated against different significations which have of late been given to that phrase ^ts used, by Eusebius. Ecker- mann, in his dissertation " On the probable origin of the gospels and the Acts of the apostles,"4 regards the word tradition in general, and also in the passage of Origen above quoted, as the then prevalent tenet or opinion, of the church. According to his idea therefore, Eusebius and Origen acknowledged the genuineness of the homolo goumena for this reason, that it was a settled opinion of the church that the gospel of Matthew or of John etc. was really written by the person whose name jt bears. The ground therefore of their reception of them was, that their genuineness was a traditionary dogma of the church. In the " Essay on the Canon of Eusebius," by J. E. C. Schmidt,5 that writer explains the nagddooig ixxXt]aia- azixij as signifying the Canon which was settled by the church of Eusebius. And Miinscher thinks it signifies the prevailing opinion of the Christian churches relative lo the books of the New Testa ment ; and adds that the private opinion of Eusebius, as well as of 1 Hist. Euseb. III. 24. 2 p. 26. note 7. 3 Achtes Stuck s. 75—86. 4 Thoologische Beilraege (Theological Contributions) Band 5 Stuck 2. 5 Henke's Mag. fur Rel. Phil. (Mag. for Religious Philosophy) B. V. St. III. s. 451, etc. 30 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. other learned men, may possibly have been at variance with it.1 The principal proof that nagad'oatg ixxXrloiaatixjri signifies writ ten tradition, or the testimony of those authors with whose works Eusebius was acquainted, is found in the leading passage itself rela tive to the canon.2 Here Eusebius describes the first class of sa cred writings, the homologoumena, in the words before cited : ai xard zijv ixxXijuiaozixTJv nagdSotnv dX-q&iig anXtxazoi xal avopoX- oyrjpivaiygayuii. e. books which according to the traditionof the church are generally received as true and unadulterated ; but rela tive to the latter class, that of heretical writings, he uses these words : mv oiSh ovSa^wg iv 2TTTP AMMATI ztov xard StaSo^dg ixxXrj- aiaazixoiv zig dvrjg ilg pvr\priv dyayiiv ^'tlojoifi. e. whom not a single one of the whole succession of ecclesiastical writers, has thought worthy of being quoted. The same idea is elsewhere3 thus expres sed : prjre dg%alajv pryie zmv xa&' r^pug zig ixxXrjsiaotixog ovyyga- tpevg talg f|' avzdiv o.vviigrjaazo pagzvgiaig, i. e. no ecclesiastical writer, either in ancient or modern times, has ever made any use of their testimony. The descriptions of these two classes of books, are evidently correlative ; and as the latter class is distinguished by the total want of testimony of writers in their favour, so by virtue of their antithetic relation, the former must have in their favour the testimony of all the writers whose works were extant, that is the. nagdSotnv ixxXvoiaattx-ijv. Vogel4 gives this sense of nagdcSootg ixxXrjtstaatixrj ; " Judicium ecclesiae antiquitus traditum" i. e. the judgment of the church transmitted from former ages ; and subjoins this remark : certum est, nagdSoaiv ixxXyoiaazixtfv vel confirmari, vel nullam esse demonstrari, ex scriptorum testimoniis vel silentib, i. e. it is clear that the nagdSotng ixxXtjoiaottxri may either be confirmed or be proved a nullity, by the testimony or silence of writers. Accord ing to this explanation itagaSoaig ixxXriataazixri would signify " the judgment of the church, relative to the origin and authority of the sacred writings, derived from historical transmission :" and this his torical transmission is identical with the testimony of writers, es pecially the more ancientones. — This explanation, it is" self-evident, detracts nothing from the weight of the nagdSoatg ixxXrjOtaozixij. ¦ [The true signification of the phrase nagdSoatg ixxXriotaottx-ij may, perhaps not unaptly, be illustrated by a passage of the Apos tle Paul, in which the word nagddooig is used and its import deter mined by the context : " therefore, brethren, be steadfast, and hold the traditions (tag nagaSooeig) which ye have been taught, wheth er orally or by our epistle." Tradition, therefore, would signify 1 Handbuch der cbristlichen Dogmengeschichte (Manual of the History ot the cristians doctrines) Marpurg J797. vol. I. p. 246. 2 See that passage.quoted in Illust. I. supra. 3 HI. 3. 4 Commentaliones de Canone Eusebiano, Pt. I. p. 7. n. 9. Erlangen,1809. § 2.] HOMOLOGOUMENA. EUSEBIUS, ETC. 31 any historical account or opinion transmitted to us from former ages, whether orally or by writing ; and ixxXrjoiaazixrj would point us to persons connected with the church, as the channel through which it was conveyed. S.] III. 3. The testimony of all the ivriters known to Origen and Eusebius was in favour of the homologoumena. The following passages from Eusebius may be adduced, as proof that the homologoumena were supported by the unanimous testi mony of all whose opinion that very learned man had read. Rela tive to the first epistle of John, he remarks:1 nagd zi zoig vvv xal zo7g IV dp%alotg a'vaptptXtxiog copoXoyijzat i. e. it was acknowledged as genuine, without contradiction, in earlier as well as later times. And in the same place, he terms the books of John, (which he afterwards classed with the homologoumena,2) zouSt zov unotnoXov dvuvztggrfzoi ygacpai i.e. the productions of this apostle, which had never been disputed. In the work entitled " The design of the gospel and epistles of John"3 the fact is established, in refutation of Merkel,4 that Origen and Eusebius never termed any books opoXoyovpiva, excepting such as were unanimously, and without any exception, acknowledged as genuine. Accordingly they could not have given this appellation to books, which were merely supported by some testimony, with which other testimony might be at variance. Origen remarks of the four Evangelists, that dvavziggrjztx iozlv iv zrj vno zoi/ ovgavov ixxXriola -diov i. e. they are every where received without contra diction by the whole church of God. The same universal coinci dence of testimony is signified by the term xa&6Xixog (universal), which Origen and his disciple Dionysius apply to the first epistle of John.5 And the idea that the second and third epistle of John are not opoXoyovptva but dvriXtyopiva.6 is expressed by Origen thus : ov ndvzeg yarjalovg cpatsl zavzag, i. e. they are not pronounced genuine by all. Now if these words contain a definition of dvzi- Xtyoptvov, it follows by virtue of the antithesis, that dpoXoyovptvov must signify a book 6 ndvrtg tfaol yvrjotov, i. e. which all acknowledge to be genuine. Ill, 4. Proof that the testimony of Origen and Eusebius rela tive to the books termed homologoumena, refers specifically to their genuineness. It is evident that the passages, which Eusebius7 quotes from Origen, refer to the genuineness of the books of the New Testa- 1 IIl724~ 2 HI- 25. 3 p. 113, &c. 1 See Merkel's " Proof that the Apocalypse is a spurious book." 5 Euseb. VII. 25. 6 Euseb. VI. 25. 7 VI, 25. 32 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. !• ment, that is, to the question whether they are really the produc tions of the persons to whom they are ascribed. For in the passage just referred to, Origen speaks not only of the four Gospels, but. of the authors of them, whom he individually names. He mentions for whose use, and for what purpose each apostle wrote, and ex presses himself thus : Ilizgog plav iniatoXrjv opoXoyovpivijv xaxa- XiXoim — '/oiavvrjg evayyiXiov ev xataXiXotniv — i'ygarpi Si xal ztjv dnoxdXvxfjiv — xazaXiXomi Si xal iniGzoX-qvndvv 6Xiywv<5zl%wv i'azoi Si xal Sevzt'gav xal zglzrjv' inel ov ndvzig cpaoi PNH2IOT2 tivui tavzag, i. e. Peter has left us one epistle which is universally at tributed to him — John has left us one Gospel — he also wrote the Apocalypse — he also left us an epistle of very few lines ; and per haps also, a second and a third for not all agree in pronouncing the two last genuine. Relative to the testimony of Eusebius himself,1 it is certain that by terming these books (mentioned above in <§>. 2.) opoXoyovptva, he meant that they were unanimously received as genuine. For he distinguishes between these homologoumena, or books univer sally received as genuine, and the vo&a or dvztXiyopiva, which were books whose genuineness was not universally admitted, but was disputed by some. That Eusebius did not intend, by the term vo&a, to designate such writings as were universally regarded as spurious ; but meant books whose genuineness was denied by some and acknowledged by others, is evident from the following considerations. In the first place, Eusebius, in his main passage, most explicitly distin guishes between the vo&a and a third class of writings, which were fabricated by heretics, dtgtzixmv avSgdiv dvanXdopaza, and which deviated entirely from the true doctrines, zrjg aXrj&ovg og&oSo^iag dndSovta, (or are, as he elsewhere2 expresses himself, remote from the true apostolical doctrines, trjg dnoozoXtxijg o'g&oSoJstag dXXozgiw and which he designates by the appellation navziXmg vofta- i. e. altogether spurious. He expressly states, ovSe ip vd&otg dvzd xaz- azaxzt'ov, that they cannot be reckoned to the class of vo&mv for they were treated with such contempt by all the writers of the church; that there was not even any dispute about their spurious- ness. Secondly : Eusebius uses the terms vo&ov and dvziXtyoptvov as synonymous. Thus in one place,3 he classes the epistle of James with the avtiXtyoptva- and in another,4 he remarks of the same epis tle itsziov mg vo&tvizai,, which words must be rendered, It should be remembered, that it is regarded as not genuine by some. For immediately preceding this we read, " thus much of James, from whom the first of the reputed catholic epistles is said to be derived 1 See his main passage, Illustration 1, of this §. 2 111,31. 3m,25. 4H,23. § 2.] HOMOLOGOUMENA. EUSEBIUS, ETC. 33 zotavta xal za xaza zov laxapov, ov t] ngtpzq zmv ovopa^opsvtav KuiToXixmv intozoXoiv livat Xiytzat. This Xiyizat necessarily refers to those who ascribed this epistle to James. In like manner the Actus Pauli, the Pastor of Hernias and the epistle of Barnabas, all of which are classed with the vo&a in, III, 25 are in other places, quoted as writings which are not dpoXoyovpiva, but disputed by some (dngog ttvmv avtiXtXixzatj-J and he terms them dvttXiyo pivot, as for example the epistle of Barnabas.2 In addition to these evi dences of the use of dvziXeyoptvov and vo'&ov as synonymes by Eusebius,' two others of a decisive character, derived from the principal, passage so often quoted, are adduced in the " New Apolo gy for the Revelation of St. John."3 The first is founded on the words iv zoig vo&oig xazatizdx&to KAI, i. e. among the books which are not received as genuine must also be numbered. Now what can this KAI, also, signify, if the books which he had described as vo-9a djd not belong lo the same class with those which he had immediately before mentioned as dvztXiyoptvu? The second proof is in the concluding words of the enumeration of the voOtov,; "now all these may be classed with the antilegomena or disputed books :" zavza piv navza zuv dvztXiyopi'vwv dv ihj. These concluding words correspond with the phrase xal zavza piv iv opoXoyovpivotg (and these all belong to the homologoumena), which terminates a pre ceding enumeration of the opoXoyovutva in the earlier part of the passage; and they indicate that all the books which had been enu merated between these two phrases, belong to the same class of dvztXeyopi'vwv or vo&wv. It is evident therefore that, in the phrase ology of Eusebius, these are synonymous words. And this transla tion of the word vo&og as signifying "considered not genuine," is authorized by a very, customary mode of expression, according to which " to be genuine" is synonymous with " to be considered genuine."4 It is indeed an opinion entertained by many learned men, that Eusebius in this noted passage makes a fourfold division, into (1) opoXoyovpeva, (2) dvitXiyopeva, (3) vo&a, and (4) dzo-rta xal Svoai^rj (nuvzi'Xwg vo&a), absurd and impious (altogether spuri ous). But the arguments in opposition to this opinion, and in favour of a triple division^ are fully stated and vindicated in the " Disserta tion on the Canon of Eusebius," in Flatt's Magazine ;5 and by the author of the Comment. (Sup. cit. P. II. p. 3 — 10.) who adopts the triple, division, and remarks, " that Eusebius may have used the milder term dvziXtyopeva in reference to the Canon of his own church at Caesarea, in which the five catholic epistles are contained ; "111,3. 2VI.I3„ 3 Note 16. § 4. p. 28', 29. 4 See Observationes ad Analogiam et Syntaxin Hebraicam portinentes, p. 14. n. 2, Tubingen, 1776. 5 Flatt's Mag. vol. 7. p. 228—237. 5 34 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. 1. and then, by the subsequent phrase iv zoig vo'&oigxazazirdx&u xal may have intended to intimate that in Iris judgment the severer term voOa might have been applied to those five catholic epistles, just as well as to the Acts of Paul, the Pastor of Hennas &c. which were enumerated after them." Nor is the explanation of opoXo- vovpcvu and vo&a in the preceding pages, as signifying a genuine ness that was acknowledged by all, and a genuineness that was dis puted by'some, inconsistent with the fact that Eusebius classes among the votta ordvztXiyopiva (the books. of disputed, genuine ness), the'Gospel of the Hebrews ; for this work was regarded as a genuine apostolical production by the Ebionites, or as Eusebius terms them,. roTg iSpatoig zov Xgttndv naguSii-apivotg, the Hebrews who believed in Christ. And though it is certain that by some it was believed to be spurious ; yet there might be others who regard ed it as belonging to the homologoumena, so far as the ground-work ofit was the authentic and universally received text of the gospel of Matthew. In regard to the works of Eusebius, yde S" iv zovzotg ziveg xal zo xa&' ifipuiovg ivayyt'Xiov xaziXil-av, although Michaelis considers it as uncertain whether zovzotg refers to dpoXoyovpivoig or to voOoig.1 I have no hesitation in considering it as referring to the former. For vo&oig is much more remote from zovzoig than opoXoyovpi'votg which just precedes it; and Eusebius was interested in detracting from the weight of the opinion of those who classed the Apocalypse with the homologoumena, which he accomplished by remarking, that the case of the gospel of the Hebrews was similar to that of the Ayocalypse. But the fact that Eusebius hirh- self (as Masch contends) did not class the gospel of the Hebrews with the homologoumena, but referred it to the antilegomena, is evident, partly from the circumstance of his not mentioning it earlier, whilst enumerating the homologqumena ; and still more clearly from his own words, for he says tliat only some (uvig). have assigned to this gospel a place among the universally received books of the New Testament. And it is by no means a difficult matter to per ceive how these some were led to assign it this place,, if we compare the following passages of Jerome concerning this gospel. In the " Catalogus virorum illustrium," s. v. Matthaeus, he says : Matthew — composed the gospel of Christ in the Hebrew language, and wrote it with Hebrew letters ; but who the person was that subsequently translated it into Greek, is hot satisfactorily known. There is, more over, at present in the Ceesarean library, for which we are indebted to the distinguished zeal and industry of the martyr Pamphilus, a copy of the Hebrew itself. And it was by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use this book, that I was enabled to make a I Michaelis' Introduction to New Test. III. ed. p. 893. IV. ed. 1033 &c. § 2.] HOMOLOGOUMENA. EUSEBIUS, ETC. 35 transcript of it."1 Now, agreeably to tlie context, this " ipsum Hebraicum" can refer to nothing else than the gospel of Matthew. Again in his Dialog, contra Pelagianos we read : " In the Hebrew gospel according to the apostles, or as is generally supposed, ac cording to Matthew, which is indeed written in the Syro-Chaldaic language, but with Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes use even at the present day, and which is found in the library at Caesarea,"2 &ic. Again ; "In the gospel which the Nazarenesand Ebionites use, which I lately translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which is by most persons called the authentic gospel of Matthew," &c.3 Now as Jerome professes that the gospel of the Nazarenes is the Hebrew gospel of Matthew, ipsum Hebraicum, authenticum Matthaei, juxta Matthaeum, and yet himself quotes passages from the Naza- rene gospel which are not found in our Matthew ; we are led to suppose that the original text, of Matthew was the ground work of the Nazareue Gospel, but that additions had been made to it. And as far as the text of Matthew was the ground work of the gospel of the Nazarenes or Hebrews, it might have been ranked by some among the homologoumena. Schmidt does indeed sup pose that Jerome at first believed the Hebrew gospel which he transcribed and translated, to be the Hebrew gospel of Matthew ; and that he subsequently changed his opinion. But if Jerome, ac cording to the first of the passages above quoted, in which he calls the gospel of the Hebrews " ipsum Hebraicum Matthaei," did transcribe it and had already translated it into Greek and Latin, as we learn from the preceding passage in the context ; it follows that he must at that time have been intimately acquainted with it. We would yet remark, that it was not the intention of Eusebius, in his main passage quoted in III. 1, to give a general catalogue of all the' homologoumena, that is, of all the writings of Christians which were acknowledged to be genuine; (among which, for exam ple, the first epistle of Clemens must be classed ; for this he else where also calls opoXoyovpivt] intatoX-tf and dvwpoXoyovpivt] nagu jidatv intazoXri, and 6poXoyovpivr\ ypaqptj') but his object was to enumerate only those homologoumena, which belonged to the col- 1 " Matthaeus — Evangelium Christi Hebraicis Uteris verbisque composuit: quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Csesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus Martyr studiosissime confecit. Mihi quoqqe a Nazaraeis, qui in Beroea urbe Syriae hoc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit." 2 " In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroqne sermone, sed Hebraicis Uteris scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant juxta Matthaeum, quod et in Csesariensi habetur bibliotheca," etc. Dial. cont. Pelag. Lib. III. 2. 3 In Evangejio quo utuntur Naziireni et Ebionitae,quod nuper in Grsecum de Hebraico sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisqtie Matthaei authenti cum, etc. Comment, in Matt. XII. 13. 4 Euseb. Ill, 16. 36 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. lection of the books of the New Testament, SrjXm&itoat TH2 KAI- NHS AIABHKH2 ygacpul. But the question in this place is not what opinion had the ancient Christians of the divine authority of certain books, and according to what principles did they decide on their admission into the canon, that is, into the number of divine books ; but our sole object at present is to establish by their testi mony the position that these are genuine books. And most assur edly their testimony does establish, firmly and indisputably, the fact that the homologoumena of the New Testament are homologoumena indeed ; that is, that they are writings which are, beyond all doubt, the productions of those persons to whom they are ascribed ; and that the reason why they were adopted into the number of the re ligious books of the church, and received as authentic records of the history and doctrines of Christianity, was no other than this, that they were universally believed to be the genuine productions of those disciples of Jesus whose names they bear. III. 5. Fragments of earlier writers ; and proof that they ac tually regarded the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thir teen epistles qf Paul, and the first epistle of John, and first of Peter, as the genuine productions of those disciples, of Jesus to whom they are ascribed. Of these relics, some are entire books, which were written before the time of Origen ; others are single passages of more ancient wri ters, which are found as quotations in later authors, especially in Eusebius. Eusebius himself informs us,1 that in the perusal of ear lier writings, he was attentive to the information contained in them relative to each individual book of the holy Scriptures ; but that he noted, with particular care, the passages quoted from those books of the Christians which belong to the antilegomena. Some of the few written documents of the earlier christian age, which have been pre served entire, are of a polemical nature, being directed against the Pagans or Jews, who were but partially acquainted with the books of the New Testament ; and others are so small as to contain but a few pages. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect that we should be able to adduce many passages, from very ancient writings, for the authenticity of the homologoumena ; especially, as we shall appeal only to those ancient writings of whose integrity we have no doubt ; and even from these, shall adduce only such passages as quote the homologoumena, not in an indefinite manner, but with the express mention of the author's name. For such quotations as con tain passages of a book of the New Testament, without specifying the name of the author, may indeed evince the antiquity of the book, i Ecc. Hist. Ill, 3. $ 2.] HOMOLOGOUMENA. EUSEBIUS, ETC. 37 but can never be advanced in support of its genuineness. These passages are collected by Professor Less, in his work entitled " Ueber die Religion, ihre Wahl and Bestatigung.1 Among the ancient witnesses for the homologoumena, who quote them specify ing the author's name, are the nine following. 1, Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna and disciple of St. John. He ascribes the epistle to the Philippians, and the first epistle to the Corinthians to Paul. For in his letter to the Philippians, he ex pressly states, that Paul wrote to them. In $ 11. he quotes 1 Cor. 6: 2, adding : sicut Paulus docet, i.e. as we learn from Paul. He elswliere makes quotations also from the epistle to the Ephesians and the first epistle to Timothy, and the first of Peter, and of John, but without specifying the author's name. 2. Papias2 bishop of Hierapolis, quoted by Eusebius,3 testifies, that Mark, the discipleof Peter, and Matthew recorded theactions and declarations of our Lord. He says :4 " Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter, made an accurate record of whatsoever he recollected ; though not in the order in which the things were said and done by Christ. He was particularly careful, neither to omit any thing which he had heard, nor to insert any thing which was false. Matthew wrote his gospel 5 in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted it as well as he could." Eusebius informs us, in the part of his work above referred to, that Papias also made quotations from the first epistle of Peter and first of John. But it may be questioned wheth er he ascribes them to those apostles by a specific mention of their names. For Eusebius asserts, in like manner, that Polycarp quoted some passages from the first epistle of Peter ; and yet we learn 1 Parti, page 503, &c. On the citations of the N. Test, contained in the most ancient ecclesiastical writers, vide Hug's Introduction to the N. Test. part I. § 7. p. 29—31, Andover ed. 2 [Papias flourished, according to Cave, A. D. 110; or as others contend, about 115. He is said by Iraeneus, to have been a companion of Polycarp and one of St. John's hearers. S.] 3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III. 39, the end. 4 Mdgxog igprjvsvi}]g Hizgov yevbpevog, baa ipvrjpovevtriv, axgifitog ey- gaifie- oi pivzoi zd$ei za iml zov Xgitrzov ij Xex&ivza rj ¦xgax&ivza- — evog inoir\tsazo ngbvoiav, zov prjSev mv r\xovtse nagaXmelv, rj ifievaao-&di zi IV avzolg- — Maz&alog e(Sgai8i SiaXexzta zd Xbyta trvreygduJazo- fjgpqvevtre 8' airtd, dig i]8ivazo, exaazog. 5 That Xoyia. here signifies gospel or written narrative of the history and doc trines of Jesus is evident partly from the customary use of the word, and partly, from the correspondence of the Xoyttov of Matthew^wilh the writlenjecord of the actions and declarations of Jesus, made by Mark, I'ygafe to) lab zov Xgwzov y Xey&ivTai) TtgayfTivra. In the work (of Dr. Storr) " On the object of St. John's Gospel, the author proves that X6yia or Xoyoi (Qi-ia-n) is synonymous with res, p. 250. 38 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. from the epistle of Polycarp itself, that the name of the author is not annexed to the passages cited. * 3. Justin Martyr.2 From the writings of Justin, it may be in ferred that the gospel of Mark belongs to the apostle Peter, whose disciple Mark was ; but that the gospel of Luke was derived from a disciple of some apostle, who, according to collateral evedince, could have been no other than the apostle Paul. Moreover the dnopvrjpovivpaza ziov anoozoXtov or Memorabilia of the apostles, (the gospel to which the aged Justin had been accustomed in his own country, Samaria,) presupposd not only the high antiquity of the gospel of Luke, but also the early existence of our gospel of Matthew ; just as the apocryphal gospels, in general, of which Jus tin's is one, are not an evidence against the antiquity of our gospels, but very clearly establish their age ; because it is evident from all the apocryphal gospels which have descended to us, that their au thors were acquainted with our gospels.3 Nor will the fact, that Justin quotes almost exclusively such books as were known in his native country, (although, in the course of his travels, he doubtless became acquainted with other apostolic epistles,) appear any longer strange, when we recollect that none of his works have reached us, excepting such as were addressed to the enemies of his religion. For other apologists of Christianity, especially TertuUian, rarely quote the N. Test, in their apologies and polemical writings, (ex cept the historical books to vvhich they were compelled to appeal in support of facts,) yet TertuUian often cites the homologoumena in his other works. Had the production of Justin, entitled De mon- archia Dei, reached us entire, in which,, as Eusebius informs us,4 he quotes not only Pagan but also Christian writings, tag nag r\p~iv ypatpdg, i. e. our Scriptures ; or had his work against Marcion, whom he could not refute without a reference to St. Paul, escaped the ravages of time ; we doubt not that we slfould have it in our power to adduce Justin as a witness for others of the hooks of the New Testament. In the work " on the Object of the Gospel and Epistles of St. John,"5 the author shows that the gospel which Justin used, and vvhich he commonly termed dnopvvpovevpaza ztav dnootoXcov, and I Euseb. IV. 14. Polycarp, Epist. §§ I. II. VIII. 2 [Justin, surnamed the Martyr, was, as Methodius states, not far removed from the apostles either in time or virtue. Fabricius supposes he was born about A. D. 89; and the time of his martyrdom is variously fixed by the learned, from A. D. 164 to 168. He was born at Sichem, the well known city of Samaria. S.J 3 Vide Paulus' Supplement to commentary on the New Testament, p. 81 &c. 4 Lib. IV. o. 18. 5 § 69. p. 363—375. "§> 2.] FRAGMENTS OF JUSTIN MARTYR. 39 sometimes1 ivayyiXtov, and which Justin moreover says was com posed by apostles of Jesus and their followers, vno dnotsioXmv Iijoov xal zmv avzoig nagaxoXovlttjauvtoiV ovvzttdx-&at,2 was a Har- iriony of the gospel of the Hebrews and of the gospel of Luke. The following are the principal arguments. First: it is certain that the gospel of Matthew was the groundwork from which Justin's gospel was composed ; and that the latter contained additions, which are not found in any of our gospels ; but which agree with additions found in the gospel of the Hebrews ; as Stroth has proved in the Repertory of' Biblical and oriental literature parti. Secondly; Justin was a native of Palestine, where the gospel of the Hebrews was current ; and it was there that he was converted to Christianity. Thirdly: the name of Justin's gospel, dnopvripovivpatazav dnoa- toXwv, coincides with the appellation " E\ angelium secundum apos- tolos," by which the gospel of the Hebrews is' also denominated. Fourthly : it is an indisputable fact, that Justin's gospel contained many passages from Luke; as Paulus has proved in his " Ex- egetisch-critische Abhandluhgen. Fifthly : on the contrary, it can not be proved that any passages from the gospel of John were in serted into the anopvepoviiipaza rcaV dnoozoXoiv, the Memorabilia of the apostles. Sixthly : Justin does not quote the passage Mark chap. Ill verse 17, from the dnopviipovtvpaaitdiv unoazoXwv, but from the gospel of Mark itself. His words are :3 " And when it is said that he (Christ) denominated one of the apostles Peter, and when this is also recorded in Jiis Memorabilia, together with the fact that to two ethers, who were brethren, the sons of Zebedee, he gave the name sons of thunder" Sic. The word dvzov must refer to Peter, and designate in this case the gospel of Mark. Stroth thinks the gospel of Justin was the same as the gospel of the Hebrews : Paulus regards it as a Harmony of our four gospels : Miinscher4 thinks -it; was a Greek translation of the gospel of the Hebrews, to which some additions were perhaps made from the gos pels of Matthew and Luke. Eichhorn, who collected the fragments out of Justin's gospel entire,5 believes that it was formed6 out of the original gospel; that it resembled our Matthew in matter and contents, but was earlier and less perfect. Schmidt is of opinion 1 Dial, cum Tryph. Jvdaeo, Justini. opp. ed. Colon, p. 227. 2 Dial, cum Tryph. ed. cit. p. 331. 3 Kul zb elnelv peztovopaxivai dvzbv Mzgov Iva z&v dnoazbXw, xal yt- ygdtp&ai iv zoig anopvrjpovsvpatnv ATTOT xal zovzo pezd zov xal aXXovg dio d8iXq>ovg, vlovg ZefieSalov ovzag, peztovopaxivai ovopazi- zov fioavigyeg, &c Dial, cum Tryph. p. 333, , 4 Handbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, I ter theil, 2te atiflage, Mar- purg, 1802 p. 296 &e. 5 Introduction to N. Test, part I. p. 513 &c. 6 p. 141 &c. 40 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. that it was framed by an enlargement of our Matthew, which at that time had not fully acquired its present form.1 The Reviewer of Eichhorn's Introduction, pronounces Justin's gospel to be the gos pel of Matthew enlarged from Luke ; and observes, that those ad ditions in Justin's gospel, which are not found in Matthew or Luke, are never marked as quotations. Hug maintains, that the dnopvypo- vtvpata of Justin were the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke ; and supposes, that Justin's citation of facts from the New Testament was not literal, but free and2 unrestrained. And finally, Feilmoser endeavors to prove, that the facts in the life of our Sav iour mentioned by Justin, in some instances are not adduced as citations, and in others are narrated in terms which contain only the sense of the corresponding passages in our gospels, and may also in some cases be viewed as marginal glosses.3 4. Irenaeus* who lived in the second century, in his books against the Gnostic sects of christians, quotes very many passages from all the homologoumena, and frequendy specifies the names of their authors : only from the epistle to Philemon he quotes no pas sage, which is easily accounted for by the contents and brevity of that epistle. As an evidence that we do not attach too high impor tance to the testimony of Irenaeus, (which acquires the greater mo ment from the fact of his connexion with the churches in Asia Mi nor, which had shortly before been under the care Of the apostle John, and even in the time of Irenaeus embraced some who had been contemporary with the apostles,) we shall adduce a few proofs. For Matthew, see Lib. III. contra Haereses c. 9. <§> 1, 2. For Mark, the same. c. 10, § 6. For the gospel of Luke, Lib. III. c. 10. § 1. c 14. § 3. For the gospel oi John, Lib. III. c. 11. $ 1. Compare the Re pertory for Biblical and Oriental Literature, part XIV. p. 136 &c. For the four Gospels, Lib. III. c. 1. § 1. c. 11 $ 8. c. 15. <§> 1. For the Acts of the apostles, Lib. III. c. 14. •§> 1 c. 15. <§> 1. For the epistle of Paul to the Romans, and both epistles to the Gb- rinthians, Lib. III. c. 13. <§> 1. c. 16. <§> 3. 9. c. 18. '5.2. 3. Lib. IV. c. 26. -§» 4. 1 Introd. N. Test. § 51. p. 120 &c. and 124 note 1. 2 Introd. to the books of the New Covenant, Inspruck 1810, § 62. 153 &c. 3 Introd. to N. Test, part II. §. 23. p. 74—80. 4 [Neither the birth nor the death of Irenaeus can be determined with pre cision. But" we havegood reason," says Dr. Lardner, " to believe that he was a disciple of Polycarp, that he was presbyter in the church of Lyons under Pothinus, whose martyrdom occured A. D. 177, and that he succeeded Pothinus to the bishopric of that church." " Irenaeus," says the same excellent writer " though his writings may not be free from imperfection, has given such proofs' of learning, good sense and integrity in the main, that all good judges must es teem him an ornament to the seethe was of." Lardner's Credib nt II B. I. c. 17. S.] ¦ f . . § 2.] TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS. 41 For the epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Co lossians, Lib. III. c. 7. <§> 2. c. 13. § 3. c. 16. $ 3. c. 18. § 3. Lib.V. c. 13. <§, 2—4. Lib. III. c. 14. § 1. For both epistles to the Thessalonians, Lib. V. c. 6. § 1. Lib. III. c. 6. «§, 5. c. 7. § 2. For the epistles to Timothy and Titus, Preface to Lib. I. ¦§> 1. Lib. III.c. 3. $3. c. 14. §l.c. 3. <§,4. For the first epistle of Peter and first of John, Lib. IV. c. 9. ¦§. 2. Lib. V. c..7 § 2. Lib. III. c. 16. <§> 5. 8.1 The credibility of Irenaeus' testimony to the genuineness of the books of the N. Test, is vindicated in the New Apology for the Revelation of St. John,3 against objections founded on some un guarded expressions contained in his books against the Gnostics. In a work published since the appearance of the Apology, and en titled "a Dissertation on the true and secure grounds of belief of the principal facts in the history of Jesus ; and on the probable origin of the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles," Eckermann has at tempted to invalidate the evidence of Irenaeus in favour of the gen uineness of 6ur four gospels.3 The works in reply, to this Disserta tion are, " Reflections on the origin of the four gospels and the Acts of the apostles ;"4 and a communication by Professor Siiskind, in Dr. Flatt's Magazine,"5 in answer to the question "What were the grounds on which Irenaeus received our four gospels as genuine?" Eckermann, in the work above referred to, attempts to invalidate the testimony of Irenaeus by saying : " Irenaeus, in the first place, appeals in general terms, to the unanimous testimony of the apostol ical churches, from which and on whose authority the gospels were . received. But this unanimous testimony of the christian churches, is nothing but the results of the first councils, held between A. D. 160 and 170 ; and which agreed in receiving our four gospels, be cause they unanimously believed them coincident with the doctrinal traditions of the apostolical churches, and thence concluded there could be no reason to doubt the fact, that these books were actually the 1 It is unnecessary to quote the words of Irenaeus in the passages which are here referred to, and in which he cites the individual books of the N. Test, with a specification of the author's name ; as there can be no dispute about them. They are contained, together with others, in Camerer's Theologischen und kritiscben Versuchen, Stuttgard 1794. 2nd Dissertation on the canon of the N. Test. § 7. , 2 p. 142—164. and the work Ueber den Zweek der evang. Geschichte Johannis etc. p. 89—94, 247—249. 3 Theologische Beytrage Vol. V. pt. 2. 1796. p. 171—176. 184—197 comp. p. 124—135. 4 " Staudfin'-s Contributions to the history of the doctrines of religion and morality," p. 185—192, where the testimony of Irenaeus is vindicated. 5 No. 6. p 95—139. 6 42 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. productions of the persons to whom they were ascribed. And since the time of these councils, the major part of the christian churches acknowledged them as the gospels of the persons whose names they bear. Secondly : Irenaeus himself appeals to the coincidence of the four gospels with the doctrinal traditions, which were the best source and the appropriate criterion of the truth. — Thus the force of the evidence for the genuineness of our gospels must at last rest on their coincidence with the oral tradition of doctrines, which came down to them without interruption from the lips of the apos tles. Irenaeus does not mention the churches, from which an ac count of the genuineness of our gospels was derived ; nor does he name any individuals who obtained such information from the lips of an apostle, or from one personally acquainted with an apostle. It is therefore, impossible that such traditiones ecclesiasticae (tradi tions of the church) should have any weight before the tribunal of impartial historical criticism. For they are too young to afford va lid evidence of such a fact : and they are moreover not only contra dicted by learned critics, such as Marcion ; but it can be evinced from satisfactory testimony ,rthat at the commencement of the se cond century, these written accounts were not regarded as so unques tionable but that the oral accounts of persons conversant with the apostles, were preferred to them, as more indubitable sources of in formation." The principal arguments by which these objections of Eckermann are met in the works above referred to, are the following. First, no passage can be found in Irenaeus, from which it might be inferred with even the semblance of truth, that he received our four gospels, on account of their coincidence with the doctrinal traditions. Se condly, the object of Irenaeus, in his books against the Gnostics, is not to establish the genuineness of the gospels, but their validity. Their genuineness he presupposed as admitted ; for the heretics against whom he was contending did not deny the genuineness of the gos pels, but disputed the authority of some of them. Thus in the case of Marcion, the assertion that he denied the genuineness of the gos>- pels is demonstrably false, as appears from the most explicit passa ges of Irenaeus and TertuUian. Thirdly, but even admitting the fact that Irenaeus rather assumes than proves the genuineness of our gos pels ; still it cannot be doubted that he had good historical ground for this assumption. The, assumption itself may therefore, without doubt, justly be regarded ailimportant historical evidence. Fourth- 1 The testimonyalluded to is that of Papias, who says : oi rd ex tojv SiBXloiv rooovzov pe tocfuXeiv vrzeXdpflavov otsov za izagd twoys tpuivijs xal pevovcms i. e. I did not think that I should be profited as much by what I could learn from writ ten records, as by the oral instructions of living persons. § 2.] TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS. 43 ly, the hypothesis that Irenaeus received the four gospels as genuine on the authority of certain councils, rests on a mere fiction. For, the supposition that the reception of the historical books of the New Testament was agreed on in the councils which met between A. D. 160 and 170, and by this agreement became a dogma of the whole catholic church ; is not only utterly destitute of proof, but is in itself, in the highest degree improbable.1 But even if this pretended fact were true, still such a choice of our gospels would beentitled to a very high degree of respect; because it could not be supposed that a traditionary opinion relative to the origin of the gospels, which was a mere unfounded report very recently sprung up, could have been disseminated universally and without alteration, and have exert ed an influence on all the provincial synods inducing them to make one and the same selection of books.2 Fifthly, Irenaeus was con nected with several churches. At Lyons, in Gaul, he was first Presbyter and then Bishop ; and according to Eusebius,3 he and his church maintained a correspondence with the Roman church. Ire naeus attached peculiar weight to the opinion of the churches at Smyrna and Ephesus ; of the former, because Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John, and had personally known him in his early youth, (ov iaigdy.upev xal rjp.iig iv zrj ngoirrj t]pojv tfXlxia,4) was bishop of Smyrna; and bf the latter, because the apostle John resided at Ephesus until the time of Trajan.5 And it is very pro bable from the passage referred to, as well as from Euseb. V. 1-3, that even when he resided in Gaul, he still was connected with these churches in Asia Minor. He moreover sometimes appeals to the testimony of persons who had personal intercourse with St. John and other apostles.& And consequently, in an age only 60 or 70 years remote from the apostolical, he had abundant opportunity to 1 Compare " Reflections on the origin of the gospels and Acts of the apostles," in Staudlin's Beytrage Vol. V. p. 195—201. Schmidt's Introduction to the N. Test, part I. § 13. " Montanism took its rise soon after the middle of the 2nd century, and in a short time spread from Phrygia to Gaul and Carthage. The Montanists and their opponents could certainly not have combined for the pur pose of raising the same books to canonical authority. But as they both used our gospels, it is evident that they must have been received as canonical at an earlier date. And the history of the contentions concerning the exact time when Easter should be kept, evinces that in the second century, no synods pos sessed sufficient influence to effect a harmony of opinions among christians — and hence it cannot have been, that to the synods of this century we are indebt ed for the settling of the canon." 2 See the author's Dissertation on the Question " Did Jesus profess that his miracles were a proof of the divinity of his mission,?" in Flatt's Magazine, Vol. IV. p. 236, etc. 3 Hist. Eccl. V. 4. 24. 4 Iren. Adv. Ha^res. IIL c. 3. § 4. Compare the epistle of Irenaeus to Florinus, preserved in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. V. c. 20. 5 Advers. Haeres. lib. III. c.3. § 4. 6 Adv. Haereses L. II. c. 22. § 5. Lib. V. c. 30. § 1. 44 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. X. obtain satisfactory and indisputable testimony on the genuineness of our gospels. And even if he does, by some incredible narratives, prove himself an injudicious historian, he may nevertheless be regard ed as a perfectly valid witness when the subject of investigation is the simple historical question, whether a particular book of the New Testament was acknowledged or assumed to be genuine, by persons and churches who must have had a knowledge of the fact. ^ Sixth ly that our gospels are supposititious, can by no means be inferred with any justice from the words of Papias, ov i« ix ztav 8i{lXiwv zo- eovzov pe ojcpeXtlv vniXupfiavov, oaov zd nagd fwo^S ycovng x«» pevovon?, i. e. I thought I should not be profited as much by what I could learn from written records, as by the oral instructions of living persons ; for which purpose this is quoted by Eckermann in the ex tract given above. For it would be a rash conclusion indeed to in fer from the declarations of Papias, the universal opinion of the Christians of his day. Again ; the very passage,' part of which is above quoted, contains a very respectful and circumstantial testimo ny for the genuineness of the gospels of Matthew and Mark. More over, the fact that Papias does not quote the gospel of St. John which was very probably published at rather a late period in Ephe sus near Hierapolis, where Papias was bishop, is very easily ac counted for ; because it was the object of Papias in composing his five books, to take his materials not from written but from oral ac counts : and because he had it not in his power to state anecdotes relative to the origin of this gospel, as he did of that of Matthew and Mark, since it had been but lately published in this country. Finally, it is not probable that Papias intended our gospels by the written records, from which he did not anticipate as much profit as from the oral accounts of the contemporaries of the apostles. It is highly probable that St. John, when he composed his gospel in Asia Minor, presupposed in his readers a knowledge of the other three evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke ; as is proved in the work " On the object of the gospel history of John" <§>$ 70. 71. These three gospels then must have circulated and have been known in Asia Minor ; and consequently the object of Papias in the compo sition of his five books, could not have been to repeat those incidents and sayings of Jesus which had long been rendered familiar by those gospels. And hence, as his professed object was to collect accounts relative to Jesus which were not yet generally known, he had no occasion to inform us that he could make more use of oral accounts than of the written gospels, for the gospels contained no such accounts. But -this remark of Papias is a favourable one, if the idea which he meant to convey was this : that he preferred ob- 1 Eseub. Hist. Eccl. III. 39. y "•] FRAGMENTS OF TERTULHAN. 45 taining his information personally from the contemporaries of the apostles, who were yet living, rather than from the Apocryphal gospels, whose authors were unknown and for whose statements he was not able to vouch.1 But even admitting that by written records he actually meant our gospels, still his words would not express his disapprobation of them, but only assert that the oral accounts of the contemporaries of the apostles were more interesting to him individ ually and personally; and how perfectly natural is this in a person who was fond of anecdotes !a It appears therefore that the objections to the, testimony of Ire naeus possess but little force, and that its validity remains unshaken, 5. Theophilus j6 of Antioch, in the second century. He mentions John as the author of a gospel;4 and he also composed a harmony of our four gospels, if we can credit the words of Jerome.5 Theoph ilus (he. says) Antiochenae ecclesiae septimus post Petrum aposto- lum Episcopus, qui quatuor Evangelistamm in unum opus dicta compingens ingenii sui monumenta nobis dimisit, etc. i. e. Theoph ilus, the seventh bishop of Antioch after the apostle Peter, has left us a specimen of his genius in his production, combining the contents of the four gospels into one work. 6. Athenagoras of the second century, ascribes both of the epis tles to the Corinthians to an apostle, whom Hermias calls Paul, in his work against the heathen philosophers entitled Siuavgpog ztbv i"£w qiXoooywv, i. e. ridicule of the philosophers without the church. Athenagoras, de Resurrectione,6 says, It is therefore clearly evident, according to the declaration of -the apostle, that this corruptible and dissolvable must put on incorruption, in order that, being quick ened by the resurrection of the dead, and the parts which were sep arated and scattered about every where being again united, each one may justly receive the things done in the body, whether they be good or bad.1 1 Vide the Dissert, sup. cit. in Flatt's Magazine Vol. IV. p. 245, eta. 2 See the dissert, in Staudlin's Beitrage, Vol. V. p. 176, etc. 3 [Theophilus was the seventh bishop of Antioch after the apostle Peter, as Eusebius informs us, and was made bishop A. D. 168. His predecessors were Euodius, Ignatius, Heros, Cornelius and Eros; and his death occurred shortly after A. D. 181. S.] 4 L. II. ad. Antolycum. 5 Epist. ad Algasiam Quaest. 6. 6 page 61. edit. Coloniensis. irt« *». < ¦ / 'J J l Kt '¦ 1 1 \s \rr fc \AJr ^^ v*» i^w *w w w^ m. «™ r r ~rrs- «- " v. r ., -. . - ..,..-.-w-..-' ¦.- r — -. ---- xextagio-fiivmv ij xai ndvzrj SiaXeXvpivtov ex atrz og x o p i a tj t a i 8i- xaltog, u Sid zov o-topazog eng a£tv, eiz e aya&a e'ire xax a 46 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. The words zo—df&agalav and i'va—xaxd, are taken, the former from 1 Cor. 15 : 53, the latter from 2 Cor. 5:10. 7. Clemens of Alexandria, in the second century makes very copious citations from all the homologoumena, excepting only the epistle to Philemon. 8. TertuUian, presbyter of Carthage, in the second century, -at tributes 'the historical books of the New Testament, the twelve epis tles of Paul, (which Irenaeus also cites as productions of Paul,) the epistle to Philemon and the first epistle of Peter and first of John, to the same persons who are commonly regarded as their authors. TertuUian, of Western Africa,1 being the most ancient Latin wri ter that has reached us, is entitled to particular attention.2 Among the important passages for the genuineness of the writings of the New Testament, are the following. First ; concerning the historical books of the New Testament, he says : " In the first place, I consider it as established, that the pro ductions termed the gospels, were written by the apostles to whom the Lord himself committed this charge of publishing the gospel ; but if companions of the apostles were also concerned in them, they nevertheless did not act alone, but in conjunction with the apostles, and following them as guides ; because the publications of the disci ples of the apostles might be exposed to the imputation of ambitious views, if the authority of their instructors, yea even that of Christ himself, which made their instructors apostles, did not support them. In a word we are taught the faith by the apostles John and Mat thew, and it is confirmed to us by their disciples Luke and Mark."3 In Another passage he says : " In short, if it is evident that that is the more true which is the more ancient, and that the more an cient which is from the beginning, and that from the beginning which was derived from the apostles ; then it will in like manner be evi dent, that what the apostolical churches held as inviolably sacred, they received from the apostles. — I assert therefore, that the Gos pel of Luke, which I defend4 to the utmost, was from its first publi cation, in possession pf these (churches) ; and not only of the apos- 1 Schmidt sup. cit. p. 26. 2 Compare " Hanlein's Manual, being an Introd. to N. Test. Erlangen,1794, part. I. p. 85— 87. 3 Constituimus in primis, evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munas evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sitimpositum ; siet apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis, et post apostolos; quoniam praedicatio diacipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio, si non assistat illi autoritas magistrorum, imo Christi, quae magistros apostolos fecit. Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant." Lib. IV. adv. Marcionem, c. 2. 4 He defended the unadulterated Gospel of Luke against the spurious one of Marcion. 4> 2.] FRAGMENTS OF TERTULLIAN. 47 tolical (churches) but also of all which are united with them in the bonds of a common faith. — The same authority of the apostolical churches support also the other Gospels, which we have likewise received. through them, and in the form in which they had them; namely the Gospels of John and of Matthew : and likewise that of Mark, which is ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was. — And thus the digest of Luke is commonly ascribed to Paul ; for it is customary to ascribe to the teachers, what their students publish ed."1- The Acts of the Apostles is quoted by TertuUian under the title of Acta Apostolorum,2 and Commentarius Lucae.3 Eckermann, who quotes4 this testimony of TertuUian for the genuineness of our Gospels, makes an attempt to invalidate its force. He says :s " Before such an appeal to the testimony of the apos tolical church can possess any weight, it is necessary that it should be specifically stated, that according to the tradition preserved in some particular church, Luke did, at a specified time deliver the Gospel into the hands of that church ; or that some friend of Luke, seeing the Gospel and the Acts of the apostles in the hands of Luke, heard him declare, with his own lips, that he actually wrote them," etc. But the principal ground on which TertuUian builds all that he says, is this : " The testimony of the church must be regarded as infallible ; and she has decided in favour of the four Gospels. The truth of the traditionary opinion of the apostolic churches is based upon the fact that the apostles were their first teachers ; as though it would follow that after the lapse of 150 years, every thing in them were still apostolic."6 In opposition to this, the author of " Reflections on the origin of the Gospels and Acts of the apostles"6 remarks, that TertuUian appeals, not to the doctrinal, but the historical tradition of the churches, which the apostles founded, and to which they committed their writings. This the" whole connexion shows. In this very context, he says : " We have also the support of the churches of John ; for although Marcion rejected the Revelation of John, the whole succession of bishops from the beginning, will testify that 1 In summa, si constat, id verius, quod prius, id prius, quod et ab initio, ab initio quod ab Apostolis, pariter utique constabit, id esse ab apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. — Dico itaque apud i lias (ecclesias,) nee solum jam apostolicas, sed apud universas, quae illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur, id evangelium Lucae ab initio editionis suae stare, quod cum maxime tuemur. Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum Apostolicarum caete- ris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proinda per illas et secundum illas habemus, Johannis dico et Matthaei : licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirma- tur, cujus interpres Marcus. Nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere solent ; capit magistrorum videri quae discipuli promulgarint. Lib. IV. adv. Marcion. c. 5. 9 Adv. Marc. V. 1. 3 De Jejunio c. 10. 4 Sup. cit. 202—205. 5 Sup. cit. 204 &c. 6 Staudlin's Beytragen, Vol. V. p. 192 &c. 48 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. John was the author."1 In order to prove that the Marcionite Gospel of Luke is spurious, he remarks in the same passage : " But Marcion's (Gospel of Luke) is unknown to most persons ; and it is known to none but as originating with him."2 Of the cither Gos pels he says : " We have received them from the apostolical churches, and have precisely their text of them."3 It appears therefore that there is nothing said relative to a decision of the apostolical churches, in favour of the Gospels ; but of the trans mission of those writings, which they originally received as the productions of the apostles, unaltered, to other churches. The passage of TertuUian cited below4 may also be consulted as proof that he refers to historical tradition.5 But Eckermann has him self retracted the above-mentioned objections against the force of the tradition of the church, in the preface to his work entitled " Explanation of all the obscure passages of the New Testament."6 He says : " The fact can admit of no dispute, that in the churches founded by the apostles, it could be known, which reputed writings of an apostle were genuine and which were spurious. And it is a remarkable fact, which places the integrity of the witnesses for the genuineness of our canonical Gospels in the clearest light, that there have been transmitted to us but two Gospels composed by apostles, and two others composed by disciples of apostles. Had the names under which they were submitted to the world, been fictitious, why were not all the Gospels ascribed to apostles, rather than to persons who had only been their scholars?" One other objection raised against the validity of historical tradi tion as supporting the homologoumena, is this : that in the earliest times, tradition supported as genuine and apostolical some books which were afterwards proved to be supposititious ; and therefore it can possess no weight in the balance of historical investigation. A reply to this objection the reader will find in Flatt's Magazine.7 Secondly, as to the Epistles of Paul. The two epistles to the Corinthians, the two to the Thessalonians, the first to Timothy, and those to the Galatians, the Romans, Ephesians and the Colos sians, are quoted, by TertuUian, De pudicitia, c. 13 — 19. The second epistle to Timothy is cited, in Scorpiacum contra Gnosticos, 1 Habemus et Johannis ecclesias alumnas. Nam etsi Apocalypsim ejus Mar cion respuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus in Johannem stabit autorem. 2 Marcionis vero (Evangelium Lucae) plerisque necnotum; nullis notum, ut non eodem natum. 3 Habemus per ecclesias apostolicas, et secundum illas. 4 De praescript, baereticorum, c. 36. 5 Compare Flatt's Magazine, Vol. IX. p. 31—33. 6 Vol. I. p. VII. 7 Stuck IX. s. 2—47. $ 2.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 49 c. 13. The epistle to Titus, in Praescriptiones haereticorum, c. 6. And that to the Philippians, in the fifth book against Marcion, c. 20. And throughout the whole of this fifth book, the epistles of Paul are frequently quoted. The same book, c. 21. contains a remark relative to an epistle, which, though Philemon is not named in the text, could have been no other than that addressed to him. " This epistle alone was shielded by its brevity from the falsifying hands of Marcion. Yet it is strange, as Marcion received this epistle to an individual, that he should reject the two to Timothy and the one to Titus."1 The first epistle to Peter is cited, in Scorpiac. c. 12. 14. and the first epistle of John, de pudicitia, c. 19. In addition to these pas sages, we will insert that above mentioned, contained in his Pre script. Haereticorum, c. 36. " Pass through all the apostolical churches, in which the seats of the apostles are still filled, and in which their genuine 2 epistles are publicly read, by which their voice continues to sound, and their countenances are still exhibited. Is Achaia nearest to you ? Corinth is not distant. If you are but little removed from Macedonia, Philippi is there. If you can go to Asia, you have there Ephesus. But if you adjoin Italy, Rome is at hand." 3 Fragments of Caius, who lived in the beginning of the third cen tury. According to Eusebius,4 Caius, attributed thirteen epistles to Paul ; whom he terms (hgov dnomoXov) the holy apostle. ItL. 6. The internal evidence is wholly in favour of the genuine ness of the books of the New Testament : — they contain noth ing incongruous with the age or other circumstances in which they were written. Michaelis has clearly shown, that the style of the books of the I Soli huic epistolae brevitas sua profuit ut falsar ias manus Marcionis evaderet. Miror tamen, cum afl unum hominem literas factas receperit (Marcion,) quod ad Timotheum duas, et unam ad Titum, recusaverit. 2 Schmidt (Introd. N. Test. II. 30.) doubts whether the apographs of the apos tolical epistles be meant here. Hug, (Introd. I. 93.) thinks the phrase " literae authenticae " signifies genuine unadulterated epistles ; and appeals, in support of this signification of the word authentwus, lo the passage de monogamia, c. 11. [The learned Dr. Lardner (Works, v. II. p. 167 — 8. ed. 8vo.) expresses his opin ion thus : " TertuUian, by ' authentic letters,' does not mean the original epistles. Nor does he mean letters in their original language. But by authentic, he seems to mean certain, well attested; the Greek word is so used by Cicero : and by authenticae literae we are not to understand authentic letters or epistles, but 'scriptures ;', so the word ought in my opinion to be rendered." And in support of each of these propositions, he as usual adduces his reasons. S.] 3 » Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ispae adhuc cathedrae apostolo rum suis locis praesidentur, apud quas authenticae literae eorum recitantur, son- antes voeem, repraesenlantes faciem. Proxima est tibi Achaia : habes Corinth- um. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos. Si potesin Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italiae adjiceris, habes Rornam. 4 Hist. Eccl. VI. 30. 7 50 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. {BK. I. New Testament is an internal proof of their genuineness*; a and he has proved, that the historical data of the New Testament accord, even in the most minute circumstances, with the history of the time in which they were said to be written.2 He has likewise answered several objections, derived from the actual or apparent contradictions between other historians, especially Josephus, and the narratives of the New Testament. Compare on this subject, the very complete enumeration of the internal evidences for the genuineness of the New Testament writings, in Hanlein's Introduction to the New Testament,3 and in Kleuker's " Full investigation of the evidences for the genuineness and credibility of the original records of Chris tianity."4 These internal evidences for the genuineness of the writings of the New Testament, are compressed into a narrow space, in Griesinger's Introduction to the books of the New Covenant ; * and select remarks on this subject, may be found in Hug's Intro duction,6 The Gospels oi Matthew and Mark, like the other Gospels, con tain nothing which can be regarded even as an inferential, negative proof of their spuriousness. Eckermann, in his " Theologische Bei- tr'a'ge" has, indeed, attempted to prove the Gospels and Acts not gen uine, by internal evidence. But his arguments are refuted, in the "Reflections on the origin of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles ;7 and in the Dissertation of Storr, on the question : " Did Jesus represent his miracles to be a proof of the divinity of his mission ? "8 The principal objections of Ekermann, together with the answers to them contained in these dissertations, are the following : Objection 1. The illiterate disciples of Jesus could not well have possessed any skill in writing. Matthew alone, having been a pub lican, may have been an exception. Reply. We have no authority for asserting that the disciples of Jesus were wholly unable to write ; although their artless narratives may prove that they were not acquainted with the artificial rules of composition."9 Again ; they may, like Paul, have dictated their works to others, who served as their amanuenses.10 Eckermann is inconsistent with himself; for he admits that the groundwork of the 1 Introduction to N. Test. § 4. 10. 11. 12. 2 See also Hug's Introduction to tho N. Test. p. 12—24. Andover ed. 5 Ft. I. § 3-6. p. 41-70. 4 Vol. I. and Vol. III. pt, 1. p. 32-104. S p. 7. 8. Stuttgard, 1799. 6 pt. I. § 3_5. 7 Staudlin's Beitrage, vol. V. p. 156—163. 8 Flatt's Mag. pt. IV. p. 234 etc. 9 Staudlin's Beitrage, sup. cit. p. 156 etc. l° Flatt's Mag. sup. cit. p. 250. Staudlin's Beitrage, p. 157. "§> 2.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 5.1 Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, like that of the Acts of the Apostles, was the composition of those very men ; though he sup poses they were rewritten at a subsequent period, and much en larged by spurious additions.1 Objection 2. Prior to the commencement of the second century, there was no necessity for written records of the life and doctrines of Jesus. Reply. The inference of the non-existence of a thing from the fact of its being unnecessary is, in general, not legitimate.2 But the contrary fact has been proved by Griesinger, in his Introduction to the New Testament, p. 99, and by Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the New Testament, vol. I. p. 3, who state the causes why such a written record was necessary. Again ; must the apostles be suppos ed to have provided only for cases of absolute and indispensable necessity? May there not have been many christians, who were desirous of possessing circumstantial narratives of the life of Jesus ? The opponents of Christianity, even in the apostolical age, may have rendered it necessary, on many accounts, to commit to paper the history and doctrines of Jesus. Objection 3. It is evident from the whole tenor of both disserta tions of Eckermann, that the principal ground on which he builds his hypothesis of the spuriousness of the historical books of the New Testament, is this : The Gospels are not written in the "spirit of Jesus and his immediate disciples ; for Jesus and his disciples would not, by any means, have belief in their doctrines founded on signs and miracles. Now as there are passages in the Gospels, in which signs and miracles are presented as proofs of the divine mission of Jesus, e. g. Matt. 11 : 20—24. 2—6. Mark 16 : 11, 18. Luke 10: 13, etc. John 2: 11,23. 6: 26 -r we must believe that all such passages, and indeed, whatever is either itself miraculous, or is con firmed solely by miracles, are the additions of later christians, who altered and corrupted the publications of Matthew, Luke and John, about the end of the first century. Reply. Without recurring to either the internal or external proofs of the genuineness of the Gospels, the principal facts in the life of Jesus (the truth of which Eckermann admits) would them selves lead us to conclude, a priori, not only that Jesus himself be lieved in the extraordinary agency of God, but that he would refer his readers to miracles and -signs as proofs of his divine mission. Consult " Philosophical and historico-exegetical Remarks on the Mira cles," in Flatt's Magazine, pt. III. § 35—38. Moreover, the as sumption that Jesus and his apostles would not have a belief in the 1 Staudlin's Beit. sup. cit. Flatt's Mag. p. 249. •2 Staudlin's Beitrage, p. 157. 52 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. doctrines of Jesus to be founded at all on miracles, is false : nor does a single one of the passages which Eckermann adduces,>-afford the least ground forsuch an assertion. Compare the dissertation " Did Jesus declare his miracles to be a proof of- the divinity of his mis sion?" in Flatt's Mag.pt. IV. <§> 3— 5. Again, if every thing miraculous in the history and doctrines of Jesus contained in our Gospels, originated with superstitious chris tians, who first appeared about the close of the first century ; how comes it that our Gospels obtained such a general reception through out the christian church ? Or if it was a universal mania for miracles, which produced this effect ; how comes it that some churches at least did not prefer one or other of the apocryphal books, in which the biography of Jesus is still more replete with miracles ? And if the much older fact, that Matthew, Luke and John left certain books behind them, was known till after the middle of the second century ; how happens it that the far more recent fact, of the revision and en largement of them, was at the same time unknown ? And why was not the least reference made to it, when our Gospels were univer sally received as canonical J1 Objection 4. If Matthew had himself written the Gospel which bears his name, he would certainly have given us more of those excellent and instructive discourses of Jesus, which are now found only in Luke and John. Reply. It was inconsistent with the object of Matthew, to insert into his Gospel those things which he omitted and which are found in the other Gospels. See this proved in the work " On the Object of the evangelical history of John," $ 62, 64, and in Staudlin's Beitrage, p. 166. For a literary view of the late works and dissertations, in which the genuineness of the Gospel of John has been either disputed or proved, by internal and external evidence, consult Wegscheider's Complete Introduction to the Gospel of John, Gb'ttingen, 1806. p 78, etc. and Eichhorn's Introduction to theNew Test. Vol. II. p. 239. ed. 1810. The latter work contains likewise a refutation of the latest ob jections, as advanced by Cludius in his " Uransichten des Christen- thum's/'p. 50—89, Altonae, 1808. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark contain clear internal evidence, from which the positive inference may be made, that the former was written by Matthew, and the latter by a disciple of Peter. The internal mark in the Gospel of Matthew, which supports the opinion that Matthew is the author, is the narrative which he gives of his own call to the apostolic office, chapter ix. 9 — 13. This subject is discussed in the work " On the Object of St. John," p. 355 and 303. Vide the Dissertation quoted, in Flatt's Mag. 4. p. 237 239. <§> S-] INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 53 In the latter passage, it is remarked that the insertion of a circum stantial account of the reception of Matthew into the number of the twelve, and of other circumstances connected with it, in a Gospel which touches so seldom on the earlier history of the other Apostles, is best accounted for by the fact, that Matthew himself is the author of this Gospel. Several internal marks, which prove that the author of the Gos pel of Mark was a disciple of the apostle Peter, are stated in Dis sert. I. in Libror. N. T. Historicorum aliquot loca, (Opusc. Acade- mica, Vol. III. p. 10.) and in the works there mentioned. Thus, notice is taken, p. 60 etc. of the fact, that Peter is distinguished in the 16th vers6 of Mark III, by a deviation from the particular con struction of the sentence which was commenced in v. 14, and after wards continued from v. 17 to 19: — that although his name is not mentioned out bf its proper place, still he is not mentioned expressly as the first : — the circumstance that, in Mark 8 : 29, merely the con fession of Peter is mentioned, and the answer of Jesus (Matt. 16 : 17 — 49) which reflects such honour on Peter, omitted : — the fact that Mark, in imitation of Peter, (Acts 1 : 21,) begins his account with the" baptism of John : — and p. 64, note 107, it is observed, that Mark only (chap. 8 : 22 — 26) gives the history of the blind man of Bethsaida, the birth place of Peter, (John 1 : 45) which may on that account, have been more interesting to him. Compare Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, pt. II. § 27. p. 380 etc. where the passages Mark 1 : 36. 5 : 37. 13 : 3. 16 : 7, are considered with reference to this point. The English divine, Dr. Paley, in his Horae Paulinae, published in 1790, advances a new and pertinent argument for the genuineness of the thirteen epistles of Paul, and for the credibility of the Acts of the Apostles, founded on their reciprocal relations and references to each other, which were evidently the effect, not of premeditation and design, but of accidental coincidence.1 Supplementary note. — On the origin and reciprocal relation of the three first Gospels. The principal Opinions in regard to the relation of the first three Gospels, which have of late been advocated, are the following: I. That the three evangelists copied one from another. The opinions are, that either, Matthew wrote first ; and Mark, when composing his Gospel, had Matthew's before him ; and Luke had Matthew's and Mark's. See Hug's Introd. to N. Test. Vol. II. p. 349—420. Or : Mark formed his Gospel wholly from the two others. See Gries- bach's " Commentio, qua Marci evangelium totum e Mattheai et 1 This work was translated into German by Henke, Helmstadt, 1797. 54 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK I. Lucae Commentariis decerptum esse monstratur." P. I, II, Janae, 1789, 90, printed in Commentt. Theolog. Ed. Velthusen, Kuinbl, Vol. I. Paulus' Commentary on the first three Gospels, and In- troductionis in N. T. Capita Selectiora, Jenae, 1799. No. IV. In the latter dissertation, the writer supposes that Matthew and Luke in the composition of their Gospels, had used detached and scattered Greek accounts of the life of Jesus, and that the same were used in part by both. Or: Mark wrote his Gospel first ; and Matthew and Luke made use of it. This opinion is stated in some of the writings above referred to. The similarity between Luke and our Greek Matthew is ac counted for by the supposition, that the Greek translator of Matthew made some use of Luke. See " On the Object of the Gospel of John," p. 360. Or : Luke wrote first ; and Mark availed himself of Luke's Gospel ; and Matthew of both the others. See Vogel. sup. cit. p. 34, etc. II. The Evangelists derived their Gospels from one or , more common sources, Aramaean or Greek ; such as an original Gospel, or different editions and translations of it. Several more recent- modi fications of this hypothesis, (which refer to the number or nature or language of these sources, and to the use made of them by the evangelists,) are found in the following works ; In Hanlein's Introduction to N. Test. sup. cit. p. 270, etc. In Marsh's Dissertation on the origin and Composition of the first three Gospels, p. 284, etc. of Rosenmiiller's translation. J In Eichhorn's Introd. to N. Test. Vol. I. 1804. See also the Re views of this Introduction in the " Tiibinger gelehrten Anzeigen," for 1805, Nos. 18—20: p. 137—156. and in the " Haller. Lit. zeitung," for 1805, No. 127, etc. See also Hug's Introd. part. I. p. 64, etc. In Schmidt's Introd. to N. Test. part. I. $ 37 — 43. Several criti cal remarks on the views which have been entertained of the re lation of our Gospels, are contained in <§> 24 — 43. In Gratz's " New attempt to explain the origin of the first three Gospels," Tubingen, 1812. III. 7. The testimony of the earliest heretics to the genuineness of the homologoumena. The genuineness pf the homologoumena was acknowledged, even by those heretics of the earliest ages to whose interest the authority of these books was extremely prejudicial ; for they sought refuge in 1 And in the original English work, Bishop Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. III. part. 2. p. 361, etc. § 2.] TESTIMONY OP THE HERETICS. 55 arbitrary interpretations of the odious passages ; and did not pre sume to dispute the genuineness of the books. Among the Gnos tics, for instance, there were some sects who admitted the gen uineness of the New Testament, but distorted their meaning by their explanations, and maintained the necessity of giving an alle gorical turn to all the declarations of the apostles. Irenaeus says : " So great is this certainty in regard to our Gospels, that even the heretics themselves bear testimony in their favour; and all ac knowledging them, each endeavours to establish from them his own opinion." l He adds : " But all others, (except the aforementioned Marcionites,) being puffed up by science falsely so called, do indeed acknowledge the genuineness of the Scriptures, but pervert them by their interpretations. "a They moreover accused the writers of the New Testament of accommodation, when they were pressed by in dividual passages. " These lying sophists assert, (says Irenaeus,) that the apostles hypocritically dispensed their instruction accord ing to the capacity of their audience, accommodating their answers to the prejudices of the inquirers ; teaching the illiterate such things as would gratify their ignorance, fostering the indolence of the lazy, and cherishing the errors of the deluded ; and to those ableto com prehend the ineffable Father, they explained the deep mysteries of religion by parabolic and figurative representations : so that our Lord and his apostles did not (according to their views) teach truth as it is, but hypocritically and in accommodation to the dispositions of men."3 And in chap. 12. §6, where Irenaeus utters similar sen timents relative to this Gnostic theory of accommodation, he makes the following impressive remark : " Superfluous and in vain would the advent of our Lord appear, if he came to tolerate and cherish the former erroneous opinions of men respecting God." 4 The Va- 1 " Tanta est circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et ipsi haeretici testimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam." Irenaeus, Lib. III. c II. §7. 2 Reliqui vero omnes, falso scientiae nomine inflati, Scripturas quidem confi- tentur, interpretationes vero convertunt, Ibid. c. 12. § 12. — Compare Schmidt's observations upon the Commentary of the Gnostic Heracleon on the Gospel of John ; in his Introd. to N. T. part I. p. 238. 3 Dicunt hi, qui vanissimi sunt Sophistae, quod apostoli cum hypocrisi fece- runt doctrinam secundum audientiutn capacitatem, et responsiones secundum interrogantium suspiciones, coecis coeca confabulantes secundum coecitatem ipsorum; languentibus autem secundum lauguorem ipsorum, et errantibus se cundum errorem eorum ; — his vero, qui innominabilem Patrem capiunt, per parabolas et aenigmata inenarrabile fecisse mysterium : itaque non, quemadmo- dum ipsa habet Veritas, sed in hypocrisi, et quemadomodum capiebat unusquis que, Dominum et Apostolos edidisse magisterium." Iran. L. III. c. 5. § 1. 4 " Superfluus autem et inutilis adventus Domini apparebit, si quidem venit permissurus et servaturus uniuscujusque olim insitam de Deo opinionem. — See also Carus : Historia antiquior Sententiarum Ecclesiae Graecae de Accommoda- tione Christo imprimis et Apostolis tributa," Lipsiae, 1793, § 16. 56 GENUINENESS OP THE NEW TEST. [bK I. lentinians,oneof the Gnostic sects, were particularly attached to the Gospel of John.1 But it appears they had also our other Gospels, and particularly that of Luke, or at least an abridged and perhaps an adulterated copy ; as we learn from Origen and Irenaeus. The latter (after having adduced several parts of the history and doc trines of Jesus, which are contained only in Luke,) says : " And many other things which are found in Luke alone, are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus :"2 — " and consequently, they must either adopt the other contents of Luke, or reject these also."3 And Origen, in reply to the objection of his opponent; " that some of the christians altered the Gospel in three or four different ways, in order to evade objections ;" makes these remarks : " I know of none who adulterated the Gospel except the followers of Marcion and of Val entinus, and as I suppose those of Lucian."4 It likewise appears, that to the original number of the gospels, they added another, termed " the Gospel of truth :" for, otherwise they could not have boasted of having more Gospels than the catholic church ; as Ire naeus informs us they did : " The followers of Valentinus produce their own writings ; and boast of the possession of more Gospels than really exist. Nay to such a pitch has their audacity risen, that to a production of their own, which has no resemblance to the apos tolical Gospels, they have given the name of The Gospel of truth."5 And it seems that Valentinus, like Marcion, received the writings of Paul ; from which the Gnostics are said to have taken proofs in sup port of their system.6 For Irenaeus distinguishes Valentinus and Marcion, from another sect who rejected the writings of the apostle 1 Irenaeus says: "Hi autem quia Valentino sunt, eo, quod est secundum Johannem, (evangelio) plenissime utentes, etc. L. III. c. 7. § 11. In the work " On the Object of the Gospel of John," p. 52, it is remarked, that the Valen- tinians probably derived many forms of expression from the Gospel of John, which were unknown to the elder Gnostics. 3 Et alia multa sunt, quae inveniri possunt a solo Luca dicta esse, quibus et Marcion et Valentinus ultuntur. Lib. III. c. 14. § 3. 3 "Necesse est igitur, et reliqua quae ab eo (Luca) dicta sunt, recipero eos, aut et his renuntiare .,b,d § 4. And at the end of this section, after having again spoken of the Valentm.ans and the Marcionites and especially of the former, he adds : Si autem ot rehqua suscipere cogentur, intendentes perfecto evangelio et apostolorum doctrinal, opportet eos poenitentiam agere. 4 Meraxafiai-dvzag Si zb elayyiXiov £UovS olx olSa, f? zoig dub Magxitbvog "ttizovg ano OvaXtvzivov, oVpai 8e xal zoig dub Aovxdvov, Contra Celsum L II. § £1 . 5 Hi vero qui a Valentino sunt suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere glonanturquam sint ipsa evangelia. Si quidem in tantum proccsserunt auda™ nrhiio^retiensXro,tr:rgeS^ est' veritatis «™^™ *¦$> bot^'aTa^f SuAr1:*?. and I CorTf ^ *• Gn°SUcS "P"™ - § 2.] TESTIMONY OF THE HERETICS. 57 Paul.1 TertuUian says,2 that Valentinus appears to have used the whole collection of New Testament books ; and to have spared those which Marcion had lacerated. His only complaint is, that Valentinus perverted their meaning.3 III. 8. The genuineness of the homologoumena acknowledged by the earlier heretics. The earlier heretics made alterations and erasions in the homo logoumena; but acknowledged the genuineness of these books. — -• This is exemplified in the case of. Marcion, a very ancient witness, who decidedly maintained that ten of Paul's epistles were genuine ; but asserted that alterations and interpolations had been made in them, by some christians who were inclined towards Judaism. Ac cordingly, he undertook the task of restoring them to their primitive form ; and actually published what he regarded as an improved edition of them. He believed the Gospel of Luke to have been written,, not by Luke, but by the apostle Paul : and this too he undertook to improve. Now the very fact, that Marcion regarded the Gospel of Luke, which he used, as a production of Paul ;- evin ces the existence of an earlier opinion, that Luke was the author of this Gospel. And this opinion it was, in connexion with the passage, Coloss. 4 : 14, where Paul mentions the salutation of " Luke the beloved physician," together with other similar statements, which gave rise to the thought that the Gospel of Luke was alluded- to by Paul, when he speaks of his Gospel, GaL 2: 5, 7, 14, and in other passages. The unfounded opinion, that Paul participated in the composition of the Gospel of Luke, arose4 from a misapprehension of the meaning of tvayyiXiov in the words of Paul, (Rom. 2: 16. and 16: 25.) xaza to ivayyt'Xiov pov, i. e. according to my Gospel ; for it was customary, early, to appropriate the word ivayyihov to biographies of Christ. Hence it was inferred, that Paul must have left a biography of Christ ; and as there was none extant under his name, and as it was evident from the Acts of the apostles, (16: 20 etc.) and from the epistles of" Paul, (Col. 4: 14, 2 Tim. 4: 11.) that Luke was his confidant ; the Gospel of Luke was therefore termed Paul's Gospel. Accordingly, Eusebius remarks : " It is said, that Paul referred to the Gospel of Luke, when he used the expression, ' according to my Gospel, '; as if he were writing con- 1 Advers. Haeres. L. III. c. 14. § 3, 4. and c. 15. § 1. Eadem autem dicimus iterum et his. qui Faulum apostolum non cognoscunt &c. 2 De praescriptionibus, c. 38. 3 See Hug's Introduction, pt. ,1. p. 57, etc. Andover ed. 4 See " On the object of John," § 54, 56. 8 58 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. cerning a Gospel of his own."1 In addition to this, it was a custom ary saying, that Mark's Gospel sprung From the sermons of Peter, and Luke's Gospel from those of Paul.2 Thus Irenaeus says: " Mark himself, who was the scholar and interpreter of Peter, trans mitted to us in writing what Peter announced. And Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded the Gospel which Paul preached."3 — Such observations would not have become current, had it not been well known that Gospels were extant bearing the names of Mark and Luke. III. 9. Testimony of the hefetics. They acknowledged the genuineness of the homologoumena, while they denied the au thority of their authors. The Ebionites ; rejected the epistles of Paul, not because they denied Paul to be the author of them, but because they regarded Paul himself as an apostate. from the Mosaic law : " Ebionei (says Irenaeus4) Apostolum Paulurh recusant, apostatam eum legis dicen- tes." It was doubtless for the same reason, that they rejected the Gospel of Luke ; because it was the production of a companion of the apostle Paul, and was commonly ascribed to Paul himself. See the preceding Illustration. The meaning, in the passage-of Irenaeus which treats of the Ebionites,5 is not : " Those who reject the apostle Paul, (the Ebionites,) receive that portion of the Gospel history and doctrine, which is found in Luke alone ; and therefore they are bound to admit what Luke testifies of Paul in the Acts of the apostles ;" but the meaning of Irenaeus was this : "The Ebion ites who reject Luke, thereby rob themselves of many indispensably necessary , parts of the history of Christ, which are found only in Luke ; they therefore do not possess a complete Gospel history." He reasons thus : '.' If they reject the authority of the apostle Paul, then they must discard Luke, who in his Acts of the apostles, gives an account of the. election of Paul to the apostleship; but if they discard Luke, they, deprive themselves of those important parts of 1 aol8e oh ago. zov xaza. Aovxav tvdyyetiov fivrjpovvet-v 6 Hav'Xos ««J5w, bnrpiixa tiit.negl iSiov zivdg eia-yytXtdv ygatptuv t&eyr xaza.ro elayyekibv pov, Hist. Eccl. III. 4. '•-¦"-.' 9 Compare Schmidt's Introd. pt. I. p. 50. 3 Marcus dbscipulns et interpres Petri, et ipse quae a Petro annuntiata erant per scripta (iyygat/Mg) nobis tradidit. Et Lucas sectator Pauli, quod ab illo praedicabatnr evangelium in libro condidit. Adv.Haereses, L. III. c. 1. § 1. 4 Lib. I. c. 26. § 2. 5 Eadem autem diciraus iterum et his, qui Paulum apostolum non cognoscant, quoniam (quod) aut reliquis verbis Evangehi, quae per solum Lucam in nostram venerunt agnitioncm, renuntiare debent,et non uti eis ; aut si ilia recipiunt omnia, habent necessitatem, recipere etiam earn testificationem.ouae est de Paulo. III. 15. §1. ' § 2.] TESTIMONY Ot MARCION. 59 the Gospel history, which are contained in Luke alone.1 And as they cannot acknowledge the apostolic authority of Paul, because they reject the Acts of the Apostles ; they are guilty of despising a choice made by Christ himself, which rests on the testimony of Luke. But that Luke's narrative is not true, is what they are unable to prove : for by fhe very fact, that God committed to Luke alone, the charge of recording (in his Gospel) a large and essential part of the history of Jesus, he confers Credibility on his narrative of the history and doctrines of the apostles." — Although the Gos pel of Luke was held in no estimation by the Ebionites, in conse quence of the person of its author, and although they used exclu sively the Gospel of Matthew ;2 still it will not follow, that the rea son why they esteemed the Gospels of Mark and John so little, was either because they entertained no personal respect for these men, (for it is admitted that Peter, the tutor of Mark, and John, were held in the most respectful estimation by the Jewish christians ;) or because they denied the genuineness of the Gospels which were attributed to John and to the pupil of Peter. Perhaps the Gospel of John was not admitted into the canon of the Ebionites, because it was published at a very late period, and thus was unknown to this sect of Jewish christians, till the time when they -were preju diced against all productions which came from the gentile Christians. The Gospel of Matthew was. preferred to the earlier one of Mark, in consequence of its being written in the vernacular tongue of Palestine, the seat of the Ebionites. , Marcion, on the other hand, who admitted the authority of the apostle Paul alone, rejected the Gospels of Matthew, of Mark (or Peter) and of John ; not however because he denied their genuine ness ; but because he denied their authors to possess any authority, they being apostles of the circumcision, whom Paul himself had re buked. See Illustration 8th, note. In like manner, it must be sup posed that the reason why Marcion rejected the Acts of the apos tles; was not that he denied Luke to be its author ; but because the Acts of the apostles was not ascribed to Paul, as the Gospel of Luke was ; (See Illust. 8th); and because the book of Acts speaks favourably of the apostles of the circumcision, to whom Marcion was opposed. And this will remove the objection, which has been urged against the opinion that Marcion's Gospel was an adulterated copy of Luke's Gospel, viz. that if it were so, then Marcion would l And that this was really the case, is evident from the fact that those, who according to L. I. c. 26. § 2. rejected the apostle Paul, used no other Gospel than that of Matthew. a Irenaeus, Lib. 1. 1. 26. § 2. III. c. 11. § 7. 60 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. doubtless have received the other production of the same Luke, the Acts of the apostles.1. In order to account for Marcion's rejecting the epistles to Timo thy and Titus from his collection of Paul's epistles, it is not neces- sory to suppose, that he doubted their genuineness. " Perhaps the reason for their omission2 was, that they seem to have been intended rather for ministers than for churches at large, and Marcion intended in his canon to specify only those books which were to be read publicly." Loftier and others suppose, that these epistles had not yet come to his knowledge. Compare what is said in Arne.th's work, p. 44, in favour of the supposition, that Marcion was ac quainted with more of the New Testament writings than are con tained in his canon. III. 1 0. The nature of the objections of later heretics, proves the genuineness of the homologoumena. [And when in the course of time, those heretics began to dispute even the genuineness of these writings, they did not urge the want of ancient testimony in their favour, or attempt to impugn their genuineness with any historical objections ; but they were contented to adduce sorne trifling, pretended, doctrinal objections, extorted from the books themselves.] Such were the objections of the Alogians,3 against the Gospel of John. They4 denied the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the spirit in the church, in opposition to the Montanists ; but they could not defend themselves against their opponents, without abso lutely rejecting the Gospel of John, which contained the promise bf of the Paraclete. Their solicitude to disprove the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, preponderated over every historical argument which could be adduced. Irenaeus remarks : " But others do not admit the representation given in the Gospel of John, in which the Lord promised that he would send the Paraclete (Comforter) ; but 1 Schmidt's Handbuch dercbristlichen Kirchengesch. parti, p. 264. 9 " The Object of John," p. 257. 3 [It was the opinion of Dr. Lardner, that no heretics ever existed who reiect- ed the Gospel and first epistle of John, and yet received the other Gospels and the other books of the New Testament, as these Alogians are supposed to have done.— Tbey were so called probably, because they " rejected God the Los-os " as Epiphanius informs us, (p. 396, 397) ; the name a-Xoyoi being expressive of their sentiments. Dr. Lardner therefore maintained, that " as no notice is taken of them in Irenaeus, Eusebius of any other ancient writer before Philaster and Epiphanius," this heresy was probably invented upon the occasion of the contro versy with the Millenanans. See also Dr. Semler's Historische Einleitunir Me 2. Abschn. 1 Abth. 3. Hauptst. § 38. Anmerk 204. S.] ^'"'eitung etc. 4 "The Object of John," § 24—27. § 3.] TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN. 61 reject both this prophetic spirit and the Gospel itself; in order that they may oppose the gift of the spirit, which according to the de cree. of the Father, was poured out upon the human family in these late days."1 It was only the later Alogians, who without hesitation ascribed the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse to Cerinthus. Such also were the doubts of some unknown persons mentioned by Origen, as to the genuineness of the second epistle to Timothy. The remark of Origen a is this : " Some have ventured to reject the second epistle to Timothy, on account of the passage 2 Tim. 3: 8. (^Iwavvtig xal 'idppgrjg avzeozijoav Mwvou,) quasi habentem in se textum alicujus secreti :3 but they were not able to substantiate their opinion." Similar were the objections of Faustus, to the genuineness of the Gospels and the writings of Paul. The principal arguments of this Manichaean against the writings of the New Testament, were their inconsistency with many parts of his system, and other trifling inter nal considerations.4 On the collective evidence of the orthodox and heretics for the books of the New Testament, see Hanlein's Introduction to the New Test. (pt. I. p. 72 — 108.) Kleuker on the genuineness and credibility of the manuscript records of Christianity, (pt. III. Vol. I. p. 349 — 468.) Hug has collected, from the fragments of the heretics of the 2d century, testimonies in favour of all the homolo goumena of the New Testament, except the epistle to Titus. (See his Introd. pt. I. p. 31 — 64. Andover ed.) - - SECTION III. Genuineness of the antilegomena, or disputed books. Origen(l) and Eusebius(2) both acknowledge, that the Apoca lypse was unanimously received as genuine, by the earliest writers ; Alii vero, ut donum spiritus frustrentur, quod in novissimis temporibus se cundum placitum patris effusum est in humanurn genus, i 1 In in speciein non ad- mittunt, quae est secundum Joannis Evangelium, in qua Paracletum se mis- urum Dominus promisit, sed simul et Evangelium et propheticum repellunt spir- itum." Irenaeus adv. Haeres. III. 11. 9. 2 Opera T. XII. edit. Wurtzb. p. 249. 3 i. e. some have rejected 2 Tim. S: 8, (Janncs and Jambres opposed Moses,) as if this passage contained Something mysterious. S. i See Michaelis Introd. N. T. § 2. and " On the Object of John," p. 222, 62 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. fjBK. I. yet the former was a strenuous opposer of the Chiliasts, and the latter not an unprejudiced witness. (3) With this acknowledg ment, the testimony of the earliest writings which have reached us, perfectly accords. (4) And even the open assailants of the Apoca lypse, do not venture to deny, that in the first ages of Christianity, it was acknowledged to be a production of the apostle John. (5) The Apocalypse might therefore have been received into the num ber of the homologoumena. The Epistle to the Hebrews was unanimously ascribed to the apostle Paul, by the writers of the Greek church ; it was only the Latin church, led by an error that can be accounted for, which re ceded from the original and more correct opinion relative to the author of this epistle. (6) Finally, we have also conclusive evidence in favour of the genu ineness of the other disputed books, namely, the second and third epistles of John, the second epistle of Peter, the epistle of James and that of Jude.(7) III. 1. Testimony of Origen for the genuineness of the Apoca lypse. The following evidence, derived from Origen, is discussed in the " New Apology for the Revelation," § 6, and in the work " On the Object of John," <$> 32. According to Eusebius,1 Origen has these remarks, in the fifth section of his Explanation of the Gospel of John: "But what shall be said of John, who reclined upon the breast of Jesus ? He left a single Gospel ; acknowledging at the same tjme, that he could have written so many that the world could not contain them. He also wrote the Apocalypse ; in which he was commanded to be silent and not to record the voices of the seven thunders. He has also left an epistle of but few lines ; perhaps also a second and a third, but these are not universally acknowledged to be genuine."2 l Eccles. Hist. VI. 25. 1 Ti Set negl zov dvaneabvzog Xiyeiv inl zb o-zq&og zov 'itjaov, 'Itadvvov- og evayyiXiov ev xazaXiXoutev, bpoXoymv, dvvaa&ai zoaavza noir\aeiv, a ov8e 6 xbtrpog xwgrjaai iSvvazo- sygaipe 8 s xal zijv 'An oxd Xv Vjiv, xe- Xeva&elg diamrto-ai xal prj ygdifiai zag ziov iizzd ftgovtiov tptavdg. KazaXi- lome Si xal imazoXi]V ndvv bXiySrv azix&v' 'iatta 8e xal Sevrigav xal roixnv iitsl ov rtdvzeg (petal yvijaiovg tlvat zavtag. $ 3.} TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN. 63 Semler and Merkel, (see the work, " Proof that the Apocalypse is a spurious book,") have attempted to invalidate the force of this very distinct testimony of Origen, in the following manner : First, by the supposition, that Origen here may, perhaps, not have spoken from personal conviction ; but have permitted himself to use a mendacium theologicum (theological falsehood,) for good reasons, accommodating himself to _ the opinion of the churches in Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and other places. — But in reply to this it may be observed, that there is no historical proof that Origen was under any necessity of accommodating himself to the opinion of certain oriental churches ; or that he would have suffered himself to do so. Origen himself often makes use of the Apocalypse, and without any urgent reason : and the testimony above mentioned, is not found in a homily addressed to the populace ; but in an exe- getical work on the Gospel of John. If Origen's private opinion, as to the origin of the Apocalypse, had differed from this ; his dis ciple Dionysius, who did not acknowledge John to be its author, would have produced the opinion of his illustrious tutor in support of his own, rather than have rested on other trivial grounds. Fi nally ; had Origen possessed any different information, relative to the author of the Apocalypse, no reason can be assigned why he should have hesitated to produce it. In the context of this very passage, he mentions that the second and third epistles of John Were not universally received as genuine ; and immediately after this passage, he makes the following remark on the epistle to the He brews : l " Those churches, which receive this epistle as a produc tion of Paul, do well ; for it was not without reason that this opin ion was entertained by the ancients ; the contents belong to Paul but the style is not his : who the writer was, God only knows." Why might he not have passed a similar judgment on the Apoca lypse, if he had any reason to doubt its genuineness ? Secondly, Merkel urges this supposition : " Perhaps Origen would have expressed a different opinion, concerning the author of this book, if he had written an exposition of it, or if he had given his opinion in the latter part of his life." — But we know that, precisely at that time, he still regarded the Apocalypse as a prophetical book, of John ; as we learn from his reply to Celsus, L. VI. § 6. 23, which Eusebius informs us, Origen wrote in his old age.2 Thirdly, Merkel makes this additional objection : " Origen gen erally, makes little discrimination between genuine and supposititious works, and was very negligent in examining the historical evidence of the genuineness of , any book." — But Origen on the contrary, while, treating of the antilegomena, does very frequently, and some- 1 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. VI. 25. . 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. VI, 36. 64 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. times without any particular necessity, remark that they were not universally admitted to be genuine ; as may be seen ¦§> 2. 111. 1. 6. of this work, and in Siiskind's Magazine for Christian Dogmatics.1 This is therefore an unjust accusation, that he is negligent or care less in examining the genuineness of books.2 III. 2. The Testimony of Eusebius for the genuineness of the Apocalypse. The principal passages in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, in which he speaks of the Revelation of Saint John, are the three following : I. " As to the Apocalypse, the greater part are fluctuating in their opinions ; but from the testimony of the ancients, to be ad duced in due season, it shall be made evident, what judgment we are to form ofit."3 II. " The Apocalypse of John may, if it be thought proper, be classed with the homologoumena. The opinions concerning it, shall be stated at a proper time." And after a few lines, he says: "We may also, as I remarked, if it is thought proper, class the Apocalypse of John among the disputed books ; which some, as I have stated, reject, and others class with the homologoumena."4 III. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias, in which the latter says : " He had always made very careful inquiry concerning the oral declarations of the ancients, (Xqyovg zwv ngtapvzigtov,) what Andrew or Peter, Philip, Thomas, James or John or Matthew or any other disciple of Jesus had said ; what Aristion and John the Elder, (6 ngetifivtcgog 'imdvvrjg,) the disciples of the Lord, say." Here Eusebius considers it remarkable, that Papias should mention the name of John twice, and once in connexion with such as were not apostles ; and that he distinguishes the latter John by the word ngzafivzegog. He adds, that this confirms the opinion of two per sons of that name having lived in Asia ; and then remarks, that there were still known in Ephesus two graves, each of which was termed the grave of John ; and concludes with these words : "These things deserve attention ; for it is probable, that it was i No. 9. p. 17—26. 2 See Eichhorn's Introd. to N. Test. Vol. 2. second part, p. 400 etc. 3 Trig 8* AnoxaXvipeto iq> ixdzigov ezt vvv nagd zoig noXXolg negiiXxezai f Sb%a" bp&g ye pijv ix zijg ziov agxaltov pagzvglag iv olxelto xaigm ziyv ini- xgtaiv Si^etai xal avzi\. II. E. III. 24. 4 'Enl zovzoig (bpoXoyovpsvoig) zaxziov, t'iye tpavelri, zi\v ' AnoxdXvifiiv' 'Itadv- vov iiegl ijg za 8b$avza xaza xaigbv ix&rjabped-a. — hi ze (iv zoig vb&oig xa- zezdx&m,) tag eayrp, jj ' Itodvvov 'AnoxdXvifiig, ei tpaveln, r]v Ttvtc, tag etpqv, d&ezovaiv, ingot di iyxglvovai zoig bpoXoyovpsvoig. H. E. HI. 25. § 3.] TESTIMONY OF EUSEBIUS. 65 the second John to whom the Revelation was made, if we will not rather admit that it was the first."1 These passages afford the following result : Eusebius found, among ancient writers, none who disputed the genuineness of the Revelation ; for if he had, how could he have said : " The Apoc alypse may be classed with the homologoumena, if it is thought proper." Indeed, he appears in another passage to have tacitly classed it among the undisputed books ; for he says 2 that Clemens of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposibus, made extracts from all the books of the Holy Scriptures, (ndazjg zr)g ivStaOyxov ypaq-rjg}, not excepting the disputed books, (zdg dvnXiyopivag), the epistle of Jude and the other catholic epistles, the epistle of Barnabas and the Rev elation of Peter. He then, immediately afterwards, speaks of the epistle to the Hebrews. Now as Eusebius does not mention the Apocalypse, among the antilegomena ; and as Clemens of Alexan dria, who quotes3 the Apocalypse, and therefore must have been acquainted with it, probably did not exclude it in his Hypotyposibus ; we are warranted in saying, that Eusebius has here tacitly assigned it a place among the homologoumena. Nor does he, in the course of his whole ecclesiastical history, mention any ancient different opinion, excepting that of Caius and some others who ascribed it to Cerinthus. The ztvig [some] therefore, whose objection to its gen uineness is the reason why he states that " the Apocalypse may be ranked among the antilegomena, if it is thought proper,"4 would ac cordingly be no other than Dionysius ;5 who denied that the Apoc alypse is a production of Saint John, merely from internal reasons. The disposition of Eusebius to adopt as his own the opinion of this Dionysius, (whom, in the preface to the seventh book of his ec clesiastical history, he denominates the great bishop of Alexandria,) is manifest, not only from his wavering remarks on it, III. 25, but particularly from III. 39, where he seizes with so much eagerness, the opportunity for favouring the hypothesis that the Apocalypse was the production of some other John. But this same passage also proves that he still felt some timidity in asserting this hypothesis ; as he adds : " if we would not rather receive the Apocalypse as the production of the first John (the apostle.") It cannot be admitted, that the ztvig ot d&itovot tr]v ' AnoxdXvxptv zov lamvvov, i. e. some, who reject the Apocalypse of John, were those, who attributed it to 1 Olg xal dv'dyxawv ngaaixuv zov vovv elxogydg zov Seizegov, el pi\zig 'i&eXoi zov ngiozov, zijv in bvoparog tfegopevrpi Itodvvov anoxaXvijiiv etoga- xivai. Eccl. Hist. III. 39. 2 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. VI. 14. 3 Stromal. VI. ed. Colon. 1688. p. CGI. Paedngog. L. II. p. 201. 1 Eccles. Hist. III. 25. 5 Euseb. Eccles. Hist. VII. 25. 9 66 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. the heretic Cerinthus, namely Caius and the Alogians ; because, if Eusebius had alluded only to the opinion of such as ascribed it to Cerinthus the heretic, he would have been obliged to place it among the third class, or that of heretical writings. Eichhorn, whose Introduction may be consulted on the declara tions of Eusebius relative to the Apocalypse,1 regards these ztvdg as persons who were contemporaneous with Eusebius, but whose testi mony cannot determine the genuineness of the Apocalypse, as they lived in so late an age. Hug, in his Introd.2 also infers from Euse bius III. 25, that the opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria was a popular one in the days of Eusebius. III. 3. Test 'imony of Dionysius himself, to whose opinion Eu sebius inclines. Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, although as much prejudiced against the Revelation as Eusebius, is as little able as either Origen or Eusebius, to advance any testimony of witnesses before his time, against the genuineness of this book. The reader may consult " On the Object of John," p. 73, 79 etc. 137 — 141 : and compare the " Apology for the Revelation," §5. Eusebius 3 makes ample quo tations from Dionysius' second book " On the promises," nigl inay- ytXluv. This work was written against the followers of Nepos, who was well known in Egypt, about the middle of the third century, as the defender of the views of the Chiliasts. According to Eusebius, Dionysius makes the following remarks : " that before his time, some (ttvig ngo" tjptov, i. e. the Alogians,) had rejected this book, and ascribed it to Cerinthus : but he himself would not presume to re ject it; as many of his christian brethren held it in high estima tion : — iyto Si ddetrjoat, piv ovx dv zoXprjoatpi zo fitfiXiov, noXXdov avzb Sid onovSrjg i%6vzov dSiXqidiv." — The noXXoi dSeXqol (many christian brethren), seem to be a counterpart to the zivig ngo yumv, who rejected the Apocalypse ; and also to have been Christians, who lived before his time."4 — " That, although he himself is unable to comprehend the Apocalypse, he would be far from rejecting it on that account ; that he believes it to be the production of an ortho dox Christian, who wrote it by divine inspiration, — dylov zivdg xal ¦fttonvevotov that tijjvatvm- but that he cannot well admit (ov gaSlojg dv avv&oipt) it to be a production of the apostle John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, and author of the Gospel and cath olic epistle; because the entire character of the Apocalypse, as to its matter and form, its contents and style, thoughts and expression, l Vol. II. part. 2d. p. 421—425. 2 Part I. p. 87 etc. Andover ed. 3 Eccles. Hist. VII. 25. 4 See " On theobject of John," p. 73,138. § 3.] ANTILEGOMENA APOCALYPSE. 67 ¦>]&qg, Xoymv eidog, vor,paza, gtjpuza xal avvzaltg toj grjpdtojv, qpgdaig, is different from the Gospel and first epistle of John. Par ticularly, that the apostle John never mentions his own name in the Gospel, or first epistle ; but that the author of the Apocalypse re peatedly does.1 That he therefore believes the Apocalypse to be .the production of another John, who had resided in Asia." From these ample quotations of Eusebius, we perceive that the opinion of Dionysius was mere conjecture, built on internal evidence ; that he adduces no testimony of earlier witnesses against the Revelation, except of those who ascribed it to Cerinthus ; yet to such testimony he would undoubtedly have appealed, had he been acquainted with any ; for he was an enemy of the Chiliasts, and laboured to detract from the authority of the Revelation, or at least to disprove its being a production of the apostle John ; — >and finally, that it is not without some distrust and timidity, that he himself proposes his hypothesis.2 Moreover, it is not improbable that the influence of Dionysius, together with the prevailing animosity against the Chiliasts, and the obscurity of the Apocalypse itself, contributed much to bring sus picion on the genuineness of this book, pretty generally in the Greek church, during the latter part of the fourth century.3 III. 4. The testimony of the writers prior to Origen and.Eu- sebius, is decidedly in favour of the Apocalypse. An investigation of the more ancient testimony, reaching beyond the times of Origen and Eusebius, affords the following results. I. In the phrase, at the last t trump, iv i'a%djri tsdkniyyi, used by Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians,4 there seems to be an al lusion to the, ApoCalypse, 10: 7. 11: 15 — 18 ; orrather the apos tle seems to presuppose this Apocalyptical mark of time to be already known.5 There is nothing in the whole context of Paul, which can serve to explain this phraseology. Nor can it be proved historical ly, that the Jewish conceits of the seven trumpets, were current among them so early as the age of Paul. But even if they were, and Paul meant to allude to them, and presupposed them known to his read ers, he would have expressed himself in a different manner. For according to the Jewish sayings, the dead were to be resuscitated 1 The internal arguments, which Dionysius urges against the genuineness of the Revelation, are refuted in -Eichhorn's Introduction, sup. cit. § 196. p. 435—443. 2 Comp. Schmidt's Introd. part. II. p. 20. Eichhorn, sup. cit. p. 418 etc. 3 See the " Apology for the Revelation," p. 40—43, and " On the Object of John," p. 140 etc. 4 Chap. XV. 52. S See " Apol. for Revel." § 13, and " On the Object of John," § 30. 68 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. 1. gradually, during the sound of all the seven trumpets ; but accord ing to this passage of Paul, only at the sound of the last trumpet, and in the twinkling of an eye, iv dzopta. — The first epistle to the Corinthians was written at Ephesus,1 whither the Revelation was also sent.2 — See the objections to this argument in Paulus' Observ. ad argumenta de origine Apoc. Joanneae externa, Jen. 1800. p. 9 etc. and compare the reply to them in the programm. Symb. ad illustranda ea loca, quae de napovala Christi agunt, part II. p.4 — 11 . II. Neither Papias, Polycarp nor Ignatius quotes the book of Revelation.3 Neither does the first of these writers quote any other book of the New Testament ; and yet it is certain, that he was ac quainted with them. He himself informs us; that4 he confined him self to the oral declarations of the acquaintances of the apostles ; and did not intend to quote the apostolical writings. Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, consists of only a few pa ges, and contains no quotation, either from the Gospel or the Rev elation of John ; although he had as much reason to cite the form er as the latter. The epistles of Ignatius, four of which were ad dressed to Smyrna^ Ephesus, and Philadelphia, whither the Reve lation was also sent, have most probably been much altered and in terpolated :5 — but even admitting that the Apocalypse was not quo ted in his epistles as they came from his hands, this by no means proves, that he was unacquainted with the book ; for in like manner, in his epistle to the Romans, be never quotes Paul's epistle to that church, with which he certainly was acquainted.6 III. The Revelation of St. John is wanting in the Peschito or old Syriac version.7 But, In the first place, it cannot be proved, that it was originally want ing in that version. The apparent obscurity of the Revelation, and the fear of disseminating Chiliastic views may have restrained the public use ofit in the churches : and thus have made copies ofit to be scarce : and this wopld account for the want of them in the Syriac manuscripts which have been brought from Mesopotamia to Europe. »1 Cor 16: 8. 2 Rev. 2: 1. 3 Apology for Revel. § 11. -l Euseb. Eccl. Hist. III. 39. 5 Apology for the Revel, p. 184. Compare Schmidt's Manual of the History of the Christian Church, pt. 1. p, 209 etc. 8 Compare Hug's Introduction, pt. II. p. 405 etc. ** The Peschito, i. e. the Tight or exact version, was executed if not in the first century, at least in the early age of tile church. It is used exclusively by all Christians in Syria and the East ; and Michaelis pronounces it to be the very best translation of the Greek Testament which he ever-read, for the general ease, elegance and fidelity wilh which it has been executed. It however does- not embrace all the books of the New Testament, but contains only the four Gos pels, the Acts of the apostles, all the epistles of St. Paul, the first epistle of St. John and St. Peter, and the epistle of St. James. S, $ 3.] ANTILEGOMENA — APOCALYPSE. 69 Secondly, it is certain that the book of Revelation was known among the Syriac christians before , the sixth century, in the be ginning of which the Philoxenian version was executed. Because It is quoted in the fourth century by Ephraim in his ascetic writ ings, as a production of John the divine. And In the earlier part, of the third century, Hippolitus, who was pro bably Bishop of Aden in Arabia felix, and was held in high estima tion by. the Syrians, vindicated the Apocalypse against the attacks of Caius. And, in the second century, Theophilus bishop of Antioch, quotes passages from the Apocalypse,1 in his work against Hermogenes. See Hug's Introductipn, part I. <§> 65., p. 204, 205, Andover ed. and Eichhorn, sup. cit. p. 432 — 435. i IV. Justin Martyr explicitly ascribes the Revelation to John, one of the apostles of the Lord. His words are : '¦' A certain man of the name of John, in the Revelation which was given him, pre dicted etc.2 From this we may infer, as is maintained in the " Apolo gy for the Revelation," p. 306, that the Apocalypse was known to the Ebionite Christians in Samaria, the native country of Justin. V. Irenaeus not only ascribes, expressly, and in various passa ges, the book of Revelation to John the disciple of the Lord, and in one passage3 specifically to the disciple of the Lord who had re clined upon the Saviour's breast ; but he also appeals to faithful and ancient manuscripts of the Apocalypse, and to the testimony of per sonal acquaintances of the apostle, in support of the truth of the reading "six hundred and sixty six," Rev. 13: 18. He remarks: "This number is found in all the carefully executed and ancient transcripts: and is supported by the testimony of those, who had personally seen John himself."4 But should it be objected, that Ire naeus may have received incorrect information from the personal acquaintances of John, in this instance as well as another f still, these acquaintances of John must have stated something, in which John was mentioned as the author of the book, containing the dis puted reading. The grounds for receiving the testimony of Irenae us, concerning a book published by John in Asia minor, have been 1 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. IV. 24. 2 'Avijg zig, b bvopa 'itodvvijg, elg ziov 'AnqazbXtov zov Xgiazov, iv Aitox- aXvifiet yevopivy avzm—ngoecprjzevae, x. z. X. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 81. ed. Colon, p. 308. ' 3 Adversus Haereses, L. IV. cap. 20. § 11. 4 Ev ndai zoig anoSaioig xai dgxaioig uvziygatfovg zov dgi&pov zovzov xetpivov, xal pagzvgobvitov avzwv ixelvtov ziov xai oipiv zbv' Itadvvnv ktogaxo- zwv, Adv. Haer. V. c. 30. § 1. 5 Book II. c. 22. § 5. 70 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. stated above, (§ 2. 111. 5. in the note following the testimony of Ire naeus); nor can they be destroyed, by the supposition that Irenae us' Montanistic views may have inclined him to favour the Apoca lypse. See " Apology for the Revelation," <§> 10. " On the Ob ject of John," <§, 31. VI. Clemens of Alexandria, in a certain place,1 quotes the Apoc alypse with these words, dig tfrjotv, iv trj AnoxaXwfiti, Iwawrjg, i. e. as John says in the Apocalypse : and in another passage,2 with the expression, zo ntglontov zijg AnootoXtxijg qtojvijg.3 VII. TertuUian declares very decisively for the genuineness of the Apocalypse, in this manner : " We have also in our favour the churches of John ; for although Marcion rejected his Revelation, yet the whole series of Bishops from the beginning, stand up for John as the author."4 VIII. Moreover, there are other data from which it may be in ferred that the Apocalypse was known in the earliest times, as a production of the apostle John. See " Apol. for Rev." p. 75 — 85, 165 &c. Melito, who was bishop of Sardis during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, wrote on the Revelation of John, ncgl trjg AnoxaXviptag 'Jmdvvov as we are informed by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. IV. 26. — Eusebius must have been acquainted with this work, for speaking of the writings of Melito and Apollinarius, he says ; " These have come to our knowledge," tig ypirt gav yvioatv datixtai, H. E. IV. 26. Of the writings of Apollinarius, he remarks : " Among the many works of Apollinarius which are extant, the following have come to my knowledge," zov 'AnoXXt-vaglov noXXtov nagd noXXolg am£optvwv zd tig rjpdg iX&ovza, Ibid. c. 27. Had Melito harbour ed any doubt respecting the Revelation, Eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact.5 This Melito was the person, who insti tuted a very close examination relative to the canon of the Old Testament ; as we learn from Eusebius, loc. sup. cit. Praxeas, in the second century, adduces a passage of the Apoca lypse (I. 8.) in support of his Patripassianism; although he was no longer a Montanist, when he published his heretical views relative to the doctrine of Christ's divinity ; for of him, TertuUian makes the remark,6 " prophetiam expulit et hseresin intulit," i. e. he cast out prophecy and brought in heresy. Apollonius (another writer in the latter part of the second cen- 1 Stromat. L. I. cap. 6. 3 Paedagog. Lib. 2, cap. 12. 3 See Eichhorn, sup. cit. p. 399 &c. 4 Habemus et Joannis ecclesias alumnas. Nam otsi apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit; ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Joannam stabit auc- torem." " Advers. Marc. L IV. c. 5. 5 See Hug's Introd. pt. II. p. 406. 6 Advers. Praxeam, c. 1. § 3.] ANTILEGOMENA APOCALYPSE. 71 tury, against whom an entire book of the lost writings of TertuUian was directed,1) also adduced proofs from the Revelation of John, in his work against the Montanists. Eusebius says :2 xi'/gnrai di xal fiagtvglatg ano tijg 'Imdvvov ' AnoxaXvxytmg, i. e. he made use of proofs taken from the Revelation of John. 3 TertuUian himself4 states objections against Montanism, which the catholic Christians derived from the book of Revelation * and he replies to them by other passages from the same book. It was the practice of TertuUian, when writing against his opposers, to adduce passages only from such books as were received as genuine by them. Jerome, in his epistle to Dardanus, remarks that, contrary to the prevailing custom of the Greek church in that age, he received the Apocalypse ; veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequens,qui plerumque ejus abutuntur testimoniis, non ut interdum de apocryphis facere solent, sed quasi canonicis et ecclesiasticis, i. e. following the au thority of the ancient writers, who indeed generally perverted its declarations, yet not by treating it as they sometimes did the Apoc rypha, but while regarding it as a canonical book received by the churches.5. IX. On the other hand it cannot be proved, that the Apocalypse was disputed before the third century. B Irenaeus5, does not say, that those opposers of the Montanists who disputed the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the spirit in the church, and who rejected the Gospel of John, rejected also the Apocalypse ; but merely says : " Evangelium Johannis et propheti- cam gratiam repellunt ex ecclesia." Even in Book V. 26 &c. where he speaks so circumstantially of the Apocalypse, he adduces no objections of those who were termed Alogians, against it. When Dionysius, about the middle of the third century, says :8 ttvis ngo -fjpmv tj-&ttr\xaot zr]v 'AnoxaXvxptv, i. e. some before our day, have rejected the Revelation ; it does not by any means follow, that these some lived so early as the second century. He uses the term -itpoavmuvoaTO, 9 when speaking of Nepos who lived in the third century. Dionysius undoubtedly alluded to those Alogians, in the earlier part of the third century, who under the guidance of Caius, attributed the Apocalypse to Cerinthus.10 Hug11 thinks he 1. Jerome, de viris illustribus, s. voce Apollpnius. 2 Eccl. Hist. V. 18. 3 See Hug's Introd. Part. II. p. 496 &c. 4 De pudicitia, c. 19. 5 See " Apology for the Revelation," § 3. « See, " On the Objectof John," §§24, 25,36, 34. p. 126 &c. 7 Adv. Haeres.III.c. 11. § 9. « Euseb. Hist. Eccles. VII. 25. 9 Euseb. H. E. VII. 24. 10 Euseb. H. E. III. 28. comp. VII. 25. See also Eichhorn,sup. cit. p. 410.&C. " Introd. pt. II. p. 410. 72 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. alluded to those his opponents, whom Nepos drew together by his Chiliasm, during the heat of the contestsin regard to the Apoca lypse. It cannot be proved that the eighty fifth Apostolical Canon, which certainly doubted the genuineness of the Revelation, made its appearance prior to the fourth century ; at which time it must be conceded, many entertained such doubts. x Moreover, Origen would not have classed the Apocalypse among the universally received books, nor would Eusebius have left it optional to place it among the homologoumena, if any serious doubts had been entertained, in the catholic church, before their time, concerning its genuineness. See Illustrations 1, 2. III. 5. Even the open assailants of the Apocalypse do not deny, that this book was believed to be genuine, from the earliest times. None of the earlier or later opposers of this book, has assailed it with historical arguments ; nor been led to doubt its genuineness, by the want of historical testimony in its favour. I. As the Alogians could not well have rejected the undisputed Gospel of John, for any other reason than this, that they were un able to defend themselves against the Montanists, without discarding the book which contained the promises of the Paraclete and of extraordinary gifts of the spirit f so it might naturally have been expected, that for similar reasons j they would also reject the Revelation of John. According to the testimony of history,3 it appears that Caius first took this course, in his dispute against the Montanist Proclus, under the Roman Bishop Zephyrinus. Euse bius says,4 that Caius attributed the Revelations, which were circu lated under the name of a great apostle, to Cerinthus, a vindicator of the personal reign of Christ on earth.5- How easily might the Alogians, in the heat of controversy against the Montanists, have fallen upon the assertion, that the Revelation was not the produc tion of John or of any other catholic Christian, but of that heresiarch Cerinthusj before whom John is said to have fled from the bath ?6 l See " Apology for Revel." p. 57 &c. arid " The Object of John," p7l26, 133. 2 " On the Object of John's Gospel," § 27. Compare the passage of Irenaeus above quoted, L. III. o. 11, § 9. 3 Euseb. H. E. II. 25. III. 28. VI. 20. 4 H. E. III. 28. 5 See " On the Object of John's Gospel," p. 65 &c— The opinion that Caius is speaking of the Apocalypse, is maintained by Schmidt, in his Introd. II. p. 14. and Eichhorn, sup. cit. p: 414. — Hug on the contrary, (Part II. p. 419 — 421.) with Paulus, in Historia Cerinthi, P. I. § 30, believes that Caius refers to a spurious Revelation current tinder the name of some celebrated apostle. He ap peals to it as a fact, that neither Eusebius himself, nor Jerome, nor Fhotius, mentions any unfavourable opinion entertained by Caius relative to the Revela tion. 6 Apology for the Revelation, p. 121. § 3.] ANTILEGOMENA APOCALYPSE. 73 Dionysius1 specifies their objections to the Revelation : " They pass through the whole of this book from chapter to chapter, and show that there is neither sense nor connexion in it ; and they pro nounce the superscription, which bears the name of John, to be spurious. They say, it cannot be called a Revelation, because it is in the highest degree obscure and unintelligible, — ocpoSgd) xal naxtt xtxaXvpptvv to) trig dyvoiag naganezdopati> covered by a strong and dense veil of ignorance ; — that Cerinthus wrote it him self, for one of the fundamental principles of his system is, the- per sonal reign of Christ on earth." Had this antichiliastic Dionysius been acquainted with any historical objections, which were urged by these people against the Revelation, he would undoubtedly have stated them, as he was so desirous to detract from the authority of this book. Another internal proof, which the Alogians advanced against the genuineness of the Apocalypse, is still more insignificant. It is stated by Epiphanius, Haeres. 51. II. Dionysius himself questioned the genuineness of the Revela tion, solely on the ground of internal evidence. See III. 4, of this section. III. Finally: the later assailants of the Revelation likewise, were not induced by historical evidence to reject that book. It is histori cally certain, that the objections urged in the fourth century, were the obscurity of the book, and the Chiliastic views which it was supposed to contain. Epiphanius ascribes the doubt of his contem poraries, not to the ancient historical accounts, but }o their em barrassment, when they attempted its explanation. — With the con clusion, to which we are brought by the discussion contained in this Illustration, Schmidt and Hug and Eichhorn coincide. Supplementary note. On the internal evidence for and against the genuineness of the Apocalypse. On this subject the reader may consult Kleuker's " Full investiga tion of the evidences for the genuineness and credibility of the origi nal records of Christianity," Hanlein's Introduction, Criesinger's In troduction, and Eichhorn's Introduction. The principal internal evidences stated in these works, in favour of the genuineness of the. Apocalypse, are the following : 1. This book must have been written in the apostolical age — be cause, the description of the Seven churches supposes an existing contest between Christianity and Judaism, and an oppression of the Christians by the Jews ; consequently it involves a historical fact, I As quoted by Euseb. H. E. VII. 26. + 10 74 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. which occurred only in the apostolic age. It likewise contains no traces of the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. • 2. The historical interest and psychological fidelity with which it is penned, militate against the suspicion of its being supposititious. — This is peculiarly applicable to the addresses to the angels of the seven churches, chap. I — III ; in which the writer could not have had his eye on fictitious characters and circumstances. This argument holds good against the hypothesis, that the seven apocalyptical epistles are a mere poetic fiction. Eichhorn, sup. cit. p. 391, 403. 3. The apostle John here characterises himself: In chap. I. 12, he professes to be John ; and declares that he was an eye-witness, and an ear-witness, of the history of Jesus. In chap. I. 9, he professes to have been banished to the isle of Patmos, for being a minister of Christ ; and this is precisely what weare told concerning the apostle John, by the unanimous tradition of the ancient church. 4. The style of the Apocalypse resembles that of the Gospel and epistles of John, both in regard to the ideas and the phraseology. — The reader may consult Schultze on the character and merits of John as a writer. The internal evidence against the Apocalypse, is derived 1. From the supposed obscurity and offensiveness of its contents, as well as from the doctrinal errors, contradictions etc, which some have imagined they could discover in it. This objection may be confronted by a correct explanation of the book, and by doctrinal arguments. 1. From the difference between the Apocalypse and other writ ings of John, in regard to matter and manner. But this diversity is accounted for, by the following considerations : The Apocalypse was written earlier, than the Gospel and epistles of John. It was composed during the reign of Claudius or Nero, according to the " Apology for the Revelation," § 14. Again, the difference in the nature of the subjects, necessarily led the writer to different methods of handling them. The book of Revelation is written in imitation of the Hebrew prophets. — It is on this principle, that Eichhorn accounts for the author's prefixing his name to the book ; which is not the case with the Gospels and epistles. But in historical works also, it was not customary for the writer to prefix his name ; as the example of the other three Gospels evinces. The first epistle of John is rather a dissertation than a letter. § 3.] ANTILEGOMENA EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 75 Inferential remark on all the preceding Illustrations of this paragraph. The discussion embraced in the five preceding Illustrations, clear ly evinces the inaccuracy of the statement of Kleuker, and which he presents as the result of an investigation of the testimony of an tiquity : " That in the second and third centuries, no certain informa tion could be found, respecting the author of the Apocalypse." III. 6. View of the evidence for the genuineness qf the epistle to the Hebrews. The arguments, which prove the Epistle to the Hebrews to be a production of the Apostle Paul, are the following : I. The earliest writers of the Greek Church, received the epis tle to the Hebrews as a production of Paul. Jerome, a man of much erudition and extensive reading, appeals to the testimony of all ancient Greek writers, in the following words, extracted from his letter to Dardanus,' •§. 3 : " It is to be remarked, that this epistle, which is addressed to the Hebrews, was received as a production of the apostle Paul not only by the oriental churches, but by all the Greek ecclesiastical writers ; although the greater part of us ascribe it either to Barnabas or Clemens :" and further on : ' " Nevertheless I receive it as genuine, not influenced by the prevailing opinion of the present day, but guided by the authority of the ancient writers.''1 The word plerique, (plerique nostrorum,) must refer to Christians in the Latin church ; and not to Eastern Christians, with whom they are contrasted. See the Introduction to the epistle to the Hebrews, page 27, note.2 Eusebius, in his history, says : " The fourteen epistles of Paul are before the public, and well known ; but it should not be forgotten, that some have rejected the epistle to the Hebrews, alleging that it was not received by the church of Rome as a production of Paul."3 — Thus also Origen speaks4 of persons who could not con sistently admit the validity of arguments brought from the epistle to the Hebrews, if they followed the authority of those who rejected it, 1 " Illud nostris dicendum est, banc epistolam, quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, rion solum ab ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Graeci ser- monis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli apostolisuscipi, licet plerique earn vel Barnabae, vel Clementis arbitrantur ;" and farther on, " Nos earn suscipimus nequaquam hujus temporisconsuetudinem, sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes." 2 See also Hug's Introd. p. 317, 319. 3 Tov IlavXov ngbSrjXoi xai aatpelg al Sexaziaaageg (imazoXal) bzi ye pr)V zivtg rj&ezi]xaai zijv ngog Efigaiovg, ngbg zrjg Poipaltov ixxXrjaiag tog pi] Ilav Xov o'vaav avzip avztXiyea&ai tpijaavzeg, oi Slxaiov ayvoeiv. E. H. III. 3. * Ep. ad Africanum, § 9. Comment, in Matt. 23: 37. 76 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. f_BK. I. d&ttovvtmv trjv intatoXijv. — It does not follow, that the ttvtg of Eusebius, were writers ; but even if they were, they did not appeal to older Greek writers, but only to the Roman church.1 " This word ztvig indicates merely an exception to the general opinion of the Greeks, there being some who were influenced by respect or prepossession for the Romans : and this exception is itself a proof, that the Greek church at large acknowledged this epistle as a pro duction of the apostle Paul, according to the well known principle, exceptio firmat regulam."2 " The fact, that the Arians were the first in the Greek churches, whom history taxes with denying Paul to be the author of this epistle, adds no ordinary degree of weight to the declarations of Eusebius ; and recommends his character, as a historian whom no predilection for a party could betray into a de parture from historical truth." Origen says : " It was not without cause, that the ancients re garded this as an epistle of Paul."3 His own opinion was, that the ideas are those of Paul, though not the style. He therefore does not determine who the author was : tig (says he) 6 ygdtyag trjv into- toXi}v, to dXtj&ig ¦Otog otStv, i. e. who it was that wrote this epistle, God only knows. Had he been acquainted with any testimony against the genuineness of this epistle, he would not have failed to mention it. The hypotheses of Clemens of Alexandria and of Pantaenus, con cerning this epistle, seem to presuppose the voice of history to be that Paul was its author. "The remark," says Hug, "was made in Alexandria, at an early day, that the style of the epistle to the Hebrews was strikingly diverse from that of the other writings of Paul. But although this observation appeared to lead directly to the idea of a different author, no one dared to deny that it was a production of this Apostle. So firm was their conviction of Paul's being its author, that apparently strong arguments to the contrary could not shake their belief." Clemens Alexandrinus attempted to account for this difference between the style of this epistle, and that of the other writings of Paul, by supposing that Paul wrote the epistle in Hebrew, and that it was translated into Greek by Luke, to whose Acts of the apostles its style bore much resemblance.4 The same writer accounts for Paul's neglecting to give a superscription to this epistle, by supposing it to be a measure of precaution, which the apostle adopted in order that the Jews might not be deterred from reading the epistle, by any thing repulsive in its commence- 1 Iirtrod. to Heb. § 2. coinp. Hug. p. 317. 2 Hug. sup. cit. p. 320. s Ovx ehtij ot dgxuloi dv8geg ag IlavXov ttvzi\v (tbvujv zijv iniirzoXiiv) nagaSeStoxaai. Euseb. H. E. VI. 25. i Euseb. H. E. VI. 14. § 3.] ANTILEGOMENA EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 77 ment ; for the Jews were prejudiced against him as being an apos tle of the Gentiles. Pantaenus attributes the omission to the mod esty of Paul, which Would not permit him, an apostle of the gentiles, to prefix his name to an epistle which was addressed to Jewish Christians, who had heard the voice of the Saviour himself.1 Stephanus Gobarus, in Photii Biblioth. Cod. 232, does indeed say, " Irenaeus and his abbreviator Hippolytus (who may both be classed with the writers of the Greek and oriental church,) declare, that the epistle to the Hebrews is not a production of Paul." But Steph anus Gobarus and Photius are doubtless guilty of a historical blun der ; inferring that this epistle was rejected by Irenaeus and Hyppolytus, because it is not quoted by them ; and then stating this their own inference, as if it were the express declaration of those writers. For in the same passage in which they attribute these declarations to Irenaeus and Hyppolytus, Stephanus is guilty of a similar error, and Photius of a much greater one. — It cannot well be supposed, that in some work now lost, Irenaeus denied the genuineness of this epistle ; for such a fact would not have escaped the notice of Eusebius, who was so careful to collect the opinions of the ancients relative to this epistle. That Irenaeus quotes the epistle to the Hebrews, in one of his works now lost, we learn from Eusebius ; 2 and the reason of his not citing it in his work against the gnostics, probably was, that the gnostics all rejected this epistle which was so directly opposed to their system; and Irenaeus deter mined to confront them with such books only, as they themselves acknowledged to be genuine.3 Hug accounts for this circumstance from the connexion of Irenaeus with the occidental church, in which, on account of the Montanists, the epistle to the Hebrews was used with cautious reluctance, even at that early day.4 It cannot be proved, that the translation of the epistle to the He brews, contained in the ancient Syriac version, the Peschito, was made at a later date than that of the other books; and hence, it cannot be inferred from this version, that the epistle to the He brews was long doubted, and received into the canon only at a la ter day.5 ' II. The contrary opinion of the Latin church, which, as we learn from Jerome, , ascribed it to Barnabas6 or Clemens, though old, is nevertheless unfounded. 1 Euseb. sup. cit. 2 Hist. Eccl. V. 26. 3 See " Introd. to Heb." § 3. 4 Hug. sup. eit. 321 &e. 5 See " Introd. to Heb." § 13. Comp. Hug's Introd. pt. I. § 66. p. 206—208, Andover ed. 6 The supposition that Barnabas was author of the epistle to the Hebrews, has been advocated of late by Schmidt, in his Introduction to N. Test, part I. p. 289 etc. 78 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. The antiquity of this opinion is evinced by these two considera tions : first ; It can be proved from TertuUian and Epiphanius, that the epistle to the Hebrews was not in Marcion's canon ; yet Ter tuUian no where reproaches Marcion for this omission. Second ly ; TertuUian himself utters the following language relative to this book: " The doctrines of the aposties should be the principal souree of instruction and direction to one who is to preside over the church of God. I will however adduce the additional testimony of one of the companions of the apostles. For we have the epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews, a man of so great authority, that Paul pla ces him on an equality with himself, in point of abstinence, 1 Cor. 9: 6. And the epistle of Barnabas is certainly more used in the churches, than that apoeryphal Shepherd of adulterers.1" — The passage Heb. 6: 1 etc, is then adduced.2 It is probable, that the Latin church held this epistle in higher estimation, in more ancient times, than they did in the days of Ter tuUian. The epistle which Clemens wrote from Rome, in the name 'of the Roman church, to the Corinthians, and which was univer sally acknowledged as genuine ; contained a great number of quo tations from the epistle- to the Hebrews. Eusebius says : "Clem ens, in the universally received epistle, which he wrote in the name of the Roman church to the church of the Corinthians, has taken many ideas from the epistle to the Hebrews ; nay he even quotes passages verbatim, thus clearly evincing that this epistle is not a new .production. "3 It can scarcely be supposed, that Clemens, in addressing a church in the name of another whole church, would have quoted so much from the epistle to the Hebrews, if it were then regarded merely as an epistle of Barnabas.4 Moreover, it is no improbable supposition, that the opihion adopt ed by the Latin church, (viz. that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Barnabas,)1 was brought into- circulation by Marcion. He was excommunicated by his father, the bishop of Pontus, who 1 Disciplina apostolorum proprie quidem instruit ac determinat principaliter sanctitatis omnis erga templum Dei antistitem. — Volo tamen ex redundantia ali- cujus etiamcomitis apostolorum testimonium superducere. — Extat enim et Bar- nabae titulus ad Hebracos, adeo satis auctoritatis viro, ut quern Paulus juxta se constituent in abstinentiae tenore, 1 Cor. 9: 6. Et utique receptior apud eccles ias Epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. Tertul. de Pudicitia u. 20. ' 2 See " Introd. to Epistle to Hebrews," § 5. 3 'O KXrjprjVg iv zr) avtopoXoyrjpevn itagd naaiv [iniazoXri,) rjv ix ngoa- tonov zijg 'Poipaitov ixxXrjaiag zij Kogiv&itov 8iezwttbaazo, zijg ngbgcE(lgaiovg noXXa voripaza naga&elg, 7}8rj Se xal avzoXe!-ei grfzolg ziaiv t| aixijc /mjaw- pevog aatpiazaza nagiazrjaiv, bzi p; viov vndgxei zb avyygappa. Euseb. H. E. III. 38. 4 See " Introd. to Ep. to the Heb." § 6. § 3.] ANTILEGOMENA EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 79 refused to restore him to membership in the church, and probably appealed to Hebrews 6: 4 etc. in justification of his conduct. These circumstances may well account for the enmity of Marcion against this "book. He was unwilling it should pass for an epistle of Paul ; and in order to give plausibility to his opposition, in the minds, of persons resident in a country where authentic information was circulated relative to this epistle of Paul : which was directed to Galatia, in the vicinity of Pontus; he ascribed the epistle to Barnabas, the colleague of Paul, at the same time urging the circum stance that the name of Paul is not prefixed to it. In the view of Marcion, this epistle lost all its authority by being regarded as a production of Barnabas ; for Barnabas, according to Galatians ,2: 13, was one of that company of Peter, which temporised with the Jews, he was one of those protectoribus Judaeismi, who were so odious to Marcion. From Pontus he travelled to Rome : and if he concealed his heretical notions for a time, his statement that the epistle to the Hebrews was a production of Barnabas, might natu rally have been credited ; as he had come from the country to which the epistle to the Hebrews, or Galatian Jewish Christians, was directed, and as the name of the apostle was not prefixed to it. This opinion of Marcion, notwithstanding his public heresy, might still have been retained in the Latin church ; especially as several other circumstances were calculated to cherish it, such as the remark made in the Greek church, that its style differed from that of die other epistles of Paul. This supposition is raised to probability by a fragment of the author of an ancient anonymous canon, published by Muratorius, containing these words : " fertur etiam ad Laudicen- ses (Laodicenses) so. epistola, alia ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine fictae, ad haeresin Marcionis," i. e. there is also an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, fabricated under the name of Paul, in order to support the heresy of Marcion. The Lat in church acknowledged thirteen epistles of Paul, as indisputably genuine ; two others, namely the epistle to the Laodiceans and that to the Hebrews, they commonly regarded as spurious, or at least as of doubtful genuineness.1 Marcion did not fabricate an epistle to the Laodiceans ; but as he was led by Coloss. 4: 16, to give to the epistle to the Ephesians the name of Epistle to the Laodiceans ; the spurious epistle to the Laodiceans, which subsequently appeared, was by mistake, ascribed to him.2 . The case was probably similar with regard to the epistle to the Hebrews. In the fragment above cited, the, words " epistola ad Alexandrinos" are perhaps equivalent to the phrase " epistola ad Hebraeos ;" for the epistle to the He- l See Hieronymus'de viris illustribus, s. v. Paulus. 2 Epiphan. haeros. 42. 80 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. brews was written in Greek, and Jews who spoke Greek were there fore thought of, and among these the Alexandrians were the most celebrated. The author of that fragment erroneously ascribed this epistle to the Alexandrians or Hebrews to Marcion, because he had given to it the new superscription " Barnabae titulus." Although the whole epistle is directly opposed to the system of Marcion, that great enemy of Judaism ; still such a mistake is not improbable in a man who was as little acquainted with Marcion's system, as with that of other heretics against whom he contends, and who was op posed to the epistle to the Hebrews on account of the passage -ch. 4 : 6 etc. which seemed to favour the rigid discipline of the Mon tanists: Hug, in his Introduction, represents and explains the fact, that the Latin church denied the epistle to the Hebrews to be a pro duction of Paul, in the following manner : The occidental church was kept actively employed by the Mon tanists. In vindication of their tenet, that those guilty of grievous transgressions should be irrevocably cut off from the church, they relied especially on Hebrews 6: 4, 5 ; as we learn from TertuUian1 and Jerome.3 And hence, the ministers of the Latin church made cautious and sparing use of this epistle. Not long probably after the death of Irenaeus, the presbyter Caius assumed the tone of clamorous opposition against this epistle, in a work which he pub lished against the Montanists.3 And. from that time, this opinion was adopted by the greater part of the Latin church. Even the Montanists themselves receded from their original position on this subject, and in their polemical works, received this epistle only as far as its authority was acknowledged by their opponents, namely as a production of an apostolical teacher, Barnabas or Clemens etc.4 About forty years after Gaius' attack, arose the Novatians, who, as we learn from Jerome, Augustine, Epiphanius, Theodoret and others, also used the passage Hebrews 6: 4, 5, as the principal de fence of their tenets. While the Greeks were calm spectators of the contest, andi evaded the argument from Heb. vi. by their inter pretations ; the Latin churches were led by the pressure of circum stances to deny the authority of the book, whose contents they were unable to refute. But the Latin churches had no ecclesiastical tradition, no authorityof earlier churches, to which they could ap peal; the whole controversy proceeded on the ground of internal evidence. It was for this reason, that Jerome and Augustine could not adopt the opinion of the church to which they belonged ; be- l De Pudicitia, cap. 20. a Adv. Jovinian. L. II. u. 3. 3 Euseb. H. E. VI. 20. 4 TertuUian is an example. De Pudicitia, c. 20. § 3.] ANTILEGOMENA EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 81 cause they were convinced of the contrary by the testimony of the ancients. And their influence tended to give, at a subsequent day, a different turn to the opinion of the Latin church. II. The author of the second epistle of Peter bears witness, that Paul was the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. The passage 2 Peter 3: 15, " As our beloved brother Paul also — hath written unto you," is best explained as referring to the epistle to the Hebrews. The sentiment which immediately pre cedes these words, and concerning which the reader is reminded of what Paul had written, namely : " And account that the long suf fering of our Lord is salvation,"1 is no where expressly found ex cept in Hebrews 11: 39, 40. The patient expectation of the great change, which shall occur at the coming of our Lord, and which is spoken of in 2 Pet. Ill, is no where so pressingly urged as in the epistle to the Hebrews, 10: 35 etc. 3: 6, 14. 12: lr— 12. Nor is the exhortation to godliness any where so expressly connected with the promise of a great change, which heaven and earth are to ex perience,2 as in the epistle to the Hebrews, 12: 25 — 28, which ac cording to the ancient accounts, was ascribed to the apostle Paul. Why, therefore, should we have recourse to the forced supposition, that Paul may have written another epistle which is unknown to us, but which contained a discussion of this subject ? — As to the gen uineness of this text, and indeed of the whole epistle of Peter, no valid objection can be urged. The text has a multitude of concur rent witnesses in its favour, and the genuineness of the whole epistle is established by satisfactory evidence. But even if this epistle were not written by Peter, it must have been published as early as the beginning of the second century ; so that on this supposition, it proves that the epistle to the Hebrews was believed at the commencement of the second century, tto be an epistle of Paul to Asia Minor. IV. This same passage, 2 Pet. 3: 15, affords another argument of an inferential nature, for the genuineness of the epistle to the Hebrews ; as it accounts for some circumstances hi the epistle itself, which might be otherwise regarded as internal objections to Paul's being its author. As the second epistle of Peter was addressed to the same church- 1 Trjv zov xvgtov fjpiini paxgo&vplav, oojzyglav fjyeia&e, i. e. believe that the de lay of our Lord's coming will enhance our salvation. The passage in Hebrews, to which Peter is supposed to refer is : Kai ovrot- ndvzeg, pagTvgrj&ivtes Sid zfji TtiozeoK, ovx ixofiioavro ryv kitayyeXtav zov &eov iiegl rjutM> xgelzzov zi irgopXstfiapivoVf'a'a pt/ yogis rftGtv zeXewi&oiai- which is properly rendered thus : but all these did not receive that which was promised, although they acquired a good report by their faith ; for God intended somothing belter for us, namely that they should not attain the crown before us. S. 2 2 Pet. 3: 11. 11 82 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. t. es as the first, namely to those in Pontus, Galatia, Asia and Bithy nia ; and as Peter says that his brother Paul wrote also to them, vp7v; it follows that the epistle to the Hebrews must have been ad dressed to at least one of the churches above named : the word vptv, 2 Peter 3: 15, does-not necessarily include all the readers of these epistles of Peter. Now the most probable opinion is, that it was addressed to the Hebrew or Jewish Christians in Galatia. And if the epistle to the " Hebrews" or Jewish Christians in Galatia, was sent with that to the " Galatians" or Gentile Christians in Galatia ; this will explain why Paul, contrary to his general custom, wrote an epistle exclusively for the Hebrew members of a church, which was composed of both Jewish and Gentile converts ; for according to this supposition, each class of members received an epistle addressed particularly to itself. The same supposition will also account for Paul's not prefixing his name to the epistle to the Hebrews ; for it was sent together with that to the Galatians, which contained his name, into the same section of the country and to the same churches. The general scope of both epistles points to Jewish persecutors, and Judaizing false teachers ; both treat of persecution and of Jewish seducers. Gal. 1: 7—9. 4: 17. comp. Heb. 13: 9. 12: 15 etc.— Gal. 3: 4. 4: 29. comp. Heb. 10: 32 etc. 12: 1—4. 13: 13. See the Intro duction to Storr's Comm. on the Hebrews, p. LVIII — LXIX. The similarity of ideas in the III. and IV. chapters of the epistle to the Galatians with those of the epistle to the Hebrews, is illustrated in the " Programma de Consensu epistolarum Pauli ad Hebraeos et Galatas, p. 7 — 16. A remarkable fact, in confirmation of the opinion that the epistle to the Galatians and that to the Hebrews belong together, is found in the division of the most ancient Vatican manuscript of the New Testament, Cod. 1209. In this manuscript, all the sections of the epistles of Paul are numbered. The last section of the epistle to the Galatians, is numbered LTX ; and the sections of the epistle to the Hebrews are marked with the next succeeding numbers, LX — LXX : although in that manuscript, the epistle to the Hebrews does not follow immediately after that to the Galatians, but is placed last. Now the person who made that transcript, must have found those numbers in the manuscript from which he copied ; for if he had made them himself, he would have placed the epistle to. the Hebrews next to that to the Galatians, (as it comes next in the order of the numbers), and would not have placed there the epistle to the Ephesians, which begins with LXX. V. The contents and style of this epistle, not only contain no evidence against its genuineness, but really afford some .proof that it is a production of Paul. 1. The salutation from the Jewish Christians who had been driv- § 3.] ANTILEGOMENA EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 83 en out of Italy, Heb. 13: 24, and the mention of Timothy as his fellow traveller, 13: 23, are very applicable to Paul.— Many have supposed that the words, vno tdiv dxovadvtoiv tig jjpdg ifitpaioi&ij, [was confirmed unto us by them that heard him], seem to point out the writer as a disciple of the apostles ; but his using the first per son ypag, instead of the second, may well be considered an instance of that very common figure of speech called dvaxolvwmg, i. e. com munication. 2. Not only does the general scope of this epistle tend to the same point, on which Paul lays so much stress in his other epistles, namely that we are justified and obtain salvation only through Jesus Christ, and that the Mosaic institutions cannot effect this object ; but there are also various propositions in this epistle, which are found in the other writings of Paul.1 And Berger, in his Disserta tion entitled " The epistle to the Hebrews, a homily," finds so great a similarity between the epistle to the Hebrews and Paul's dis course, Acts 13: 16—41, that he believes this discourse might be regarded as an extract from that epistle, or vice versa, that "epistle a commentary on this discourse. 3. Warmth and energy of expression characterise this epistle, as they do the undisputed productions of Paul. Hebraisms of every kind abound in it, as in his other epistles. And finally, it contains particular expressions, phrases and collocations of words, which are either peculiar to Paul, or are most frequent in his writings. It is admitted that the reasoning in this epistle, is developed with much more circumspection and minuteness, than is usual in the other epistles of Paul. But why should this be an objection to its Pauline origin, when the writer himself informs us, 5: 11 etc. that he aimed to develop every thing with clearness. III. 7. Views of the evidence which evinces the genuineness of the other disputed books, namely the second and third epistles qf John, the second epistle of Peter, the epistle of James and that of Jude. General remarks. The following works contain general remarks on the antilego mena, and on the circumstances which occasioned doubts concern ing them : Weber's "Contributions to the history of the New Tes tament canon ;" Hanlein's " Introduction to the New Testament ;" and Griesinger's " Introd. to the books of the New Covenant." The result of their inquiries is, that various accidental causes may l See Hug, p. 312 — 315, and Meyer's " Representation of the doctrines of Paul," p. 310 etc. Altonae, 1801. 84 GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I„ be assigned, which either actually did occasion, or at least might have occasioned the doubts which existed concerning these books, without diminishing at all our conviction of their genuineness. Not one of these books can be proved to be spurious. And when all the evidence for and against these books, both internal and exter nal, is fairly weighed, the preponderance is always in their favor. Particular remarks on the genuineness of each book. I. The second epistle of Peter. This book was the first placed among- the disputed writings of the New Testament, by Origen.1 It is natural to suppose, that if, from incidental causes, the second epistle of Peter did not become known as early as the first ; some churches, which for a length of time had been accustomed to read but one epistle of Peter, might hesitate to receive another. Suspi cion might also have arisen against the genuineness of this epistle, from the fact that it was brought from Asia Minor, the abode of the Montanists, who were accused2 of a disposition to fabricate new writings ; more especially may this have been the case, as the pas sage 2 Pet. 2: 20, could be urged in vindication of the rigor of the Montanistic discipline. Or the departure of the Christians in Asia Minor from the customary method of celebrating the Easter solem nities, may have produced in the eastern and western Christians an indisposition to receive this book.3 The genuineness of the second epistle of Peter is vindicated in the following works : Nietzsche : Epistola Petri posterior auctori suo imprimis contra Grotium vindicata atque asserta. Lipsiae, 1785. Morus : Praelectiones in Jacobi et Petri epistolas, p. 214 etc. Pott r Epist. cathol. Vol. II. p. 163 etc. Commentatio, qua genuina secundae Petri epistolae origo denuo defenditur. Tub. 1806. Dahl : Commentatio exegetico-critica de av&tvtla epistolarum Petrinae posterioris atque Judas. Rostoch. 1807. sect. 1 — V. and Hug's In troduction, pt. II. p. 391 etc. II. The second and third epistles of John. A striking similarity exists between these and the first epistle of John. And the third epistle, which is addressed to Gaius, expressly refers (v. 9) to a communication addressed to the church of which Gaius was a mem ber. Both these epistles were, doubtless, mere addresses, sent to two members of different churches, along with his Gospel and first epistle, which they were to publish in their respective churches. Now if, as may be supposed, the Gospel and first epistle of John were sent to various other churches, unaccompanied by these two addresses to individual persons ; this will show why the two smaller 1 Euseb. H. E. VI. 25. a Euseb. H. E. VI. 20. 3 See " Introd. to Epistle lo the Hebrews," § 10. $ 3.] ANTILEGOMENA -^EPISTLE OF JAMES. 85 epistles were wanting in some transcripts, and also account for doubts being entertained of their genuineness, in places where they were unknown until a later date. But it is evident from Irenaeus,1 that in some copies, one or other of the smaller epistles was con nected with the larger one ; . for that writer quotes passages from both the first and second epistles, as if taken from one and the same epistle. See " On the Object of the Gospel History and Epistles of John," Hug's Introduction, and Eichhorn's Introd. to N. Test. III. The epistle of James. The great antiquity of this epistle is evinced by the following considerations: — first, it was received, with the homologoumena, into the old Syriac version : — Secondly, ideas and phrases are borrowed from it by Hermas in his Pastor, as has been proved by Semler. The high antiquity of Pastor, may be inferred from the declaration of Eusebius, that it was regarded as the production of the Hermas mentioned Rom. 16: 14, and was used by some of the most ancient writers, tmv naXatotdtwv avyyga- qitov. He himself mentions the Pastor of Hermas immediately af ter the writings of the apostles, and before those of Justin and Igna tius : — And thirdly, reference is had to this epistle even in the first epistle of Peter. It is probable from several passages, that either James had the first epistle of Peter before him, or Peter that of James. Compare James 4: 10, with 1 Pet. 5: 6, James 1: 2 — 4 with 1 Pet. 1: 6, 7. James 1: 18—21, with 1 Pet. 1: 3, 21, 22. 2: 1, 2. This becomes the more probable, if both epistles were directed to the same churches, as may be supposed from the fact that both were directed to the Siaanogd, or " dispersed," James 1: 1. 1 Pet. 1: 1; and especially if, as is probable, the passage James 4: 5 is borrowed from Paul's epistle to the Galatians (V. 17, 19 — 21,) a body of people who are expressly mentioned in the ad dress of the first epistle of Peter. Now if one did borrow from the other, it is probable that James was the earlier writer. For, it is admitted that he died several years before Peter ; and Peter proba bly wrote his second epistle shortly after the first, (as may be infer red from the word %Sn now, or so soon 2 Pet. 3: 1,) and conse quently wrote both not long before his death, 2 Pet. 1: 14. In re gard, however, to James 4: 10, the context renders it probable, that James had Job 22: 29, and not the first epistle of Peter, in view. That this epistle was written by James the son of Alpheus, call ed James the younger, is proved in the Dissertation on the epistle of James, in Opuscula Academica, by the following internal argu ments : 1. The epistle of James presupposes an acquaintance, not only with Paul's doctrine of Stxaiwatg (justification), but also with the 1 Contr. Haer. Lib. 3. cap. 16. § 5. 8. 86 GENUINENESS OT THE NEW TEST. [BK. 1. epistles to the Romans and Galatians. But this cannot apply to the older James, the brother of John ; for he had long before been put to death by Herod, Acts 12: 2. 2. Such an acquaintance with the doctrines of Paul, is perfectly applicable to the James, whom Paul saw twice at Jerusalem (Gal. 1: 19. 2: 9.), who delivered the address to the christian assembly at Jerusalem (Acts 15: 13 etc.), and probably also wrote the letter mentioned in the subsequent verses, 22 etc. This James is called (Gal. 1: 19) dStktpog xvglov, "the Lord's brother:" and not only is he placed on an equality with the apostles, (Gal. 2: 9, 'Idxmjiog xal Krjtfdg xal 'joidwrjg, ol Soxoiivttg ozvXonivat-, " James and Cephas and John who seemed to be pillars,") but he is expressly spoken of as belonging to the number of the apostles, Gal. 1: 19. Acts 9: 27. IV. The epistle of Jude. This epistle was expressly ascribed to Jude by TertuUian,1 in these words : (scriptura) Enoch apud Ju- dam Apostolum testimonium possidet,i. e. the (apocryphal book) of Enoch has the testimony of the apostle Jude in its favour^ ; and also by Origen, in his work De principiis.2 Inferential proof in favour of 2 Peter and James. The epistle of Jude, which was used by the author of the book of Enoch, (a spurious work, which according to the testimony of an cient writers3 was in the hands of the Christians as early as the sec ond century and beginning of the third,) confirms the early existence of the second epistle of Peter, and the genuineness of the epistle of James. That the epistle of Jude was used by the author of the book of Enoch, needs no proof. It has been shown4 that the fabri cation of this book was occasioned by the epistle of Jude. In the few fragments of it, preserved by Fabricius in his Pseudepigrapha N. T. there are traces of its being derived from a Christian. It contains a circumstantial account of the fall of the wicked angels, framed in accordance with the Alexandrian version of Gen. 6: 2; but why this should be introduced in a history of Enoch, cannot be accounted for, except by the supposition that the author was led to it by the sixth verse of Jude, and so must have had this epistle be fore him.5 The writer of the epistle of Jude copied from the second of Pe ter, which proves the antiquity of that book. A comparison of Jude, 1 De Habitu muliebri, c. 3. 2 Lib. III. c. 2. § 1. 3 See the Dissertation de catholicarum epislorarum occasione et consilio, p. 34. 4 Dissert, sup. cit. p. 39 etc. 5 On tho subject of the book of Enoch, see Vogel, in Gablcr's Theological Journal for 1803, p. 320 etc. Hug, p. 401 etc. and on tho passage Jude v. 14 etc. See Hanlein : Epistola Judte Graece, commentario critico et annotations perpetua illustrata. Ed. 2. Erlang. 1805. p. 148 etc. <§> 3.] ANTILEGOMENA EPISTLE OF JUDE. 87 v. 4 etc. with 2 Pet. 2: 1 etc. renders it very highly probable, that the author of one of these epistles had the other epistle before him. Now Jude first presents to his hearers, (v. 5,) the ancient people of God, the people of Israel, as an example for their warning ; and then afterwards, contrary to the order of times, comes to the exam ples of the fallen angels (v. 6,) and of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7.) In the same manner, Peter, in the parallel passage, 2 Pet. 2: 1, commences with the words : " there were false prophets among the people," and afterwards brings in the example of the fallen angels, and of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 4 etc). And Peter had a natural inducement, in the context, to make a transi tion to the false prophets among the people of Israel, because he had immediately before, in 1: 19 — 21, spoken of the true prophets of the Jewish nation. But on the contrary, in the epistle of Jude, no reason can be discovered for reversing the order of time and commencing with the people of Israel. There is therefore reason to believe, that Jude was led to adopt this order by having his eye on the first epistle of Peter ; and not that the latter copied it from the former. The object of Jude's epistle probably was, by a repe tition of the admonitions contained in the second epistle of Peter, to impress more deeply upon the readers of that epistle, the dying ex hortation of Peter himself, 2 Pet. 1: 14, 15. In the " Commenta tio, qua genuina secundae Petri epistolae origo defenditur," and espe cially in Dahl's Comment, de av&tvtla epistolae II Petri atque Judae, is a discussion of the evidence arising from a comparison of the par allel passages in second Peter and Jude, and particularly from the greater perspicuity of Jude's language, in favour of the position that the author of Jude's epistle had the second epistle of Peter before him. The contrary opinion is advocated by Hug, in his Introduc tion. The epistle of Jude confirms the genuineness of James' epistle. By subjoining to his name (Jude, v. 1.) dStXtpog 'laxwpov, " the brother of James," he probably intended to call the attention of his readers to the epistle which they had received from his brother James, who was now no more. For since his readers must have known from whom they had received this epistle, it cannot well be supposed that he added these words merely to make himself known to them, or to distinguish himself from others of the same name. — The epistles of James and Jude must have been addressed to the same persons ; if both were intended for the readers of the epistles of Peter: vide III and IV, in this illustration. PART II. THE INTEGRITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. SECTION IV. That the writings, whose genuineness has been proved in § 2, 3, have been transmitted to us without any alteration prejudicial to their integrity ; is proved by the exact coincidence of our text with all the transcripts which men have been able to collect of all ages and countries, with the many and large extracts from the New Testament found in the writings of the christian Fathers, with the Commentaries on the books of the New Testament, and finally with the different translations which have been made of the New Testament.(l) The various readings of the New Testament text, are so far from invalidating these proofs, that they actually corrobo rate them. (2) Nor have we any reason to fear, that some of the books may have reached us only through the medium of a Greek translation, which is materially diverse from the original text. For the hypothesis, that the Gospel of Mark was originally written in Latin, is a figment of later date. (3) The conjecture, that the epis tle to the Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, is indeed more ancient, but unfounded. (4) But that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, cannot be denied.(5) Yet the accuracy and the great antiquity of the Greek version of Matthew which we pos sess, are probable even from internal proofs ; (6) and are rendered certain by the exact coincidence of all the transcripts, and all the quotations found in the Fathers, and all the versions of Matthew with our text.(7) Illustration 1 . Our present text is the same as that which Marcion found in use in the Catholic church. The whole arrangement of Marcion's Gospel, proves that he found in the christian church, no other text than our present one, *§> 4.] MARCION VARIOUS READINGS. 89 and that he himself fabricated another. This is also evident from his complaint, that the Gospel which he found in use had been adulterated by the enemies of Judaism, in order to make it harmo nize with the law and the prophets : for he does not substantiate his charge, by alleging that another Gospel different from the cath olic one existed ; but he appeals to a passage in the epistle to the Galatians (chap. II.), which he evidently misunderstood, and inter preted not as guided by the love of truth, but by devotion to his system. Vide § 2. 111. 8. III. 2. The various readings confirm the integrity of onr text. The 'diversity in the various readings of the New Testament, proves that the copies of the New Testament books which were used by ancient writers, translators and expositors, as well as those used in the present day, were derived from different sources. We have therefore in these various readings, the testimony of a multi tude pf separate and unconnected witnesses in favour of the sub stantial correctness of pur text : for as to this, all the manuscripts, commentaries, versions and citations are in agreement. Schmidt, in his Introd. to the New Test. (§ 170 — 177,) has, by evidence .drawn from the history of the ancient controversies be tween the catholic church and her enemies, put to rest the suspicion that the New Testament text may have suffered much injury du ring the early ages of the church. The. different sources from which the various readings sprung, are stated in the same work, § 181 etc.- — On the Integrity of the New Test, see Kleuker, pt. III. Vol. I. p. 471—495.. Hanlein, pt.-I.p. 225—240. Sehmidt's Introd. pt. II. p. 32 etc. III. 3. We have the Original of Mark, and not merely a trans lation ofit. It was a vague report that Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, which gave occasion to the erroneous opinion, that his book was in tended for Romans, and therefore written in Latin. The Latin- isms of Mark can afford no support to this conjecture ; as (he Ro mans naturally brought with them many Latin expressions into Syria and Palestine. . III. 4. The conjecture that there was a Hebrew original of the epistle to the- Hebrews,, though ancient, is unfounded. Clemens of Alexandria is the oldest known writer, who advanced, according to Eusebius,1 the hypothesis that the epistle to the He- 1 Eccl. Hist. VI. 14. 12 90 INTEGRITY OF THE NEW TEST. [#&'¦ f» brews was originally written in Hebrew. But Clemens does not represent this hypothesis as a fact supported by history. On the contrary, it undoubtedly originated from the ungrounded opinion that tlie style of this- epistle is widely different from that of the other writings ef Paul. Origen paid not the least respect- to this conjecture of his instructor Clemens. But as Clemens adduces the superscription ngog' Efigalovg (to the Hebrews), as one ground of his supposition ? the question arises, whether 'EPgaiot (Hebrews) necessarily signifies Jews whose vernacular tongue was the Hebrew i for if it does; it affords an argument which is not without some weight.-~-Yet PauLmight have written in Greek, even to Jews who spoke Hebrew. — But, according to the idiom of that day, the word 'EpgaTog was not confined to Jews who spake Hebrew, (as Hug has maintained,1) but denoted a circumcised Jew, in opposition to 'EXXi- vtazr/g. Paul in his second epistle to the Cor. 11; 22, denominates himself 'EpguHog (a Hebrew) j although he was a native of Asia Mi nor ; and he even makes a distinction between 'Epgulog and 'logatjX- Itvg (Israelite) one born of a Jew. Indeed Clemens himself2 ex^ tends the signification of the word 'EfigaTot so far as to embrace all who enjoyed the benefits -of divine revelation. Pantaenus, who was the teacher of Clemens, and to whom Cle mens appeals,-3- did not probably infer that this epistle was addressed to Jews in Palestine, from its" superscription ngog 'Eppalovg, but from several misinterpreted passages of- the Epistle itself, (cap. I. 2. II. 13. XII. 25,) from which he concluded, that the readers of this epistle were such Christians as had enjoyed the personal instruc tion of Christ. The language of the epistle itself, especially the indefiniteness of certain Greek terms, (such as Staxtrjxti for covenant, 9: 15), and the citations from the Old Testament, are evidence in favor of a Greek original. III. 5. Matthew's Gospel originally written in Hebrew. ¦ Papias, Irenaeus, and Origen, all testify that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Papias uses these words :4 MazQoiiog 'E(lgaidi StuXt'xjrfp td Xoyta ovvtygdipato, i. e. Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language. This information Papias probably derived from one or the other of his two friends in Palestine, Aristion and John the Presbyter, whom Eusebius denominates [pa&?]rdg xvglov) " Disciples of the Lord." Irenaeus, speaking of the four Gospels, 1 Introduction, pt. II. § 141, etc. Andover ed. 2 Strom. L. I. e. 5.. 3'Eusob. H. E. VI. 14. 4 Euseb. H. E. III. 30. $ 4.] EPISTLE. TO HEBREWS ORIGINALLY GREEK. 91 says: Maz&atog iv zoitg EjUgalotg, iy ISia avimv StaXixtty ygarprjv i&vtyxtv tvayytXlov i. e. Matthew, among the Hebrews, wrote a Gospel in their own language.1 He also asserts,9 that the Ebion ites — (whose country was Palestine) — used only the Gospel of Matthew. It is not easy to assign a reason, why the Jewish Chris tians of Palestine used only Matthew's Gospel, and not also that of Mark, which was -published very early and under the authority of Peter, the great apostle of the Jews ; unless it be admitted, that Matthew's gospel and that only was written in their native tongue. Origen3 appeals to tradition {nagdSoatg), for proof that the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew' 'E(3paixo7g ygdppatn avvztzuyptvov. According to 'the testimony of Eusebius,4 Pantaenus found the Hebrew gospel of Matthew in India (Arabia Felix), which had heen brought thither by the Apostle Bartholomew. Jerome5 asserts, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes which" he tran scribed, was ipsum hebraicum Matthaei, i. e. the Hebrew itself of Matthew. See § 2. 111. 4. The Hebrew character of Matthew's autograph is vindicated in the following works, Hanlein's Introduction to N. Test. pt. II. No. 2. p. 313—339. Eichhorn's Introd. Part. 1. p. 461 — 489. (on the proof derived from the supposed errors of the Greek translation, as discussed in p. 477 — 489 of Eichhorn's Introd. — see the re marks of the Reviewer, in the Haller Litt. Zeitung, for 1805, p. 371 — 377). Schmidt's Introd. pt. I. p. 30 — 35. pt. II. preface p. IV — VI. Feilmoser's Introd. to N. T. p. 23 — 46. Hug, on the contrary, maintains that Matthew was originally written in Greek, Introd. pt. II. p. 342, Andover ed. and also Schubert, in his Dissert, critico- exegetica, qua in sermonem, quo in evangelium Matthaei conscriptum fuerit, inquiritur. Gotting. 1809. III. 6. Internal evidence for the Integrity of the Gospels. In our Greek text of Matthew, we may observe a certain regular coincidence with Mark's Gospel, and a uniformity of plan, which would doubtless have been destroyed, if subsequent interpolations or alterations had been made.6 By similar internal evidence, the integrity of the Gospels of Mark and John is established. In John's Gospel, the harmonious coincidence of the individual parts with the object of the apostle, (which was to confute the disciples of John the Baptist and the Ce- l~ Euseb. H.E. V.8. 2 Adv. Haeres. Lib. I. c. 26. § 2. III. c. 11. § 7. 3 In Euseb. H. E. VI. 25. 4 Hist. Eccles. V. 10. 5 De Viris Illust. s. v. Matthaeus. 6 See " On the Object of John's gospel," § 67, 64. 92 INTEGRITY OF THE NEW TEST. [bK. 1. rinthians), speaks for its integrity.1 — And that Mark's Gospel has reached us unadulterated, is proved by the exact coincidence of its present text with the plan which Luke drew from it. III. 7. Faithfulness of the Greek translator of Matthew. As our Greek text was the basis of all the versions of Matthew which have come to our knowledge, and as, all the Fathers of the church used this text j we are authorised, by the great estimation m which this version was held, to believe that it possessed superior excellence, and was most laithful to the original. John undoubt edly supposed his readers to be familiar with our Greek translation of Matthew.2 1 See " On the Object of John's gospel," p. 221. 2 Compare Hall. Jjtt. zeit. for 1810. No. 332. PART III. CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. SECTION V. Historical credibility of the narrations contained in the New Testament. As the intelligence concerning Jesus and his messengers, wliich is contained in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, is (accord ing to § 2, 4,) derived from Matthew, John, Mark and Luke, it must possess the highest degree of credibility. For these witnesses lacked neither the means x)f knowing the truth, (1) nor motives to communicate it. Matthew and John were apostles and confidents of Jesus : Mark was under the influence of the apostles, especially of Peter ;(2) and Luke was an eye-witness of part of the history of the apostle Paul, who was his teacher. Sustaining to him so inti mate a relation, he could easily obtain from this apostle information relative to the earlier incidents of his life : he was likewise his com panion during his residence in Palestine, where he had an oppor tunity to become intimately acquainted with the history of the oth er apostles and of Jesus. (3) That the authors of the Gospels and of the Acts of the apostles, did not practise intentional deception ; that, on the contrary, they composed their narratives with the utmost historical fidelity ; is evi dent from the general character and appearance of their narrations, (4) as well as from the nature of the incidents which they relate. For these incidents were of such a nature that their truth necessa rily must (5) and easily could ((?) be investigated. Every false statement, therefore, would have been exposed to public reprehen sion, if it had been possible to find any such in their books. (7) Illustration 1. Competence of the witnesses. That the evangelists had an accurate knowledge of the facts which they relate, may be evinced from the contents of the Gos- 94 CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TEST. [bK. I. pels themselves ; as Tollner has proved, in his work entitled, " A universal proof of the truth of the christian religion."1 III. 2. Peter's participation in the composition of Mark's Gospel. Origen asserts,2 that information of most. undoubted certainty had been handed down to his time, that Mark wrote his Gospel as Pe ter dictated it to him (aig Ilitgog va>tiytjauzo avzta). And he says not one word of the singular opinion, which was even then -in circu lation, that Mark's Gospel contained selections from the sermons of. Peter. — It has been already remarked (§2. Illust. 5.), that Justin quotes the Gospel of Mark under the title of dnouhipovtvpatet Ilit-gov,3 memorabilia of Peter. Doubtless he received an ac count of Peter's concern with this Gospel, from Palestine, the land of his nativity ; and it is probable that Papias4 derived the same in telligence from the same place ; although the statements of the lat ter have been deformed, probably by the additions of the Ebionites, who were exclusively attached to Matthew's Gospel. — The Gospel of Mark, which was undoubtedly written for Gentile converts, was probably forwarded from Jerusalem by Peter (whom God first appointed to the ministry of the Gentiles, Acts 15: 7, 14), to the Christians in Antiochia, Acts 11: 22 etc. III. 3. The validity of Luke's testimony. According to the Acts of the Apostles, 21: 17. 24: 27, Luke re sided with Paul at Jerusalem upwards of. two years. Here proba bly, he collected those correct accounts, which he tells us in the introduction to his Gospel, 1: 1 — 4, he possessed. It is certain from Acts 21 : 18, that James, the relative of Jesus, was in Jerusa lem at the same time. Now as the Acts of the apostles was pub lished before the expiration of Paul's imprisonment, Acts 28: 30, and as Luke's Gospel had beeir published before, Acts 1: 1 etc. the date of the latter must probably be fixed at the time Luke was residing with Paul at Rome. For it is not only certain that Luke did accompany the apostle to Rome, Acts 28: 16, but he must have remained with him there a long time, as it cannot be doubted that Luke the historian is the same to whom allusion is made by Paul, in Coloss. 4: 14, Philem. 24, and 2 Tim. 4: 11. III. 4. Internal evidence of the credibility of the Gospels. It is a universally acknowledged fact, that the evangelists nar- 1 §~75— 79. > ~~ 2 Euseb. H. E. VI. 25. 3 Dial, cum Trypho, p. 333. See also Opuscula Academica, Vol. III. p. 67, etc. 4 Euseb. H.E. III. 39. § 5.] CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS. 95 rate with great simplicity, and throughout manifest entire impartial ity. Had they been disposed or permitted to interweave fictitious interpolations of their own, they would have presented in a more prominent manner and have attempted to magnify those accounts which were favourable to the cause of Jesus ;x and on the contrary, they would have endeavored to hestow a more favourable aspect on those incidents which could be perverted to the prejudice ef Jesus and his . apostles., , Examples Of the latter, are the taunts of" the Pharisees,, and their demand of Jesus to work miracles, (Matth. 9: 34^. 12: 24, 48 etc. 16: 1—4. Mark 8: 11, 12.) ; "his disregard of the popular call for a new miracle ; and notwithstanding the grow ing dissatisfaction, alienating the people still more by directing their attention to' blessings of greater importance which he would bestow on them, John 6: 30. Such also was the charge against Jesus of being a glutton and a wine-bibber, and a friend of publicans and sinners, Matt. 11: 19, and various censures and reproaches re corded in John 7: 3 — 12, 48 etc. 10: 20; and likewise the scenes of Gethsemane, Matth. 26: 37- etc. Peter's denial of his master, Matt. 26: 69 etc. and Christ's reproof of his disciples for inattention to his miracles, Mark 6: 49 — 52. 8: 14—21. The form of this argument for the credibility of the evangelists, is seen in its proper light, only when we compare the apocryphal Gospels and histories of the apostles, with our genuine books.2 In regard to the Gospel of John, it is manifest from the whole face of the narrative, that the author was intimately acquainted with the circumstances which-he relates, and that he was a man of tried integrity ; that he did not aim at acquiring confidence and importance among oppo sers of die Gospel, who might be expected to scrutinize every thing he said ; but that he was conscious of having the entire confidence of his readers. In all his writings, and especially in his Gospel, there is a lively sense of the dignity and glory of Jesus, and a tone3 of confident- assurance, which cannot fail to strike the attention of the reader, and which evince his intimate and devout acquaintance with his subject. III. 5. The truth of the facts narrated in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, could not fail to be examined, Between the history of Jesus and other histories, there is a vast difference, as to the necessity there was for ascertaining the truth of 1 Origen appeals to this impartiality of the evangelists, in his work against Celsus,. Book. II' §24,48. 2 Compare Eabricii Codex Apocryph. N. Test. Kleuker on the Apocrypha of the New Test, especially p. 487— 508. 1798, and Paulus' Introductionis in N. T. capp. selectt. p. 261, etc, 3 This tone is observable principally in 19: 35. 21: 24, and first epistle 1: 1—3. 96 CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. the facts related. With regard to the truth of other events, we may, without involving ourselves in any material detriment, admit or reject it. But no one could avow and vindicate his belief in the history x)f Jesus, and in the authority which this history ascribed to him and his "apostles ; without renouncing habits deeply rooted m him from his youth, and throwing off prejudices which antiquity had invested with a kind of sanctity ; nor, as Pliny1 himself con fesses, without restraining the love of vice and dissipation, and by so doing entailing upon himself the hatred of his relatives, of his countrymen and even of the human race. Of this, Jesus forewarn ed the professors of his doctrine;2 and that his predictions were verified, is evinced not only by the Acts of the apostles,3 but by the letters of Paul, who in addressing the churches,4 and some too whose affections he knew had become alienated from him,5 speaks of the sufferings and persecutions of the Christians,, as of a truth taught them by their own experience, and universally acknowl edged. And this fact is confirmed even by the testimony of pagan writers, who speak of Christians in the language of contempt.6 III. 6. There Was every facility for detecting misrepresentations in the Gospel history, if any had exisUd. The facts here referred to were, as we are informed by the New Testament. historians,7 universally, known both in Palestine and in the neighbouring countries, but especially at Jerusalem, the capital of the country, with which the Jews of foreign parts had much in tercourse, for various purposes and particularly for those connected with their religion. Thus Philo informs us, in his work De lega- tione ad Caium,8 that the Jews of Babylon, and those of ProconsuJ lar Asia, annually forwarded to Jerusalem a considerable sum of money for offerings. Now when Matthew? and Mark and Luke first, published their several. Gospels, it was, perfectly easy for their readers to detect any imposition, or misrepresentations of fact, in regard to events so recent and so well understood. Nor can a "l Epist. L. X. ep. !»7. a Matt. 5: 10—12. 10: 21, 34—36. Luke 12: 1—12, 51—53. 14: 25, etc. 3 Acts 4: etc. 28: 22. 4 1 Thess. 2: 2. 14 etc.. 2 Thess. 1: 4—8. Philip. 1: 29, 30. 5 £ Cor. 11: 23, etc. 1 Cor. 16: 9, Gal. 3: 4. 4: 29. 6; 12,1-7. Heb. 10: 32—34. 6 See the passages adduced in § 1. III. 1. of this work. .7 The passao-es alluded to are : Matt. 4: 23 etc. 9: 26. 14: 12, 35, 36. 15: 30 etc. 20: 29. 21: 1—11. 28: 15. Mark 3: 7 etc. 5: 24 etc.' 6: 14. Luke 6: 17—19. 2: 17. 24: 18—20. John 2: 23. 4: 1, 45. etc. 12: 10— 19. bxoopos om'oro avroS dnJjX. &ev i. e- the world is gone, after him. Ibid. 18: 20 etc. Acts 2: 5. «7ro itavrbi l'&- vove zoiv vrzb zov olgovav — out of every nation under heaven. Ibid. 10: 36—38. 8 Pago 1035 etc. also p. 1023. § 5.] CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS. 97 doubt arise whether the accounts concerning Jesus were known from the beginning, and publicly talked of: for we learn from the book of Acts that the principal incidents of the gospel history, the instructions, the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus, were not only committed to writing, but were made the theme of oral com munication.1 This fact is established by Matthew 26: 13, and by Paul, who asserts it with the utmost assurance, even in epistles ad dressed to persons hostile in their feelings towards hirn and dis posed to watch for his halting.2 Moreover, the principal facts in the history of Jesus are so interwoven3 with the nature and origin of Christianity, that even those among the earlier Christians, who entertained different views of many christian doctrines, did not suppose they could be called Christians, unless they adhered to these fundamental historical truths, and reconciled them with their other opinions. It is very questionable, whether any Gnostic sect denied the incidents of the visible history of Christ. Cerinthus in deed taught that the Aeon Christ abandoned the man Jesus during his sufferings and death ; but he admitted that Jesus rose again. The Docetae, Marcion and the Manicheans, according to whose system every thing corporeal belongs to the kingdom of wicked ness, unable to deny the facts of Christ's death and resurrection, had recourse to the subterfuge that they were only apparent. Among those written accounts which have reached us, the Gos pel of Matthew at least was at an early date circulated so generaUy in Palestine, that the multitude of copies to which different addi tions were made by those who used it, gave rise to various and dis cordant editions of that book. And it is easy to comprehend, how various copies of this Gospel might be differently interpolated in Palestine, where there was so much opportunity to obtain both au thentic and unauthentic accounts of Jesus. Such an interpolated Gospel of Matthew must the Gospel of the Nazarenes, used by Jerome, have been. And to such interpolated copies of Matthew, Luke doubtless refers (1: 1, 2.), where he says : " Many have un dertaken to compose a history of the things which have occurred amongst us, as those delivered them to us, who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." By the words, Sirtytitnv etc. Luke either intended to give the title of those written accounts, or he wished to convey the idea, that the authors of them give the statements of eye-witnesses as their source of information. Yet this will not prove that all these statements were correct ; for had Luke regarded those Stijyrjottg as perfectly authentic, he would not (v. 3, 4,) have opposed his own Gospel to them, as being a his- 1 Acts 2: 22 etc. 13:24— 31. (compare v. 11.) 17:18,31.25:19. 26: 22,23,26, oiydg ioriv iv yvivta keitgaypivov zovzo, for this thing was not done in a cor ner. 2 1 Cor. 15: 3—11. Coloss. 1: 23. Heb. 2: 3, 4. 3 1 Tim. 3: 15, etc. 13 98 CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. tory of Jesus composed dxgtpdjg, with the greatest accuracy. Pa pias also seems to confirm the idea of various different transcripts of Matthew, when he says :l MarQalog 'EPgatSt StaXixtta td Xoyiu cvvtygdqeto' tigpyvtvat S" avtd, tog iSvvazo, txaatog, i. e. Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue ; and each one interpreted it as he could. The word ijgprivtvot may refer partly to the trans- latipns from the Hebrew, and partly to additions. . Again the gospel of Mark, which seems to have been written the earliest of an, and. in Palestine, must have been well known among foreign Christians both at Antioch and in more remote places, even before the imprisonment of Paul at Rome ; as may be inferred from 1 Cor. 7: 10. 2 Cor. 8: 18. That the Gospel of Mark was written before either of the other Gospels, is probable from the following considerations : first, the coincidence of Mark with Mat thew and Luke, is accounted for just as well by the supposition that the two latter had Mark before them, as by the contrary supposition that Mark availed himself of their Gospels: secondly, if Mark wrote his Gospel first, this circumstance will best account for the fact that Matthew and Luke contain so much which is not found in the Gospel of Mark. For both were in possession of a sufficiency of supplementary matter. On the other hand, if Mark had the Gos pels of Matthew and Luke before him it would be unaccountable that he should omit so large a portion of their contents : thirdly, Mark contains but little which is not found in Matthew and Luke. And is it probable that he would have composed a new Gospel for the sake of these few supplements' if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke had previously existed ? Besides ; what part could Pe ter have had in the composition of Mark's Gospel, if Mark derived nearly the whole of it from Matthew and Luke ? or how could it be asserted, that Mark wrote w'e Tltzgog vq^yrjoato avzw as Peter dictated to him ? From all this, it is probable that the earliest Gos pel was that of Mark. Again ; in favour of the supposition that the Gospel of Mark was written primarily for the Antiochians, it has been urged : first, that the Greeks in Antioch, who were convert ed by Christians that were natives of Cyprus and Cyrene (Acts II: 20,) were "EXXrjvcg (Acts 15: 1,) or uncircumcised ; and for such, evidently, was the Gospel of Mark composed. Secondly, the deep est interest was felt at Jerusalem for the Christians at Antioch ; and as soon as intelligence of their conversion had reached that place, Barnabas was despatched to them without delay, (Acts 11: 22.) Now the preparation of a Greek biography of Jesus for the new Christians would be perfectly consonant with this solicitude for their prosperity ; as would also be the commission of this charge to Mark, who was the nephew of Barnabas, Col. 4: 10. Thirdly 1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. III. 39. _ ' ~ § 5.] CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 99 the sons of Simon of Cyrene, who are mentioned only in Mark's Gospel (15: 22), probably were among those Christians of Cyrener spoken of in Acts 11: 20, [as having come and preached the Lord Jesus at Antioch; and if so, the fact that their father bore the Saviour's cross would have been an interesting circumstance to the Antiochians, and consequently would be peculiarly suitable to be mentioned in a Gospel addressed to them]. Finally, that this Gospel was published prior to Paul's imprisonment at Rome, is in ferred from 2_ Cor. 8: 18, where the apostle speaks of an dStXqog, ov o tnaivog iv rij» tvayytXtoi Sid naadjv txxXtjtndiv, i. e. a brother who has acquired praise through all the churches," by his services in regard to the Gospel. This aStXqog (brother) seems to have been Mark. For although it cannot be clearly proved that tvayyiXiov was at that early period used to denote a biography of Jesus ; still the praise which he is said, in general terms, to have acquired by his services in the Gospel, might arise not only from his travels for the extension of Christianity, but also from his historical account of Jesus. Paul, it appears, was not ignorant of Mark's Gospel ; at least the passage 1 Cor. 7: J 0, which he adduces as a declaration of Christ, is found no where except in Mark 10: 12. This same dStXqog Paul sent with Titus to Corinth, to collect a contribution for the Christians of Jerusalem ; and for such a charge, Mark was peculiarly adapted, being a member of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12: 12,) and a companion of Barnabas (Acts 15: 39,) who was likewise concerned with this contribution, Gal. 2: 1. Nor could Mark, as a pupil of Peter and a member of the church at Jerusalem, fail to possess influence with that portion of the church at Corinth, which was disposed to adhere to the party of the apos tles Peter and James, and to which, Mark, in company with Titus, was sent by Paul. [From these considerations it appears that Mark was the dStlqog or brother, of whom Paul says, that he had ac quired the approbation of all the churches by his services in regard to the Gospel ; and that Paul was himself acquainted with Mark's Gospel ; and hence it of course follows that this Gospel must have been published, and was open to scrutiny and to detection if it had contained any misrepresentation]. Finally, that the writings of Luke, which were published during the imprisonment of Paul, must necessarily have been early known, not only to Theophilus and his fellow-citizens,1 but also to the in- 1 These could not have been well the inhabitants of Palestine ; for how could Luke, hjmself a stranger there, have written what is recorded in his Gospel (ch. 1: 4.) to a person resident in the very theatre of the transactions he relates? Michaelis in the 3d edition of his Introduction to the N. Test, quotes from a trea tise of Theodore Hase, the opinion that Theophilus was a native of Palestine, and had been high priest. And in the 4th ed.(p. 1091.) he was as much disposed lo adopt this opinion himself, as he was to treat it as an improbable conjecture in the third (p. 933, 936.) 100 CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TEST. [BK„ i, habitants of other countries ; is proved in the work " On the Ob ject of the Gospel history of John," p. 377. If we suppose Luke's Gospel was written in the commencement of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, while various other Asiatic Christians beside Luke were at tending him, and that some of these returned to Asia during the continuance of the apostle's captivity ; this will account satisfactorily for the early promulgation of Luke's Gospelin Asia. III. 7. The truth of the Gospel history must be admitted; for even those whose depravity prompted them to disobey its injunc tions, acknowledged its fundamental facts. The first epistle of Peter,, which, was universally received as genuine, and those epistles of Paul which were addressed to particu lar Churches or to their officers,1 shew, both in their superscriptions and in various particular passages,2 that the early existence of chris tian churches was a well known fact. The Annals of Tacitus also corroborate what is stated in the Acts of the apostles (ch. 2 etc.) in regard to the multitudes of Christians not only in Judea and else where, but even in Reme itself, before and during the reign of the emperor Nero.3 Hence we must necessarily infer that the facts, of the truth of which every Christian was required to profess his con viction, were actually believed by a great multitude of persons, at a time, when it was an easy thing to investigate their truth, but no easy matter to avow a belief of them ; and, consequently, that these facts were not manifestly fictitious and false, but were really atten ded by evidence which appeared satisfactory on the closest investi gation. Nor is it difficult to understand why some, who were ac quainted with the facts On which the christian religion is based, should nevertheless disavow Christianity. For, the fear which led them to conceal their favourable opinion of the cause of Jesus,4 or at least not to venture actually to attach themselves to the Chris tians,5 nay, even the hostility which their conduct on some occasions betrayed, can be naturally accounted for, without impairing in the least the truth and indisputable certainty of the history of Jesus. Prejudice and passion, which in Christians nothing but the force of 1 1 Tim. 1: 3. 3: 15. 4: 11 etc. Tit. 1: 5 etc. 2 1 Cor. 1:2. 7:17. 11:16. 14:33. 16:1,8 etc. 19. 2 Cor. 8: 1. 11- 28 Gal 1:22.2:7—10. Rom. 15: 19— 27. 3 See Annotations ad philosopliicam Kantii de religione doctrinam, § XIX. (1793,) where it is remarked, that this testimony of Tacitus authorizes the infer ence that the miracles of Jesus and his apostles must have been historically true. * See John 12: 42, 43. 3: 2.. 7: 13. 9.- 21—23. 5 Acts 5: 12, 13. Compare " An Andress to a female friend, whose faith in the divinity of the Christian religion-had become wavering," p. 74 etc. $ 5.] CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 101 truth could entirely overcome, might have possessed so great an influence1 with persons of little love for truth, and of a contumacious spirit, as to urge them to dispute even the most indubitable facts. — Thus, the inhabitants of his " own country" regarded the doctrines of Jesus with amazement, but were offended at the humility of his origin ;2 the Pharisees said, " This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day ;"3 and the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, were displeased that Peter and John should preach Jesus as risen from the dead.4 Moreover, the truth5 of these facts was actually acknowledged by many,6 who were selfish enough7 to deny the consequences vvhich flowed from them. Such persons did violence8 to their own conscience ; and this, sometimes with the most impious and unblushing audacity,9 without any pretext at all ; at other times under pretence of some difficulty10 attending those doctrines of Jesus in support of which miracles had been wrought before their eyes, or they attempted to account for these miraculous events by ascribing them to some cause, which, instead of recom mending Christianity, would reflect disgrace and odium upon it11 The real cause of the miracles recorded in the gospel history will hereafter be considered, (§ 8. 111. 8.) all that needs tp be proved in this place is, thaf the facts of the New Testament history are not fictitious, but were actually observed by eye and ear-witnesses, pre cisely in the manner recorded. On the credibility of the historical contents of the New Testa ment, the reader is referred to the following works : Kleuker, vol. III. part II. sect. 1. Hanlein, pt. I. chap. 4. § 2. Hug's Introd. pt. I. p. 83 — 87. Bogue's Essay on the divine authority of the New Testament, p. 19, 25, 88—102. 1 See Ernesti Opuscula philologico-critica, p. 93 etc. ed. Lugd. Bat. 9 Matt. 13: 54 etc. 15: 12. compare v. II. Luke 20: 19, compare 9—18. John 7: 47—52. 3 John 9: 16. < Acts 4: 2. 17: 32. 5 John 11: 47, 48 etc. Acts 5: 28. 6: 13 etc. 6 Matthew 27: 42. John 7: 3, 5, 21—26. 9: 16—18. 10: 31. 11: 47 etc. 12: 10, 11. Luke 13: 14, where the Ruler of the synagogue acknowledges the miracle wrought by Jesus. Acts 2: 22 xad-ws xal avzol ol'Saze, as you yourselves also know. 4:7. (comp. 3:2— 8) 14— 16, 21,22. 7 Matth. 11: 16—19. 8 John 15: 22—25. Matth. 11: 20—24. » Luke 16: 11. John 9: 24,28, 34 11: 49. and Acts 4: 17, 18, 21.5: 17 (comp. v. 14—16.) 28: 40. 7: 54, 57 etc. 11: 3. comp. v. 11. 1 Thess. 2: 15. 10 John 7: 27, 41 etc. ' H Matt. 9: 34. 12: 24. Acts 2: 13. 102 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. I. SECTION VI. Jesus himself professes the divinity of his mission afid doctrineSi It is therefore historically true, that the Founder of Christianity, who (as Tacitus informs us, Annal. L. XV. c. 44.) was put to death by Pontius Pilate the Procurator, in the reign of Tiberiusj did profess to be a divine messenger ;(1) who had neither derived his doctrines from other men, nor discovered them by the powers of his own mind,(2) but received them from God. (3) According to his own declaration, his conscientious reverence for God (John 5: 30. 7: 18. 8: 29, 55), and most intimate union with him (John 8: 16, 29! 14: 10. 10: 38. 16: 15), rendered it impossible for him to communicate any thing solely by himself, or without the co-ope ration of God. (4) It was in virtue of this his constant union with God, that he demanded that all his communications^) should be received, not as the doctrines of the mere man Jesus, but as the declarations of God(6) himself; and that they should therefore be regarded as perfect truth. (7) Hence he required, that in those things which should transcend the limits of human knowledge, we should implicitly believe him upon his own authority ; that we should receive his declarations as the testimony of one who had Ipng been most intimately united with God,(8) and who had the most perfect acquaintance(9) (Matt. 11: 27. John 8: 55,) with things divine, and lying beyond the reach of our knowledge. Ac cordingly, he assured his hearers, that nothing but irreverence for God,(10) which is itself criminal,(ll) could prompt them to reject his doctrines ; and on the contrary, that every one who believed him, believed God himself.(12) Nor is there reason to fear, that his apostles and disciples might have misunderstood what he taught concerning his union with God ; inasmuch as his pretensions were generally known, and were frequently disputed by his enemies, (Matt. 26: 63, 68. 27: 54. John 19: 7. 5: 18. 6: 41 etc. 10: 33, 36.) ILLUSTRATIONS. 1st Illustration. The expressions which Jesus used concerning the divinity of his mission, are these : {rtog, 6 natrjg dniattiXt — tntpvji pt God the Father deputed — sent me, John 8: 42. 6: 29. 17: 3, dniott tXag tig tov xoapov thou didst depute (or send) me as an apostle into the world, John 17: 18, 23. 5: 27 etc. 8: 16, 18. § 6.] TESTIMONY OP JESUS. 103 7: 16,28: iyai iXrjXv&a iv ovopazi tov nazgog pov I am come in my Father's name, John 5: 43 ; an ipavtov ovx iXrjXv&a, dXX' i'oriv dXri&tvog 6 nipipag pt I canae not of myself, but he is true who sent me, John, 7: 28. On the signification of these expressions of Jesus relative to the divinity of his mission and doctrines, and eoncerning faith in his di vine, authority ; the reader may consult Su'skind's bistorico-exegeti- cal investigation of the question : " In what respect did Jesus assert the divinity of his religious doctrines and practice ?" published Tu bingen 1802 ; and the German edition of the two dissertations De sensu, quo suam Jesus doctrinam divinam perhibuerit. P. I. 1798, P. II. 1801. In this work of Suskind, the divinity (in the strict sense of the word,) of the doctrines and mission of Jesus, is proved from the declarations of the Saviour himself : and vindicated against those explanations of the above mentioned passages of John, which would make them teach the divinity of the doctrines _ of Jesus only in a vague sense. See also the dissertation of the author of this work " On the spirit of Christianity," in Flatt's Magazine vol. I. p. 105—110. Note. The hypothesis, which derives the plan and doctrines of Jesus from the Essene school, has lately been advocated by Staud- lin. The reader is referred to what Bengel has said in opposition to it, in his " Remarks on the attempt to derive Christianity from the tenets of the Essenes," in Flatt's Magazine vol. VII. p. 126 etc. See also the Tiibinger gelehrt. anzeigen, for 1800, p. 387, and Liinerwald, " On the pretended derivation of Christianity from the Essene doctrines," in Henke's Magazine vol. IV. pt. 2, p. 371. 2d Illustration. nd>g ovzog ygdppata oiSt, p?j ptpa&tixcdg — >J ipjj StSayfj ovx iaztv ipr,, dXXd tov nipxpavrog pt1 how knoweth this man the scriptures, since he is not of the learned? — my doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me. On this passage, the author has made the following remark :2 " The phrase ovx iotiv ipr\, proves that the contrasted one iozl too nipyJavzog pt as well as that in verse 17, ix tov &tov, signifies more than merely this : my doctrine is deriv ed from the will of God as discovered by reason ; the voice of God in me (the voice of conscience) prompts me to teach ; my doctrine flowed from reflection on the will of God. For on this supposition, the reason and conscience referred to, would be the mere human reason and human conscience of Jesus. But conscience, if left to herself, is liable to error, even when the intention is sincere ; so that the voice of conscience may be the voice of an erring conscience, and consequently merely the supposed voice of God." 3d Illustration. John 7: 16. 14: 24. I John 7: 15, 16. 3 See Flatt's Magazine, vol. IV. p. 219. 3 gee Flatt's Magazine vol. I, p. 117, note 4. 104 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. I. 4th Illustration. John 8: 26, 28, 40. 12: 49, 50. 15: 15. 17: 8. Matthew 11: 27. 5th Illustration. John 5: 30. 8: 28. 14: 10. 12: 49. 6th Illustration. John 12: 48 — 50. compare ovSiv v. 30, and ndvza Matt. 11: 27. John 17: 7.3 If, in accordance with the will of God, the man Jesus remained unacquainted with any thing (<§> 80) ; on such subjects he did not publish his own (human) views, but acknowledged his ignorance, as in Mark 13: 32. Hence it fol lows, that even in such cases, he taught nothing which was his own, (*g iavtov of himself, John 5: 30. 8: 28. 12: 49), nothing without a commission from the Father, or contrary to his will, John 12: 49. 8; 28. Moreover, the cause of this nescience, was not a limited divine influence, arising from a limited union of the man Jesus with the divinity, (for this was in itself unbounded,) John 3: 34; but it arose from a voluntary restriction, (<$> 81. 111. 4,) by virtue of which, Jesus himself did not wish to know more than the divine omnis cience, with which he was most -closely united, (<§> 76,) chose at that time ($ SO,) to communicate to him (§ 44.) 7th Illustration. John 7: 16. 14: 24. 17: 8, 14, zd gnpata a SiStoxag poi — 6 Xoyog oov the words which thou gavest me — thy word. In v. 8, 47, comp. v. 43. Thus John the Baptist says of Jesus, zd gnpata zov Q-tov XaXti he speaketh the words of God, John 3: 34 ; and Jesus approved his testimony, John 5: 33. Com. Luke 11: 49. Matt. 23: 34. 8th Illustration. John 8: 16, 26, 40, 45—47. John 5: 30. 17: 8, comp. 3: 33, and 34, and § 36. 9th Illustration. 'O ix zov ovgavov xatafidg — o dtiv nagd tov &tov, icbpaxt tov natiga — idv ovv &tmgi]tt tov vldv zov dv&goinov ava^alvovta,. onov rjv to ngottgov — i!-rjX&0v nagd tov naigog — nd- liv nogtvopui npog tov natiga he who came down from heaven — he who is from God, hath seen the Father — if ye should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before ? — I came forth from the Father— again I go to the Father, John 3: 13. 6: 46, 62. 16: 28, comp. 3: 31. 10th Illustration. 'O ptj ntattvmv, ijSrj xixgitai he that believeth not, is condemned already, John 3: 18. 1 1 th Illustration. This belief on the authority of Jesus, in things which lie beyond human knowledge, is demanded by him in John 3: 11—18, 32. 12th Illustration. John 12: 48,49. 5: 38,42 — 44. 8: 42 47. Luke 10: 16, 6 Si ipi d-d-tttSv, d&tztl zov dnoatttXavtd pt he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. 13th Illustration. 'O tov Xoyov pov dxovtav, xal ntoztvtav toj ¦nipvjavti pt he that heareth my doctrine, and believeth him who sent me, John 12: 44. 5: 24. 13: 20, comp. 3: 3 etc. See on this passage the Magazine, vol. VII, p. 67 etc. $ 7.] CREDIBILITY OP THE DECLARATIONS OF JESUS. 105 SECTION VII. Evidence of the truth of the professions and declarations of Jesus concerning himself. I. FROM HIS GHARACTER AND GENERAL CONDUCT. Although the declarations of Jesus concerninghis union with God, may have been grounded on his own internal and immediate con sciousness, which afforded him the fullest conviction of their truth ;(1) yet the only evidence by which others can be convinced of their truth, must be external, or must consist in facts which "ac cord with his professions. (2) And such evidence is not wanting. The general character and conduct of Jesus shield him - from the suspicion of having knowingly laid claim to a connexion with God which was fictitious and imaginary ; his character entitles his testi mony to credence (John 14: 10. 10: 38). So far was he removed from any visionary projects,(3) which might have led him intention ally to feign any particular relation to God, that he rejected those acknowledgements of respect which were obtruded on him :(4) and on the contrary, out of pure love to God (Matt. 26: 63 etc. John 8: 49) and to the truth which he was commissioned to teach (John 8: 55), he persevered in asserting uniformly his extraordinary union with God, although it evidently entailed on him the most grievous consequences.(5) Nor did he relinquish these high pretensions, even at a time when he could have promised himself not a single advantage from them, (Matt. 26: 64. Luke 22: 69. 23: 46, 42,) unless he was immovably convinced of their truth, and of the divine approbation of his conduct in avowing them. And how sincere and firm his conviction was of the reality of that extraordinary coopera tion of God to which he laid claim, is evinced by his confident ex pectation of the successful issue that would crown his purposes, after he should have submitted to a disgraceful death, which seemed ac cording to human calculation (Luke 24: 19 — 21) the greatest ob stacle to their success. (6) And this expectation, he avowed by the most express and confident assertions, (10) aswell as by his actions; in defiance of the unpromising commencement of his work, (7) and 14 106 DIVINE" AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. 1, the most formidable obstacle to its advancement ; in opposition to the tardy improvement and great imbecility of those who were to be the instruments of the propagation of his doctrines after his death ;(8) from whose agency he could himself have expected hut little, if he had not possessed a firm confidence in the aid of God. (9) For he refused that honour, which he might have obtained by means of popularity and human management, (John 6: 15) : he sought neither to procure nor to retain the applause of the multitude,(ll) and he did not court the favour of the great.(12) On the contrary, although he was early conscious of the exalted nature of his desti nation, (Luke 2: 46 — 49), he did not prosecute his wide and com prehensive plan (John 4: 21 — 23. 10: I6)(13) with impassioned ardour : nor was he in haste to enter precipitately (Luke 3: 23) on the duties of his public office, but designedly postponed the execra tion of the greater part of his plan, till the time subsequent to his death. (14) This moderation in the execution of a plan, with which Jesus professed to believe himself entrusted by God, is dia metrically opposed to the character bf an enthusiast, who' might merely imagine himself the subject of the peculiar aid and influ ence of God. An enthusiast would not indeed have entertained such extensive views,(15) or have fixed on so compreherisive(16) a plan,(17) and especially while the immediate results were so incon siderable as those which appeared during the life of Jesus (Matt. 13: 31 — 33). Besides, a person of fanatical character would un doubtedly have seized, and by the aid of a glowing fancy have wrought still higher, the popular ideas concerning the Messiah ;(18) ideas so grateful to an enthusiastic mind, and so current among the Jews in the days of Jesus,(19) that notwithstanding he frequently and explicitly opposed them,(20) his very disciples could not relin quish them but with the greatest difficulty,(21) and only after the death of him whom they regarded as the Messiah (Luke 20: 25 46)., Illustrations. ,; J^' * - >q 1st Illustration The certainty with which Jesus believed him self united with God, he expresses in these words tyo) olSa I know John-8: 14. That an immediate and infallible consciousness of the divine agency in the soul of Jesus, was not impossible, is proved by Koppen, in his treatise entitled « The Bible a work of divine wis- § 7.] CREDIBILITY OF THE DECLARATION OF JESUS. 107 dom ;" by Kleuker, in his " Examination and explanation of the principal evidences for the truth and divine origin of. Christianity ; and by Flatt, in his dissertation entitled " Observationes ad compa- randam Kantianam disciplinam cum doctrina Christiana pertinentes." This possibility, whieh is the object of present inquiry, is also ad mitted by Plank, in his Introduction to the theological sciences; and by Schmid, in his Moral Philosophy. 2d Illustration. John 5:31,36. (compare the work "On the object of John's Gospel," p. 199 etc.) John 15: 24. Ud Illustration. 'Ofyttov t rjv S6'£uv tov nipxpavzog avtov (in op position to 6 £nzdiv zrjv Sol-av ztjv idiav) dXrjdrjg iati, nal dStxi'a iv avtm ovx iazt he that seeketh the glory of him who sent him (in opposition to " he that seeketh his own glory") is true, and false hood is not in him. John 7: 18. 4th Illustration. John 6: 15. Matt. 16: 20. 17: 9. Luke 12: 13 etc. 5th Illustration. John 5: 18. 6: 60,66. 10: 31—33. Matt. 26: 63—66. 6th Illustration. After Jesus had declared that his church should be invincible, he immediately apprised his disciples of the sufferings and death which awaited himself, Matt. 16: 18 — 23, and 21- 37 — 43. 26: 11 — 13. He speaks of his death, and likewise of the extension of his gospel over the whole earth, John 3: 14 — 16. 6: 51. 10: 15, 16. 12: 24, 31, 32. 16: 7, 8. 17: 19. And in John 8: 28, be states that only when his enemies should have brought him to the cross (pzav v\\>mrrritt comp. 12: 33), when his life should be taken away, not by his own hands but by those of his enemies (8: 22), would the progress of his work make it appear more satis factorily, that he had not been guided by caprice, which would ne cessarily cease to act at death ; and in general, that he had not been acting for himself merely dq iavtov, but that it was the cause and the work of God in which he was engaged. Now the plans of God, the murderers of Jesus had not power to defeat ; because he was able to raise Jesus from the dead, and to accomplish his divine pre dictions relative to his return to the Father (8: 14, 21) with all the important consequences of that return (16:7. Matt. 24: 14 etc. comp. John 8: 24,50), in a manner which would place the declara tions of Jesus, that he acted under immediate divine influence, be yond all doubt. (John 8: 16, 13.) The value of the argument in support of the claim of Jesus to a divine mission, which is afforded by his voluntary sacrifice of him self, is shown by Schwartze, in his work On the death of Jesus, Leipsic, 1805, p. 87—107 ; and in Flatt's Magazine, Vol I. p. 83 — 87. Compare Flatt's dissertation in Vol. XII. entitled, " Liisst sich die Ueberzeugung Jesu von der Gewissheit und moralischen 108 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. I. Nothwendigkeit seines friihen Todes aus einem rationalistischen Gesichtspunkt betrachten ?" 7th Illustration John 3:32. 15:20, etc. Matt. 11: 16—24.10: 25. 8th Illustration. Matt. 1-6: 23. 17: 17. 26: 31—35, 41. Mark 6: 52. 7: 18. 8: 17—21. Luke 18: 34. 24: 11. John 16: 12, («* noX- Xd i'xoo Xiytiv vp7v, dXX' ov SvvaoOt jSaotd^ttv dgtt I have still ma ny things to tell you, but ye are not able to bear them yet). John 20* 9 19 25 9th Illustration. Luke 22: 32. John 16: 17, 26. 15: 26. 16: 5— 15. 17: 9—17. 10th Illustration. Matt. 13: 31—33, 10: 18. 24: 14. compare Illust. 6. 11th Illustration. John 6: 26, 60, 66. 8: 30 etc. Luke 14: 25 etc. 12th Illustration. Luke 11: 53 etc. (compare v. 39—52). 20: 19 (compare v. 17, 18). Matt. 15: 12— 14,(comp. v. 11). 22: 15— 22. 13th Illustration. Compare Dissert. III. in Libror. N. Test, ali quot locos, p. 16. (in Opuscula academica, Vol. III. p. 209 etc.) where it is remarked, that in the injunction recorded Mark 10: 12, Jesus had a reference to nations not Jewish. 14th Illustration. Although the plan of Jesus embraced every na tion on earth, yet he would not himself commence its accomplish ment among the heathen, nor suffer his disciples, when they were first sent out, to go among the heathen or Samaritans. Matt. 10: 5 etc. 15: 24. comp. John 10: 11—15. 15th Illustration. Matt. 13: 37 etc. o Si dygog iaziv 6 xoopog the field is the world. 16th Illustration. Matt. 13: 30, 39 — 43, 47—50. 17th Illustration. See Reinhard " On the plan which the founder of the christian religion devised ;" 4th ed. 1798. 18th Illustration. Compare Acts 5: 36, and Less, On Religion, Pt. II. p. 539. 19th Illustration. See the Dissertation, De notione regni coeles- tis, <§> II. where it is shown from passages of the New Testament, what false and worldly ideas of the Messiah and of his kingdom, were entertained by the Jewish people, at the time of Jesus. Com pare Hess' work entitled, " The doctrines, actions and sufferings of our Lord," new edit. 1805. Pt. I. p. 387. 20th Illustration. John 6: 15, 26 etc. where Jesus opposes the carnal views of those who wished to make him king because he had fed them, and at the same time points them to the object of that miracle, and to the spiritual nourishment which they might expect from the Messiah.1 In Matt. 5: 3—12, Jesus endeavours to recti- 1 See Dissertat. III. in Libror. N. Test, histor. aliquot locos, p. 42—46 (in Opusc. academ. Vol. III. p. 231) etc.) "§> 7.] CREDIBILITY OF THE DECLARATION OF JESUS. 109 fy the current opinions of the Jews relative to the kingdom of God by representing the happiness of this kingdom as a heavenly hap piness (v. 12), as a union with God, and a likeness to him (v. 8, 9), as a freedom from moral evil (v. 6), as a happiness which does not remove the afflictions of the present life (v. 4, 10, 11), and which can be attained, not by force and by overbearing, but by meekness (v. 5), humility (v. 3), and a pacific disposition (v. 9).1 Mark 9: 9—13. Luke 9: 43, 44. 14:25. etc. Matt. 20: 22—28. Luke 19: 11 etc. where Jesus by his parable (v. 12 — 27 ) contradicts the opin ion, that the solemn appearance of his kingdom was very near, (v. 11). Luke 19:29 — 40. comp v. 41 — 44. Here, by his mourn ful and affecting lamentation over the impending calamity of Jeru salem, Jesus gave an immediate refutation of every false construc tion, which the Jews in accordance with their prejudices concerning the Messiah, could put upon his entrance into their city. 21st Illustration. Matt. 16: 22, 23. 20: 21. Luke 9: 45. 18:34, 31—33. 24: 21. SECTION VIII. Evidence of the truth of the professions of Jesus continued. II. FROM HIS MIRACLES. But the principal evidence for the divinity of the mission and doctrines of Jesus, is that derived from those deeds of his which are termed miracles(l, 2). As these miracles, whose historical truth (3) has been proved(<§> 5), are of such a nature that they could not be produced by human art (4), or be a mere accidental coincidence of events with the wishes and predictions of Jesus(5) ; they are occular proofs [ovpt7a'] of the fact, that the man Jesus who pro duced these effects, was not left to himself; but that he was under the influence of a superior Being, and of that very Being (6), to whom he ascribed all his declarations, as well as these actions of his which so manifestly transcended all human power(7). 1 See Dissert. 1. in Lib. N. Test, historicos, p. 13, 14. (Opusc. acad. Vol. Ill p. 12 etc.) 1 10 divine authority of the new testament. [bk. i. Illustration 1. On the signification of tgya, miracles. It cannot be denied that in some passages, tgya manifestly signi fies miracles. Such passages are Matt. 11:2 (compared with v. 3—5). Luke 7 : 18 (comp. v. 11— 17). John 9 : 3, 4 (comp v. 6, 7). In other passages in which tgya occurs, the evidence, though not so clear, favours the idea of miracles. Thus in the texts John 14 : 11. 10 : 37, 38, 25. Both these passages distinguish be tween believing Jesus on his own word, and believing him for his works' sake, ntottviiv au'rqj and nioztytiv Sid td tgya or nionvtiv zoig i'gyotg. To believe Jesus himself, on his own word, cannot well signify any thing else, than to believe him because he was a credi ble person, — to believe him on account of his wisdom and upright ness, or for the sake of his character. For how could Jesus expect that he should be believed merely on his word, without any regard to his character ? Now believing him for the sake of his works, must signify something else, than believing him on his word, or for the sake of his character ; and therefore the word i'gya does not re fer to his character and general conduct, but rather to his miracles.1 Again, the word i'gya must signify primarily the miracles of Jesus, in the two passages John 5 : 36. 15 : 24. In reference to the first passage, it is to be remarked, that the whole discourse from verse 17 to 47, was occasioned by a miracle, the healing of " the man who had an infirmity thirty and eight years," on the Sabbath day. And the ptl&va tgya greater works, of which Jesus speaks in the context (v. 20), were also extraordinary evidences of his greatness, to be exhibited, as he himself informs us, partly at the day of judg ment (v. 22, 27 — 29), and partly prior to his death (v. 25) ; they consisted in raising the dead, and of course were miracles. With re gard to the second passage, it is evident that Jesus meant such works as were open to the view of all, and such as could not have escaped their knowledge (v. 22, 25) .3 Now the evidence afforded by his miracles in favour of his divine mission, was precisely such as was best calculated to fix their attention (John 9: 30 — 33. 10 : 21. 3 : 2), and it therefore rendered the Jews the less excusable. And as the populace had not so good an opportunity to become intimate- 1 See the author's Dissertation on Matt. 17 : 27, in Flatt's Mag. Pt. II. note 60. 2 The declaration of Jesus John 15: 24, That he performed before the eyes of the Jews miracles (i'gya) which no other person had performed (a oiSelg aXlioS iirohjoev)j was perfectly true : for no prophet of the O. T. had performed so many (John 21: 25) and so many beneficent miracles itoXXa xaXd i'gya (21: 25), as he did. See the Dissert, sup. cit. in Flatt's Magazine, Vol. II. p. 84, 85. note 60. ' § 8.] the miracles of jesus. Ill ly acquainted with his wisdom and integrity, as his disciples had who were constantly with him ; it may be questioned whether Jesus would have required them to acknowledge him as that exalted Mes senger of God which he professed to be, merely on account of the excellence of his doctrines and the holiness of his life ; unless the suspicions as to the excellence of his doctrines and life, which his professions relative to the exalted dignity of his person would natu rally excite, had been met by such (tgya) miracles, as were no less extraordinary than his professions concerning the dignity of his person.1 Several interpreters suppose i'gya in the aforementioned passages of John, to signfify the official acts and deeds of Jesus as the Mes siah. See Morus' Dissertation, qua describitur testimonium Dei Patris de filio suo, ad Johan. 5 : 31 — 47. Nitzsch's Program : Quan tum Christus tribuerit miraculis ? Paulus' New Theological Journal Vol. IX. p. 370, 428. and Eckermann's Theological Contribu tions, Vol. V. No. 2. p. 76, where we find the following remark : " i'gya does not signify miracles, but offices of instruction, or teach ing men — the proper method of worshipping God, and the conditions on which his favour may be obtained ; in order to their improve ment and salvation." See also Eichhorn's Bibliotheca of Biblical Literature, Vol. VII. p. 981, where the expression i'gya is taken to be synonymous in these passages with. StSaxv (doctrines). The principal argument of these writers is derived from John 14 : 10 — 12, and is answered in the Dissert. II. in Libr. N. T. historicorum ali quot locos p. 52^-54. (Opusc. acad. Vol. III. p. 151 etc.) where it is shown, (1), that Jesus might, with the greatest propriety, say (John 4: 11), that on account of his miracles, men ought to believe him to be united with God in the most intimate manner ; because these very miracles proved the truth of his declaration. (2), that the 12th verse may be thus translated : " whosoever (among you my disciples) believeth in me, shall perform the same miracles which I perform ; and he shall do still greater things (ptifrva, majoresres,) than these miracles ; (he shall be more successful than I have been, in bringing men to receive my doctrines). III. 2. Proof that the miracles of Jesus were intended as evidence of his divine mission; and refutation of the contrary opinion of some late writers. ' Jesus himself explicitly declared his miracles to be proofs of the divinity of his mission. Thus, to the disciples of John, who came to him with the interrogation, " Art thou he that should come, or shall l Comp. sup. cit. p. 82, 83. 112 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE new testament. [bk. 1. we expect another," he gave this most unequivocal reply : Tlogtv- &t'vrtg dnayytlXatt 'Jadvvn a axovttt xal a (IXinitr tvqXot avafiXt- novtst, — pri axuvSaXtts&fi iv ipol, go and relate to John the things which ye have heard and seen : the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and- the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and good news is brought to the poor ; and blessed is he to whom I shall not prove a stumbling block." See Matt. 11 : 3—5. John 14: 11 . 10 : 25, 37 etc. 11 : 42. 15 : 4. 9 : 3—5. In the Dissert. II. in libros N. T. historicos, it is proved that the miracle of healing one who was born blind, which is related in the last of these texts, and to which Jesus himself attached great importance (v. 3 etc.), had a remarkable reference to his declaration concerning himself, recorded John 8 : 12 etc. The apostles of Jesus also declare, that the establishment of the divinity of his mission and of his personal glory (S6£a), was the ob ject of his miracles. See Acts 2 : 22. John 2:11. Heb. 2 : 3, 4. and compare Diss. I. in libros N. T. histor. p. 83 etc. where it is shown, that Jesus and his apostles by no means discountenanced men's believing in him on account of his miracles (John 4 : 48. Mark 8:11); but that, on the contrary, such faith was recommend ed not only to the eye-witnesses of the miracles, but also to all who should even read the accounts of them. (John 20: 29 — 31). But some deny that Jesus himself declared his miracles to be proofs of his divine mission. This has been done by Eckermann and others. In reply, see the dissertation of the author, entitled, " Did Jesus declare his miracles to be proofs of the divinity of his mission P"1 and the Programm of Dr. Nitzsch : " Quantum Jesus mi- raculis tribuerit ?" published Wittemburg 1796, and the " Remarks on the miracles of Jesus," in Flatt's Magazine, Pt. III. p. 20 etc. The principal objections to the opinion that Jesus himself declar ed his miracles to be proofs of the divinity of his mission and doc trine, as well as the replies to these objections, are the following : I. Those passages, which are regarded as decisive evidence that Jesus himself declared his miracles to be proofs of his divine mis sion, did not (so says Eckermann) proceed from Jesus and his apostles, but are interpolations of later date, by persons fond of mi racles, who added them te the eriginal narratives of the evangelists, and , ascribed them to Jesus. This objection has already been re futed in § 2. IU. 6. According to the New Theological Journal, however, it is unne cessary to deny the integrity of these passages, for they can easily be so explained as to afford no evidence that the miracles of Jesus referred to the divinity of his mission and doctrine. Thus, with 1 In Flatt's Magazine, pt. IV. No. IV. §8.] THE miracles OF JESUS. 113 regard to 1. Matt. 11: 2—5. " Jesus does not derive the evidence, from the miraculous character of his actions, but from, the circum stance, that they were performed in a manner worthy of. the Mes siah. John the Baptis.t certainly did not dqubt the Messiahship of Jesus (v. 7), and his disciples believed that Jesus, was the Messiah on his word ; whence then the necessity of evidence drawn from his miracles.?. Moreover Jesus places a .thing which was not miraculous, (nttayol tvayyiXl£ovrat glad tidings are preached to tlie poor,) in the same connexion with the miracles which had been mentioned im mediately before. Probably the circumstance that Jesus appeared to be too. tardy in the execution of his plans, excited some solicitude in the minds of John the Baptist and his disciples ; and hence Je sus refers them, in his reply, to his activity as, the Messiah." Reply to the first objection, (a) The internal dignity -with which Jesus aeted, was- not visible in such a degree as to authorize the be lief merely on this ground (see 111, 1. supra): on the other hand, the miraculous character of his actions must have arrested the at tention of all. (b) John the Baptist may have had reasons enough for; wishing that the belief of his disciples in the Messiahship of Je sus, might be confirmed by a more intimate acquaintance with him. John 3: 26. Matt. 9: 14-^17. .(c) According to the declaration of Jesus, the n z w i o l tvayytXl£ovz at, was itself something mi raculous ; inasmuch as Jesus had received his doctrines, and his commission to teach, from God himself.. Besides, it. was a part of the evidence of his divine mission and Messiahship. (d) Jesus mentions exclusively his:wonderful works, and says nothing Con cerning his "other, good deeds, which flowed from his godlike dispo sition : nor does he give even the most remote intimation, that the works which he mentioned, were to be viewed only in reference to their moral excellence-. 2. In the passage, John 11: 41, 42, 'iva moziwmoiv btt av pt aniottiXag, Jesus does not appeal, for the divinity of his mission, to the miraculous nature of the raising of Lazarus, but to his resigna tion to the divine will, which was evinced by his audible prayer."1 Reply, (a) Suppose the prayer of Jesus had. not been succeeded by the miracle of Lazarus' resurrection ; or that the thing, for which Jesus thanked God before it occurred, had not been miraculous ; could his mere praying aloud to God, have strengthened the con viction, that he was sent by God? (b)But Jesus does appeal to the miraculous nature of the resuscitation of Lazarus : for he says tp his disciples t " I rejoice, for your sakes, that I was not present, 'iva ntattvorytt, i. e. that ye might be confirmed in your conviction, John 11: 15. l New Theological Journal, p. 424—426. 15 114 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. Note. The last of these answers, and in some measure also the first, will likewise serve as a refutation of the following paraphrase given by Paulus, of the 42d verse : " On account of the surrounding populace, I foretold the event which now fulfils my wishes, in order that they might be better satisfied that 1 undertook my mission in obedience to thy will ; according to their custom of judging, that the person whose beneficent purposes, are successful, must enjoy the favour of God." 3. Matt. 11:20 etc. "Jesus ascribes the greater guilt to the pities here mentioned, because they disregarded his calls to repen tance, and not because they were unconvinced of the divinity of his mission by the miracles which he performed." Reply. Jesus most evidently does represent his miracles as a very cogent call to a moral reformation (v. 21 — -23.) : for by means of his miracles, a different disposition in them towards him, might and would have been produced (v. 19) ; and thence a moral reformation wouldhave followed. 4. Matt. 9: 2 — 6, especially v. 6. "The idea which Jesashere intended, to convey, is merely this : in order that ye may see, that I am both able, and under obligation, to remove that prejudice-so detrimental to convalescence, that diseases are the punishment of sins." Reply. The phrase dqtivat, dpagtiag cannot signify, to de clare it a groundless prejudice, that diseases are the punishment of sins ; but it signifies, either to remit the punishment of sins, or to announce such remission. In the " Observations on Matt. 9: 6, published in the Tubing. Magazine, it is shown that in the 6th verse Jesus appeals to his miraculous prediction of an extraordinary event, as an evidence of his higher authority, or of a higher (divine) com mission . 5. Relative to the passages in John, in vvhich the word i'gya oc curs, see the first illustration of this <§>. II. " There are passages in which Jesus expressly declares, that he does not wish the belief in the divinity of his mission, to be founded on miracles." Reply. If it has been proved, that in the passages cited under objection I, Jesus asserts the contrary of this ; then Jesus either contradicts himself, which cannot be supposed; or, ¦ among the possible interpretations of these passages, those must be inadmissible, from which such a contradiction would follow. But these passages can all, without the least violence, be in terpreted in such a manner, as by no means to contain the declara tion, that Jesus1 did not wish to rest' the belief of his divine mission on miracles. , (a) Matt. 12: 38—42. 16: 1—4. Mark 8: 11, 12. Luke 11: 29, 30. In all these passages, Jesus rejects the demand of him, to § 8-] THE MIRACLES OP JESUS. 115 work some miracle, o-r]pi7ov. And he pronounces those who desired the miracles, an evil generation yivtdv novvpdv. A very natural paraphrase ef these texts is this : " How can these persons demand further proof of the divinity of my mission, since they, have already shown, by their conduct when they beheld my former mira cles (Matt. 9: 34. 12: 24),- that they are not to be convinced by miracles, and therefore not by the new ones which they demand ? Their wishes shall not be gratified. So unreasonable are their de mands, that no sign shall be given them." Although the contrary is asserted in the New Theological Journal, yet Jesus actually does (in Matt. 16: 2, 3) refer the Pharisees and Sadducees to the mira cles which he had already wrought. For the aijptia zd>v xaiguv, the signs of the times of the Messiah, are doubtless miracles ; as miracles are ^declared to be signs of the times of the Messiah, by Christ himself, Matt. 11: 3— 5. In Matt. 12: 40, and Luke 11: 30, he refers his hearers to the then future miracle of bis resurrec tion, principally because that would most sensibly expose their hatred of the truth, a hatred which caused the death of Jesus, and thus gave occasion to this miracle.1 And in like manner, John 6: 30, Jesus refers the Jews who desired a sign of him, partly to mira cles which he had. wrought (v. 26), and partly to such as were yet future (v. 62), and which would evince the folly of their worldly expectations from the Messiah (v. 26, 31).2 (b) John 4: 48.3 Even if it were admitted, that Jesus intended by these words to convey the idea, that his character alone, independently of his mira cles, entitled him to credence ; he would not thereby deny, that his miracles are satisfactory evidence of his divine mission. But an explication more accordant with the context, is this : " ye will not believe in miracles, until ye have seen them yourselves." Compare Mark 8: 17—21. Matt. 8: 10. The following view of this passage is given in a posthumous dissertation of Seiler, On the remarkable acts of Jesus and his apostles :4 " The words of Jesus, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe, contain not so much a censure of the desire of the Jews to witness miracles, as a condemnation of their disbelief of the power of Jesus to effect cures at a distance, from the subject. — The Jews reposed great confidence in the imposition of the hand of a pious person. And it is probable that the nobleman wished Jesus, in like manner, to lay 1 Compare on this passage, Symbb. ad illustranda graviora quaedam Jesu dicta in evang. Johanneo, auctore C. C. Piatt, Pt. I. not.' 14. 1807. 2 See Dissert. I. in libros N. T, historicos, not. 141. Opusc. acad. Vol. III. p. 85 etc. 3 Tlatt's Mag. sup. cit. p. 203 etc. Compare the dissert. I, in libror. N. T- historicorum aliquot locos, p. 82—84. Opusc. academ. Vol. III. p. 84 etc. * Published by Rosenmuller, Leipsic, 1810. p. 41. 116 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TEST. . [BK. X. his hand on his child, which was "at the point of death ;" for hitherto Jesus had given no example of his power to cure at a dis tance." III. "Jesus even forbid the publication of his miracles." Reply. The prohibition of Jesus to promulgate his miracles was always occasioned by some peculiar circumstances of the time, or of the persons among whom the miracles were performed. He was particularly desirous to avoid having the title Messiah publicly ap plied to himself, to which his miracles might 'give occasion, thereby awakening temporal expectations in the minds of the Jews.1 But, on other occasions, he himself promoted the publication of his miraculous works. Mark 5: 19, 20. Luke 8: 45—47. IV. " The idea which Jesus had of miracles, according to some of his own declarations, was not of such a nature, as to justify the opinion, that he could have wished to use them as evidence of the divinity ef his missipn." 1. " Impostors and persons of the basest character, or at least such as were not disciplesof Jesus, had, according to the declaration of Jesus himself, the power of performing miracles, Matt. 7: 22, 23. Mark 9: 38,39. Matth. 24: 25. Mark 13: 22." Reply. The two former of these passages, refer to miracles which were performed in the name of Jesus, and in honour of him ; but it by no means follows, that they were intended as proofs of the christian character of those who wrought them. (See Illust. 3.) The two latter passages relate, not to miracles actually performed, but merely to such as were promised (Swoovat, compare 'jn: Deut. 13: 2, 4.) On one of these texts, (Matt. 24: 24,) Hess remarks : " Jesus does not here give the specific criteria, by which the " wonders" of those false prophets are to be distinguished from genuine miracles. But the nature of their doctrines, which would manifestly possess noth ing of a divine character, should secure his followers against the im posing aspect of their wonders."2 It is an undoubted truth, proved by several passages of holy writ, (such as 2 Thess. 2: 9) that God does permit wonders to be performed by superhuman wicked beings ; but these can always be detected, by the immoral object for which they are wrought. 2. " It is evident that the disciples of Jesus, when they were first sent out with the power of working miracles, entertained many errors." (Matt. 10: 1.) Reply. — God had power to prevent their intermixing their own erroneous opinions with the doctrines which they taught. 1 Compare Hess' Lehro, Thaten und Schicksale unsers Herrn, neue Aufi. 1806, Zweito Halfte, p. 450 etc. 2 Supra cit. p. 407 etc. — § 8.] THE MIRACLES OP JESUS. ] 17 V. " Jesus made no use of his miracles, as evidence of his divine missipn, in thpse cases in which it would be most natural that he should do so." Thus : 1. " When the Sanhedrim demanded of him, " By what author ity doest thou these things ?" referring to his conduct in the temple (Matt. 21: 23) ; he makes no appeal, as might be expected, to his miracles." Reply. The demand of the priests was merely this : Who gave you authority to do these things ? and not, what evidence of your authority can you produce ? But even to the first inquiry, no direct reply was necessary : for he had just before declared him self to be the highest messenger of God (v. 15, 16), and had con firmed his declaration by miracles (v. 14, 15. John 11: 41 — 48). Still he does reply indirectly, to the question urged. ; inasmuch as he persists in accusing his enemies of obstinate disobedience to the will of God, notwithstanding all their ostentation of reverence for the supreme being. 2. " Thus also, in John 7: 12, compared with v. 20, 25, there was the most urgent necessity for an appeal to his miracles, as the decisive evidence of the divinity of his mission ; but there is no ap peal made to them in the course of his whole address v. 16— 29." Reply. The question advanced in the 15th verse, Jesus answers in the 16th, and adds the declaration, that he derived his doctrines from God. But there was no necessity for his offering proof of the truth of this declaration ; because proof had not been called for ; and because at this same feast, he had explained .himself fully con cerning the proofs of his divine mission, on the occasion of healing a person on the Sabbath day (chap. 5), and to this transaction he refers explicitly in the present discourse (v^ 22, 23). The sense of the passage John 7: 17, is by. no means this : "whosoever doth the will of God, shall be able to discover, from the excellence and truth of the doctrines of Jesus, whether they are of divine origin or not." Jesus only states the subjective condition, on which a conviction of the divinity of his doctrines may. be ob tained, by attending to the evidences which he points out, among which are his miracles.1 It may be remarked generally, in reply to this 5th objection, that the argument, drawn from the mere silence of Jesus, is very unsat isfactory. It is sufficient, that the Evangelists state some general declarations of Jesus, concerning the evidence of his miracles; there was no necessity for their being often repeated, either by Je sus or by his evangelists. 1 See Dissert- on the spirit of Christianity, in Flatt's Magazine, Pt. I. p. 107— 109, note 1. 118 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. III. 3. The accounts of the miracles of Jesus, are not allegorical narratives, but a record of facts. The truth of this position is clearly evinced, not only by the character of the narrative itself,1 but principally from the circum stance, that those miracles are, in other passages, presupposed as historical facts (see Matt. 11: 20— 23. 27:42. Mark 6: 14, 52. ft 19, 20. 9: 28. John 4:45, 54. 6: 26. 10: 21. 11: 47. 12: 1, 9—11. Acts 2: 22). Nay, even those who labour to transform the miracles of Jesus into allegories, admit that, at least some of them were real facts f though they assume, that these miracles were the product of human ingenuity ; ah assumption wholly gratuitous, as shall, be proved in the sequel. If, as Damm supposes, the diseases which Jesus cured, were diseases of the soul ; how could these cures expose him to the imputation of profaning the Sabbath ?3 But does not the fluctuation of the interpretation given to these passa ges,, whibh are explained sometimes literally, and sometimes alle gorically,4 naturally excite a suspicion as to the correctness of such a mode of interpretation ? Is it not in the highest degree arbitrary, to interpret some narratives of miracles, as mere allegories,5 al though they present not a single characteristic by which they are distinguishable from others which are admitted to he literal narra tives of facts ? Damm himself at last admits, that the Evangelists intended by their narratives, to convey the idea, that Jesus actually did, like Moses, perform miracles, in order the more easily to con vince the Jews of his Messiahship. But the moment the advocates of this hypothesis admit, that the Evangelists intended their narra tive of miracles should be understood as a narrative of facts, their hypothesis necessarily falls to the ground. For it must be readily admitted, that if no real miracle had been performed, the disciples of Jesus, so far from convincing the Jews of the truth and divinity of Christ's doctrines by their account of his miracles, could not have persuaded any one to embrace Christianity ; on the contrary, they would have crushed their own cause in its birth, if on examination it was evident to all, that the Evangelists had either avoided men tioning the natural means, by which those wonders had been effect ed, or, that they had intentionally framed their allegorical tales in a l Vide Less, uber die Religion etc. Th. II. S. 281 etc. 2 See Damm vom Historichen Glauben, Th. II. S. 48, 52. 3 Matt. 12: 10 etc. Luke 13: 14—17. 14: 1—3. John 5: 9—18. 7: 21—23. 4 See p. 68 and also p. 23 etc. of Damm, sup. ch. 5 Ibid. p. 52. § 8.] THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 119 manner to delude their readers into the false opinion that they were accounts of real miracles (compare § 5. 111. 7 supra).1 III. 4. Further evidence qf the truth of the miracles of Jesus : they were not the product of human ingenuity. In attempting to account for the miracles of Jesus, it would be unwarranted to attribute them to the use of ingenious machinery and other means of delusion ; such as are presupposed by the hypothe sis,2 " that Christ learned the art of working miracles from some mystagogues, but having the impression that they could not be per formed without a peculiar influence of God, he declared them to be the works of God himself." For these miracles were by no means confined to one specific mode of operation, but were of very differ ent kinds, (l) Jesus cured all kinds of diseases, ({ttgant vtnv naaav vooov xal naoav paXuxiav, — notxiXaig voooig xal fiatsdvotg ovvt%o- ptvovg), Matt. 4: 23, 24. 11: 4, 5. (2) He raised the dead, Mark 5: 35 etc. John 14: 21, Luke 7: 11—17. (3) He fed thousands in a miraculous manner, John 6: 15 — 25. Matt. 14: 15 — 21. 15: 32—38. (4) He. walked on the sea, Matt. 14: 25. (5) He con trolled the winds and waves, Mark 4: 35—39. (6) He procured for Peter an extraordinary draught of fishes, Luke 5: 4 — 1. (7) He procured for Peter a stater from the fish's mouth, Matt. 17: 27. (8) He displayed an acquaintance with future contingencies, John 1:49,50. 4:17 — 19,29. (9) He converted water into wine, John, 2: 1 — 1 1 ,3 Again, in the performance of his miracles, he was not confined to any particular place, which might afford him facili ties for deception ; but Jerusalem, the temple, entire Galilee, the most remote towns and villages, all witnessed the displays of his miraculous power ; and some diseased persons, he healed even with out seeing them.4 Morever, in all his proceedings, Jesus acted un der the constant inspection5 of men of acute discernment, his bitter 1 In many of the cures performed by Jesus,«it would be unreasonable even to think of the use of natural means. Such are those recorded in John 4: 50 — 53. Luke 7: 6—9. Mark 7: 30. See the Programma of Seiler, 1795 : " An Chris^us in operibus suis mirabilibus efficiendis, arcanis usus est remediis?" That the use which Jesus made of natural means in some few of his cures, is no evidence against his miracles, is proved by Hess, in his " Lehre, Thaten uiid Schicksale Jesu," Pt. II. p. 396 etc. 454 and by Krummacher, in his work " On the spirit and form of the Gospel' history, § 96. Leipsic, 1805. See also Seiler, sup. cit. 47 etc. 2 Eckermann's " Theol. Contributions," Vol. III. No. 2. p. 179 etc. Compare Flatt's Magaz. No. I. p. 93. 3 Comp. Mag. St. 14. S. 73—91. 4 See John 2: 23. 4: 45. Matt. 21: 14. 4: 23. 9: 35. Mark 6: 56. John 4: 50 etc. Matt. 8: 8—13. S Matt. 9: 3—8, 34. 21: 14, 15. Luke 6: 7—11. 13: 10-17. 14: 1—6. John 11: 46. 6: 22^26, 42—66. 18r 6. 120 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT- [BK. enemies, and who scrutinised1 his conduct with the greatest atten tion. In the person of Judus, he was attended by a constant spy,2 whose observation, no apparatus, even of the most secret nature, could have escaped.3 Yet who can doubt, that if Judas had known, or even suspected, the miracles of Jesus to be mere delusions, he would have felt less poignancy of regret for having betrayed him?4 And, by the discovery of an imposture, had any existed, he would have rendered to the Jews a very acceptable service, and have se cured no inconsiderable advantages to himself.5 Nay, miracles were performed on the authority of ' Jesus, and in reliance on him, by some persons,6 who, though they regarded him as a divine messenger of an exalted character, yet had no thought of conforming their life and conduct to the-precepts which he taught, and who did not ever attach themselves to his followers, but remain ed among the Pharisees. Nor is it strange, that God should per mit them to succeed in such attempts ; for the cause of Jesus could not fail to derive great advantage from them ; and the slanders of his enemies were repelled in the most convincing manner, by' the fact that even the very friends of the slanderers could not, in conse quence of their own experience, justify their accusations.7 Moreo ver, by what kind of ingenious deception, could Jesus, when he was dead,8 have been restored to life? For, that he actually' did arise from the dead,9 is placed beyond all doubt, by the testimony of the various witnesses with whom, as the Acts of the apostles informs Us, he had frequent and various intercourse9 after his resurrection ; be sides, it would be impossible to account, in a rational manner, for the report and belief of his resurrection, the existence of which is admitted,10 unless on the supposition that the report itself was true. Indeed the' disciples of Jesus, who were witnesses of his resurrec tion,11, required some strong evidence of the successful issue Of then- cause, in order to inspire them anew with confidence and courage ; for they had been greatly depressed12 by the execution of their teacher, and were not prepared to expect any miracle^13 and least of all, the miracle of his resurrection. Moreover, we cannot con ceive how the apostles could have wrought the many miracles of a 1 John 5: 10 etc. 9: 13 etc. 11: 47. Matt. 8: 4. 2 John 6: 70. 13: 18. 9.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES. 127 himself with reserve, as long as Judas was amongst them, John 13: 10, 17 — 19; but as soon as Judas was gone, he expressed unquali fied approbation of his disciples, and gave them the most ample promises. Judas was therefore the only one to whom the commis sion, which he gave to his disciples at his departure, was not to be applied. III. 3. The apostolic commission. See John 17: 18, 20. 20: 21. Matt. 28: 16—20. Luke 24: 47. Acts 1: 8. 10: 42. Mark 16: 14, 15. The genuineness of the lat ter passage is vindicated in Diss. I. in libror. N. Test, historicorum aliquot locos. On the genuineness of the conclusion of the Gospel of Mark, the reader may also see Paulus' Commentary, Eichhorn's Introduction to the New Testament, Hug's Introduction, and Kui- nb'l Commentarii in Marcum et Lucam. The latter work contains additional references, as well as a compendious view of the evidence for and against the genuineness of. this passage. See also Thiess' New critical Commentary on the New Testament. To the writers mentioned by the two last authors, may be added Gratz's " Attempt to account for the origin of the first three Gospels," Tubingen 1812, in which the genuineness of this passage is disputed. III. 4. Jesus expected that his Father would support and aid the apostles. See John 15: 16. 17: 15, 20. III. 5. The apostles were the companions of Jesus. See Mark 3: 14, inolrjtst StoStxa, 'iva wot, ptz' dvtov, he appoint ed twelve, that they should remain with him. John 15: 27. Com pare Acts 1: 21 etc. III. 6. The apostles were witnesses of his works and doctrines. See John 15: 27. 17: 6—8, 14. Luke 24: 45—48. Acts 1: 2, 3, 21, 22. 10: 39, 41. III. 7. Supernatural aid was combined with the use of their own faculties in the case of the apostles. Matt. 13: 52. 10: 27. There certainly were instances in which the apostles were to speak without any preparation, Luke 21: 14, and in which their superior helper, who promised to supply the want of preparation, must necessarily do more than merely inspire them with intrepidity and presence of mind ; since otherwise 128 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. I. they could not dispense with previous reflection, so necessary to give value and effect to their communications. There were instances in which by the special aid of Christ1 or3 of the Holy Spirit,3 the apostles were, in the very moment of their delivery, iv avtjj trj dtga, supplied with the words or the truths which they were to utter4 and previous meditation was thus rendered unnecessary.5 But the promise contained in the texts referred to, specifies the occasions when this aid should be given ; namely, when they were arraigned before a public tribunal, and had to speak in self-defence, and conse quently stood in greater need of special assistance than in the dis charge of the ordinary duties of their office. Still, one thing at least, follows from this promise, namely, that in every case in which their circumstances rendered it necessary, the Spirit of God did suggest to the apostles, what they should utter. Other cases might occur, beside those of their judicial defence, in which the apostles would need such special aid in the discharge of their official duties ; and we learn from some passages of Scripture,6 that they were author ized to expect such special aid on such occasions, as well as when arraigned before the tribunal of their enemies. But if special aid was given whenever it was necessary, it follows that when it was not given, it would, have been superfluous ; and, therefore, that when the apostles were left to the use of their own powers, their in structions were no less conformable to the will of their divine In structor, than when they were directed by his special aid. Note. From Acts 23: 5, a suspicion may arise, that the apostle Paul, in his defence before the Jewish sanhedrim, topk refuge under a falsehood. But Michaelis, in his Annotations in loc. p. 419 — 422, and in his Introduction to N. T. p. 53 etc. has proved from Jose phus, that Ananias was not at that time, properly the high-priest ; but had previously been removed, and at this time, when there was no high-priest, he was arbitrarily acting in that capacity. Now, either this was not known to Paul, who had arrived at Jerusalem only a few days previously, or Paul intends, by the words ovx yStiv on iatlv dg%ngtvs I did not know that he was a high-priest, to insinuate that Ananias actually was not high-priest.7 III. 8. See John 14: 17, nvtvpa tijg dXr,dtlag the Spirit of truth. 16: 13—15. 1 Cor. 2: 10, 11. l Luke 21: 15. 2 John 16: 13—15. 3 Luke 12: 12. * v. 12. Matt. 10: 19. Mark 13: 11. 5 v. 11 6 John 14: 26. 16: 12—15. 7 Compare also Hess' " History and Writings of the Apostles of Jesus Vol II. p. 411etc. 3d edit. 1809— 1811. ' $ 9.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES. 129 III. 9. " Tnopvtidtt, vpdg.ndvta a tlnov vplv he will remind you of all things which I have told you, John 14: 26. Ill; 10. Nature of the aid afforded by the Spirit to the apostles. In the dissertation, On, the nature of Inspiration, it is clearly proved, that the interpretation of the words, Jphn 14: 16, 26. 15: 26. 16: 7, 13 — 16, which makes those promises of the constant aid and influenee'of the Spirit to signify nothing more than an ordinary agency pf Divine Providence favouring the natural and gradual ex pansion of the views of the apostles ; does not at all harmonize with those promises.1 " Nothing but, the promise of extraordinary divine aid, and of communications from a superior ppwer, could have af forded satisfaction and tranquillity to the disciples of Jesus. And the nature of the Saviour's words evin,ces,,that he intended to awak en in his disciples and apostles, the expectation of extraordinary aid." 111. 11. Td igxoptva dvayyti.it vptv he wjill show you things to come, John 16: 13. III. 12. AiSfeti TIANTA he shall show ynu all things, John 14: 26. 'OSr\yrioti vpag tig IIA2AN tyy dyq&uav he will con duct you intp all truth, 16: 13. ! III. 13. The nature and personality ['of fhe nagdxXrjrog, or Com forter. It is evident from the predicates Sidd&t and vnopv^ott, which are applied to the nagdxXntog John 14: 26, that hy the Comforter must be intended such an assistant as instructs and reminds: The ac cordance of this signification of the word, with the usage of the lan guage is proved, in Lbsner's Observv. ex Philone, on John 14: 16, in Vorborth's Programrn on nagaxXrjzog, Gottingenj 1786; p. 13 etc. and Ernesti Opusc. philol. crit. p. 215. the edit., of Lardner: The evidence adduced in. these works,, to prove that itagdxXijzog signifies a. teacher or adviser, is derived partly from the signification of the words ndgaxuXtlv (Tit. 1: 9. 2: 1,5) and nugdrtXijciig (1 Thess. 2: 3 ;) partly from some passages of Philp, especially in his treatise " De mundi Opificio," T. I. p. 5. ed. Mangey, where it is said : ovStvl nagaxXrjzii), povwSi avtdj xgvadptvog 6 &t4s iyvio—i. e. employing no counsellor, but following his own pleasure, God de termined'; and partly, from the Hebrew word y,*>» (interpreter), which is twice rendered by U^pis (nagndxXtog) in the Chaldee I Flatt's Mag. Vol. II. No. 1. p. 19-23. 17 130 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TEST. [BK. I. Yersioni1 But we have no objection to the more general sense of the word nagdxXrrtog assistant, helper -j which is given by Knapp. — For the nature of the case proves, that he who was to aid the apos tles in the/discharge of "their duties,2; must necessarily have been an instructor in the truth, nvtvpa t^g dXrj&tiag, John 14: 17. 15:26. 16: 13. The commission of the apostles was, to teach and to pro mulgate the doctrines, of Christ (Matt. 28: 20) agreeably to.his in tention (John 17: 18, 20) and meaning (16: l3— 15 ;) it was, there fore, only by instructing them, and bringing to their recollection things forgotten, that this Assistant could enable the apostles to publish the. doctrines of Jesus, agreeably to his intention, and to give their instructions an infallibility equal to the instructions of Christ himself, John 13: 20. Matt. 16: 19. Now this infallibility of the apostolical instructions could not be attained, unless their divine Assistant should recall to their recollection the declarations of Christ, and instruct them3 in those cases in which they either had not 'fully comprehended, or had partially forgotten those declarations ; or, in which Christ had purposely omitted giving them full instruction on some topics which they were nevertheless to explain and, teach after his death (John 16: 11). We cannot safely attribute the doctrines, of the apostles to the Holy Spirit4 and to Christ (John 16: 13—15), unless we suppose that their divine Assistant, who au thenticated their doctrines by miracles,5 at the same time, by his supernatural influence, made those doctrines worthy of that faith which the Spirit of truth endeavoured to procure for them by his miracles.6 The great miracle of a divine and therefore infallible system of doctrines, originating from Jesus himself, would with most-Christians, have failed of its intended effect, if God had not proved ,by a supernatural influence on the minds of the apostles, that the doctrines taught by them actually were the unadulterated doctrines of Christ. , Eichhorn's "Bibliothek" contains the assertion, that nagdxXntog signifies, the doctrine itself which Christ taught, and the more en larged view of it which; the apostles obtained after the resurrection and ascension, of Christ. But this is contradicted by the fact, that the nugaxXvt.og, Comforter, stands in & relation, both to Christ who taught the doctrine of the -Paraclete (John 15: 13 — 15) and to his 1 On the different explanations of the word rragdxXr)ZOS, the reader may con sult, the Programm ofKriapp, and KuinoTs Comment, on John 14: 15. 2 John 15i 26. 16: 8 etc. Acts 1:8. Luke24: 4S etc. 3Juhnl5:26: 16:13—15. Comp. 1 Cor. 2:8— 13. §10. 4 Jehn 16:8. Matt, 10: 20. Compare 111. 14. John 15: 26. Comp. Acts 15: 28. 5 John. 14: 12. Rom. 15: 19, 1 Cor. 12: 11. § 10. 6 1 John 5:6. " The supernatural gifts of the Spirit.^prove that the doctrines published by the Spirit are true." — On the Object of John, p. 227. § 9.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES. 13 1 apostles who obtained this more enlarged view of the doctrines of Christ after his death, in which .the doctrine of Christ and his apos tles could not stand towards them ; see Matt. 10: 20. John 15: 26, ,27. And, although, upon that supposition, the phrase ilXXog nagd- xXvtog, another Comforter (John 14: 16), might indicate a counter part to Jesus as a personal instructor, or to his oral instructions, in asmuch as- it would import, that the doctrines which Jesus taught, were more fully developed and confirmed by his resurrection and ascension-; the inconsistency must be palpable, when we read fur ther, and see Jesus proving td his disciples, at full length, as he does in John 16: 13— 15, that his doctrines, when properly illus trated by his resurrection and ascension, would not differ at all from the doctrines he had already taught them ; and that these doctrines were altogether his own, 6 nagdxXrjtog ov XaXtjott dq iavtov, dXX' otsa dv dxovojj XaXrjoti the Comforter will not speak of himself, but will relate the things which he shall have heard ; and that these, doctrines will promote his glory, because they are his doctrines, ixi7vog Soj-dott ipi, on ix zov ipov Xr/ipczai he will glorify me,, be cause he will take of mine. On the contrary, the phrase aXXog ¦ttagaxlrjtog, has a natural meaning, if we suppose it to signify a new, invisible teacher, vvho was to supply the place of Je sus, who had instructed them by personal intercourse ; for in this case, it was necessary for Jesus to inform his disciples, that their new assistant" was in the closest union with himself, and therefore would communicate only such instructions as would accord with the doctrines which he, their former teacher, had delivered to them. Moreover, in Matt. 10: 20, there is a clear distinction made between the apostles, who spake and vindicated the cause of Christ (v. 19. Luke 12: 11. 21: 14), and the Spirit of their Father, who spake through them : ov ydp v p 1 7g ion ot XuXovvztg, aXXa to nvtvpa tov natgog vpdiv zo XaXovv iv vp7v for it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh by you. This distinction could not have been made, if the apostles themselves were the only per sons thaf spoke, and if the 'nvtvpa XaXovv iv avzo7g, was merely the enlarged view which they had of the doctrine of Christ. Further, we cannot see how Christ couki have rendered all preparation un necessary to the apostles, when called on to defend themselves, un less it was by the promise of supernatural instruction, to be given them at the very time when they were to speak in self-defence (Matt. 10: 19. Mark 13: 11. Luke 21: 14). Fqr, however per fect might have been their knowledge of the doctrines of Jesus af ter his resurrection, still, in every case in which they were called to vindicate his cause, it would be profitable to the cause of truth, to recall the doctrines to their memories, and to reflect on tlie circum stances in which they were to defend them. Finally, how could 132 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. I. Christ (John 15: 12) have distinguished between the testimony of the Paraclete, whom the Father should send to them, and the testi mony which the apostles themselves should bear, having learned it by their personal intercourse with him ; if nagdxXnzog signified noth ing else than that enlarged view of the doctrines of Jesus, which the apostles should acquire after his death (John 15: 27) ? 6 nagdxXti- zog ov iyta niptpot naga zov nuzgog — ixtTvog pagtvgnoti ntgl ipoV xal vpt7g Si pagzvgt7zt, on an agjrrjg ptz ipov iozt the Comforter whom I shall sepd from my Father, he will bear witness of me ; and ye also shall bear witness, because ye were with me from the beginning, It has already been. seen, that the personal agency of the apostles was not excluded by the peculiar divine aid vvhich they received ; as is feared by a writer in Eichhorn's Bibl. sup. cit. p. 300. See also § 11 infra. III. 14. The divine assistance afforded to the apostles, extended to all their instructions. The words (Matt. 10: 20) ov yag vpt7g iozt (not i'oto&i comp. also Mark 13: 11)— XaXovv iv vplv for it is not ye who speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you, cannot well refer merely to their defence before a public tribunal ; for it had been stated in, the previous verse, that every thing which it should be necessary for them to say at that particular juncture, should be sug gested to them ; but they seem rather to refer to all their instruc tions, and to contain the ground of the promise in the verse imme diately preceding. The idea of Jesus seems to be this : " For, the instructions which ye my apostles in general give, are derived, not so much1 from yourselves, as from the Holy Spirit ; hence, when you are called upon to defend your doctrines, ye need feel no anx,- iety, but may confidently rely on the Holy Spirit to vindicate his own doctrines, by suggesting to you the very words of your de fence." In like manner Peter speaks (1 Pet. 1: 12) of the preach ers of tlie gospel zmv tvayytXioapivwv, as those who spake not by themselves, but by the aid of the Holy Spirit sent down from heav en ; that is, in speaking, they received such aid from the Holy Spir it, that their doctrines could with propriety be ascribed to the Holy Spirit as their author (John 16: 8). III. 15. Divine authority of the Apostles. In Matt. 16: 19, Christ gives to the apostle Peter, and in Matt. 1 Ou expresses, in this place, a comparative negation, as it does in Plnlinn 2- 21. Col. 3. 23. See Opusc. Acad. Vol. 1. p. 331. Vol. II. p. 201. Observv' p 251 s. r" § 9.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES. 133 18: 18, to the_ other apostles also, a superintendance over the church, xXt7g trjg paatXilag zdiv ovgavoZv — -summam potesatem regni coelestis, ss. in terra, "the' keys of the kingdom of the heavens" — the supreme power in his church, on the earth (Is. 22: 22), and the power to enact laws which should be of divine authority, Sfjo-ut xal Xvtyat to bind and to loose.1 And of John 13: 20, the proper mean ing is this: "whoever puts confidence in my messengers, believes in me ; and whoever puts confidence in me, believes in him that sent me." Aappdvtiv here signifies the same as ntaztvav in John 5: 43, comp. v. 44, 46, 48 ; i. e. to put confidence in a person, not to reject him, to receive his declarations (John 12: 48), to listen to him (Matt. 10: 40. Luke 10: 11), Si'xtoOai, prj Siytftai — dxovtiv, d&ttt7v.2 To these passages may be added the two following : 1 John 4: 6, " We (1 and the other apostles) are not of the world, but of God. He that knows God, will hear us;"3 and 1 Pet. 1: 23, in which the efficacy and unchangeable identity of the apostoli cal doctrines are inferred from their divine origin (comp. v. 25 and 12), Xoyog £divzog fttov — gypa tvdyytXiadev tig vpdg the word of the living God — the word which is preached unto you. The passage Gal. 2; 11 etc. contains no objection tp the divine authority of the apostles. For Paul does not there censure the doctrines, but the conduct of Peter (v. 14) ; because the Jewish Christians- at Jerusalem, (whose deportment was disapproved of by the apostle James himself Act 15: 24), might have made use of this conduct of Peter to the prejudice of that doctrine, the truth of which Peter himself, as well as Paul, acknowledged (v. 15, 16), notwithstanding his conduct in this instance was not consistent with it. Peter and Paul had alike acknowledged the principle, that no one could be justified on the ground bf his fulfilment of the law, but that we must be justified by putting our trust, in Christ ^and from this principle, both had inferred, that those who believe in Christ, and thus obtain assurance of salvation, are no longer obliged to ob serve those ceremonies which have no influence in producing Stxal- moiv justification and salvation (see Acts 15: 8 — 1 1). Peter's with drawing from the Gentile Christians, when the Jewish converts from Jerusalem arrived (GaL2: 12), was dissimulation, and not the result of a change in his opinion on that subject ; for Peter did not at tempt to defend himself against the public rebuke of Paul, (v. 11, 14 etc.) But the advocates for the law, who had come from Jeru salem to Antioch, might have regarded the conduct of Peter as be ing a refusal on his part to acknowledge the circumcised gentiles as 1 Vide Dissert, de notione regni. coelestis, p. 32 s. Opusc. acad. Vol. I. p. 290 etp. Compare Kuinpl Coniment. ih Matt, ad h. 1. > 2 Compare what the author says oti John 13: 20, in Flatt's Mag. Vol. VIII. p. G7 etc. 3 On the Object of John, p. 394. 134 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF TH^I NEW TESTAMENT. [FK. I. christian brethren. Thus they might have derived from it support to their doctrine, by which they endeavored, to bind the gentile converts to circumcision and the Levitical law. They might have inferred from it, that the great principle that we are justified not by obeying the law of Moses, not by observing the ceremonies pre scribed by if, but exclusively by trusting in Christ, was an errone ous and pernicious principle.1 SECTION X. The authority of the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul claimed equal authority with the other apos- tles.(l) For he asserts that he was chosen by Christ himself,(2) to be his messenger ;(3) that the power of God made him compe tent to discharge the duties of his office ;(4) that the doctrines of Christianity, which neither his nor any other human intellect could have discovered; by any course of investigation,(5) were not taught him by any man, not by an older apostle,(6) but were revealed (7) to him by the almighty agency of God himself ;(8) and finally, that the inspiration(9) of the divine Spirit extended even to his words, and toall his exhibitions of revealed truths. (10) We learn from the apostle Paul himself, that this Spirit, who revealed to him unknown truths, extended the same aid to him as to the other apos tles, and in the discharge of all his official duties. (11) This divine influence^ 12) therefore, was not confined to his teaching those truths which are properly termed revealed doctrines ;(13) but when he was inculcating truths which he had learned in other ways,( 14) and when giving commarids(15) or advice founded on these truths,(16) his communications were accordant with the will of Christ, with which the Spirit made him acquainted ;(17) and thus his instructions could with propriety all he ascribed to the Lord, or to the Spirit of the Lord. (18) They derived their authority (19) and credibility l See the Dissert, on the Object of the death of Christ, in the epistle to the Hebrews, p. 458— 461, and Michaelis' Notes on Gal. 2: 12 etc. The rejected Construction of this contest between Peter' and Paul, and of its importance and consequences, which is adopted in some late works, e. g. in the Catholic Epis tles of Augusti, Pt, I. p. 167 etc. and in Schmidt's Historiep-eritical, Introduction to the New Test. Pt. I. p. 193 etc. is unsupported by historical evidence. Comp. Tub. gel. Anz. 1. 1802, s. 815 f. Jahr, 1807, s. 204, and Hess' " History and Writ ings of the apostles of Jesus/' Pt. II. p. 312 etc. <§> 10.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 135 (20) from him, who was the perpetual Instructor of the apostle, and who would have prevented him from making any communications which were either wholly or in part inconsistent with the will of Christ. Hence the apostle says, in general, that-Christ taught by nim;(21) and that his doctrines were to be regarded and obeyed as the doctrines of God and not of man. (22) The reality of Paul's having, experienced divine teaching and illumination, appears from the evident credibility(23) of the history of his call to the apostolical office, an office for which he could be qualified only by a special divine influence^ 9) ;. and likewise from his miracles,(24) the his torical truth of which was so incontrovertible that even when ad dressing his enemies,(25) he could appeal to them in confirmation of his docirines(26) and of his apostolical authority. (27) , The oth er apostles also had no hesitation in acknowledging him as a fellow apostle.(28) III. 1. The apostolical dignity of Paul Is asserted by himself, in 1 Cor. 9: 1, 5. 2 Cor. 11:5. 12: 11. ovSiv vottgrjoa tdiv vnig Xlav ditoozoXtov I am not inferior to. the most distinguished apostles. III. 2. That he was divinely appointed to his office Is declared in Gal. 1: 1, dnoatoXog, ovx art dvd-goonmv, ovSi St dv&goinov, dXXd Sid tov 'iqcsov Xgiatov an apostle, riot of man, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ. Rom. 1: 1, 5. 1 Cor. 1: 17.' 1 Tim. 1:11, 12. Acts 26: 15—18. 22: 10—15. III. 3. 2 Cor. 5: 20, vnig Xgiatov ngtofitvoptv we are sent as ambassadors of Christ ; comp. John 17: 18. III. 4. 2 Cor. 3: 5, 6, 6 ¦Qtog ixavmatv qpdg Siaxovovg xatvrig dta&yxrjg God hath qualified us to be ministers of the new covenant. III. 5. 1 Cor. 2: 7, XaXoiptv dtovaoqlav iv pvatrigla? I. speak the wisdom of God, which was heretofore a mystery. 9: 11. Eph. 3: 9, 10, pv atrjgtov dhoxtxgvppivov ano rtov aioivmv iv zm ¦d-tot the mystery winch was known only to God, from the beginning of the world, III. 6. Paul did not receive his instructions from any older apostle. Gal. 1: 11, 12, 17. As Paul was not to learn from the other apostles, but, (like the others, Acts 1: 21. <§> 9), was to testify to 136 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. r. the things which he had seen and heard (Acts 22: 14, 15. 26: 16. 1-G©r. 9: 1), therefore Christ, now in heaven, revealed to him many things, which he had communicated to his other apostles during his residence on earth. To such revelations our Lord doubt less refers, when he uses the future oip&^aopat I will appear tlnto thee (Acts 26: 16). An example of such immediate instruction is found in J Cor. 1 1: 23j where Paul says he was thus instructed relative to the Lord's Supper, iyoi nagiXafiov ano zotJ xvglov I re ceived from the Lord. From Acts 26: 16, where Christ tells Paul that he shall be a witness both of the things which he had seen, and which he would hereafter communicate to him, wv ti tidtg, a>v rt dq&tltjopal ooi' it is evident that the preterites in the passage Acts 22: 15, toy pagtvg — tup iwgaxag xal fjxovaag, do not refer to the past only, but also to future time. ComP- John 4: 38, dm'ottiXa,1 III. 7. Immediate suggestion of God, the source of Paul's knowledge. Gal. 1: 12, 16, to tvayyiXiov — nagiXajSov—Si dnoxuXvvJtwg 'Itjoov Xgiatov the Gospel— I received — by a revelation from Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 2: 10, ,12, rpiv dntxaXvuitv 6 #iog Sid tov nvtvpatog avtov God revealed it to us hy his Spirit. Eph. 3: 2 etc. xutd anoxaXvxptv iyvoigtoi poi (sc. 6 &tog) to pvtsztjgtov, by revelation he (God) made known to me the mystery ; conip. v. 5. III. 8. 2 Cor. 4: 6, o &tog 6 tlnmv ix oxotovg qtog Xapxfiai (sc. iotlv2) og i'Xapyjtv ivta7g xagSt'atg rjpdiv the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness (it is, that) hath shined into our hearts. The words 6 tttog—Xapxpai refer to the omnipotence of God; see Gen. 1: 2, and the work On the Object of John, p. 494. III. 9. 2 Cor. 5 : 19, &iptvog iv rtp7v tov Xoyov trjg xataXXaytjg and gave to us by inspiration, the doctrine of reconciliation with God through Christ. Giptvog stands connected with tjv some distance pre ceding, and must be construed with the words #*os nv xataXXdrsrsmv, and npt with the succeeding pn—avttnv? vVrTT^n' !'-in Libr°r- N- J- historicum aliqurtl^o^oTooTo^cTTcTd. Vol. III. p.30,,it is remarked that the aonsts often indicate the present and fu ture as well as the past time. V.ge.rus de Graecae dictionis idiotismis, ^p 204 etc. *J.he ProP«ety of supplying iozl in this place, is shown in the Dissert" Notitiae histoncae epp. ad Corinthios interpretatidni inservientes, Note 190 3 See the Dissert. " On the Object of the death of Jesus, n- 409 etc- Kwl - Acts 19: 21, remarks that the expression Abfe. iv *ajLo(7™atr,Z?J't frequently used of foreign communications, or suggests WiXTat Tbrt the proposition xai &ipevog-xazaXXayVg must reffr to the apostleTalone is sta- ted in GalersProgramma Novae curae in locum, PaulinL 2 Co 5:'l4-21 nobis ^ W° HiV°S ***' '' imP°suit. •>¦ e. demandav t § 10.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 137 III. 10. 1 Cor. 2: 13. In the Dissert. Notitiae historicae in epp. ad Corinth, note, 45,1 it is proved, from 1 Cor. 1: 17 — 2: 16, that Paul clearly distinguishes between the doctrine itself and the manner in which it is communicated : and that he derives evidence of the divinity of his doctrine, from the fact that although his manner of teaching was void of all the ornaments of artificial oratory, ovx iv ntt&otg ooqiag Xoyotg, yet it was so efficacious that its influence must have proceeded form the nvtvpa ctytov the Holy Spirit. III. 11. 1 Cor. 2: 12, iXafioptv to nvtvpa to ix tov &tov we have received the Spirit which is of God. 1 Cor. 7: 40, Soxm &' xaym nvtvpa {ftov i'%tiv I think I also have the Spirit of God ; comp. 1 Cor. 9: 1—3. 2 Cor. 12: 11. III. 12. 1 Cor. 5: 20, ug zov d-tov nagaxaXovvzog Si ypmv as if God besought you by us ; 2 Cor. 2: 17, ix-Qtov XaXovptv we speak as from God; ix from, indicates the author of a thing, as in John 10: 32, comp. 14: 10, noXXd xaXd i'gya ix zov natpog — o natrjg nottita i'gya many good works of the Father — the Father doeth the works. Comp. also John 5: 19 etc. The same signification ix has in 1 Cor. 1: 30,/? avzov (&tov) " Deo efficiente." See the Dissert, on the epistles to the Corinthians, note 189. 22). In 1 Thess. 4: 15, Paul says xovto Xiyoptv vpiv iv Xoyo> xvglov this we say unto you as by the command of the Lord. III. 13. Here belongs what Paul teaches of Christ as the cause of our salvation, 2 Cor. 2: 17, tag ix &tov iv XgiazoJ XaXovptv : " Deo nos moderante, de Christo praecipimus," i. e. God directing us, we teach concerning Christ. The doctrines concerning Christ, in 2 Cor. 4: 6. 1 Cor. 2: 7 etc. (comp. v. 1 pagti/gtov &tov), are represen ted as revealed truths.3 To the head of revealed doctrines, taken in the more limited sense, as signifying doctrines which men could not discover by their own faculties, belong also the hidden things of futurity, (John 16: 13), a knowledge of which was communicated to the apostle Paul. 1 Thess. 4: 15 etc. Comp. 1 Cor. 15: 51. III. 14. Thus he relates his own history, 2 Cor. If: 22 — 12: 18, which he himself would of course recollect. III. 15. Thus 1 Thess. 4: 3—7, contains injunctions, the pro priety of which even reason and conscience teach. l Opuacul. acad. Vol. II. p. 267—270. 2 Compare Meyer's " Developement of Paul's doctrinal system, p. 344 etc. Altona, 1601. 18 138 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. T. III. 16. 1 Cor. 7: 12, 25, 40. 2 Cor. 8: 8, 10, he distinguish es between his own cpunsels and the commands of God. — iymXiyot, ov 6 xvgiog — intzayrjv xvgiov ovx t'xoi, yvcopyv SiSlStapi — xatd trp> tpnv yvuiprjv — ov jjcci intzayriv Xiyta — yvwpnv iv tov ta SiSmpt, lsay, and not the Lord — I have no command of the Lord, but I give my judgment — according to my judgment— I speak not by command — I give my judgment in this matter. See Kypke On the significa-^ tion ofyvolpyv SlSaipt, in 1 Cor. 7: 25. III. 17. 1 Cor. 2: 16, ijpt7g vovv Xgiatov txoptv we have been made acquainted with the mind of Christ, comp. v. 12, iXd(io. ptv to nvtvpa to ix &iov we have recieved the Spirit which is of God. See also John 16: 13 — 15 ix tov ipov Xrjipttai, ss^ nvtvpa he, (i. e. the Spirit) shall take of mine. III. 18. Paul's doctrines are justly considered as the doctrines of God. 2 Cor. 12: 19, iv Xptato) XaXovptv — "juvante ac moderante Dom ino." This is the interpretation given in note 152 of the dissert, quo ted in Illust. 12, agreeably to the signification offi' in 1 Cor. 12:3, and in Matt. 22: 43. In the same dissertation, the passage 2 Cor. 11: 16, 17, containing these words o XaXto, ovxata tov xvgiov, dXX' tog iv dqgoovvv, is thus explained : " If ye cannot agree to acquit me of the folly of boasting, then let me only speak thus foolishly. What I say in favour of myself, let me be understood to speak out of my own folly, arid not under the influence of Christ." Ov XaXdi would then be used agreeably to a customary idiom, for ov Soxto XaXtiv} According to this interpretation, the dqgoavvri folly, which Paul as cribes to himself, was not aqgoovvij folly, in Paul's own esteem, but only in the opinion of his opponents. What renders this explana tion the more probable is, that in v. 16 he says : "Again, I write unto you, let no one suppose me, to be a fool ;" and in 12: 19, as sures us that he speaks xattvoimov zov &tov iv Xgioiw in the pres ence of God, in Christ. But if notwithstanding these proofs, we should still believe that Paul here attributes to himself a deviation from propriety dqgoovvriv, and thus shows that, at this time, he was not under the influence of the Lord ; still the passage would even then prove, that ordinarily he did speak under the influence of the Lord : since he deemed it necessary to state this extraordinary case as being an exception, and distinctly to confine the exception to what he said in self commendation. Here belong also the passages, 1 Thess. 4: 2, Sid tov xvgiov 'itjtsov through the Lord Jesus ; and 1 See " Observv. ad analogiam et syntaxin Hebraicam pertinentes," p. 14. no 2. <§> 10.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 139 1 Cor. 7: 40 doxco Si xdym nvtvpa &tov i'%tiv I think I also have the spirit of God. III. 19. 1 Thess. 4: 8. 2 Cor. 2: 9. 10: 6. In the two latter passages, Paul demands obedience (vnaxorjv) to his decisions, as to injunctions more than human. III. 20. 1 Cor. 5: 25, " Even if I am not giving laws by divine command, still I am communicating my advice the counsel of one whom the grace of God has made worthy of confidence ; — in other words, the advice of one, whom, notwithstanding his unworthiness, the Lord graciously held in sufficient estimation (1 Tim. 1: 13), to confide to him the apostolical office (1 Tim. 1: 12. Acts 9: 15), and who therefore, on account of the confidence reposed in him by the Lord, and the influences of the grace given him (1 Tim. 1: 12, to) ivSwaptbtravti pt Xgiatw), is really worthy of confidence, i. e. is to be accredited as a true teacher, a teacher iv nt'ozti xal dXy&tlq in faith and truth, one who gives no advice which is not approved of by his Lord." III. 21. 2 Cor. 13: 3, tov iv ipol XaXovvzog Xgiotov Christ speaking in me. In Heb. 1: 1. 12: 25 (compare with 2: 3), Paul represents his doctrine as the doctrine of the Son of God ; and states, that in consequence of the exalted dignity of the author of these doctrines, those who rejected them exposed themselves to the most severe punishments. III. 22. 1 Thess. 2: 13, Xoyov dxoijg^nag' ^pmv—iSi'iao&i ov Xoyov^avd-gantav, dXXd xa&cog ionv dXri&dig, Xoyov &tov the word of instruction (of hearing, auditus) from us, ye received it, not as the word of men, but, as it truly is, as the word of God. 2 Thess. 2: 15. 2 Tim. 3: 14. III. 23. The historical credibility of the account of PauVs mi raculous call to the apostleship. Paul's call to the apostleship by the immediate appearance of Christ to him,1 was connected with such changes in the public transactions of the day, that the attention of the sanhedrim at Je rusalem and of many others must necessarily have been arrested by it. For Paul was well known at Jerusalem, was a Pharisee, and an important and peculiarly active agent of the sanhedrim in perse cuting the Christians.2 The very journey to Damascus, on which 1 1 Cor 15: 8, 9. Acts 22: 10, 14 etc. 26: 15-20. 2 Acts 22: 3-5, 19, 20. 26: 4, 5, 10, 11. 9: 13. 140 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [bK. I. his conversion to Christianity and eall to the apostolic office occur red, was undertaken by the, authority of the high priest and the sanhedrim, and for the purpose of searching for Christians and bringing them captive to Jerusalem.1 The sanhedrim, therefore, could not have been ignorant of his conversion.2 And this sudden change actually excited universal surprise at Damascus and inthe congregation of Judea.3 Now, is it reasonable to suppose, that Paul would, in Jerusalem itself, the very place from which, in com pany with others, he set out for Damascus clothed with public au thority, and in the presence of a populace who were exasperated against him, relate the celestial vision which appeared to him on this journey,4 and appeal to the sanhedrim, by whose command he travelled thither f if it had not been a notorious fact,6 that some thing extraordinary occurred to him on the way, and if his fellow travellers had not been compelled to testify that he suddenly be came blind, and that they were obliged to lead him ?7 Of the truth of his account of his recovering his sight, they needed not testi mony, for they had ocular demonstration. The reader may find the history of the conversion of the apostle Paul, treated in different ways, and viewed in various lights, in the works of Eckermann, Ammon, Eichhorn, Staudlin,8 Hensler,9 Schmidt,10 Haselaar,11 Cludius,12 and Heinrich .13 In refutation of the rash hypothesis of the author of " the History of the great Prophet of Nazareth," namely, " That the appearance of Christ to Paul, was not after Christ's ascension to heaven, but during the lifetime of Jesus ;" see the remarks on the work entitled, " The risen Jesus," the " Supplement to the natural history of the great Prophet of Nazareth," in Tub. gel. Anzeig.14 and " The history of primitive Christianity, in connexion with the natural history of the great Nazarene Prophet."15 III. 24. Acts 13: 9—12. 14: 8—11. 19: 11, 12. 28: 3—10. comp. Rom. 15: 18, 19. 1 Acts 9: 1—3, 21. 22: 5, 6. 26: 12, 13. 2 Acts 22: 5. 3 Acts 9: 21. Gal. 1: 23. 4 Acts ch. 22. 5 Acts 22: 5. 6 Acts 26: 26. v. 9 etc. 7 Acts 22: 9—11. 8 Geschiehte der Sittenlehre Jesu, B. I. S. 715 fF. 9 '• The truth and divinity of Christianity," p. 83 etc. Keil, 1803. 10 Introd. to the New Test. Pt. I. p. 187 etc. Compare the Tubing, gel. An tigen, for 1807, p. 203. 11 Dissert, exegetica de nonnullis Actornm apostolicorum et epp. Paulinarum ad historiam Pauli pertinentibus locis, 1806. Comp. the Haller Lit. Zeit. No. 90, for 1809. 12 Uransichten des Christenthums, Altona, 1808. s. 134 fF. 13 Nov. Test, perpetua annotatione illustratum, Acta Apostol. P. I. ad Act. 9. "Jesu universal religion." S. 44 ff. Leipsic, 1811. " For 1803. p. 93 etc. 15 Vol. 1. 1807. Tab. gel. Anz. 1808, p. 315. "§> 10.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 141 III. 25. Miraculous spiritual gifts. The apostle Paul could appeal, and without the least fear of con tradiction, even to his enemies, for the reality of those miraculous spiritual gifts,1 which were bestowed on the Corinthians2 by his in strumentality, and of which he speaks at large in the 14th ch. of his first epistle to those Christians. This subject is discussed by the author of this work, in a Dissertation " on The spiritual gifts of the Corinthian Christians," inserted in "Paulus' Nenem Repertori- um" for Biblical and Oriental Literature, Pt. III. No. IX. The object pf that dissertation, is to vindicate the supernatural origin and the}l importance of these gifts, against the positions maintained in Eichhorn's Bibliotheca of biblical literature, Vol. II. p. 757 etc. and Paulus' Dissertation " On the foreign languages of the first Christians," in the same Repertorium, Pt. I. No. VI. Pt. II. No. VIII. and likewise against a dissertation in the " Contributions for the promotion of rational views of religion," No. XIV. On the peculiar fitness of this kind of miracles, the following remarks are made in the 346th and following pages of this dissertation : 1) The miraculous communication of certain spiritual gifts, was peculiarly useful in establishing the authority of the apostles ; because it was not of so transient a nature as the other miracles, and because by it an apostle could exert an agency without being himself present. 2) The absolute truth of the apostolical miracles was more fully es tablished j when the apostles bestowed on some members of the dif ferent congregations, power to perform similar miracles. 3) The authority of the apostles could thus be established by miracles, in countries where they had themselves never been, if some of the in habitants of such countries meeting the apostles elsewhere, and re ceiving from them this gift, returned in possession of it to their respective homes. 4) The immediate influence of God on the knowledge of the apostles and on their teaching, was rendered the more credible, by the similar experience of those members of the different churches who had received any kind of prophetic gifts. III. 26. Acts 14: 3, zw xvglta zto pagzvgovvzi zd) Xoyta zrjg yd- gizog avzov, SiSovti owpt7a xal tigaia ytvio&ai Sid ztuv ytiptov av- ttov the Lord, who bore testimony to the doctrine of his grace per forming signs and wonders by .their hands. A similar expression is used°Mark 16: 20, 14, concerning the other apostles. Actions which evidently transcended the power of men, were conclusive evi dence of the truth of what the apostles declared, that they were not left to their own power ; and they prove that these men were l 2 Cor. 12: 12. Gal. 3: 5. Heb. 2: 3, 4. 2 1 Cor. 12: 8—10. 142 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. I. actually under the influence of a superior being, to whom they at tributed not only their doctrines (<§> 9, 10), but also those visible miracles which, in accordance with the declaration of Jesus (John 14: 12—14), they performed. Acts 3: 12, 13, 16. 4: 7—10, 24, 30. 9: 34, 40, (here Peter prayed to God, and thereby showed that he expected him to perform the miracle.) Acts 13: 11, x,tlg xvgiov inl oi the hand of the Lord is upon you, 14: 10 — 15. comp. v. 8—14, and Heb. 2: 4, and Rom. 14: 18 etc. Acts 19: 11. 1 John 5: 6. Vide above $ 9. III. 27. 2 Cor. 12: 12, zd ar\pt7a tov dnootoXov xattigydo&i] iv vplv the signs, or miraculous works of an apostle, were perform ed among you. III. 28. Gal. 2: 6 — 9, 'idxwfiog xal Knqdg xal 'loidwyg — St^i- dg i'Swxav ipol xoivtavlag James and Cephas and John — gave me the right hand of fellowship ; comp. 2 Peter 3: 15. On the divine mission of Paul, the reader may consult the work of Kleuker, enti tled, " Die Glaubwiirdigkeit der Schriftlichen Urkunden des Chris- tenthums," Vol. IL <§, 565—598. Riga, 1794. SECTION XI. Divine authority of the apostolical writings. If the doctrines of the apostles (<§> 9, 10) possess divine authority, the same authority must belong also to their writings. Because, in the first place, according to the usage of the language, the words XaXt7v(l) and nagaxaXtiv(2) and other similar expressions (men tioned in $9, 10), refer as well to written(3) expressions as to oral instructions. Moreover, it is very evident from the nature of the case itself, that the only difference,(4) between their writings and oral instructions was; that the former were of a more permanent na ture, and therefore of more extensive importance than the latter. Nor can any reason be assigned, why as soon as the apostles began to write, they should immediately lose all that knowledge which they had previously possessed, and which they had derived(5) from the instructions of Christ, or of that Spirit who after his death <§>!!.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. 143 was sent down from heaven ; or why this their constant guide, who at all other times assisted them in the discharge of their official du ties, should withdraw from them his aid the moment they attempted to write(6). Finally, we read expressly, that they composed their books, if not by the express command(7), yet under the special in fluence of God(8). Thus when the apostle Paul (2 Cor. 11: 17. comp. <§> 10 Illust. 18) explicitly permits his readers to consider as uninspired, so much of his epistle as embraced his self commenda tions ; this very limitation implies-, that he intended his written in structions generally should be received as the instructions of God(9). III. 1. Matt. 10: 20. comp. 1 Cor. 2: 13. 2 Cor. 2: 17. 13:3. III. 2. 2 Cor. 5: 20, tug tov {ttov nagaxaXowtog Si ijpoJv as if God were exhorting through us. III. 3. 2 Cor. 11: 17. 12: 19 Acts. 26: 22. 2Pet. 1: 21. comp. v. 20. In all these passages XaXt7v is used of written communications. Heb. 13: 22, tov Xoyov z-ijg nagaxXyotdig the word of exhortation. 2 Cor. 10: 11, trnXoym Si imatoXtav in word by my epistles. Acts 15: 15. olXoyoitdJv ngoqrjtoZv the words of the prophets. III. 4. Paul lays equal stress on the nagaSoot ig Sia Xoyov tradi tions inculcated by word, and on nagaSotsttg Si imtszoXrig traditions inculcated by letter, 2 Thess. 2: 15. III. 5. That the apostles, whenever they attempted to write, were not divested of that supernatural aid and knowledge which they previously possessed, is evident from 1 John 1 : 1 — 3. The pas sage refers to the things which John, as an eye and ear-witness of the history of Jesus, had committed to writing, in his Gospel. See Eph. 3: 3, 4. 2 Pet. 3: 15. III. 6. That the aids of ^the Spirit were not withdrawn from them whenever they sat down to write, is evident from 1 Cor. 7: 40, where Paul states, that the written advice which he imparts to them (in v. 25 etc.), he gives as a man who enjoyed, (as the other apos tles did), the guidance of the Spirit of God. III. 7. According to Rev. 1: 11, the apostle John received an express command from Christ, to commit to writing, the things which he had seen and heard ; (the same was the case of Jeremiah 144 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. I. in the O. T. chap, 36 ;) and in the conclusion of the book (Rev. 22: 18 — 20) Christ himself pronounces the whole to be his work.1 Those writings of the apostles which were composed without any special command, were nevertheless written by the command of Christ ; for they were composed by^virtue of that general commis sion which was given to the apostles. Rom. 1: 5, 6. 15: 15, 16. III. 8. The apostles always wrote under the influence of the s Holy Spirit- The nature of this influence, has already been stated, in <§> 9, 10, The apostles doubtless thought for themselves, that is, exercised their natural faculties and communicated their own thoughts, both in their oral and written instructions. Still, these instructions are to be considered rather the instructions of God, than of the apostles ; compare § 9. Illust. 15. § 1,0. For the substance or matter of them was for the most part communicated to them, if not at the moment when they were speaking or writing, yet previously, either by Christ during his abode with them on earth, or by the Spirit of God. Moreover this perpetual Coadjutor exercised a constant su- perintendance over all their communications both oral and written ; and where any thing escaped their memory, recalled it (John 14: 26) ; and where there was ignorance or error in their views, afford ed them the necessary instruction (John 14: 26. 19: 13) ; thus preventing the omission of any thing which the Spirit of God would have them communicate, and guarding them effectually against im perfect or erroneous exhibitions of those truths which they had re ceived from the Lord, whereby the credibility and the divine author ity of their instructions generally, would have been rendered doubt ful. An instance of an apostle's uttering a truth which he did not comprehend ( 1 Pet. 1: 10 — 12), under the guidance of the Spirit, occurs in Acts 2: 39- For in this passage, by to7g ix paxgdv (those afar off), to whom belonged the promise which was to be fulfilled through Christ Jesus, the Spirit evidently intended for the Gentiles ; but it was not till some time after this, that Peter became fully con vinced (Acts 10: 20, 28, 29, 34), that the Gentiles were to be par takers of the blessings purchased by Christ. As the, apostles were to be infallible teachers, and their instructions to be received as com ing from God ( 1 Thess. 2: 13. 4: 8), to ensure perfect accuracy to. their communications, the superintending influence of the Spirit might he necessary, even when they were inculcating doctrines which had been revealed to them at a former period, or which they had learned in some other way. This is evident from the example 1 New Apology for the Revelation of John, p. 361 etc. § 11. J DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTOLICAL WRITINGS. 145 of those Tyrian prophets mentioned Acts 21: 4. The advice which they, Sid nvtvpazog through the Spirit, gave to the apostle Paul, namely, that he should not go up to Jerusalem, did indeed involve some truth, namely, that imprisonment awaited him there Acts 20: 23. 21: 11) ; but this truth, which they had received from divine revelation, they distorted by combining with it their own wishes and counsels. Their advice contradicted what Paul declares concern ing himself, that he went up to Jerusalem being constrained by the Spirit to do so, Stdiptvog zw nvtvpazi *' per Spiritum cogor, et quasi vinculis constringor, ut non possim non Hierosolymam proficisci," I am compelled _ by the Spirit, and as it were held in chains, so that I cannot avoid going to Jerusalem.1 Morus thinks Paul is to be un derstood thus : " Parare se molestiis animum debere, non autem propter molestias plane effugere locum," that he ought to prepare his mind to encounter difficulties, but not through fear of those diffi culties, to avoid the place. Those Tyrian prophets were persons to whom God now and then revealed something, but who did not enjoy the constant guidance and teaching of the Spirit of God, — they were such prophets as Paul mentions 1 Cot. 14: 29, 30. comp. 12: 10. From the danger of thus adulterating the revelations which they received from God. the apostles were preserved by the Spirit of God, their inseparable assistant. This Spirit, for example, pre vented them from using expressions suggested by the additions which their reasoning might make to the revelations they received from God. He excited in them a suspicion of all such ideas as ori ginated from themselves, and thus led them to select other expres sions, which, whilst they accorded with their own ideas and habits of expression, harmonized perfectly with the truth, and with the pur poses of the divine Spirit. In this way, it may be seen, that while the Spirit of God prevented any false propositions or expressions from escaping the apostles, opportunity was afforded, even in the communication of truths immediately inspired, for each apostle to manifest that peculiarity of thought and expression by which he was distinguished from the others. . Certain it is, that as far as the credi bility of the apostolical instructions is concerned, it is a matter of perfect indifference, whether we believe that the Spirit of God sug gested the very words in which those instructions were uttered or written, or whether the Spirit only guided and aided them, from time to time, so far as was necessary.* The former supposition, however, does not seem to comport with the diversity of style and arrangement in the apostolical writings.2 1 See Kypke's Observat. Sacr. on the passage. 2 TSIlner Ober die gottliche Eingebung der Hciligen -Schrift, § %~®- Cro nus' Theologia prophltica, Th. I. § 42. No. 17-20. Koppen, The Bible a work 19 146 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. I. Note. In the Dissertation of the author " On the miraculous spir itual gifts of the Corinthians," (in Paulus' Neuem Repertorium fiir hiblische und morgenlandische Literatur, Th III. p. 331—334), it is remarked, that the Stdxgioig nvtvpdtmv the gift of discerning spir its, mentioned in 1 Cor. 14: 29. 12: 10, consisted in an ability to discover whether the prophets, in their oral instructions, (XaXovvttg 14: 29) adhered strictly to the revelations they had received, or whether they mingled with them something inconsistent with the in tentions of the spirit that had given them the revelation, and who was now active in the minds of the Sidxgivovttov the discerners or the discriminators of real revelations. Thus the discerner, 6 Siaxgi- vmv, discriminated among the nvtvpata the gifts of the prophets, what was really prophecy (ngoqryttia') from what was a human ad dition. In this manner, by means of the Siaxpiotiov nvtvpdtwv, whatever God revealed to a prophet of this class, became exactly known. From these prophets ngoqrjzatg, the apostles were dis tinguished by the possession of many spiritual gifts united (1 Cor. 14: 16), and by their infallibility in the exhibition of the views which were given them. III. 9. 2 Cor. 7: 9 — 11, xatd ¦d-tdv. Katd here indicates the author of the sorrow mentioned, or the agent by whom it was produ ced. But in v. 8, Paul mentions himself as the author of their sor row (Jyta iXvmiaa vpdg) ; of course he maintains, that he, actino- under a divine impulse (auctore Deo) had occasioned them this sor row. SECTION XII. Divine authority of the writings of Mark and Luke. Although what has been said in the preceding paragraphs (§ 9 — 11) relative to the extraordinary guidance of the apostles, can not be predicated of the writings of Mark and Luke ; the fact that their statements are historically true and entitled to our confidence is established by the evidence stated in § 5. It appears also that we may justly ascribe to them divine authority. For(l) the apostle Peter read and sanctioned the Gospel of Mark, which was written under his superintendance. And, in like manner, the historical of divine wisdom, Pt. II. p. 397. Roos' " Evidence that the whole Bible is inspir ed," p. 139. Plank's Introduction to the Theological Sciences, Pt. I. p. 404—409. § 12.] JJIVINE AUTHORITY OF MARK AND LUKE. 147 works of Luke, one of which relates principally to the apostle Paul, doubtless received the perusal and the sanction of this apostle:(2) Finally, the apostle John expressed the wish, that the Christians should have in their possession, the Gospels of Mark and Luke, as well as his own and that of the apostle Matthew,(3) and that the two former should be used in connexion with the latter.(4) III. 1. The sanction of an apostle must, necessarily, confer di vine authority on any work on which it was bestowed, though not written by an apostle. Matt. 16: 19. Compare Tollner sup. cit. <§> 10. III. 2. As the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles were written, at the time when Paul was prisoner at Rome and Luke resident with him, it is highly probable that Paul must have read and sanctioned them. Compare supra § 5. Illust. 2, 6. III. 3. Those who doubt whether the apostolical Gospels, so far as they are narratives of facts, are clothed with divine authority, cannot justly appeal in support of their opinion to John 14: 26, 6 nagdxXtjzog vnopvt]0ti ipag navza d tinov vptv the Monitor will remind you of all things which I have spoken to you. For, when Christ here specifies the things which he said, he does not thereby exclude the things which he did, or the events which took place ; but it was his aim to show the close connexion between his doctrines and the instructions of the nagdxXntog, the future constant guide and supporter of his disciples ; he wished to show that his instruc tions were the ground work of the future instructions of the Spirit, and that the latter coincided perfectly with the former (John 16: 13 — 15.) Moreover, according to this very passage, the nugdxXvzog was to teach the apostles every thing which was necessary for the discharge of the duties of their office, SiSd&i n dv t a; he there fore undoubtedly taught them the history of Jesus, so far as they were not fully acquainted with it, and so far as their office, in the discharge of the duties of which they were to be constantly sup ported by the nagdxXrjzog, required them to promulgate this history. But that the history of Jesus formed an essential part of the apos tolical doetrine, is evident from the gospel of John, in which the truth of. the doctrines inculcated, is proved historically, or by ap pealing to the actions of Jesus ; indeed this Gospel itself is not merely a historical, but a doctrinal and polemical book ;x for the 1 In the first chapter of the first part of the work on " the Object of St. John,'- it is shown (§ 3 — 19,) that this Gospel was written against the disciples of John the Baptist and the Corinthians. In the second chapter of the same Part, the historical object of this Gospel is developed. 148 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. primary object of John's Gospel was, to establish the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20: 31.) For this pur pose, St. John selected the most remarkable from among the nu merous miracles of Jesus, or those which were best adapted to es tablish the declarations of Jesus concerning himself, in consequence of their greater publicity, and the express avowal of the object of them which accompanied their performance. At the very com mencement of the Gospel, the doctrine is distinctly proposed, for the proof of which the subsequent narrative was composed. And the first epistle of John, which properly constitutes the second part of his Gospel, developes the inferences from the argumentation con tained in the Gospel.1 The facts related in the Gospels are there fore intimately connected with the doctrines, and highly necessary to a right understanding and to the proof of them. Finally, Jesus himself and his apostles attributed divine authority to the whole Old Testament, the greater part of which is historical, and by no means superior to the apostolical writings. Matt. 11:9 — 11. 2 Tim. 3: 14, 15. See <§> 13 infra. III. 4. The testimony of St. John in favour of the writings of Mark and Luke. In the work on the Object of John's Gospel, I advanced the as sertion, that John had the other Gospels before him when compos ing his own, and that he wished those Gospels to be used in con nexion with his. To this assertion I still adhere. Michaelis,2 Gresinger,3 and Hug4 are of the same opinion.3 The objection to 1 Various representations of the doctrinal object of the Gospel of John, may be seen in the works of Hanlein, Pauluis, Hug. Agreeably to Herder's opinion, with which Eichhorn in substance agrees, " John wished to extend and enlarge the" idea of the Messiah, whom the first three Gospels had represented as a Jew ish Messiah. In accordance with the Palestine Gospels, he represented Christ as the Saviour of the world, and showed in what sense he was the Son of God and the source of eternal happiness. Tims ho gave a practical aspect to the old historical Gospel." 2- Introd. N! T. § 161. 4th ed. a Introd. N. T. p. 86 etc. * Introd. N.T. Pt. II. p. 429—436, Andover ed. 5 Paulus (Comment, on John, Vol. I. p. 252) thinks John supposed his read ers at least acquainted with Luke's Gospel, and Eichhorn (Introd. to N. T. Vol II. § 159) supposes he considered them as acquainted with the Protevan- gelium. Wegscheider (Introd. to tho Gospel of John, p. 244) admits that John. was acquainted with the olher three Gospels, or with their original source ; and that he supposed his readers to be acquainted with tliem ; yet with this limitation, that the apostle depended on an indistinct recollection of those other Gospels-, and did not intend to make his Gospel specifically a supplement to tliem. Schmidt, in his Historico-critical Introd. to the N. T. Pt. I. p. 146, proposes the adventurous hypothesis, " that John perhaps intended to complete Marcion's Gospel, which had been brought from Asia into the west; because the greater part of the narratives which John has in common with the other three evangel ists, were always wanting in Marcion's Gospel, and often in that only." § 12.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF MARK AND LUKE. 149 this opinion, stated in the " Contributions for the promotion of ra tional views of religion" (No. XIV. p. 10), and in " An attempt to illustrate the history of the Jewish and Christian Scripture canons" (Vol. II. 192), is answered in the Dissert. " on the Occasion and object of the catholic epistles," note 125. The objection urged in the work of Korrodi, against the opinion that John had the three other Gospels before him, is this : " We have every reason to be lieve, that if this had been the case, he would have explained ma ny of the apparent contradictions in them." But this objection is fully met by the general remark, contained in the Dissert-, de epis- tol. cathol. occasione et consilio, Note 125. "Those circumstan ces, which it is necessary for the reader to suppose, in order to solve apparent contradictions, were so familiar to the writer, who was an eyewitness of the incidents which he relates, that he never thought of those apparent contradictions which are so observable by a reader who is unacquainted with those explanatory circumstances." Yet in chap. 18: 25, John actually explains and harmonizes Matt. 26: 71 (aXX-rj naiSloxv another maid), and Mark 14: 69 (n natSloxi] — naXiv the maid — again), and Luke 22: 58 [dXXog another) ; by remarking that several persons assailed Peter, tlnov avzdi thev said to him.1 The following is a summary of the evidence for the position ad vanced in the beginning of this Illustration, as it is stated in the work " On the object of the Gospel of John," § 52, 53, 70, 71. — It is indeed an erroneous saying, found in Eusebius2 and Jerome,3 that John explicitly approved and sanctioned the Gospel of Mat thew, Mark and Luke (dnodi'iao&ai avrd, aXrjdeiav avzo7g inipag- tvgrfaavza) ; but 1. The internal arrangement of John's Gospel evinces, that he supposed his readers acquainted with other Gospels ; and moreover gives us some reason to believe, that those other Gospels were ex actly the three wliich we; possess. For, first, many of the things which he supposes to be already known, and which therefore he does not repeat, are precisely such as are contained in the other Gospels ; e. g. the imprisonment of John the Baptist (John 3: 24), the manner in which Jesus procured a young ass (12: i4, 16) ; and in 21: 2 he assumes as known to his readers, that there was a stone before the sepulchre of Jesus ; and that there were other women at the grave, besides Mary Magdalene, ovx otSaptv we know not. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the New Testament, adduces oth er additional evidence of the same position.4 Again, he omits some 1 See Note 4 on the preceding page. 2 Hist. Eccles. Ill, 24. 3 De Viris Illustribus, s. v. Johannes. 4 Pt. II. § 16L e. g. John 1: 32—34, where the history of the baptism of Jesus is presupposed to be known. 150 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [BK. I. narratives which are contained in the other Gospels, and which would have been very serviceable to his polemical object ; e. g. the explanation of Jesus to the disciples of John (Matt. 11: 2 etc.); the miracles at the death of Jesus (Matt. 27: 45, 51) ; the super natural conception of Jesus, recorded by Luke and Matthew ; his ascension to heaven — which, however, is referred to in ch. 6: 62. 20: 17. — Michaelis adds the following to the list of incidents omit ted by John : the decapitation of John the Baptist ; the election of the twelve apostles ; the transfiguration of Jesus ; and the institution of the sacred Supper. In other parts of his narration, he omits im portant circumstances which are recorded by the other evangelists; e. g. the miraculous cure of the ear of the highpriest's servant (Luke 22: 51, comp. John 18: 10) ; the last exclamation of Jesus (Luke 23: 16) : and the loud voice with which it was uttered (Mark 15: 37). — In cases where the connexion of his subject would not permit him entirely to omit a narrative contained in the other evan gelists, he gives a very brief sketch of it. Compare John 18: 39, 40, with Luke 23: 17—23 and Mark 5: 6 — 14. Finally, he con tributes materials which render the others more perfect and com plete; e. g. the name Malchus ch. 18: 10 (In this chapter, v. 24 should precede v. 15, according to the order of events ; hence inioztiXt (v. 24) must be rendered, miserat had sent). In general, the greater part of the discourses and transactions of our Lord fall within this remark. 2. As it is certain from Irenaeus, that the Gospels of Matthew j Mark and Luke were, at an early period, used in connexion with the Gospel of John, and by those very churches in Asia Minor among which John resided till his death, and in the midst of which he wrote his Gospel ; it is extremely probable that these three Gos pels, and no others, were those which John supposed his readers to be acquainted with. For had other Gospels been referred to hy him, they would not, for this very reason, so soon have lost their authority among those churches. 3. At the time when John wrote his Gospel, the other three could have been known in Asia, for a long time ; for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were probably written about the time spoken of Acts 11: 12, and of course while John yet resided in Jerusalem (Gal. 2: 9. comp. Acts ch. 15). And the Gospel of Luke might easily have been known in Asia previous fo the composition of John's Gospel, <§> 5. Illust. 6. 4. But if John did presuppose in his readers a knowledge of the other three Gospels, and in the composition of his own evidently acknowledged their authority, as we have stated above(l) ; this is a tacit and virtual approbation of them all, and of course of the Gos- § 13.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT^ 151 pels of Mark and Luke, which is quite as decisive as an express sanction of them. SECTION XIII. Divine authority of the Old Testament. The very same kind of arguments which proves the divine au thority of the writings of Mark and Luke (<§> 12), will also prove the divine authority of the books of the Old Testament ;(1) for they have alike received the sanction of men whose credentials were divine. As it has been proved (§<§> 6 — 11), that the religious in structions of Jesus and his apostles are of divine authority, it fol lows that all their declarations, and of course their assertions relative to the Old Testament,(2) must be received implicitly as being ac cordant with truth. But Jesus and his apostles not only declare that God is the author of the Mosaic Laws,(3) but they receive other parts of the writings of Moses as true ;(4) not excepting his account of events which took place before his birth ;(5) and they assume that the books of Moses were written at the special in stance^) of God, and under his particular guidance. (7) They as sert that the Pentateuch, (8) and the sacred books of the Jews in general, (9) contain divine predictions, (10) — (not the conjectures and fictions of men),(ll) — which are therefore(12) prophecies of indisputable certainty. (13). And not only the prophecies, but the whole of the Old Testament, all its moral instructions,(14) its nar- ratives,(15) and in short, the whole contents of the book, whether prophetic, doctrinal, or historical, and even the very expressions us ed,^) they assume as indisputably true. (17) And this claim of the Old Testament to our implicit eredence, they found on the di vinity of the book. (18) III. 1 . The books of the New Testament were reckoned equally sa cred with those of the Old Testament, even in the apostolic age. It is evident from the declarations of Jesus and his apostles, that they ascribed divine authority to writings, no less than to oral com- 152 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. 1. munications. Hence it is the more improbable that the promises of Jesus, and the declarations of the apostle (§ 9, 10), as to the di vine influence and aid which they had while instructing men, were confined to a part of their teaching, namely the oral, to the exclu sion of the written. On the contrary, we know that even in the apostolical age, the writings of the New Testament were held in as high estimation as those of the Old. Thus : I. James, in his sec ond chapter (v. 8,) quotes a Gospel, and seems to have the passage Matt. 22: 39, 36, in his view. In other passages also he seems to have his eye on the Gospel of Matthew ; compare James 2 : 13 with Matt. 24: 41—45, 34—40. James 1: 22 with Matt. 7: 24 etc. James 3: 11, 12 with Matt. 7: 15 etc. James 5: 10 with Matt. 5: 12. James 5: 12 with Matt. 5: 34—37. II. In chap. 4: 5, James quotes an epistle of Paul under the title of V ygaqri. He seems to allude to Gal. 5: 17 etc. ; and in the next verse he quotes, in con junction with it, a passage from the Old Testament (Prov. 3: 34) with the expression SiaXiyti (i. e. ij ygaqri, which must be supplied from the preceding verse.) The epistle to the Galatians and the Proverbs are therefore equally accounted parts of the "Holy Scrip tures." That Gal. 5: 17 (compared with v. 20, 21) is probably the passage to which James here refers, is proved in § III. of the dissertation just referred to in the margin. For there is no passage in the Old Testament to which James could possibly have referred ; but this citation agrees very well with Gal. 5: 17 etc. The words of Paul zo nvtvpa ini&vpii xard tijg oagxog the spirit lusteth against the flesh, are indeed expressed by James, thus : ngog q&ovov inmo-d-t7to nvtvpa the spirit lusteth to envy ; yet Paul in the above passage, not only mentions q&ovov (envy) among the i'gyoig trfi oagxog works of, the flesh (v. 19, 20, but the whole passage con tains an exhortation to brotherly love (v. 13,) and a reprehension of envy (v. 15). III. Polycarp denominates the book of Psalms and the epistle to the Ephesians alike, the Sacred Scriptures. He says, " Ut his scripturis dictum est : Irascimini et nolitepeccare. Et sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram,1 i. e. as it is said in these Scriptures : Be ye angry and sin not ; and let not the sun go down upon your wrath. The first quotation, irascimini, is from Psalm 4: 5, and the latter, et sol non etc. from Eph. 4: 26, and both are de nominated " Scripture." In the New Apology for the Revelation, it is proved that there is a spurious addition to the epistle of Poly carp (<§> 13,) which Eusebius does not seem to have read ; but that the epistle itself is on that account by no means to be regarded as spurious. i § XII. Pol. Epist. $ 13.] THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION EXAMINED. 153 III. 2. The declarations of Jesus and the apostles relative lo the Old Testament, are not an accommodation to popular opinion ¦and prejudice. Those who consider the declarations of Christ and his apostles concerning the Old Testament, as also many of their declarations on other subjects, as being an " accommodation," (that is, as a speaking in accordance with the erroneous opinions of their hearers, who had too exalted ideas of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and as not expressing^ precisely and truly their own opinions,) not only make a very arbitrary supposition, but they violate the fundamental and unexceptionable principles of interpretation, and deny that au thority and credibility which we are compelled to ascribe to. both Jesus and his apostles. But in the present case, there is an appro priate argument against the supposition of such accommodation, namely, that precisely the same language is used by Jesus respect ing the Old Testament when conversing with his apostles (Matt. 26: 24, 31. Luke 22: 37. 24: 44—47), and even in his prayers to his heavenly Father (e. g. John 17: 12) ; and likewise by Paul, when addressing his confidential friend Timothy, whom he terms iootpvxov1 of the same mind with himself; and also when address ing those who were opposed to Judaism.9 See 2 Tim. 3: 15, 16. 1 Cor. 9: 8—10. 10: 1—11. 14: 21, 34. 15: 3, 4, 25—27. The principal arguments against the supposed Accommodation of Jesus and his apostles, and which are fully stated and defended in the works mentioned at the close of this illustration, are the follow ing : I. The moral character of Jesus and his apostles, renders such a supposition inadmissible. II. The supposition, that Jesus and his apostles propagated false hoods under the garb of truth, is overturned by the fact that mira cles evinced their high authority as teachers. III. No sure criterion can be given which shall enable us to dis tinguish between those of their declarations which they believed themselves, and those in which they accommodated themselves to the erroneous notions of the Jews. The Scriptures no where make a distinction between what is universally true ;' and what is only lo cal or temporary. The theory of accommodation involves the whole of revelation in uncertainty. 1 Phil. 2: 20—22. 2 In the Dissert, on the epistles to the Corinthians (§ 9), it is remarked, that these epistles, and especially the first, were addressed to that part of the Corin thian church, which were " of Paul," and " of Apollos" (1 Cor. 3: 4), and which was not the Judaizing party. 20 154 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. I. IV. Many of those coincidences between the instructions of Christ and the Jewish opinions, which have commonly been referred to ac commodation, cannot even be proved to be historically true. The Rabbinical writings which are appealed to, are of more recent origin than the age of Christ and his apostles ; the works of Philo and Josephus do not uniformly exhibit the ideas which were prevalent among the Jews resident in Palestine. ( Moreover, the representa tions contained in these works, and also in some apocryphal books, differ in a variety of respects from the doctrines of ihe New Testa ment. If, however, some of the instructions of Jesus and his apos tles, did coincide with the popular opinions of the Jews, it by no meaqs follows that they miift therefore have been erroneous. • So far as these Jewish opinions were correct, they were worthy of the approbation of Jesus. And the providence of God may, by previ ous intimations of them, have paved the way for the reception of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. V. The necessity for such accommodation on the part of Jesus and his apostles, cannot be proved. The principal authors against the scheme of accommodation; are Storr, On the Historical Sense of the N. T. His Dissertation on the Object of the death of Christ, in the epistle to the Hebrews. Hauff's Remarks on Jesus' manner of teaching. Herinoa, On the manner of teaching practised by Jesus and his apostles. " Rea son and Revelation ; for reflecting Christians," by Baumgarten Crusius. Plank's Introduction to the theological sciences. Less' Letters on certain Theological subjects. Lang, iiber die Prin- cipien der BeurtheUung des Lokalen und Temporellen in der christlichen Religions-Lehre ; in Flatt's Magazine fiir ehristliche Dogmatik und Moral. Meyer's Attempt to determine the ques tion; How far are the doctrines and precepts of the New Testa ment merely of a local and temporary character, and how far are they to be regarded as universally and permanently binding ? (This last work, however, is often vague and indistinct in its representa tions). Tzschirner's Memorabilia for the studies and pastoral con duct of ministers. The doctrine of accommodation, but with numerous limitations, has recently been defended at full length, as being deducible from moral principles, by Vogel. III. 3. Authorty of the Mosaic Laws. See Matt. 15: 4. Mark 7: 9, 10, 13, and 1 Cor. 9: 8. In the latter passage the words xard avCrgunov XaXia, stand opposed to o vbpog zavza Xiyti; and the idea which the apostle aims to ex press, is this : " the commands of the Mosaic Law are not human ommands." So in Gal. 1: 11, xard Sv&gmnov by man, is odoos- § 13.] WRITINGS OF MOSES ACKNOWLEDGED IN NEW TEST. 155 ed to a higher revelation from Jesus Christ (v. 12). Kypke (oh 1 Cor. 12: 8) has proved by an induction of numerous examples, that xata, especially in the phrase xazd ¦d-tov from God, signifies per, by or from. In Heb. 9: 8, the same Mosaic Law is ascribed to the nvtvpa dyiov or Holy Spirit. Nor is this contradicted by Heb. 2: 2, where the Laws of Moses are termed 6 di dyyiXwv XaX?]{rftg Xoyog the precepts communicated by angels; for it was God who spake by the angels. III. 4. The authority of the other writings of Moses. Compare Matt. 22: 31 etc. with Exod. 3: 6; and John 3: 14 with Numb. 21: 8, 9. In 1 Cor. 10: 1—11, is explicit reference to much of the Mosaic history in Exodus and Numbers. III. 5. The authority qf Moses' narrative qf events prior to his birth. Matt. 19: 4 — 6, containing an account of the creation of man and woman, from Gen. ehap. 2. Acts 3: 25, which cites the promise to Abraham, recorded Gen. 12: 3. Rom. 4: 2— 24, concerning the faith of Abraham, as described Gen. 15: 6. 1 Tim. 2: 13, 14, the narrative of the fall of our first parents, from Gen. ch. 3. 1 Cor. 11.' 8, 9, the creation of the first man and woman. 1 Pet. 3: 20. 2 Pet. 2: 5—7, the history of Noah, of Sodom and of Lot, from Gen. ch. 6—8. Heb. 6: 13 etc. Comp. Gen. 22: 16. Heb. 11: 3—22. Comp. Gen. 1: 4—6, 12, 21, 22, 27, 47, 48, 50. III. 6. God the author of the Pentateuch. Gal. 3: 8, ngo'iSovaa ?J ygaqq, on ix nhztmg Sixaiol td t'&vtj 6 &tog " the author of the Holy Scriptures, who foresaw that God (he himself) would pronounce the heathen just, through faith, gave Abraham the promise, Through thee shall all the nations be bless ed." Iguqij here signifies the author of the Holy Scriptures, agree ably to the well known figure of speech by vvhich the effect is put for the cause.1 'O d-tog stands in place of the pronoun uvtog, just as in Hebrew, instead of using the pronoun, the noun is reduplicated. Agreeably to this passage, therefore, the author of the Holy Scrip tures is the same with him who gave Abraham that promise, name ly God, Gen. 12: 1, 3. 18: 17, 18.2 1 Observv. p. 15. 2 Observv. § XXIII, compare also 1 Cor. 1: 21, and the passage of Arrian, which Raphael adduces in commenting on 2 Tim. 1: 18. 156 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [bK. I. That the Old Testament was written by the particular influence of God, is evident also from Rom. 4: 23 etc, I Cor. IO: II. III. 7. In Gal. 3: 16, Paul lays peculiar stress upon the use of the word snigpa in the singular number. For, a plural word, e. g. B^a sons, might have been used instead of the Hebrew word **V| seed. But God in his wisdom saw fit to use the singular 5nT ; be cause the blessings which were to flow from Abraham's posterity to all the nations of the earth, were dependent on a single individual. In Gal. 4: 21, Paul treats a portion of history taken from Gen. ch. 21, allegorically ; manifestly assuming it to be a fact, that the first book of Moses, in addition to its literal meaning, had also an alle gorical sense ; and therefore that God, in the narrative of this event, intended to give a symbolical prophecy of a more remote part of that very extensive plan, the accomplishment of which was begun in the history of Abraham. A similar example is found in Heb. ch. 7 ; compare the author's note on Heh. 7: 3. III. 8. The Prophetic character of the Mosaic writings. This is recognized by Christ; see John 5:39,46,47. For- agreeably to the context, the words tag ygaqdg in v. 39, necessarily refer to the Mosaic writings. Compare also John 19: 36 withExod. 12: 46. In note (a) of the Comment, on Heb. 10: 7, it is proved, in opposition to Rau, that the evangelist John certainly intended to represent the fact that the bones of the crucified Redeemer were not broken, as a fulfilment of the Scriptures relating to him. Conse quently, that the precept of Moses relative to the Paschal Lamb, must have been intended by God, the author of this law, as a type of the death of Jesus. And even admitting that Moses did not himself understand the meaning of this typical prophecy, it is sufficient that the Spirit of God gave an' authentic explanation of it by a later messenger, when the time to which it referred and in which it was to be accomplished, had arrived. _ III. 9. See Matt. 11:13. Acts 26: 22, 23. The expression o vopog xal oi ngoqr,zai xal Mtoboiig the law and the prophets and Moses, signifies the whole Old Testament. Comp. § 14. Illust. 2. Acts 13: 29, unavza za ntgl avzo v ytygappiva all things which were written concerning him ; comp. v. 32 — 35. III. 10. The ancients regarded the ascription of one's own con jectures and opinions to God, as an evidence of a false prophet ; and as inconsistent with the dignity of a true prophet and messen ger of God. Jer. 23: 16, 21, 25 etc. III. 11. Acts 3: 18,-21, ¦frtog— ngoxatriyytiXt (iXdXijai) Sid <§> 13.] WRITINGS OF MOSES PROPHETIC. 157 atopatog navztav zaiv (dyimv) ngoq?]zwv aJrouGod — announced be forehand (spake,) by the mouth of all his (holy) prophets. 1 Pet. 1: 10 — 12, to iv avio7g (ngoqrizaig) mtvpa Xgtazov ngopagzvgop- tvov the spirit of Christ which was in them (the prophets) testified. 2 Pet. 1: 21, vno nvtvpazog dyiov qtgoptvoi iXdXrjoav dyioi &tov dv&gwnoi holy men of God spake under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ; comp. Heb. 10: 15. Matt. 1: 22. 22: 43. Rom. 1: 2. III. 12. Acts 2: 30 etc. ngoqrizng vndgxoiv because (David) was a prophet etc.; compare 2 Pet. 1: 20, 21, ndaa ngoqrjttia ygaqijg, iSlag iniXvotmg ov ylvttaf ov yag x.z. X. " no one can ren der the prophecies of Scripture invalid, (dissolvere, irritum red- dere,) for this reason, that they were not given by the will of man, but by the Holy Spirit." That this explanation of the words of Peter, is more probable than the common one, namely, that " the prophecies of Scripture cannot be interpreted by man," is maintain ed in the Dissertation on the Catholic Epistles, and on the follow ing grounds : 1. The reason assigned in v. 21, would not, on the latterinterpretation, accord with the assertion of v. 20 ; for it does not necessarily follow, that a prophecy cannot be explained by men, because it was given by inspiration. 2. It is not true, that no prophecy has been explained by man until after its completion. 3. To supply dv&gainoiv or ngoqvzdJv after ISlag, would be a harsh ellipsis. These words are therefore better explained thus : " Be assured, that no prophecy of Scripture can be frustrated by your opinions or ridicule," comp. ch. 3: 2, 3 ; ISlag stands for ISlag vpmv, as in 2 Pet. 3: 17. 1 Pet. 3: 1. The primary signification of inlXvaig, is dissolutio ; and the meaning explicatio, is only a de duced one. The following different modifications1 of this interpre tation have been advanced : 1. No prophecy can be explained by the prophets themselves.2 2. The prophetic writings cannot, like other writings, be interpreted by the unassisted powers of the rea der, — the aids of the Spirit are necessary, to enable us to under stand the instructions of the Spirit.3 3. No prophecy can be ex plained by itself,4 or without comparing it with the events. [Note. In addition to the interpretations of this text, given by our author, the following might be added, some of which are per haps not without plausibility. I. No prophecy is of arbitrary interpretation. God is the author . 1 Various other explanations of this passage, are found in Pott. Epist. Cathol. Vol. II. p. 206 etc. S Knapp, Scripta varii argument!, p. 21. 3 Stoltz, Comment, in loc. 4 Griesbach, Comm. in loc. 2 Pet. 1: 16-21 . Pt. II. p. 4. etc. Morus' Prae- lect. in Jacob! et. Petri epistolas, y 807. Schott. Novi Testament, vers. Latin. 158 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. I. of the prophecies; and they have a definite meaning, and must not be distorted into conformity with our peculiar views — here iStag refers to avdgcbnarv. II. No prophecy is of separate detached interpretation. God is the author of all the prophecies ; and hence they cannot contradict each other, and must be explained accordantly. III. All the prophecies are not to be understood according to their own (literal) meaning. Some of them had a proximate com pletion in prior events, but were intended by God their author, to refer to the future Messiah, who has now come. IV. The writings of the prophets are not of their (the' prophets') own inspiration (or revelation, propriae patefactionis*) The proph ets did not communicate their own views, but the counsels of God. Neither of the three first versions, nor any of those stated by our author, seem properly to accord wifh the context. This last in terpretation therefore appears to be entitled to a decided preference, in this respect. The only question is, whether it agrees with the usus loquendi of the word inlXvoig. Its radical meaning is admitted to be dissolutio, solution ; when applied to things unknown, it must mean, to remove doubts and to communicate new ideas or knowl edge. When applied to the explanation of written records, (which, if I mistake not, it rarely is,) it must signify to disclose their mean ing. Now, does custom confine the use of the word to those cases, in which the removal of obscurity and the communication of new ideas, are the result of mere natural ability ; or is it ever applied to cases, in which the person giving the solution is aided by special di vine influence ? If the latter, then in such cases, it signifies revela tion ; and may be so used in the text under consideration. Let us now examine this point. Mark uses it (4: 34) to signify the solu tions which our Lord gave to his disciples, in private, of the para bles which he had delivered in public. The LXX, as well as Aquila, use it in Gen. ch. 40, to express the explanation given by Joseph of the dreams of the butler and baker. The LXX use it to translate "ins, which, according to Gesenius, signifies auslegen, deu- ten (von traumen,) to explain, to interpret (dreams.) There is a somewhat peculiar use of the word, in Symmachus' version of Hosea 3: 4, where it is used for conn, by which Gesenius under stands " a kind of household gods or penates ;" but which the LXX translate Sr]Xtav, and Luther, heiligthum ; the Vulgate and English retain the original word. Among these, the case of Joseph is di rectly in point. When Joseph asked the king's officers, Wherefore look ye so sadly to day ? they answered, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it ; i. e. no one can interpret it. And Joseph said unto them, " Do not interpretations belong to God ? tell me them." Here Joseph himseh0 declares, that God alone § 13.] PROPHETIC CHARACTER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 159 could impart the knowledge they wished. And from all the circum stances of the case, no one, I should suppose, who believes the in spiration of the Scriptures, can doubt that his interpretation was inspired — that it was a revelation. The usus loquendi will therefore bear us out, in translating iniXvotwg revelation or inspiration. — 'ISlag would then refer to ngoqnttov, elliptically suppressed ; and the version would harmonize perfectly with the whole eontext, thus : " We have not believed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ ; but were eye witnesses of his majesty, and heard the testimony of God the Fath er in his favour, saying, by a voice from heaven, This is my belov ed Son, in whom I am well pleased ; and we have also the prophe cies which are now confirmed (being fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ. — Ptfiaiottgov ; see Mark 16: 20. 1 Cor. 1:6.) where- unto ye do well to give heed, as unto a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts ; knowing this especially, " that the writings of the prophets, contained in the Scriptures, are not of their own (the prophets') inspiration ; for the prophecy came not, in old time, by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." S.] III. 13. See Luke 24: 25—27,-44—46. 22: 37. Matt. 26: 54. Acts 2: 24 — 3 1 . The prophecies of the Old Testament must necessarily be fulfilled in Christ i'Sti tiXia&ijvai, nXtigu&ijvai, and for this reason, that they were of indisputable certainty.' III. 14. The moral instructions of the Old Testament, ac- knowledged in the New. The phrase 6 vopog xal ol n^oqijtai the law and the prophets, in Matt. 5: 17—19, signifies, the moral precepts of the Old Testament ; just as in some other passages, (Luke 16: 6. Matt. 11: 13,) it designates only a part of the Old Testament, namely, its propheti cal contents. The words i'mg dv ndvza yivvtat until all be fulfilled (v. 18,) cannot denote the historical parts of the Old Testament ; and that its prophetic parts cannot be alluded to, is evinced by the connexion of the text with what follows it., There are also two other passages in which the phrase d xopog xal ol ngoqijzai denotes the moral precepts of the Old Testament, Matt. 7: 12. 22: 40.1 III. 15. The narratives of the Old Testament acknowledged in the New. The following passages contain narratives taken from the books of Samuel, Kings, Joshua, and Judges : Matt. 12: 3, 4, 42. Luke 4:25—27. Rom. 11: 2—4. Acts 13: 20—22. Heb. 11:30—34. 1 See Dissert. I, in libror. Nov. Testament, historicorum aliquot locos, p. 19,20. 160 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. \. III. 16. The. inspiration of the whole Old Testament in general, acknowledged in the New. In John 10: 34 — 36, the declaration of Jesus, that the Scriptures must not be invalidated, refers to the expression, -&tol iott ye are Gods, " ye admit that civil officers are gods, (in that sense in which the Scriptures declare it), and because the Scriptures say so; ought ye not therefore to believe (v. 37, 38), that (in the sense in which I have asserted it in v. 25, 29, 30) I am the Son of God, or one who stands in the most intimate union with him, inasmuch as my works (v. 37 etc.) prove me to be a much greater prophet than the author of the 82d Psalm, who speaks in the name of the Lord ?" The context leads to a comparison between the authority of the older prophets (and particularly the author of the 82d Psalm), which was such as to render their declarations obligatory, and the authority of the highest Messenger of God (v. 36). See the work on the Ob ject of John, p. 468 etc. also Roos' Evidence that all the books of the Bible are inspired, p. 74. See also Matt. 8: 17, compared with § 8. Illust. 4 of this work. The following texts contain examples of the stress, which is laid in the New Testament, on particular expressions in the Old : 1 Cor. 15: 27. Heb. 2: 7—9. 4: 4 (See Store's Comment, in loc. Note h), and v. 6 (Note 1), v. 5, 6 (Note 1) ch. 7: 17 (Note y). Heb. 8: 13. Matt. 1: 22. III. 17. The truth of the Old Testament acknowledged as-in disputable, in the New. The counterpart or opposite of truth, is that which can be over turned Svvatai Xvd-rivai, (John 10: 35). This, Jesus here declares to be impossible, in reference to the whole Old Testament ; as Pet. (1 ep. 1: 20) declares it, relative to the Old Testament prophe- eies. Kypke, on this passage, proves that Xvtiv signifies irritum reddere, by an induction of examples from profane writers ; and adds, " solvitur verbum Dei, si falsum reprehenditur," the word of God is overturned, if it is found to be untrue. Luke 16: 29 — 31, i'xovoi Mmuoiu xal zovg ngoqjjzag' dxovodto)- auv avttov, they have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them. Acts 24: 14. 2 Tim. 3: 14, 15. III. 18. The divine origin of the Old Testament, the ground of its claim to absolute and universal credence. 2 Tim. 3: 16, ndaa ygatpr) {rtonvtvatog, xal mrpiXipog the whole Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable' etc. Regarding Rtonvtvatog as a predicate, we may render the passage thus : " the § 13.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF O. T. ACKNOWLEDGED IN N. T. 161 whole Scripture, i. e. the whole Old Testament, is given by inspi ration of God." In this sense ygaqtj is used without the article, iii 2 Pet. 1: 20. — Or we may render it : " all the Scriptures (the whole collection of the Itgtuv ygappdztav, mentioned in v. 15), i. e. all the several parts of the Old Testament, are given by inspiration of God." For, as the books of the O. T. are denominated, not on ly fi ygaqri the Scripture, but sometimes also al ygaqal the Scrip tures, in the plural, (as e. g. in John 5: 39. Matt. 21: 42. 26: 54. Rom. 15: 4. 1 Cor. 15: 3, 4) ; so the singular, r\ ygaqri, may de note a particular part of the Old Testament, just as in John 19: 27, it denotes a particular passage of the Old Testament. Both these modes of rendering, give this as the sense of the passage : that the whole Old Testament is inspired of God. But if, instead of regarding -Qtonvtvozog as a predicate, we view it as the subject and translate the passage thus : every divinely inspired writing is profitable for instruction etc. ; still Paul, in stating this general prin ciple, could have had no other object in view, than to confirm the fact, that the Itgd ygdppaza (the sacred writings mentioned in v. 15, which Timothy had known from his youth,1 i. e. the Holy Scrip tures of the Jews, which as Krebs and Losner have proved from Josephus and Philo,2 were known by the appellation Itgd ygdppaza), were profitable for instruction etc. ; or, as it is expressed in v. 15, that they are able to make us wise (Svvdptva ooqloai,)3 in regard to (he salvation4 which is attained by confidence5 in Jesus. Agree ably to the latter translation also, Paul presupposes that the Itgd ygdppataare dtonvtvata, and that for this reason they are able ooqloai tig awtriglav.6 As to the word Rtonvtvctogi we may ex plain it, either by recurring to the customary phrase nvtvpa Qtov, and thus make yguqrj Rtonvtvotog to signify writings which were composed by. the Spirit of God, iv nvtvpati Rtov.1 So in Philo,8 the expression Rtoxgrjoza Xoyia, signifies Xoyia ivxpyopd) tftov edita, divine oracular declarations. Or we may take the word nvtvozo g, 1 Acts 16: 6. Comp. 2 Tim. 1:5. 2 In their " Observations from Philo and Josephus," on this passage. 3 See Tollner On the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, p. 220 etc. and James Capellus, on Tim. 3; 16. 4 2otzr]giav SiA •jilazevig, for au>v>]glav zip Sid meteojg. 5 Eig oortTigiav—tlg in reference to, quod attinet ad ; els has this signification in Eph. 3: 16. Col. 4:11. 2 Pet. 1: 8. See Dissert, de sensu voeis nXt/gojpa, Note 28, also Vigcrus, de Idiotismis linguae Graecae, edit. Zeune, p. 575, where it is remarked that profane authors sometimes use it instead of xata. Comp. Sehleusner's Lex. in voc. sis no. 19. 6 Comp. Heinrich's N. Test. Vol. VII, epp. Pauli ad Tim. Titum, et Philem. complectens p. 173 etc. 7 See 2 Pel. 1: 21. Morus, Epitom. Theol. Christ, ed. 2. p. 31. Heinrich, 1. „ „ ]7J g De legatione, p. 1022, ed. Francf, 21 162 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. I. in the expression ¦d-ionvevozog, actively, according to the analogy of dnvtvazog (one who does not breathe) ; and then ¦dtonvivazog must be translated, " spirans Deum (plenus Deo)," and will de note writings which are full of divinity, from which the deity breathes forth. Kypke1 remarks, " id spirare aliquis dicitur, quo plenus est et quasi turget, a person is said to breathe that, of which he is full, and by which he is as it were swelled up." Agreeably to both the foregoing-explanations, Paul attributes to God, a participation in the production of the Sacred Writings of the Jews. The nature of this participation is determined by the con text. Paul had just been warning Timothy, that even if others did deviate from the truth, (nXavuvztg xal nXavwptpoi v. 13), yet he ought to adhere (pivtiv)* to that which he had been taught,and of the truth of which he had been convinced, i'pa&t xal iniozmdti3 v. 14. In v. 14, 15, Paul adduces two reasons, on which Timothy's conviction of the truth of those christian doctrines which he had learned of Paul, was grounded. " Adhere strenuously to that which thou hast learned, and of the truth of which thou hast become con vinced, because thou knowest from whom thou hast learned it, tiStog nagd zlvog i'pu&ig ; and because from thy childhood thou hast been acquainted with the Holy Scriptures (of the Old Testament), on and (Igiqovg zd Itgd ygdppara oiSag."* The first reason of Timothy's conviction of the truth of the doctrines taught him by Paul, is therefore founded on the person of Paul, his teacher (2 Tim. 1: 13) ; that is, in the divine authority of the apostle ($ 10), of which Timothy had every possible Opportunity to be convinced, as he, having been the confidant of this apostle (2 Tim. 3: 10), must have had the very best advantages for knowing perfectly the char acter and miracles of Paul; and he must have been fully convinc ed, that nothing could be more inconsistent with the character of this apostle, than to suppose that he could, either designedly'or 1 Kypke in Acta Apost. 9: 1. 3 Miveiv (iv Xoyta) to adhere to, to observe a doctrine ; comp. John 8: 31, pivsiv iv Xoyio, with v. 51, TTjgelv ruv Xoyov. See also Kypke on John 8: 31, and the passages which Krebs and Losner adduce from Josephus, in their remarks on Gal. 3: 10, where ippivsiv has this signification. Particularly the following passage from Josephus contr. Apionem. L. I. § 8, belongs here, "naoi ovptpvTov etsriv el-d-vs ix zijg irgojzijs yevioevis 'IovSaioeSj zd vopueiv avzd (rd ygdppara fjpSni) &sov Soypaza, xal zovzotg ippii'tiv, the Jews all have an innate propen sity, immediately from their infancy, to regard our Scriptures as the doctrines of God, and to adhere to them. 3. Iliorovo&ai to acquire a firm conviction of a matter. See Scultet'sand Los- ner's Note on this passage. 4„The first reason is indicated by the participle elSojg ; the second is expressed by bzi. A similar transition from one mode of construction to another, is found in other passages ; e. g. John %: '2A, 25, Sid zb—xal ozi. Acts 14; 22, nagaxa- Xovvzsg ippivsiv zij itiozsi, xal on. Heb. 2: 17, 'iva — yivijzai — eig to IXdoxso&ut. Compare also Luke 3: 21. 1 Cor. 7: 26. «§> 13.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF O. T. ACKNOWLEDGED IN N. T. 163 from misapprehension, arrogate to himself the authority of a divine messenger, when it did not belong to him. The second ground of Timothy's conviction of the truth of Paul's doctrine, (that we can be saved only by reliance on the merits of Jesus), was his intimate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures of the Jews. These Scrip tures, the apostle declares, were able ooqioai, to afford to Timothy, (and through him as a teacher, to others also), a salutary conviction of the truth of that christian doctrine. But these two different grounds of conviction, (the one derived from the divine authority of Paul, and the other from an acquaintance with the Old Testament), by which Timothy was urged to adhere to the doctrines of Chris tianity, could not have been thus combined together by Paul, if he had not believed the Old Test, to possess a divine authority, as well as himself. If we suppose that Paul had advanced, if not pub licly, yet among his confidential friends, the opinion that the sacred writings of the Jews were by no means possessed of divine authori ty ; or if we suppose that he had declared, contrary to the opinion of the Jews, that a part only of these writings were of divine au thority ; how could he, when exhorting Timothy to adhere to his doctrines, urge the accordance of the Old Testament with them, as a prior (dno figtqovg) argument in favour of their truth, or as af fording evidence distinct from his own divine authority and inde pendent of it ? Timothy was the very individual whose intimacy with Paul, rendered him best acquainted with the private sentiments of that apostle ; he must therefore have certainly known the fact, if Paul did not approve of that high veneration for the sacred books of the Jews, which he had imbibed in his youth ; he must have known, that Paul regarded as authoritative, only those particular parts of these writings which he designated by virtue of his apostol ical authority ; and that to these parts such authority belonged, not because they were contained in the reputed sacred books of the Jews, but because an apostle had given to them his sanction. Tim othy must have known, that Paul himself did not regard his second argument for adherence to his doctrines, as satisfactory, and as dis tinct from his own apostolical authority. Now, whether God revealed unknown truths to the writers of the Old Testament, or whether he superintended and guided them while writing (§ 11), or whether he sanctioned their writings by a subsequent divine messenger (§ 12) ; it is certain from the declara tions of the apostle Paul, that those books are in such a sense in spired and given by God, that they are to be regarded as of divine authority ; and for this reason they are entitled to credence. And this is the precise idea of divine inspiration, which, in the days of Timothy, was instilled into the minds of all the Jews from their earliest infancy. For, agreeably to the testimony of Josephus above 164 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. I. referred to, the Jews were taught from their childhood, to regard their (twenty two) sacred books as containing divine instructions. According to this same historian, they regarded no other books as worthy of equal respect. The reason which Josephus himself as signs, is, that the other books (the apocryphal), which were not found in the Jewish canon, have not the support of a certain and uninterrupted succession of prophets ; or, that it cannot be proved, that there was an uninterrupted. succession of prophets down to the times in which the apocryphal books were written. Because a book which lays claim to so high a degree of credibility, ought necessari ly, to be written by a prophet, that is, to be written under a divine influence, -and thus become possessed of divine authority, or contain the Sq'ypaza Rtov. In reference to the various uses of the Old Testament, which Paul mentions (2 Tim. 3; 16, 17), it should be recollected, that Paul does not here require of every private Christian, but only of every teacher who wishes faithfully to discharge the duties of his profession (tw tov -dtov dvdgdmui), that he be fully acquainted with all the writings of the Old Testament, and be qualified to apply them to the confirmation of the apostles' doctrine, that dependance on the merits of Jesus is the condition of our salvation. And certainly, the more intimately a christian teacher was acquainted with the Old Testament, the better was . he able, on the one hand, to convince the more enlightened Jews of the truth of Christianity,1 and on the other, to defend the christian doctrines against contumacious Jews.a Both SiSaoxaXia and 'iXtyxog (instruction and refutation of oppo nents) were, in the time of Timothy, principal duties of a christian teacher. But in general, familiarity with the Old Testament tends to produce a thorough comprehension and firm conviction of the truth of the doctrines of Jesus. and his apostles. And even at the present day, our faith in Jesus, and our conviction of the divine mission of the apostles, may be confirmed and established by the writings of the Old Testament ; and this, notwithstanding our belief in the divine authority of the Old Testament, is grounded principal ly on our conviction of the divine authority of Jesus and his apos tles.. For it must ever appear to the Christian very remarkable, that the writings of the Old Covenant, which were' composed long prior to the age of Christ and his apostles; and which were receiv ed as divine books by the Jews, the greater part of whom were en emies of Christianity ; should contain histories, instructions, and statutes which have a manifest and remarkably striking connexion with the more recent history and doctrines of Jesus, and had a spe cific reference to them" long before they were in existence. The 1 Acts 17: 11. 2 Acts 28: 28. Tit. IrlO etc. § 14.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF O. T. ACKNOWLEDGED IN N. T. 165 doctrine of the person and destination of Christ, is not the only one which admits of striking illustration from the Old Testament ; on many other doctrines of Christianity much light is thrown. Nay, the New Testament presupposes some doctrines to have been learn ed from the Old Testament, and therefore rather alludes to them than explains them. Especially does the Old Testament present to us, a grand drama of divine providence, in the history of the Jewish nation, which is related from its commencement, and, contin ued through a long series of years. Here, by express declarations of the prophets concerning the designs of God in particular events, and by the striking examples of' a divine superintendence and gov ernment, the participation of God in the welfare and transactions of man, is displayed.1 In this manner the Old Testament, by various instructions, (SiSaoxaXibrv v. 16), strengthens faith in Jesus and his doctrines. So also it tends to (inavdg&tooiv v. 16) induce us to lay aside those sins which are inconsistent with faith in Jesus Christ, and to (naiStiuv tt)v iv Sixaioavvrj) produce a practical reformation accordant with this faith. This it does, partly by its precepts and exhortations of various kinds, aud partly by proposing examples and holding forth the divine approbation or displeasure.2 SECTION XIV. Integrity of the Old Testament. The inquiry what were the particular books known in the time of Jesus and his apostles, and denominated hgd ypdppaza (1,) or 6 vopog xal ol ngoqijzai, or simply d vopog (2,) or n yoaqn (3,) and which were sanctioned by our Saviour and his apostles, as writings of divine authority ; must be determined principally (4) from the testimony of the New Testament. For, in addition to the books of Moses (5,) which the New Testament expressly mentions and de^ clares to be of divine authority, (¦§> 13,) as appears from the ex pression o vopog xal ol ngoqnzui- the New Testament also specifies the following books, as belonging to the sacred canon of the Jews. The book of Joshua and that of Judges, Heb. 11: 30—34 (com- 1 Vide Hess' Bibliojhok der Heiligen Gesehichte, Th. II. S. 17 fT. 2 1 Cor. 10: 5—11. Heb. 3: 15— 4: 11. 166 THE OLD TESTAMENT THE ANCIENT JEWISH CANON. [BK. I. pared with Josh. 6: 2. Judg. 6: 4, 11, 14, 15.) Acts 13: 20,pttd tavza — i'Scoxt xgitdg(6). The books of Samuel, Matt. 12: 3 etc. comp. 1 Sam. ch. 21. Heb. 1: 5. comp. 2 Sam. 7: 14.(7) The books of Kings, Rom. 11: 2. comp. 1 K. ch. 19.(8) Daniel, Matt. 24: 15. comp. Dan. 9: 27. Heb. 11: 33, 34. comp. Dan. 6: 3. Job, 1 Cor. 3: 19. comp. Job 5: 13.(9) Isaiah, Luke 4: 16 etc. comp. Is. 61: 1. 58: 6. Acts 8: 30—35. comp. Is. ch. 53. John 6: 45. compare Is* 54: 13. John 12.41. comp. Is. 6: 10. 1 Cor. 14: 21, comp. Is. 28: 11. Rom. 3: 15 — 19. comp. Is. 59: 7, 8. Rom. 10: 11—21. comp. Is. 28: 16. 52: 7. 53: 1. 65: 1, 2. 1 Pet. 2: 6. comp. Is. 28: 16. Jeremiah, Heb. 10: 15. compare Jer. 31: 33 etc. Hosea, Rom. 9: 25. comp. Hos. 2: 25. Joel, Acts 2: 16. comp. Joel 3: 1 etc. Amos, Acts 7: 42. comp. Amos 5; 25, Acts 15: 15. comp. Amos 9: 1 1 . Jonah, Matt. 12: 39—41. comp. Jonah 2: 1. Micah, John 7: 42. and Matt. 2: 5. comp. Micah 5: 1. Habakkuk, Acts 13: 40. comp. Hab. 1: 5. Zechariah, Matt. 21: 4. compare Zech. 9: 9. John 19: 37. comp. Zech. 12: 10. Malachi, Mark 1: 2. comp. Mai. 3: 1. The book of Psalms, Luke 20: 42, AaplSXtyn iv '/SlfiXoj ipaXpwv. Acts 1: 20. yiyganzai iv pipXa> yjaXpav Matt. 21: 42. (comp. Ps. 118: 22,) iv tu7g ygaqa7g. In Luke 24: 44, they are called ipaXpot, and in v. 45, are included among the ygaqdg, John 13: 18. (comp. Ps. 41: 10,) ivanXTigw&rj ?j ygaqtj. Rom. 3: 10—14. comp. Ps. 14: 1. 5: 10. 140: 4. 10: 7. Rom. 3: 18, 19. comp. Ps. 36: 2. 107; 42. Proverbs of Solomon, James 4: 6. comp. Prov. 3: 34.(10) To these books, which are expressly named in the New Testa ment, may be added Ezekiel, and the four minor- prophets, which are not above mentioned ; because it was customary, before the time of Jesus, to class(ll) Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, together, under the appellation of The book of the Prophets (pifiXog twv ngoqtjztuv ;) as well as to count twelve minor prophets.(\2) § 14.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 167 And that the other books, which are not named above, but which are, by Jews and Christians, received into the canon of the Old Testament, Were also admitted into the collection of Jewish sacred writings, at the time of Jesus and his apostles; is proved by the testimony of Josephus, their cotemporary. For, in his first book against Appioti, (4 8) (13,) he states, that all the Jews(14) re ceived twenty two books as sacred and of divine origin ; and he also divides them, as Luke does (24: 44,) into three principal classes. Now, if we attempt to make up the number of books given us by Josephus, we shall find that, according to the old Jew ish method of calculating,(15) besides those above mentioned, there are required exactly as many more as are now received by the Jews into their canon. And Josephus himself, in other passages,, speci fies the greater part of these additional books(16) as being such as were at that time received among the Sacred Wriiings.(\l) Finally, it is evident from the substantial accordance of the passages of the Old Testament, quoted in the New Testament or in Josephus or Philo, with our present text? that the writings of the Old Testament, with which Jesus and his apostles were acquainted, and which they confirmed as divine, were in the same state in which they now are, and that they have not suffered any material altera tion since that time. Moreover, the very same arguments, by which the integrity of the New Testament was established '(§ 4,) are also applicable to the Old Testament, and satisfactorily establish its in- tegrity.(18) III. 1. The signification ofligd ygdppara — 6 vopog xal ol ngoqrjzat. The writings of the Old Testament are termed hgd ygdppaza sacred writings, in 2 Tim. 3: 15; and d vopog xal ol ngoqnzai the law and the prophets, in Acts 24: 14. Luke 16: 29, 31. Matt. 5: 17. comp. also Acts 23: 23. 13: 15. Ram, 3: 21. Matt. 7: 12. 22: 40. In a Dissertation on the most ancient, division of the writings of the Old Covenant, the author of this' work remarks : " Josephus1- uses the expression 6 vopog xal ot ngpqrjzai, and im mediately after, quotes a passage from the Psalms (34: 20,) and another from the book of Proverbs (3: 18,) both of which belong to I De Maccabaeis,,c. 18. 168 SETTLEMENT OF THE CANON OF OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. I. the third class, the Hagiographa. This mode of expression may have been an ellipsis, for 6 vopog xal oi -ngoqiitai, xal ta Xoma twv (HfiXoiv; for the latter expression (ta Xoma etc.) was commonly used to designate the third class of books or the Hagiographa. This form of expression, however, may have originated from the fact, that the writers of all the canonical books of the Old Testament ex cept those of Moses, were termed npoqyzui, in the more extended sense of the word. It is evident that Peter used the word ngoqijtai prophets, in this sense, in Acts 3: 24, where he certainly did not ex clude from among the ngoqrjtaig, ol iXaXrjtsav xal xarTjyyiiXav zag ijpigag zavtag (who foretold the time of Christ,) the author of the Psalms, from whom he himself quotes a prophecy concerning Christ, Acts 2: 30. Taken in a still . greater latitude, the expression ol ngoqtjtai in cludes also Moses himself and the Mosaic writings ; it embraces the whole Old Testament. Thus it is used in Acts 3: 18, 21, imme diately after which, Moses is mentioned (v. 22,) and in v. 24, oZ ngoqrizai ano Eapovifk xal zmv xa&t^-fjg the prophets from Samuel and afterwards. Thus too, in Matt. 26: 56. Luke 18: 31. 24: 25, by ngoqijtaig we must understand the whole collection of sacred writings so far as they contained prophecies, III. 2. The word v d po g or law. This word is used, by synecdoche, for the whole Old Testament, in Matt. 5: 18. Luke 16: 17. John 10: 34 (where the 6th verse of the 82d Psalm is quoted as a passage from the vopog.) Rom. 3: 19. where the phrase oo« 6 vopog Xtyti as the law saith, refers to several passages quoted from the Psalms (v. 11 — 18.) III. 3. — rg a q fj or scripture. In John 10 : 35, ygaq-r] denotes the collection of books which is termed vdpog, in the: 34th verse. III. 4. The canon of the Old Testament, determined princi pally by the New Testament. All those books of the Old Testament, which are of any consider able use in the proof of the christian doctrines, and many others also, are specifically named in the New Testament, and classed among the holy Scriptures. Moreover, in the determination of the ques tion, what hooks were contained in the Jewish canon, the testimony of the antilegomena of the New Testament, is as satisfactory evi dence as that of the homologoumena, even to those who are not convinced of the genuineness of the former. For, let the authors have been who they may, they must have lived in the age of the V 14.] DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 169 apostles, or immediately after; and consequently were as well qualified to bear testimony relative to the particular books, which were then received into the Jewish canon, as the authors of the homologoumena, or Philo, or Josephus. III. 5. The books of Moses, of which Josephus1 also mentions five, are all of them quoted in the New Testament. Genesis, or the first book of Moses, is quoted, Rom. 4: 3, 17 etc. see Gen. 15: 6, 5, and 17: 5. Gal. 3: 8. see Gen. 12: 3. Gal. 4: 21 etc. see Gen. 21: 2, 9, comp. with 16: 15. Exodus or the seeond — Ex. 3: 6 is quoted in Mark 12: .26. and Ex. 33: 19. 9: 16, in Rom. 9: 15, 17. Leviticus, or the third — Lev. 12: 8 is quoted in Luke 2: 24. and Lev. 18: 5, in Rom. 10: 5. Numbers, or the fourth — Num. 21: 8, 9 is quoted in John 3: 14. and Num. 25: 1, 9. 21: 4 etc. 14: 2, 36, in I Cor. 10: 8—11. Deuteronomy, or the fifth book of Moses— Deut. 24: 1 is quoted in Matt. 19: 7. and Deut. 25: 5, in Matt. 22: 24. and Deut. 18: 5, in Acts 3: 22. and Deut. 32: 21, in Rom. 10: 19. Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the Old Testament,2 remarks, that Philo quotes all the five books, and in terms of the highest re spect.^ III. 6. Joshua and Judges. In the first passage mentioned in the text, and to which this Illustration refers, some narratives are adduced from the books of Joshua and Judges, in connexion with other narratives from the Old Testament. It is only after the second clause of the 35th verse, that examples are adduced, which are not contained in the canonical books.4 The reader may compare with this text, ch. 46: 1 — 15 of the book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus. Josephus expressly classes the book of Joshua among the sacred writings ;5 £nd he 1 Contra Apionem, Lib. 1. § 8. 2 part I. p.89. 2d ed. 3 On the genuineness of the Pentateuch, on the various conjectures and ob jections which have been made in reference to the time and the manner of its composition, the reader may consult Eichhorn's Introd. to the O.T. Pt. II. § 405 — 415. Jahn's Introd. to O. T. Pt. II. Sect. 1, Vienna, 1803. p. 15— 95. also Griesinger on the Pentateuch, Stuttgard, 1806, p. 31 — 43. Tubing, gel. Anzeig. for 1806, No. 85. p. 675 — 688. Critique on Vater's hypothesis relative to the Pentateuch, proposed in his Commentary. The same work for 1808. No. 38. p. 304, 306 etc. De Wette's Critical Essay on the credibility of the books of Chron icles in reference to the Mosaic history and legislation. Weber's History of the art of writing, Gottingen, 1807, No. I, II. On the literature of this investigation, see Augusti's Sketch of a historico-critical Introd. to the Old Testament, Jena, 1806. p. 128 etc. « Storr, on Heb. 11: 35, note k. 5 Antiq. Lib. V. ch. 1. § 17. 22 170 JOSHUA JUDGES SAMUEL. [»K. I. makes much use of the book of Judges, in the 5th book of his Jew ish Antiquities.1 III. 7. The books of Samuel. In Matt. 12: 3, 4, the passage quoted from the first book of Samuel, is placed in connexion with another, quoted (v. 5)- from Num. 28: 9, 10. In Heb. 1: 5, a passage from Psalm 2: 7, is pla ced in immediate connexion with one from 2 Sam. 7: 14. The book of Sirach (46: 16—47) contains narratives from both books of Samuel. Philo quotes the first book of Samuel by its customary name among the Greek Jews, viz. first book of kings, and uses the phrase tag d itgog Xoyog qnotf and Josephus frequently quotes both the books of Samuel,, in his Jewish Antiquities, books V— VII. III. 8. The book of Kings. Tlie second book of Kings is quoted, in connexion with the first (which Paul in the passage cited reckons among the ygaqri,) in Luke 4: 25 — 27 ; the second book (5: 14) is quoted in the 27th verse ; and the first (ch. 17:1, 9. 18i 44,) in verses 25 and 26. — Josephus3 designates the books of the kings and the book of Gene sis, by the name of Itgot piftlat sacred books. III. 9. The books of Job and Daniel. The books- of Psalms and Job are, in 1 Cor. 3: 19, 20, quoted in the same manner, and placed in connexion with each other. In Matt. ch. 24, reference is had to the second or prophetic part of Daniel : and the first or historical part is quoted in Heb. 11: 33, 34, where Paul draws all his examples from books which belonged to the sacred canon of the Jews : the words tqga^av atopata Xtdvttov, tofitoav ffvvupiv nvgog they stopped the mouths of lions, and quench ed the flames of fire, allude to Dan. 6: 22. 3: 15 etc. : afterward, in the beginning of the 35th verse, the words i'kafiov — avtcov eon- tain an incident quoted from 2 Kings (4: 21,) a canonical book of the Old Testament. Josephus also found both the historical and the prophetic parts of Daniel in his copy of the sacred books of the Jews, among which he expressly classed the book of Daniel.4 In ch. 10 $ 4, he says expressly, to fit/Mov AavirfXov, tvgr\an xal xovto iv totg ttgolg ygdppaeiv the book of Daniel he will also find among the sacred writings. And it was the historical part of Dan- 1 See Eichhorn's Introd. Pt. 1. p. 11.5 etc. 2 De Temulentia, opp. T. I. p. 379, ed. Mangey. 3 Antiq. Lib. IX. cap. 2. § 2. 4 Ant. Jud. Lib. X. cap. 10. II. § 14.] PROVERBS THE PROPHETS. 171 iel which led the ancient Jews to elass the book with the historical or first part of (zolv ngoqrjrdjv) the prophetic writings. In his dissertation On the most ancient division of the books of the Old Covenant, the author of this work has remarked : " We fre quently find the book of Daniel classed with the writings of the prophets, strictly so called; but in the most ancient times, the char acter of a book was determined by its first chapters, and according ly this was placed in the second class or the prophets. This ex plains the reason which induced Sirach (48: 22—29, 10) to omit Daniel in his enumeration of the prophets. III. 10. Proverbs of Solomon. Josephus citing passages from the sacred writings (ix tov vopov stai reoV ngoqrjzwv), quotes among others, a passage from the Pro verbs pf Solomon (ch. 3: 18). l III. 11. Ol IJgoqrjt ai — the Prophets. In his dissertation, already cited, On the most ancient division of the books of the Old Covenant,2 the author of this work remarks : " To the second class of the canonical books of the Old Testament, which are termed ol ngoqijtai, in the more stridt sense of the term (Illust. 1), belonged to the historical books of the Old Testament, which, together wifh the book of Joshua, were immediatelyattached to the Pentateuch ; and also the strictly prophetic books, ol ngoqn- tai the prophets, in the most limited sense. The latter seem to be referred to in Acts 13: 40, to tlgrjpt'vov iv zo7g ngoqyzaig that which was declared by the prophets, and in Acts 7: 42, fiifiXog zwv ngo- rpvtdrv book of the prophets ; compare also John 6: 45. And this collection of strictly prophetic books, again, was subdivided into two parts, the one embracing Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, (which are enumerated in the book of Sirach, ch. 48: 22. 49: 6, 8), and the other including the twelve minor prophets, ol SmStxangoq^tai." III. 12. The Twelve Prophets. The appellation ol SmStxa ngoqrjrai the twelve prophets, was us ed before the time of Christ and the apostles, by Sirach, ch. 49: 10, and the days of the apostles, by Josephus, Antiq. Lib. X. cap. 2. § 2, and afterwards, by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. IV. 26. III. 13. Division of the sacred books into three classes. The entire passage of Josephus, is as follows ;3 pyrt tov vnoygd- 1 In his book concerning the Maccabees, ch. 18. See also Illust. 1. and the New Repertory, p. 239. Note 28. 3 Sup. cit. p. 232. 3 Contra Apionem, Lib. 1. § 7, 8. 172 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. T. qttv avtt'£ovoiov ndatv b'vtog, prjtt ttvog,Jv toTg ygaqopivoeg ivoy- erjg Siaqotviag* uXXq povwv tolv ngoqrjzwv ta piv avoitatm xal na- Xaidvata xaza zrj,v inlnvoiav trjv ano zov &iov pa&ovttoy, za Si xaQ-'iavzovgf tag iyivtto oaqmg ovyyguqovtcov, ov pvgidStg fitflXiwv tlsl nap' nytcuV, dovpqeovmv xal paxopivtuv' Stso Si pova npog to7g itxoeo ]}t(SXluT tov navzdg i'xovta xpdvov trjv Staygaqriv, za Stxaloig ntniotivptva (9t7a ed. Havercamp.) Xal zovtoiv nt'vrt piv iozt ta Moivaimg, a tovg (tt vdpovg ed. Oberthiir) ytvopivovg ntpit^tt, xal triv an dv&gwnoyoviag- nagdSotnv, piygi t^g avtov ttXtvtrig—ano> ii zijg Mtavoiwg ztXivzzjg pix&1 r^ Apta^t'g'iqv zov ptzd^-ip^riv Iligodjv ftaoiXtwg dpxrjg, ol ptzd Ma>'uoij,v ngoqtjzai td xat avzovs ngax&ivta ovviygax\iav iv tgial xal Sixa (JipXioig. Ai Si Xoinal tts- eagtgvpvovg tig tov fi-idv, xal toTg dv>onoig vno&rjxag: %a.v filov nigtiyovoiv ; " Inasmuch as not every one who pleased, was per mitted to write, and as our writings contain no contradictions ; the prophets having been taught by divine inspiration the earliest and most ancient events, and having recorded with fidelity the history of their own times ; therefore our books are neither numerous nor con tradictory. The number of our books is only twenty two, contain ing a universal history, and these, with the utmost propriety, claim our belief. To these twenty two books, belong the five-books of Mo ses, which describe the origin of the human family, and their whole history until the death of Moses. — The prophets after Moses, have, in thirteen books, recorded the history of their own times, from the death of Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes, the Persian monarch who succeeded Xerxes. The remaining four books contain hymns of praise to God, and practical precepts for the government of man kind." A similar division of the sacred books into three classes, is found in the preface to the book of Sirach : 1 , vopog, 2, ol ngoqij- tat, and 3, oi dXXoi oi xuz' avrovg rixoXovd-rixottg, i. e. the other books which, (like the prophets), follow after the vopog. The au thor of this preface (v. 2) also calls the third class, uXXa ndtgta ffipXt'a other books transmitted to us from our fathers ; and v. 6, za Xomd toUv ^i^llaiv the rest of the books. Philo,1 likewise, divides the sacred writings (to: hgutata ygdppara) into 1, vdpovg — the Mo saic writings ; 2, Xdyia d-teniadivza Sid ngoqntmv — oracular declara tions of the prophets ; — (both expressions are synecdochical) ; and 3, vpvoyg xat ta dXXa, oTg tmoz-iiprj, xal tvoi/Stia avvavgovtue xat tt- Xtiovvzai hymns of praise and other books by which wisdom and piety are promoted. It is doubtless this same classification, which is expressed in Luke 24: 44, by the ndvza id ytygappiva 1) iv to} vopta Mmvaitag xai 2)ngoqijtaig xal 3) ipaXpoig — all things which were written (1) in the law of Moses and (2) in the prophets and (3) in the Psalms. The Psalms, being the first book of the third class, is put by synecdoche for the whole class. 1 De vita contemplativa, p. 893, cd. Francof. § 14.] ALEXANDR. CANON SAME WITH PALEST. 173 III. 14. The Alexandrian canon contained the same twenty two books as that of Palestine. I. Had it been a matter of public notoriety, that the Alexandrian Jews had more, and the Sadducees fewer than twenty two books which they regarded as divine, how could Josephus1 have remark-; ed, that " no one has ever ventured either to alter, or to add to, or to detract from these (twenty two) national books. For the belief of the divinity of these books is instilled into all the Jews, from their very infancy. II. Eichhorn adduces the following arguments, to prove that the canon of the Egyptian Jews contained no apocryphal books, and did not differ from that of Palestine. 1. The Egyptian Jews always had more or less connexion with those of Palestine ; and both were, solicitous to maintain entire ac cordance with each other. 2. Jesus the son of Sirach, designates their ancient sacred books substantially in the same manner, as Josephus and the New Testa ment do : viz. " the Law, the Prophets, and the other books." See Illust. 12. 3. Jesus the son of Sirach, distinguishes very particularly the moral sayings of his grandfather, an Apocryphal book, from " the Law, the Prophets, and the other writings," i. e. from the sacred books of the Jews : see his introduction or preface. 4. Philo was acquainted with the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, for he borrows phrases and expressions from them ; but not in a single instance has he quoted any of them ; much less does he allegorize upon them, or make use of them to prove any point which he would establish. Jahn,2 in opposition to these arguments in favour of the identity of the Egyptian and Palestine canon, urges 1, that tlie Egyptian Jews professed to be independent of those of Palestine, and that they maintained but little ecclesiastical intercourse ; 2, that the son of Sirach, and Philo, may have included the Apocrypha in the third class of books, without making a fourth ; 3, that several books of the Old Testament are not quoted by Philo, at least not with the accompanying declaration of their divinity. From these arguments, however, we can only infer, that it is possible the Apocrypha was included in the canon of the Egyptian Jews. The whole investi gation seems to lean to the conclusion, that the apocryphal books might have been regarded as deutero-canonical, books of secondary authority. The arguments adduced by August!, in his Introduction 1 Against Ap. B. I. § 8. 2 Einleitung, 2te auflage, Th. I. S. 25. S. 132 etc 174 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. I. (p. 73), to prove that the Egyptian canon included the Apocrypha, are chiefly derived from Corrodi's Elucidation of the Bible canon. 111. The opinion, that the Sadducees rejected all the books of the Old Testament canon excepting the five books of Moses, (which was advanced by some of the ancient fathers, and is considered as probable by some late critics, from the fact that Jesus proved (Matt. 22: 31 etc.) to the Sadducees the resurrection, by a quotation from Exodus,1) is contradicted by Eichhorn (Introd. to O. T. p. 96 etc.) on the following grounds : 1. The sect of the Sadducees took their rise at a time when the Jewish canon had been closed ; and it was just as easy for them to make their opinions harmonize with the other books of the old Tes tament, as with the books of Moses. 2. Josephus (Antiq. B. XIII. c. 10. § 6) merely states, in refer ence to the Sadducees, that they adhered exclusively to the written precepts (zd ytypappiva) and rejected the traditions ; he no where states, that they were distinguished from the Pharisees by the re jection of all the books of the canon except the Pentateuch. 3. How could Sadducees have sustained the office of high-priest, if they had departed, in so important a point, from the belief of fhe nation ? III. 15. The Jewish numeration of the sacred books. It was customary among the Jews, to count the books of Judges and Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and the Lamentations, and finally, the twelve minor prophets, severally, as being single books. III. 16. The books not specifically mentioned by Josephus,2 are Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. But these must necessa rily be reckoned to the canon of the Old Testament, in order to make up the four books (Xomol tioaagtg), which he expressly men tions as belonging to the third general class. For, that Josephus reckoned all the historical books into the second class (that of" the thirteen prophets), may be assumed as certain. The transfer of several of the historical books into the third class, was probably of a 1 This opinion is modified in the following manner, by Corrodi (sup. cit. p. 110. comp. Paulus' Comment, in Nov. Test. Pt. I. p. 196. Pt. III. p. 298. supplement, p. 149, 151 etc.): The Sadducees probably only attached a high degree of value to the Pentateuch ; they appear to have respected the other books only so faras they accorded with the Pentateuch and were founded on it — " But the dissent of the Sadducees from the common opinion, is very uncertain, and is no evidence against the historical credibility of the twenty two cononical books." 2 Contra Apion. 1.8. See also Illust. 13. § 14.] THE JEWISH CANON. 175 later date. For, Philo describes the books of the third class, in the same manner as Josephus does, namely, as books containing (chiefly) hymns of praise to God, and moral lessons. And as it is certain that several historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, were classed among those which were strictly prophetical (the sec-' ond class) ; what could be more natural, than to place also the other historical books, Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles, in the same class, and thus make the third class to consist only of such as were neither historical nor prophetical P1 Michaelis2 puts Job in the place of the Song of Solomon, and places Ruth instead of Job in the second class of thirteen books, re garding Ruth not as connected with Judges, but as a distinct book. Camerer,3 by a different process, excludes the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes from the canon. He wishes to count Ezra and Nehe miah, Jeremiah and the Lamentations, as four distinct books ; and to place in the third class the Lamentations and Job, instead of Ec clesiastes and the Song of Solomon. But neither the separation of Ruth from Judges, nor of Ezra from Nehemiah, nor of Jeremiah from the Lamentations, will correspond with the mode of calcula tion adopted by the Jews (Illust. 15), as is evident from the testimo ny of Origen. Equally improbable is the assumption, that Job was placed in the third class, and not in the second, of which the histor ical books formed a part ; for the book of Job was uniformly, by all antiquity, received as a true history. It is true, Josephus does not himself quote the book of Job; and the reason probably was, that in writing a history of the Jews, he had no occasion for quoting it. But there cannot be the least possible doubt, that he found it among the sacred books of his nation, among which it is also classed in the New Testament (Illust. 9); and that, for the reason stated, he plac ed it in the second class.4 Perhaps the book of Job was subjoined to the historical part of the second class, as an appendix ; for it was regarded as a history, though not of the Israelites.5 1 Repertor. sup. cit. p. 227 etc. 2 Dogmatik, S. 112 f. 3 Theolog. und kritische Versuche, N. I. § 14—19. In addition to this pro position, the assumption, that in the time of Josephus the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes did not belong to the canon, is supported (in the work sup. cit. § 1H) bv the conjecture that it seems that some books were lost from the canon, alter tfie days of Josephus. From Josephus (Antiquit. X. c. 11. § 7), where the writer is speaking of BiSXioig /tavinXov, it is inferred that other writings of Daniel, be side the Book of Daniel, were then in existence. In refutation of this, it is re marked (in the Tub. gel. Aozeig. for 1764, No. 74^ p. 590), that Josephus evi dently is speaking of the writings of Daniel which have Ascended to us, which he divides into several parts (SMia), inasmuch as every thing which he there quotes from these 8i$Xioit- Javi^Xov, is contained m our book ot Daniel, faee Bertholdt's Daniel, Erlangen, 1806, the Introduction, p. 86,etc. 4 Eichhorn, Pt. 1. p. 118 etc. 5 Repertor. sup. cit. 232. 176 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [BK. I. Agreeably to what has been said, the canon of Josephus is as fol lows : First class, the five books of Moses. Second class, 1, Josh ua ; 2, Judges and Ruth ; 3, the two books of Samuel ; 4, the two books of Kings ; 5, the two books of Chronicles ; 6, Daniel ; 7, Ezra and Nehemiah; 8, Esther ; 9, Job ; 10, Isaiah ; 11, Jere miah and the Lamentations ; 12, Ezekiel ; 13, the twelve minor prophets. Third class, 1 , the Psalms ; 2, Proverbs ; 3, Ecclesias tes ; 4, the Song of Solomon. III. 17. Books of the Old Testament refer ed to by Joshphus. Among the books not specifically named in the New Testament, but still used as authorities by Josephus, are Ruth, both books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and the Lamentations of Jere miah. Eichhorn in his introduction to the Old Testament,1 quotes the passages in which Josephus cites or alludes to the books just men tioned. In general, every book which can be proved to have been known to Josephus, and which was hot written after the time of Artaxerxes, belonged to the canon of Josephus. For agreeably to the passage above quoted,2 all the books prior to the time of Artax erxes, were written by prophets, and were therefore divine writings. He closed the canon of the Old Testament with the time of Artax erxes Longimanus ; for he regarded the book of Esther, which he supposed was written at that time, as the last of all the Old Testa ment writings (Antiq. B. XI. c. 6. § 1.) III. 18. On the genuineness and integrity of the Old Testa ment, the reader may [in addition to <§> 4 of this work] consult Griesinger on the Authenticity of the Old Testament, Stuttgard, 1804. and Jahn's Introduction to the divine books of the Old Cov enant, Pt. I. <§, 6—14, p. 31—66. SECTION XV. The Scriptures must be received as a perfect rule (norma) of faith and practice. From the evidence which has been adduced (<§> 11 — 13) in sup port of the divine authority and credibility of the writings of the " Pt. I. §47. 2 Illust. 13.— Jos. contr. Ap. Lib. I. § 8. $ 15.] LEGITIMATE INTERPRET. OF SCRIPTURE. 177 Old (<§, 14) and New (<§> 1 — 11) Testaments,(l) as respects their doctrines, prophecies, and history .; it necessarily and spontaneously follows, that we are bound to receive as divine(2) all the instruc tions and precepts, which are either given by the writers them selves, or communicated by them as the instructions and precepts of God ;(3) and to receive-all. their statements, as indubitably and perfectly true. (4) In short, the decisions which are contained in Scripture, as soon as they are satisfactorily ascertained,(5) must be received by us as the standard (norma) for the regulation of our judgments. (6) Illustration 1. That nothing may be advanced, to which the most anxious and scrutinizing examination of Christianity can attach the least shadow of doubt ; I shall seldom rely, exclusively, on proofs derived from the antilegomena of the New Testament ; or on the authority of those books of the Old Testament, which are not explicitly quoted in the New, as divine (<§> 14. Illust. 4, 15, 16) ; or on books, the authority of which depends not merely on their historical credibili ty, but also on the divine authority of Mark and Luke. III. 2. The obligation of the divine precepts. Precepts which are given under certain limitations, are valid only so far as they extend. Arid if it be said, that some precepts are not obligatory on men, or on men in all circumstances ; this will by no means exclude them from the catalogue of divine precepts. The reason why they are not obligatory on certain persons, is, that God did not see fit to extend their obligation to them, and not that their author is any other being than the common Lord of the universe. In Koppen's work entitled, " The Bible a work of divine wisdom," it is remarked, that all the special precepts of God are merely par ticular applications of universal divine commands ; and that these cannot be universal, because they are limited to the accidental cir cumstances of time, place, and persons. The reader may compare Nitzsch's Programm on the local and temporary precepts of the christian ethical code, entitled, De judicandis morum praeceptis in Novo Testamento a communi omnium hominum ac temporum usu alienis. III. 3. Obligation of the passages in which God or a divine messenger is introduced as speaking. To this class belong those passages in which God himself is in- 23 178 divine authority of the scriptures. [bk. I. traduced as speaking, as is often the case in the writings of the an cient prophets ; and also those which contain the declarations of a divine messenger, such as an angel, or a man the divinity of whose mission is asserted by the inspired writer himself, or by some other having divine authority. Thus, the divine mission of John the Baptist (John 1: 31), is confirmed not only by Luke, but also by John an apostle, and by Christ himself. See Luke-3: 2. 7: 29, 30. John 1:6. Matt. 11: 9—14. Matt. 21: 25—35. John, 5: 32— 35. III. 4. Absolute historical credibility of the Scriptures. In the narrations of Scripture, a distinction must be made, be tween historical truth and universal truth. These narratives are all historically true, but not all true in every respect ; they possess the latter character, only when the sanction of the Scripture is added to them. Thus, when the inspired writers state, that particular per sons uttered certain expressions or entertained certain opinions ; these expressions and opinions are not therefore to be regarded as infallibly true, unless the Scriptures express approbation of them. III. 5. The legitimate interpretation of Scripture. Whenever the reading of a particular passage is unquestionable, and a legitimate exegesis proves a certain sentiment to be contained in it ; then, and then only, is it satisfactorily shown that the passage contains that sentiment. Hence, in order to confer the greatest possible degree of certainty on this course of christian doctrines, passages of which there are various readings, are never adduced in this work, except when the canons of criticism show, the reading ad duced, to have preponderating evidence in its favour ; and even then they are accompanied with other passages. The Moral Interpretation, which Kant has advocated,1 consists in setting aside the laws of grammatical and historical interpretation, and attributing a moral meaning to those passages of Scripture, which, agreeably to grammatical interpretation, contain nothino- co incident with the moral dictates of unassisted reason. Nothing more is necessary, according to this hypothesis, than that it be pos sible to attach a moral meaning to the passage, no matter how forc ed or unnatural it be. In the " Historical and critical view of the in fluence of Kant's philosophy on the different branches of science and practical divinity," is a statement of the different works and dis sertations on Kant's mode of interpretation, with some-account of the arguments for and against it ; see also Schmidt's work " On the 1 Religion innerhalb den Grenzen der blosson Vernunft, S. 150—153 and Streit der Facultaten, S. 49— 56. § 15;] SOME DOCTRINES NOT TAUGHT BY REASON. 179 christian religion etc." The following are the principal arguments which have been urged against this mode of interpretation, by Nos- selt, Rosenmiiller, the author of this work,1 and others : 1. Such a mode of explaining Scripture, does not deserve the name of an interpretation ; for this moral interpreter does not in quire what the Scriptures actually do teach, by their own declara tions, but what they ought to teach agreeably to his opinions. 2. The principle is incorrect, which is assumed as the basis of this mode of interpretation, namely, " that the grammatical sense of a passage of Scripture cannot be admitted, or at least is of no use in ethics, whenever it contains a sentiment which reason alone could not discover and substantiate." 3. Such a mode of interpretation is altogether unnecessary ; for the Bible is abundantly sufficient for our instruction in religion and morality, if its precepts are construed as applying directly or by consequence to the moral necessities of every man. And, although there are passages of difficult explanation in the Bible, as might naturally be expected from the antiquity and peculiar languages of the Scriptures; yet, -in most instances these passages do not relate to doctrines ; and when they do, the doctrines in question are gen erally taught in other and plainer passages. 4. As, on this plan, the mere possibility of attaching a moral im port to a text, is regarded as a sufficient sanction for regarding it as. the true signification ; almost every passage must be susceptible of a multitude of interpretations, as, was the case during the reign of the mystical and allegorical mode of interpretation which has long sinee been exploded. This must produce confusion in religious in struction, want of confidence in the Bible, and indeed a suspicion as to its divine authority ; for this must be the natural effect of the moral mode of interpretation on the majority of minds. 5. If such a mode of interpreting the doctrines of Christianity should prevail, it is not seen, how insincerity and deceit, on the part of interpreters, are to be detected and exposed. III. 6. No necessity that every doctrine of the Scriptures, should, be taught by reason also. After the existence and the attributes of God have once been proved (<§> 17 — 26) [they are presupposed, whenever we receive any testimony as divine, and as therefore worthy of our entire con fidence,] the examinations of the doctrine of Christianity, is a his torical investigation. The credibility of what the Scriptures teach, depends on their authority. And although it may be a desirable l Observations on Kant's philosophical religious doctrines, § 17. 180 PROOF FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. [BK. I. thing to have other arguments, derived^from reason and experience, in support of the doctrines of the Bible ; still, it is by no means necessary that every doctrine should be confirmed by the dictates of reason, or by arguments derived from the nature of things. For, should we receive any doctrine merely upon the authority of Scrip ture, without any other proof, we should still be acting rationally; we should be doing precisely what all men do when they believe any thing on the testimony of credible witnesses, without having any other evidence of its truth. Nor do we by this course discard the use of our reason ; for our reason is exercised in the investiga tion of the genuineness, the import, and the authority, of the testi mony of the sacred writers. Reason is also employed in the com parison and combination of the doctrines learned from the Scriptures, with one another and with other doctrines. The reasonableness of believing doctrines which cannot be proved from the principles of reason, and the truth-of which rests solely on the authority of a historical basis ; is discussed in Annotationes ad philosophicam Kantii de religione doctrinam, § III, VII, XV. The objections against the moral and metaphysical possibility of positive doctrines, (i. e. of doctrines taught by a divine revelation, but which reason alone could not have discovered,) contained in Fichte's " Critique on all Revelations," in his work " On Religion as a Science," 1795, and in other works ; are answered in the follow ing works : " Remarks on the evidence of the possibility and reality of a revelation, derivable from the moral dictates of reason," by Siisking, in the supplement to his German translation of " Annot. ad. Kantii philosophicam de religione doctrinam." — " How can the absolute divinity of a professed revelation be ascertained?" — " Oh the province of reason in the negative determination of the import of a revelation," by Siiskind. — A review of the work entitled, " Neue Erklarung des hb'chstwichtigen Paulinischen Gegensatzes, Buchstabe und Geist."— -and Staudlin's Dogmatik und Dogmengeschichte. SECTION XVI. Evidence of the divinity of the Scriptures, derived from personal . experience. Persons not religiously disposed, may, prior to any examination into the truth of the christian doctrines, be prejudiced against them, [§ 16. divine authority of the new scriptures. 181 by the fear of condemnation from them, John 7: 7. 3: 19 etc. But whoever strives to live to the glory of God, and so as to meet the divine approbation,(l) will be kept from such a premature condem nation of Christianity, (2) by the consideration, that its precepts offer him a prospect of becoming better acquainted with the will of God. He will be willing to examine Christianity closely, because he ex pects, that if it be of divine origin, it will approve his zeal in the cause of virtue, and stimulate him to greater exertion, John 3: 21. Nor is the hope a delusive one. For, the more he studies and follows in his practice the doctrines of Christianity, the more will he find by his own experience, that he is advancing in the knowledge of that truth which makes him happy, which gives peace to his mind, and meliorates his heart. And thus will his own experience satisfy him of the divinity of the doctrines of Christianity, John 7: 17 ; or of the truth of the account which its first teachers give of its origin. I should, indeed, hesitate to infer, merely from the salu tary influence of the doctrines of Christianity on the mind, that they were promulgated by the extraordinary and direct agency of God;(3) for I fear I should be unable to render this proof sufficient ly evident to others. (4) Nevertheless, it is undeniable, that the credibility of the declarations of Jesus and his apostles, (which is the general ground for belief in the divine authority of the doctrines of Christianity, and of the holy Scriptures generally,) is greatly cor roborated and rendered in a high degree probable, (5) by the follow ing considerations : first ; all who make a conscientious use of the christian doctrines, experience precisely those effects from them, which a divine revelation must produce ; or, in other words, the Bible accomplishes precisely what we have a right to expect from a divine revelation. (6) Secondly ; a conscientious use of the doctrines of Christianity, must excite a feeling of high reverence for the ex panded views and the great piety of the persons(7) who first pub lished these doctrines. And those who, by such an intimate ac quaintance with Christianity, have become the subjects of this feeling of high reverence,(8) will be impressed with the thought, that such doctrines could not have originated from these men, who were nearly all totally void of education, John 7: 15. Acts 4: 13. And this consideration will add to the credibility of their statement, 182 in what sense inspired. [bk. I. that they had the assistance of God in publishing these doctrines. Or at least, it will appear unwarrantable to charge men so far sur passing the best and most learned teachers of their age, with such a degree of enthusiasm or villany,(9) as must be ascribed to them, if their pretensions to a divine influence were either a delusion or an imposture. Illustration 1. The religious man, a more impartial judge of revelation, than the irreligious. John 3: 22, o noidtv trjv a\-q&eiuv — iv fitto iotiv tlgyaapt'va (ta tgya avtov) " He who endeavours to live uprightly and conscientious ly, will have a regard to God in all his conduct, will strive to do the will of God, and to promote the divine glory ; in short, he will en deavour to conduct himself in a religious manner." Iloitiv, (exer- cere, colere, niU3> ,) is used to denote the acting out or manifesting of an attribute or quality of the mind, in other passages also ; as is proved in the Dissert, de sensu vocis Sixaiog, Note 36 ; see Luke 1: 72, 5] . Gen. 24: 12. 'AXri&tta signifies integrity, uprightness ; see 1 Cor. 13: 6, where it stands opposed to dStxla ; and also Prov. 28: 6. ' Epyd&o&ai zd i'pya iv {rid} may signify 1) to have a regard tp God in what we do ; see iv in Matt. 23: 30. Luke 16: lO, 12. 2 Cor. 8-.J.8. 2) to do things for God's sake ; Matt. 6: 7. 12: 5, dv toj Itgd} for the sake of the temple ; see Dissert. I. in librorum N. Test, aliquot loca, p. 34. (Ev &tca is sometimes used for the simple dative -d-to) ; as in 2 Cor. 5: 11, iv za7g avvtiS^atatv which words correspond to the simple dative &td>, and in 8: 1. iv za7g txxXrjaiaig, instead of ixxXrjaiaig ; and in Acts 4: 12, StSopivov iv dv&gwnoig, for dv&gconoig. In such cases, the dative has these two significations : in reference to, as 1 Cor. 1 4: 20, zrj ataxia. — 2 Cor. 11: 6, zd) Xoyop, zrj yvwcti. — Rom. 6: 20, Sixatoavvi], — 1 Cor. 9: 21. and on account of; as in Rom. 14: 6, xvgtto. — 1 Cor. 9: 22, zo7g nam.) 3) agreeably to the will of God ; see Kypke on Rom. 14: 7. and 4) to the glory of God ; 2 Cor. 5: 13. The same signification sometimes belongs to the preposition eig, as Kypke (on Luke 12: 21) has shown, from the phrase tig -&tov. III. 2. The reader may consult, on this subject, the Disserta tion on the Object of the death of Jesus, attached to the (author's) Commentary on the Hebrews, p. 684 etc. III. 3. The nature of the extraordinary agency of God, in the publication of the Old and New Testaments. It is to a conviction of the extraordinary agency of God in the § 16.] in what sense inspired. 183 promulgation of Christianity, that Jesus refers, when he asserts (John 7: 17), that those who strive to perform the will of God, shall know, that he did not derive his doctrines from himself (*§ iavtov) ; and that they are not so much his doctrines as God's (v. 16, comp. <§, 6) ; that is, that they are in the strictest sense divine. Those who infer the divinity of the doctrines of Jesus, solely from their accordance with the dictates of reason ; and regard them as of divine origin, in no other sense than that in which all truth is of God ; not only make a false appeal to the declarations of Jesus, who asserted the divinity of his doctrines in quite a different sense (John 7 : 17) ; but they also entirely change the point in question. For when, in the discussions of doctrinal theology, we examine the di vine origin and authority of the doctrines of Christ, we are not in quiring concerning the truth of the particular doctrines which can be comprehended and proved by human reason ; but we are inquiring concerning a special aid and influence of God, which it is contend ed that Jesus possessed above all other teachers ; an influence, of such a nature as to form a distinct ground of credibility, independent of the visible truth of the doctrines themselves. The question is not, shall we believe the doctrines of Jesus, under the same condi tions that we believe the declarations of any other teacher, namely, provided our reason discovers them to be true ; but the question is, shall we believe the instructions of Jesus, under circumstances in which we would not credit any other teacher, who was not under the special influence of God ; that is, when we cannot be convinced of the truth of the doctrines from visible marks of truth upon them, independently of the authority of the teacher.1 It is useless to speak of a Revelation, if we attribute to Jesus no other inspiration, than what the naturalist will concede to him, and which may just as well be attributed to the Koran, and to every other pretended reve lation ; nay, to all teachers of religion ; that is, if we receive only those doctrines whose truth is manifest to the eye of reason ; and call them divine, only because all truth is derived from God the au thor of our reason. It is not a mere mediate revelation, but an im mediate and supernatural one, which is here the subject of inquiry ; and the existence of such a revelation must be either asserted, or un conditionally denied. For, to retain the name of Revelation, and yet to believe only in such a mediate revelation as the naturalist will admit, is nothing else than a covert denial of all real revelation. The question is not, whether the doctrines of Christianity can be comprehended and proved by reason ; but, whether the origin of Christianity is divine, in such a sense, that the truth of the christian doctrines can be inferred from the divinity of their origin, no matter 1 See Observations on Kant's religious Philosophy, Note 339. 184 DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. [BK. I. whether they can be comprehended by reason or not.1 For the doc trines of Christianity might be true, and yet not be a divine revelation ; and on the other hand, they may be divinely revealed, and yet reason not be able to perceive their truth from their intrinsic nature.2 III. 4. The basis on which the internal evidence rests. On this subject, the reader may consult Koppen. It rests on the following principle : " these doctrines, which are of so salutary a nature, so well calculated to promote the health and tranquillity of the soul, to produce a joyful hope, and to urge us on in the path of virtue, and whose influence can be learned only by experience, — these doctrines cannot be derived from any other being than God ; for he alone is fully acquainted with the manifold wants arid diseases and necessities of the soul of man, and he alone possesses sufficient wisdom and power to discover and to put into operation remedies for them the most efficient and salutary." III. 5. Personal experience. As we recur to the miracles of Jesus and his apostles, to establish the truth of their testimony concerning the divinity of their mission .and doctrines (<§> 8, 10, 36;) so also each individual can recur to his own personal experience in .order to convince himself of the credi bility of this testimony. This conviction of the divinity of Christian ity, which is the result of a proper use of the christian doctrines accornpariied by the influence of the Holy Spirit, is commonly ter med the testimony of the Holy Spirit.3 But we cannot, as yet, presuppose the cooperation of God during the conscientious use of the christian doctrines ; for we are discussing the question of the divinity of those Scriptures, from which the doctrine of the aid of the Holy Spirit must first be proved. (<§> 115.) III. 6. The influence of Christianity is such as might be expected from a divine revelation. The fact, that the christian doctrines*%xert just such an influence as might be expected from doctrines having a divine origin, may at least serve to remove doubts as to the credibility of the testimony of Jesus and his apostles concerning the divinity of their doctrines ; it is a negative proof in favour of this testimony. Brenner, in his Historico-philosophical view of Revelation as an introduction to 1 Kant's Religion innerhalb den Grantzen der blossen Veruunft, S. 217. 2 See Plank's Introduction to the theological sciences. 3 Morus Epitom. Theol. Christ, p. 40, 2d ed. § 16.] PROOF from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. 185 theology, has laid too much stress upon this evidence. Notwith standing this experience, we may find many difficulties in some of the christian doctrines : and yet he who has given them a careful and conscientious examination, has learned by experience, that many difficulties, which at first looked formidable, disappeared on a closer investigation. And hence he may justly infer, that those points which have hitherto baffled the most profound investigation, are not on that account to be regarded as involved in contradiction or error. And this modesty of judgment will increase, in proportion as a conscientious practical regard to the doctrines arid precepts of Christianity awakens in the breast a stronger and more lively feeling of their excellence ; and it will of itself deter from that temerity, which would forthwith reject the evidence of the truth of those doctrines whose salutary influence has been learned by experience, on account of some remaining difficulties attending them. A con viction of the salutary influence of the christian doctrines, will make us regard an impartial examination of them and of the evidence of their truth, as a most important aud desirable thing ; and, conse quently, will not suffer us either to let the truth of Christianity re main unexamined, or to make unjust demands, or conduct to our investigation with a partial hand. III. 7. The reverence for the inspired ivriters . Which arises from a perusal of their works, is illustrated by what is said in $ 7, where the character of Jesus is adduced as proof of the divinity of his doctrines. III. 8. The extent of the evidence of personal experience. From the nature of this evidence, it necessarily results, that it ean have no influence on any, except such as have themselves ex perienced the salutary influence and power of Christianity. III. 9. The reader may consult 1 Thess. 2: 3. 1 Cor. 15: 15. and § 8. Illust. 7, as well as Bogue's Essay on the divine authority of the New Testament, translated from the English by Blumhardt, Basel, 1808, ch. 1, 2, where the internal evidence for the divine authority of the New Testament is discussed. 24 BOOK II. OF GOD. PART L I»EA OF GOD, AND THE TRUTH OF THIS IDEA. SECTION XVII. Even conscience teaches that there is a God. Man is led by the spontaneous impulse of his nature, to prescribe to himself certain rules for the regulation of his conduct. And such is the influence of these prescriptions on him,(l) that when he ex amines^) his actions by them, although he is far removed from all visibles judges of his conduct,(3) he excuses or accuses himself, just as if he were arraigned before some visible tribunal (Rom. 2: 14 — 16. 1:32). (4) The very constitution of the human soul, there fore, leads us to fear an invisible Judge, who punishes wickedness with misery, and dispenses happiness as the reward of virtue. (5) Illustration 1. The influence of the unwritten law. See Rom. 2: 14. In the preceding (13th) verse, the apostle says, that although the Jews have a written law of God, they are not on that account pleasing to God ; on the contrary, as soon as they transgress the law, the law itself condemns them : -boot iv ipj vopop iipagtov, Sid vopov xgi&^oovzai(l2). He now, in the four teenth verse, proves the first proposition advanced in the twelfth: namely, "that those who have not a written law, may sin and merit 188 OF con. [bk. II. punishment," doa dvopwg ripagtov, avopmg xal anoXavvzat. (For the yag in v. 13, indicates, that verse 13 contains the proof of what was asserted in the latter member of the I2th verse ; but the yag va verse 14, indicates, that verse 14th contains the proof of the first member of the 12th verse. Or, verses 13 and 14 taken in connex ion, contain the proof of the whole of verse 12 ; and this proof is indicated by the ydg twice repeated. Ai autem might have been used for one ydg ; as appears from a comparison of Matt. 6: 32 with Luke 12: 30. Such a duplicate ydg occurs also in Phil. 3: 18, 20, where both refer to the exhortation in v. 17). l The heathen, (says the apostle,, v. 14), although they have not a written law of God, are a law of God unto themselves ; or they have a kind of divine law within them ; for, without a written law, they are led by na ture alone to do what a law commonly effects ; namely, to give themselves commands and prohibitions, and to dispense to them selves rewards and punishments: comp. Rom. 1: 32 and Gal. 3: 12. That, in the. case of the heathen, nature actually supplies the place of a written law (zd zov vopov noiii); or, that the command ing influence and authority which belong to an outward law (zd i'g- yov tov vdpov), do manifest themselves in the heathen, naturally and spontaneously; is proved from the fact, that the conscience of the heathen has precisely the effect of an external law (avppagzvpov- eijg2 auzwv tijg avvtid^aitog sc. avrqi,s i. e. ztp i'ygat tov vopov),* be cause their own feelings either accuse or excuse them. It appears, therefore, that the apostle proves, from what is called the animad versions of conscience, that there is a law in man, which supplies the place of an outward law, by prescribing to him his duty and threatening him with punishment if he transgress. I Vide Dissert, on the Epistle to the Philipp. ch. 3: 20, note n. (Opuscul. Acad. Vol. I p. 349 etc.) on the Ep. to the Coloss. 3: 25, note 61. (Opusc. Acad. Vol. II. p. 202.) This idiom deserves notice, because in other languages the conjunction/or (enim, ydg) commonly refers only to the proposition immediate ly preceding, and not to one more remote j and hence, when ydg occurs twice successively, the latter is npt to be viewed as referring to the former, or as con taining the p-roof of a proof; whereas the latter ydg indicates a proof of the same proposition to which the preceding ydg referred. 2 2vp/j,azvgeit—\.o coincide or harmonize with (to confirm) any thing; Rom. 8: 16. Heb. 10: 15. 3 The ellipsis of the pronoun aizvy, is illustrated by examples from other texts-, in the " Dissertation on some passages of the lesser epistles of Paul," 1792, Note 41. 4 Xat peza!-v etc. this xaiis what is termed tlie xal i&iyTjztx&v ^ which indi cates that the sentence following it is only an explanation of the preceding, and which maybe translated by gamely, or, nempe, sivo. This is its meaning in Mark 15: 1, in the phrase xai olov ro ovviSgiov the high priests, and elders, and scribes, that is (or in a word), the whole sanhedrim. John 8: 32, " then ye shall he my genuine disciples, that is {xal), ye shall learn to know the truth in such. a manner that the truth shall' make you free."- § 17.] THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 189 III. 2. Origin qf religion, and etymology of the word. As it is so natural for man to review the train of his past actions it is not incredible that the word religion is derived from relegere ; and that its primary reference is to that activity of conscience which leads us to review the past actions of our lives. By those feelings which our consciences excite while we are reviewing our past con duct, we are naturally led on to the idea of a higher power on which we are dependent ; and thus we come to acknowledge and rever ence a God. In conscience, therefore, we must look for the origin of religion. This derivation of religion, accords with the well known explanation of its origin, as being developed by fear and terror. Cicero says :x Qui omnia, quae ad cultum pertinerent, diligenter retractarent, et tanquam retegerent, sunt dicti religiosi.3 And Gel- lius3 quotes from a very ancient. poem, the following verse : " Rele- gentem esse oportet, religiosum nefas." Religiosus is appellabatur, qui nirnia et superstitiosa religione sese alligaverat.4 Terentius Varro,5 on the contrary, and after him Lactantius,6 derive the word religio from religare, or, as the latter expressed himself, " a vinculo pietatis, quo Deo obstricti et religati sumus," (i. e. from the bond of piety, by which we are bound and obligated to God). And Clodius, in his " Sketch of a system pf universal religious doctrine," traces its origin to relinquere (to forsake).7 III. 3. This idea seems to be expressed by the words ptza'£v dXXrjXwv, Rom. 2: 15. The meaning of the apostle seems to be, " The thoughts and feelings of the heathen either excuse or accuse them (the heathen),8 on account of their secret acts (r« xgvnzd tdiv dv&gmnoiv, v. 16) with one another only, i. e. without any one from without to awaken those feelings." Comp. Matt. 18: 15. Koppe, in his " Commentary on the epistle to the Romans," p. 54, explains the passage thus : " Their own principles shall hereafter accuse or excuse them, etc." He takes dXXt}Xmv as synonyrnous with iavzcov, and peza£v with i'ntiza postea. But to make dXXrjXwv equivalent to iavzcov in the signification own, is unauthorized ; not- 1 De Nat. Deor. II. 28. 2 [i. e. Those who carefully reviewed, and as it were reconsidered the things which related (o worship, were called religious. S.] 3 Noct. Attic. IV. 9. 4 [i. e. " To be in the habit of reviewing our conduct, is proper ; but it is criminalto be religious;" for those were termed religious who burdened them selves by an excessive and superstitious religion. S] 5 De lingua Latina, Lib. V. p. 68. ed. Bip. 6 Instit. Div. IV. 28. ? p. n. Note 6, Leipsic 1808. 8 Here alzove must again be supplied; comp. Illust. 1. note 3. 190 OF GOD [BE. II. withstanding, iavtdiv may be substituted for dXXyXcov, as in Eph. 4: 32, (xagt&ptvot iavto7g), where iavto7g is put for dXXyXotg. The word pttaiv has indeed the signification afterwards, which Koppe here adopts, (as in Acts 13: 42);1 yet, in this place, the genitive dXXi'jXmv proves, that ptta£v is a preposition and not an adverb, and consequently that it cannot be connected with the subsequent words iv yptga, as Koppe proposes.2 III. 4. The agency of conscience proves a future judgment. Those who are acquainted with the doctrine of the Gospel, that God had determined to bring all the secret acts of men before a judgment, which is to be held by Jesus Christ ; can discover the cause of that wonderful inward agency. It is because of this future time (tv vptga propter tempus)3 of a judgment to come, because we must render an account to God for all our thoughts and actions; that God has implanted that activity in our consciences which is described iu the 15th verse. If a sense of dependance on an invis ible judge were not implanted in us, we should be lulled to rest, by the reflection that we have taken the course we chose, arid that no one is able to punish us for it. Of our own inability to reward vir tue and punish vice, we are convinced, by our experience of our own weakness and inability to direct external circumstances accord ing to our will. III. 5. This moral dictation is founded on the original structure of the human soul. See Kant's work entitled, Kritik der Urtheilskraft.4 The passage which more especially refers to this subject, is this : " Suppose the case of a person, at a time when his moral sensibility is most acute and active ; suppose, that in this state of mind he finds himself un der the pressure of duties which he can perform only by some vol untary sacrifice, and that this sacrifice he resolves to make ; he now feels within him a conviction, that he has done something which was commanded to be done, that he has yielded obedience to a sove reign ruler. Or if he has unintentionally violated his duty, although he does not thereby become responsible to a human tribunal, the 1 Kypke, in his note on Acts 13: 42. has proved this signification of uszal-v, by passages from Plutarch ; and Krebs, by quotations from Josephus. Comp. Schleusner's Lex. on this word, No. 3. 2 Another explanation of the words pera!-v akXr/Xoiv, is : inter see, vicissim, alternis vicibus (Grotius, Wetstein) ; Schott (vers. Lat. N. T.) ; sententiae (de pravo et honesto) consuetudine mutua utentes. 3 On the import of iv, compare § 16. Illust 1. 4 § 86. Note, p. 416 etc. § 18.] THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 191 language of his strong self-condemnation will resemble the language of a judge, to whom he must render an account for that violation of duty." SECTION XVIII. Physico-theological and moral proof of the existence of God. — The combination of both. Although we cannot behold God with our bodily eyes, yet to the eye of our mind he is by no means invisible, ta ddpata avzov voov- ptva na-d-ogatai the invisible things of him, being understood, are seen ; for since the creation of the world, the invisible Creator stands revealed by his works, Rom. 1 : 20. And the farther we advance in our investigations of nature, the more numerous and striking are the marks(l) which we discover, of system . and of adaptation to an end. (2) And there is in fact no excuse, in the sight of him who has revealed himself to us in the works of nature, for the stubborn scepticism which can doubt whether this system and adaptation were produced by the agency of a rational and intel ligent Being", or were the result of a blind mechanism, Rom. 1 : 20, eig to etvai avtovg dvanoXoyrrzovg, comp. 2 Thess. 1 : 8. For, al though we cannot fully demonstrate the impossibility of a blind me chanism ;(3) still we, who are rational beings, and whose superiority over other creatures consists chiefly in our reason and our ability to adapt our conduct to particular ends, cannot possibly admit, that the cause which produced the world and gave us our reason, should have no semblance of rationality, but should be an irrational some thing. Indeed such an admission would be utterly inconsistent with our conscious feeling of the dignity of our own natures, Acts 17 : 28 etc. Ps. 94 : 8 — 10. Moreover, to admit the existence of a rational Author of the world of which we are a part, is the more consistent with our nature, because we feel within us a natural dread of an invisible Judge of our actions and motives ; whom we must of course believe to be a rational Being, unless we are willing, in defi ance of our own consciences, to pronounce that inward feeling which 192 OF GOD [BK. II. leads us to dread such a Judge, a delusion. Now, as this feeling of accountability unavoidably leads us to the idea that we are depend ant on a rational Being, it would manifestly be in itself inexcusable, and would militate against our own inward feelings, if we should give way to that obstinate unbelief, which, instead of acknowledg ing a rational Being as the great first cause of all things, looks upon the wise and intelligent constitution of nature as the result of a mere blind mechanism. Reason in her attempts to account for the sys tem and adaptation of nature, is compelled to admit the existence of a rational Author of creation ;(4) and conscience compels us to be lieve, that we who are a part of this creation are dependant on a superhuman rational Being. How then can we, notwithstanding all these proofs, and in violation of the constitution of our own minds,(5) resist the belief of a rational Author, of creation, to whom alone we can refer(6) those feelings of gratitude which arise within us while enjoying the bounties of nature, and from whom alone we can ex pect those righteous retributions for our good and bad actions which our consciences lead us so confidently to anticipate ? (7) Heb. 11:6. Rom. 2 : 6 — 10. It is also evident, that the Judge and Lord of our moral nature, is one and the same Being with the Lord of the rest of creation ; (which, as is evinced by its peculiar and wise adapt ation to such an end, must have been formed for the use of rational and moral beings) ;(8) for otherwise we must suppose it possible, that the arrangements, in the external world, might prevent our mor al Judge (who on this supposition would be distinct from the author of nature") from fulfilling those promises and executing those threat- enings(9) which he has made known to us through the instrumen tality of our consciences. Moreover, while our nature strongly leads us to desire happiness, our reason as strongly enjoins obedience to law, and teaches, that obedience and happiness are most intimate ly connected (<§> 17) ; but it is impossible to conceive, how obedience can be united with happiness in the performance of duties which re quire self-denial,(10) unless we admit that the whole creation, as well as ourselves, is under the control of a moral Governor.(ll) Therefore, unless we would be at variance with ourselves ;(12) un less we would have the inextinguishable desire of our nature for hap- piness(13), frequently to be at variance (1 Cor. 15: 32) with that § IS.] THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 193 law, whose sanctity and authority we can never deny, except in the blind rage of passion ; we are compelled to admit that supposition, which best accounts for our inward feelings of reverence for a Judge of our thoughts and actions, and for the order and adaptation visible in the material world ; in other words, we must admit the existence of amoral Author and Governor of the universe. (14) And it would indeed be a great departure from wisdom, if we should be so obsti nate in our unbelief as to take refuge in the groundless and absurd hypothesis, " that we are perhaps deceived by our nature and by the objects around us,"(15) thus rejecting the only supposition which accords with our nature, and with the nature of the objects that surround us. Illustration 1. The physico-theological evidence is cumulative. The fact that " the farther we advance in our investigations of na ture the more numerous and striking are the marks which we find of system and adaptation to an end," justifies the expectation, that in those cases where such marks have not yet been observed, some future day will bring them to light. The same fact also forcibly in culcates a modesty and wisdom that will not at once regard as prop er grounds for skepticism those things in nature which seem to be inconsistent with the wisdom of the Author of creation ; but will rather, from the acknowledged perfection of the works of creation, as far as they are known to us infer, that equal excellence belongs to those parts of the creation with which we are not yet well ac quainted. Hence, it is reasonable! as Kant admits, to ascribe every possible perfection to the Creator of the universe. III. 2. Physico-theological proof of the divine existence. The reader may consult, on this subject, the works of Kant,1 Re- marus,2 Werenfels,3 and Dahlenberg.4 The, principal features of the physico-theological proof, as they l Kritik der Urtheilskraft, § 63—67. p. 275 etc. 2 Discussion of the principal truths of natural religion, 6th edit. 3 Opuscula, Pt. II. p. 255 etc. 4 Philosophy of religion and nature, 3 vols. 1797 — 98. And the latest treatise on the physico-theological proof, in the work entitled, " Pyrrho and Philalethes, or Does skepticism lead to truth and satisfactory decision ?" Sultzbach, 1812. 25 194 OF GOD. [BK. II. are briefly presented by Kant, in his " Critique on pure reason,"1 are the following : 1. We find every where in pur world, manifest marks of adapta tion to specific ends, works executed with great wisdom, and form ing a whole of indescribable multiplicity as well as of unbounded extent. 2. This systematic adaptation of things is not essential to their nature ; that is, if there were no rational agent who selected, adapted, and arranged them, so many different things could not, by their own inherent power, have brought themselves to harmonize for the ac complishment of specific ends, as they now do. 3. There exists, therefore, one exalted and wise cause (or more than one,) which produced this world, not as an omnipotent nature acting blindly by its generative fecundity, but by intelligence and volition. 4. The unity of this cause may be inferred from the unity of adaptation in the multifarious parts of the world, as in the parts of a well planned edifice. As far as our observation extends, this infer ence of the unity of the cause, amounts to certainty ; and beyond the sphere of our observation, the same inference is derived with probability, from every principle of analogy. III. 3. Whether a blind mechanism can be proved impossible. Kant says : We must first prove the impossibility of a unity of object in matter, derived from the mere mechanical powers of its nature, before we can be justified in ascribing that unity explicitly to something beyond nature as its cause. But we can arrive at nothing more than this : that according to our limited powers of conception, and our ability to judge, we can by no means expect to find in mere matter, a principle or cause producing such adaptations to specific ends ; and that to us, there remains no other method of accounting for such a formation of the material world, than to refer it to one Supreme Intelligence, the cause of all things." III. 4. The adaptation in nature can be explained only on the supposition of an intelligent cause. Compare Kritik der Urtheilskraft, in the passage above quoted. The following passages also relate to this subject ; " The glorious order, beauty, and foresight which shine forth from every part of nature, must, alone, have produced the belief of a great and wise Author of creation, as far as such belief rests on proofs from reason." 1 p. 653 etc. 2d ed. § 18.] THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 195 (Critique on pure Reason, 2d ed. preface, p. xxxni.) And in the same work, p. 651 etc. " This proof (the physico-theological) deserves at all times to be mentioned with respect ; it is the oldest, clearest, and best adapted to the common sense of mankind. It prompts to the" study of nature, which is its source, and which con stantly . gives new force to it. The attempt would therefore be no less discouraging than fruitless, to endeavour to detract from the worth of this proof. Reason is constantly receiving new strength and confidence from such powerful and, under her hand, ever growing proofs; and it is not in the power of any doubts of subtile and abstruse speculation, to depress her so far, that she should not, in every instance, by a glance at the wonders of nature .and the majesty of the universe, tear herself loose froth perplexing indecision, as from the phantoms of a dream, and rise in her contemplations from greatness to greatness, from that which is mediate or condition al, to the immediate and uncaused Author of all things." ' And the passage in the work ; " Was heist, sich im Denken orientiren ?" (Berlin Monthly Publication, 1786:) "Unless we admit thq exist ence of a rational Creator, we can assign no reason, or at least no intelligible one, for the system and adaptation which we every where find in so wonderful a degree, without falling into direct inconsisten cies. And although we are not able to prove the impossibility, that such an adaptation should exist without a rational first cause ; still the assumption of such impossibility, is justified by the fact, that reason finds herself necessitated to presuppose something which is intelligible to her, in order to explain these phenomena ; as nothing else can relieve her from her embarrassment." Comp. Garve's Dissert, above quoted, Pt. 7. III. 5. " Such is the peculiar constitution of our minds, that we are not able to understand or form any conception of the adaptation in the objects in nature, in any other manner, than by viewing them and the world in general as the production of a rational cause, that is, of a God."1 III. 6. " In the moments when the sensibility of our moral feelings is most acute and active, when we are surrounded by nature arrayed in all her beauties, and feel the calm serene enjoyment of our existence ; we feel within us a conviction that we ought to be grateful to some being for these blessings."2 III. 7. We must either admit, that the constitution of universal nature is in harmony with the promises and threatenings of our consciences ; or we are compelled, in direct opposition to the voice l Kant, Kritik der Urtheilskraft, § 75. p. 332 etc. 2 Kant sup. cit. § 86, p. 86. note, p. 411. cornp. § 91, p. 472. 196 OF GOD. [BK. II. of conscience, to pronounce that fear and that hope which are so deeply rooted in our moral nature, either fallacious or uncertain.1 — On the other hand it is evident, that if the ultimate and chief object of the adaptation in nature be not a moral one, that adaptation can have no object at all.2 It is therefore a dictate of our nature, that we and the other objects in the world are subject to a moral Gov ernor. And the man who should refuse to admit the existence of a moral rational Ruler of the world, because he is not able to see him with his bodily eyes, and cannot demonstrate his existence by absolute irresistible proofs, but must admit it by an act of faith ; would, to say the least, act in contradiction to his own moral nature. His conduct would be just as inexcusable, as that of the man who is suffering the consequences of some misfortune, wliich he might have foreseen and by the use of proper measures have obviated, but who, although the evidence of his danger amounted to the strongest probability, would not believe it, because it did not amount to abso lute certainty. III. 8. See Gen. 1: 26 etc. Matt. 6: 26, 30. 10: 30 etc. 1 Cor. 3: 21 etc. Rom. S: 19, 21. These passages teach, that the world was created for the sake of rational beings. III. 9. Kritik der Urtheilskraft, <§, 91. p, 457. 111. 10. See Matt. 5: 10 etc. 1 Pet. 3: 14. 2 Thess. 1: 4. 1 Cor. 15: 30, 31. All these passages refer to such duties as are con nected with great sacrifices. III. 11. See Matt. 5: 10 etc. 2 Thess. 1: 5—7. The retri bution referred to in these two passages, presupposes a moral Gover- ner of the world. III. 12. See Flatt's " Contributions on the subject of Christian doctrines and practice," No. II. in the investigation of the question : " What is the relation in which the hope of that future happiness promised by the Gospel of Jesus, stands to virtue, p. 99 etc. An- notationes ad Kantii philosphicam de religione doctrinam, § X, XI. Magazine for Christian doctrine etc. Pt. 7.1 p. 93. and Pt. 12. 158. etc. III. 13. " To be happy, is necessarily the strong desire of every rational finite being ; and must therefore inevitably have an influence on the determination of his will." Kant's Critique on practical reason, p. 45. Comp. Brastberger, on " The ground of 1 Kant sup. cit. § 87. p. 414 etc. 429, 433. 2 Crit. etc. § 86. p. 405 etc. § 18.] THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 197 our faith in God and of our knowledge of him," Stuttgard, 1802. Supplement I. "Uberden Streit des Purismus und Eudaemonis- mus in der Sittenlehre," p. 110 etc. III. 14. We are compelled to admit the existence of a moral Governor of the world. See Critique on all Revelation, § 2. (2d ed. § 3.) and Remarks on Kant's philosophy of religion. Compare Kern, " The doctrine of God according to the princi ples of the critical philosophy," Ulm, 1796, $ 71 etc. Staudlin's " Contributions to the philosophy and history of religion and the science of morals," Vol. III. No. 2. " On the moral ground of the critical philosophy," also Brastberger's " Brief and plain view of the evidence of the existence of God, derived from the concomitance of virtue and happiness," in his treatise " On the ground of our be lief in God," p. 19 — 48. To this argument for the existence of God from the connexion between virtue and happiness, a notion has of late been opposed, similar to the ancient Stoical idea, that virtue is its own reward. Eckermann, in the " Theologische Beitrage,"1 has attempted to show, that virtue always brings along with her a sufficient degree of contentment. And Abicht, in the " Doctrine of rewards and punishments,"2 has erected a theory of rewards and punishments, on the principle, that the reward of virtue is nothing else than the pleasure which is connected with the con sciousness of our self-acquired dignity ; and that punishment is no thing else than the unpleasant feelings resulting from the conscious ness of our self-occasioned degradation. Compare what is said in refutation of this theory, and of the inference which follows from it ; namely, that this idea of the reward and punishment of virtue and vice, does not necessarily lead to the belief of a moral Governor of the world ; in the " Examination of a new theory of rewards and punishments," in Flatt's Magazine, Pt. 2, No. VI. Another and somewhat different aspect, which has lately been given to this moral evidence of the existence of God, is this: If we would expect to realize that happiness which our conscience (or our reason) leads us to anticipate, then we must believe in a moral Gov ernor of the world, that is, in a God. Schmidt (in his " Elements of christian doctrine," Giesen, 1800) grounds the belief of the exist ence of God (<§> 39 etc.) and of religion in general (§ 1 etc.), on the requisitions of conscience, or the moral principle. "In that course of moral conduct which conscience demands, obstacles present them selves which our power is unable to surmount. If then they are to 1 Vol. III. Pt. I. p. 82 etc. 2 Erlangen, 1796, Pt. I. 198 of god. [bk. ir. be surmounted, we must admit the existence of a power, which so arranges things that these impediments shall infallibly be overcome ; that is, we must admit the existence of a moral Author and Gov ernor of the world, a God. Fichte does indeed, set out with the same principle : that for the success of virtue, we must look to an active, rational being ; but in his reasoning, he admits only a moral constitution • of the world, without referring this constitution to a moral Governor. Forberg builds his sceptical atheism on the principle, " that reli gion, as far as attention to it can be a duty, consists merely in con ducting ourselves as if there were a moral government and a moral Governor of the world ; but, that there really is a moral constitu tion of the world and a God, we may believe or not, as we please ; for it cannot be ascertained." Compare what is said against this theory, in the Letters on Kant's, Forberg's,*and Fichte's theory of Religion, above referred to ; and the Review of Forberg's Apolo gy, in " Tubingen Gelehrten Anz." 1800, Pt. 42—44. III. 15. See Brastberger's " Investigation of Kant's Critique on pure reason," — and " On Kant's Critique upon practical reason," especially p. 212 — 219. " On the ground of our belief in God and of our knowledge of him," p. 84 — 99, where the subjective ne cessity of believing in the existence of a God, is fully discussed, and derived from several proofs founded in our nature. (On this subjec tive necessity, Vogel rests his " Theoretico-practical proof of the objective existence of God," in Gabler's " New Theol. Journal," Vol. 15. p. 19 etc. 109 etc.) In the last mentioned work of Brast berger, (p. 92 — 94, note), the result of his investigation is given, in the following passage : " We find ourselves and every thing around us, to the utmost extent of our observation, standing in such numerous relations and references to each other, and in such a co herent systematic connexion, that the idea of an intentional adapta tion to rational purposes, according to universal laws, or of a physi cal and moral world, is irresistibly forced upon us. But the exist ence of such an order of things, we can rationally ascribe only to an intelligence which superintends and arranges all things and events, to a rational mind which selects and acts with an intelligent refer ence to ends. Consequently, we must suppose the primary and absolute cause of all things to be a rational and moral Intelligence. —Although this reasoning proves only the necessity of our conceiv ing the idea of a God, and of our supposing that he really exists, (for no proof can possibly establish the necessity of the existence of a thing itself, but only the necessity of our believing and conceiving it to exist), still it is perfectly satisfactory. It perfectly justifies us in entertaining a rational belief in a God ; for we are brought to this <§> 18.] THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 199 alternative-: we must either believe there is a God; or we must be lieve, that every thing of which we have any knowledge, even we ourselves and all our thoughts, conceptions, and existence, are emp ty, incomprehensible legerdemain ; in truth, a nothing floating about in the bottomless profundity of nothing" ! ! Vogel, in his Theoretico-practical evidence of the objective exist ence of God,1 advances this idea : " Man is compelled by a sub jective, theoretical and practical necessity of his reason, to assert the objective existence of God ; and of this objective existence of God, he is as certain as of the existence of those objects which he perceives through his senses ; for he has the same evidence for the existence of both ; namely, that his reason is compelled [by a sub jective necessity] to believe it; and this must ever be his only cri terion of truth." Suskind, in his dissertation " On the evidence of the existence pf God, as a self-existent Intelligence, distinct from the world," gives a similar derivation of our belief in the existence of God.2 The general tenour of his reasoning is as follows : " To take it for gran ted, that we are not deceived by our reason ; is indeed an assump tion, the truth of which we cannot prove ; but, at the same time, it is one which, as rational beings, we must necessarily make. The plain dictates of reason, that is, those dictates which originate from the essential nature and activity of our reason, are therefore, of in disputable certainty and truth. And their validity extends, not on ly to the appearances of things, but also to the things themselves to which these appearances refer ; nay, it, extends even to things which are not objects of sense ; so far as the general and essential principles of reason oblige us to form judgments concerning them or to bring them under our consideration. To attempt to prove, that the laws of our reason are not applicable to things themselves, would be an attempt to prove, that we are deluded by reason : the attempt itself, therefore, would involve a self-contradiction ; for the proof would have to be conducted by the aid of reason, and would necessarily presuppose that very validity of reason, which it was in tended to overthrow. To these pure dictates of reason, belong those of a theoretical, as well as those of a practical nature. The former include the principles of unity and of contradiction, the prin ciples of causality and adaptation, viz. that the chain of depedencies must have an absolute first cause, and the principle, that every thing which exists is either substance or accident. The latter include l In Gabler's New Theolog. Journal for 1799, Vol. I. p. 19—34, 109—154, and in that for 1800, Vol. II. p. 17—54. 2 Magazine fur Christliche Dogmatik und Moral, Stuck 12. § XXIII— XXXVIII, and § XLVII-LVIII. 200 OF GOD. [BK. H. those principles in all men, according to which reason determines what is unconditionally good. It would be inconsistent, to acknowl edge the validity of the latter only, while we doubt or deny that of the former ; for it is the same reason, which in the one case determines what is good, and in the other, what is true. It is therefore impos sible to have a consistent (i. e. a rational) belief of the validity of the practical principles of reason, without also admitting the validi ty of its theoretical dictates. But it is on these theoretical and practical principles of reason, which are also decisive for the actual existence of ourselves and of the visible world, that the rational be lief of a God, as a self-existent Intelligence, distinct from the world, as an intelligent and holy Author of the world, is founded. Note. On a late pantheistic hypothesis concerning God. The doctrine concerning God, taught in the System of absolute identity, is inculcated and explained by its author, in the following works : Schelling's " Bruno ; or On the divine and natural first principle of things," " Magazine for Speculative Physics," " New Magazine for Speculative Physics," " Lectures on the course of Academic Study," " Philosophy and Religion," " A view of the true relation of the philosophy of nature to the improved doctrines of Fichte," " Philosophical investigations relative to the freedom of man, and the subjects connected with it," " Denkmal der Schrift von den gottlichen Dingen des Herrn Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi." Agreeably to the representation of the last two works, God is that being which evolved itself out of a principle or ground of ex istence found in God himself, (out of a nature in God), or out of a principle, which is indeed not' intelligent, not moral, not perfect, in itself, but which nevertheless contains in embryo and locked up within itself, intelligence, morality, and perfection (which, however, are only potentia, only implicite intelligent and moral and perfect) ; by means qf a series of creations (self-manifestations of God), by which nature was exalted and spiritualized, until it evolved itself in to the most perfect personal Being (Deus explicitus, Deus sensu eminenti) : or, God is the absolute identity of the ideal and the real, evolving itself from the original absolute confusion of the ideal and real. This absolute confusion, the original ground itself, is neither ideal nor real ; yet divides itself into two equally eternal principles of the ideal and real ; and out of the combination of both (by means of the subordination of the real to the ideal, by the transmutation of the real into the ideal), arises absolute identity, that is, God. The principal objections to this doctrine concerning God, are the following : 1. This theory does not account for the existence of God. 2. This theory does not render the existence of God, in the least de- § 18.] THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 201 gree, more comprehensible or intelligible than the common one, which supposes him to have existed as an all-perfect Being, from the beginning. 3. This hypothesis forces our idea of God, (which is absolute), into forms ; and subjects it to laws which can apply only to finite things, to the visible world. God is considered to be of the same essence as the material world. 4. It really subjects God, during his self-manifestations, to the power of a supreme fate, of an original supreme and self-existent law. 5. The assertion, that God could not, from the beginning, exist as an all-perfect Be ing, cannot be proved. It is founded on (a) The general principle, that the less perfect cannot proceed from the more perfect ; but vice versa, the latter from the former (non fumus ex fulgore, sed fulgor ex fumo). But even if this were a universal law of nature, it could not on that account be applied to the relation of the Creator to the world, (b) Upon this principle : " Had God, from the beginning, actually been possessed of the highest degree of perfection, as he could not attain a higher degree of excellence, he would have had no reason for creating and bring ing into existence such a multitude of objects, by which he could only have been rendered less perfect." But agreeably to the asser tion of the author of this system himself, love is the ground or rea son of the creation of the world ; and to create it, was condescen sion in God. This accords equally well with the common opinion, that God existed from the beginning as the all-perfect Being. Nor could he, by creating the world, suffer any diminution of his perfec tion ; provided we consider creation as an incomprehensible act of the omnipotence of God, and unattended by any communication of his essence to the creatures. On the other hand, the hypothesis, that from a principle which is in itself not moral and not intelligent, God evolves himself into the most perfect Being ; is encumbered with insuperable difficulties and objections. (a) If God has exalted himself into the most perfect Being, only at the end of time ; then neither the creation nor the government of the world is the work of perfect wisdom, goodness, and holiness. (b) This evolution of God would be an evolution from finite into infinite ; and yet finite and infinite are toto genere different. 6. The immanence of all things in God, which is asserted by this hypothesis, destroys the individuality and substantiality of the creatures ; contradicts what we know to be a fact, that distinct sub stances exist together in the world ; and leads to the identification and confoundiug of the creature with the Creator. The idea of an absolute, an independant first cause of the world, is the ultimate conception of our minds ; and in this alone can the eternal unity qf all things be imagined. (In and by must be distinguished with care, 26 202 OF GOD. [bk. II. if we would express our idea of Deity with precision.) 7. This system destroys the freedom of the wjll of man ; for freedom cannot consist with this immanence in God ; 8. And thereby it destroys the distinction between moral good and evil. SECTION XIX. The evidence of divine existence, corroborated by the miracles of Christ. The method above stated, for arriving at a conviction of the ex istence of God, is of such a nature, that it would not be strange, if God should, by other clear and striking proofs, facilitate(l) that ev olution of our finer moral feelings which is presupposed in that method. Such proofs we actually have in the miracles(2) of Jesus and his apostles,(3) the truth and importance of which have already been established, § 5,8, 10 at the end. Those miracles were such effects as human agents could never have produced, by their own intelligence and power ; and therefore necessarily presuppose an invisible cause. And this invisible cause must have been rational ; for not only are we ourselves able to discover(4) certain objects for which they were wrought, but the history of them, and the express declarations of those who performed them, assign to them definite objects.(5) Now, according to the declaration of Jesus and his apostles, that rational Cause, whose superhuman power is proved from the very nature of these miracles,(6) was God, or the Creator and Lord of nature. (For, this is the description of the divine char acter which Jesus and his apostles give, deriving it from the Old Testament, the authority of which they acknowledged, see <§> 20). And we have no reason to look for any other cause of those mira cles, different from that assigned by Jesus and his apostles ; espe cially as the arguments which have been adduced (<§>18) for our be lief in the existence of God, render their declarations credible. God has then, in the miracles of Jesus and his apostles, manifested his agency (Acts 14: 9—11. Comp. v. 15), and corroborated the § 19.] DIVINE EXISTENCE PROVED BY MIRACLES. 203 other proofs of his existence (v. 17). This proof of the divine existence, taken in connexion with that above stated ($ 18), would not be wholly divested of force, even if we were to admit the unau thorized supposition, that the miracles of Christ and his apostles were wrought by some other being. For, on this supposition, we should have to admit, that the other being, who must necessarily have been rational and superhuman, did himself ascribe the mira cles and doctrines of Christ and his apostles (§ 8, 6) to the Creator and Lord of nature. In this case, then, a belief in the existence of God, would be supported, by the testimony of at least one superhu man being, and would no longer be a weakness peculiar to man. Illustration 1. Koppen, in " The Bible a work of divine wisdom," proves, that the revelation which God has given us in nature, by no means renders a supernatural revelation of his invisible greatness and pow er superfluous. III. 2. On this evidence for the existence of God, see Michaelis, " Dogmatik ;" and in Flatt's Beitrage,1 " Remarks on the proof for the existence of God, derived from the Bible, and especially from the doctrines and history of Jesus." On the question, " Are proofs of the objective existence of God necessary, in popular and practical religious instruction," see Bauer's Dissertation in Flatt's Magazine.2 III. 3. The existence of God proved by miracles. We have in this case selected the miracles of Jesus and his apostles, as the ground of evidence, because the truth of the Old Testament miracles is to be proved by the authority of Jesus and his apostles.3 But if we contemplate more attentively, the grounds for belief in the existence of a God, which our own nature contains ; we shall not view as superfluous, the fact stated in the Old Testa ment, that God himself, by his immediate influence, and in various ways, did awaken and cherish and strengthen, not only in the first persons of our race, but also in their descendants, those nobler feel ings, which produce a belief in the existence of God as the supreme rewarder of all good.4 In this manner God actually instructed some individuals, who were to instruct others, in the knowledge of his 1 Num. 1. p. 7 etc. 2 pt. VI. No. V. 3 See § 13. « Heb. 11: 6. 204 OF GOD. [BK- "- character as creator1 of the world, and of the necessity of obedience to him in order to the enjoyment of happiness.2 Examples of this are found in Gen. 2: 17. 3: 8 etc. 4: 6 etc. 6: 3. 15: 1. 17: 1. By their own experience of the fulfilment of his promises and threats, he habituated them to a belief in him.3 Such were the promise made to Abraham of a numerous posterity,4 the promise of the land of Canaan,5 the threatening of a flood and its fulfilment.6 By the public miracles, which God wrought among the Israelites and the people around them, he made it evident, to those who saw and heard those miracles, that there was an invisible Lord of creation,7 who was able to execute the promises and denunciations of their own consciences.8 See the declarations of God relative to such miracles, in Exod. 7: 5. 8: 6, 18. 9: 14. Deut. 4: 32—39. Dan. ch. 2—6. Ex. 9: 16. Josh. 2: 11. 4: 23, 24. Facts, therefore, were the means by which that belief in the existence of God, as the Creator and Ruler of the world, to which even our own nature urges us, was anciently confirmed. And although these miracles were not witnessed by all men, nor indeed could be, without im pairing their force, still the knowledge of them was transmitted by tradition to succeeding generations,9 and in various ways was also spread among foreign nations.10 (" For," says Kbppen, if such extraordinary acts were performed amongst all nations, and at all times, or if they were only frequently repeated ; it would become matter of doubt, whether they were not the natural effects of some hidden powers of nature. They would become common and fa miliar, like the ordinary phenomena of nature, and thus would make little impression ; and by this means the object of them would be frustrated, and they would be no proofs of a revelation from God.") Now these miracles might contribute much to promote the knowl edge of God, even among those who had heard only vague rumours of them, or had even not heard of them at all. For the idea of a God, which these numerous manifestations of divine agency impart ed to the eye-witnesses of these divine acts, was through them com municated to other families or nations with whom they came in contact, and thus was brought into general circulation. And as soon as the idea of a God has been communicated to a person from with out, all the declarations of his own conscience and the instructions of nature around him, become, even without any new external proofs of the divine existence, much more comprehensible and 1 Gen. ch. 1. 2 Gen. 18: 19. 3 Heb. 11: 1, 2, 7—19. 4 Gen. 15: 4—6. 17: 15 etc. compare ch. 21. 5 Gen. 15: 7 etc. Exod. 3: 6 etc. 6: 2—8. 6 Gen. 6: 7. 7 Exod. 9: 29. 8 See Koppen sup. cit. Pt. II. p. 180 etc. (2d ed. p. 194 etc.) 9 Exod. 10: 2. o See e. g. 2 K. 5: 2—15. § 19.] DIVINE EXISTENCE PROVED BY MIRACLES. 205 efficient.1 Nor can we doubt that God, whose providence extends to the times and the places of habitation of all men,2 would cause that those who had a more perfect knowledge of him, should be brought into connexion with others of humbler attainments, so that the latter might have an opportunity to " seek the Lord," £ytt7v tov &tdv, Acts 17: 27. For although God, the source of all good, has revealed himself to the heathen in external and internal nature, (ovx dpdgzvgov iavtdv dqijxtv, Acts 14: 17. — ov paxgav and ivog ixdatov ijpiov vnugxtt, Acts 17: 27 ;) still they have only obscure views and conjectures respecting a beneficent Creator of nature, and a righteous Judge ; and these views need to be evolved by clear and distinct instructions, derived from God, through the medium of persons resident either amongst them or in their vicinity. Thus might the Athenians,3 prior to the arrival of the apostle Paul, have sought instruction on religious subjects from the Jews, who under the dominion of the Romans, everywhere enjoyed religious liberty ; and thus did they in fact partially receive it.4 I here pass over the earlier migrations of the Jews, voluntary or forced, the wanderings of the ancient worshippers of God ; and the more recent travels of Christians, all of whom have had various intercourse with the hea then. III. 4. That all nature harmoniously tends to effect certain ends, and was purposely adapted to these ends by its Creator, is not a fact which is the subject of immediate observation ; but it is a rational supposition, which we take for granted.5 III. 5. Compare the " Weinachtsprogramm" of 1788, on 1 Tim. 3: 16, p. 16.6 III. 6. Tt is evident from the nature of the miracles of Jesus and his apostles (§ 8,) and from the moral character of the doctrines which were established by them, that the cause from which they proceeded must have been a Being possessed not only of very su perior intelligence and power, but also of beneficence and love of virtue. Compare Flatt's " Contributions to the science of christian doctrines and practice," p.. 38, 39, 43 etc. 1 Ps: 19: 2—4. 2 Acts 17: 26. 3 Acts ch. 17. 4 Acts 17: 17. 5 See Kant's Critik der Urtheilskraft, § 75. p. 332. 6 See also John 11: 41. 14: 10. 10: 32, 37. 5: 17—30, 36. 17: 1—5. Acts 2: 32 —36. And § 8. Illust. 2. § 10. Illust. 25—27. 206 OF GOD. [bk. II. SECTION XX. God is the Creator and Ruler of the world. The scriptural representation of God, whose existence has been proved (§ 17 — 19), is, that he is the Creator and Ruler of the world. Jer. 10: 10—16, (v. 12, ina^ria V^ ysn iniss ynt* nizjs D*»ttj nuj in:1Dnar) who made the earth by his power, he founded the world by his wisdom, and by his intelligence he stretched out the heavens, v. 16, N1)" bar: l^ft"1 he is the former of all things. Psalm 96: 5. 146: 6, to— i^N-b^-ruo iTfi-ns* y^tn rj^BttJ frig's he who made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. Is. 42: 5. 44: 24. 45: 12, 18. 66: 2, Matt. 19: 4, 6 noin- aag* an dgxv? the Creator, in the beginning, ch. 11: 25, xvgiog tov ovgavov xat trjg yrjg Lord of heaven and of earth. Acts 14: 15, ¦&t og £a>v, og inolrjot tov ovgavov xal tryv yrjv, xal tryv ¦ddXaoaav, xal ndvta td'iv avto7g the living God, who made the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and all things which are in them. Acts 17: 24. Rom. 1: 19, 20, 25. 11: 36, i'£ avtov, xat Si avtov, xal tig avtov td ndvta of him, and by him, and to him are all things. 1 Cor. 8: 5, 6, tig -d-tdg, ii; ov td ndvta one God, from whom are all things : comp. Heb. 2: 10. Rev. 4: 11, ov txtttsag td ndvta, xal Sid td {liXrjpd oov youv, xalixzia&naav thou didst create all things, and by thy will they were created. Rev. 10: 6. 14: 7. Illustration. *In the parallel passage of Mark (10: 6), 6 &tog God, is used instead of o noiyaag the Creator or He who made. Lb'sner, in his Annotations on Matt. 19: 4, adduces a passage from Philo, (De Opificio mundi,) in which God is called o noitov, and others, in which he is termed o ytw^oag. SECTION XXI. The power of God. From the greatness of the universe, a part of which surrounds us, and of which we ourselves constitute a part, we infer the ereat now- § 21.] POWER OF GOD. 207 er(l) of its invisible Author. Rom. 1: 20. Jer. 27: 5. 51: 15. Is. 40: 26. Ps. 147: 5. Job 40: 9. ch. 41. It is evident, that the power of God is able, to produce effects in the universe(2), which the course of events and the agency of natural causes can never be expected to accomplish. For the course of events and the agency of natural causes, frequently fail to make happiness attendant on vir tue in the life of individuals ; and yet reason and conscience justify the expectation(3), that God will complete this harmony or coinci dence of happiness and virtue, in the most perfect manner(4). The facts, by which this omnipotent influence of God on nature is prov ed, are the miracles recorded in Scripture ; of which(5) we shall here adduce as evidence, (comp. § 19. Illustration 3) only those which were wrought in the life time of Jesus and in the period im mediately subsequent. Illustration 1. Kant, in his " Critik der Urtheilskraft," (<$, 91, 85. p. 469 etc. 395), remarks, that the physico-theological proof, strictly considered, would indeed prove that the Author of nature is very powerful, but not that he is omnipotent; because our utmost knowledge of the world, is only a partial knowledge of the whole. Compare his " Critique on practical reason," p. 251. III. 2. Luke 1: 34 — 37, ovx dSvvatov nagd to) &tto ndv gijpa nothing is impossible with God. Gen. 18: 11 — 14,' rVrrn NbBTjr liT is any thing impossible to Jehovah ? Rom. 4: 18, 21', o tnriy- ytXtat, (sc. o &tds,) Svvazdg itsti xal noiijaai he who promised, sc. God, is able also to perform. Zech. 8: 6. III. 3. See Kant's " Kritik der Urtheilskraft," § 86. note. $ 88. and §17, 18 of this work. III. 4. If this expectation does not necessarily suppose the om nipotence of God, and if we therefore cannot agree with Kant, " that the supreme Being must be supposed omnipotent, in order that he may adapt universal nature to the highest moral purposes ;" still it leads us to the idea, that the power of God is very great and transcends all our conceptions. Eph. 3: 20, d Svvdptvog imig ndvta noiijaai vntgtxnigiaoov rj voovptv he that is able to do abundantly more than we can comprehend. Ps. 145: 3. See Flatt's " Letters on the moral evidence of the existence of God," p. 74 etc. III. 5. These miracles are regarded in the New Testament, as 208 OF GOD. [bk. ii. proofs of the divine power. John 11:4, 40, Sdi-a tov &tov the glory of God. Ephes. 1: 19, 20. Acts 10: 38. Comp. Luke 9: 43. 5: 17. So also the miracles recorded in the Old Testament, Exod. 9: 16. 15: 6, 7, 11, 12. Deut. 11: 2 etc. Ps. 77: 14 etc. 135: 5, and es pecially v. 9. KSppen, in the work above quoted, Pt. I. p. 180 etc. (2d ed. p. 215), gives a general view of all the scriptural miracles, considered as revelations of the glory of God. The Scriptures com bine the evidence of the divine power, which is derived from the two sources, the creation of the world, and the miracles. Ps. 136: 4 etc. Jer. 32: 17, 19, 20. SECTION XXII. The intellectual character of God. The incomprehensible(l) greatness of the divine intelligence, ap pears from the wise adaptation of the world to great and exalted ends(2) Psalm 104: 24. 147: 4 etc. Is. 40: 28, injianb. iph pjt his intelligence is incomprehensible. Prov. 3: 19, 20. Jer. 51: 15. And as God is the Author of creation, he must be most perfectly acquainted with it (Is. 29: 16. Ps. 33: 15) ; and nothing however minute(3) or recondite,(4) can be unknown to him,(5) This we must necessarily admit,(6) if our expectation be well founded :(7) that he will hereafter execute the sentence which conscience pro nounces upon us, (Rom. 2: 15, 16. comp. <$> 17.) For, how could he be a competent judge, if he had not the most minute acquaint ance with the whole life of every individual, as well as with the state of his heart,(8) and indeed with all the outward circumstances in which he was placed ? For such knowledge is absolutely necessary, to form a correct estimate of the moral worth of any individual. The annunciation of a future judgment (comp. <§, 24. Illust. 8. <§> 17. No. 4) implies, that God has already determined what he will hereafter do. And it is evident from the constitution of the world, (10) and from the predictions of future contingences(12) which ac tually come tt> pass,(ll) that this foreknowledge of God (Acts 15: \8,yvmatd dn aldivog iatt td) {rid} ndvta td i'gya amov known unto God from the beginning of the world are all his works), is of the § 22.] DIVINE INTELLIGENCE. 209 greatest' extent, and that it embraces those plans of God> which pre suppose that creatures' will be in & particular situation and will pur sue a particular course of conduct ;(9) it is therefore evident, that God has a perfect knowledge of future events in the natural world, and likewise of the free actions of his creatures. (10) The prophe cies above alluded to, are the accomplished predictions of Jesus ; which he pronounced by virtue of his union with God, and not only in the narrow circle of his friends,(13) but also in public ;(14) so that even his enemies well recollected them. (15) .-( Illustration 1. The divine intelligence inscrutable. Even in those things in which we can observe an adaptation of means to their ends, we are not able to discover all the means which the wisdom of God has Used for the accomplishment of those excellent designs ; and we are often unable to penetrate into the internal na ture of objects, which we are compelled to regard with the highest admiration ; nor can we in all cases, discover the power by which ends are accomplished.1 It therefore becomes us to be modest in our decisions,2 and to confess that the knowledge and wisdom of God are beyond our comprehension.3 It would be the height of folly, to pretend to a perfect knowledge of the inscrutable God,4 and to admit of no divine mysteries ;5 but whenever we are not able to discover the benevolent designs of God in any thing, unhesita tingly to deny, that any can exist which are worthy of him. On the contrary, whenever the designs of God are inscrutable to us6 we ought still to believe, that he has designs of the most benevolent na ture ; because subsequent experience has so often shown this to be fact, in regard to former mysterious events.7 Kant remarks, that " we are not qualified to infer that the high est possible wisdom belongs to God, from the lessons of instruction afforded by an acquaintance with the world ; because nothing short of omniscience, can determine, in reference to any given world with which we may become acquainted, whether its perfection is so great, that no greater could possibly have been displayed either in its cre ation or government." 1 Job 38: 39. 2 Job 40: 1—5. 42: 1—6. 3 Is. 40: 13, 14, 28. 55: 8, 9. Rom. 11: 33. Ps. 139: 6. 4 Matt. 11:27. 1 Cor. 2: 11. 5 l Cor. 2: 10, 7. Eph. 3: 9. 6 Rom. 11: 33. 7 Compare § 18. Illust. 1. 27 210 OF GOD. [BK. II. III. 2. Vide Jacobi, sup. cit. No. I. $ 2. Vol. I. p. 3. Psalm 104 : 24. 147: 4. Is. 40: 28. Prov. 3: 19, 20. Jer. 51: 15. III. 3. Matt. 10: 29, 30, vpwv xal al rgi'xtg tijg xttpaXijg ndoai rtgi&pripivai tlal and all the hairs of your head are numbered. Ps. 56: 9. III. 4. Ps. 139: 7—16. Is. 29: 15. Jer. 16: 17, 23, 24. Matt. 6: 4, 6, 8. Ps. 10: 14, 17. 38: 10. Dan. 2: 22. III. 5. 1 John 3: 20, -pt l£atv iatlv d &tdg rrjg xagSiag rjpdjv, xal ytvmaxti ndvta God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things. Heb. 4: 13. III. 6. Kant, in his " Critik der Urtheilskraft," <§> 86, says : " We are obliged, in reference to the highest possible good (the har mony or connexion of happiness and virtue in rational beings) which can be attained under the divine government, to look upon God as omniscient ; in order that he may not be unacquainted with the in most thoughts and dispositions of his creatures, which constitute the true moral character of their actions." Also in his " Critique on practical reason," (p. 252), he says, " God must be omniscient, in order to hatfe a perfect knowledge of my inmost thoughts and se cret disposition, in all possible cases, and through all futurity." III. 7. Ps. 7: 9, 10. Jer. 17: 10. Prov. 24: 12. Matt. 6:4,6. 1 Cor. 4: 5. All these passages contain the position, " that God rewards and punishes, according to his most perfect knowledge of the human heart." III. 8. Ps. 139: 1—12. Luke 16: 15. Acts 1: 24. Rom. 8: 27. God has the most perfect acquaintance with the human heart and life, xagSioyvojazrjg — d igtvvtov tag xagSiag' comp. 1 John 3:20. III. 9. 1 Pet. 1: 20. 1 Cor. 2: 7. 2 Tim. 1: 9. Eph. 1:4 etc. The plan of God for the salvation of mankind through Jesus, and which, according to the texts quoted, he formed from eternity ; pre supposes a foreknowledge of the free actions and of the whole con dition of the human family. Therefore, God must, as Jacobi re marks, have foreseen the fall of the human race. Compare Rev. 17: 8, tov ov yiygantai ta ovdpata and xutafioXrjg tov xdapov whose names are not recorded from eternity, in the book of life ; comp. Rev. 13: 8. III. 10. Ps. 139: 2, 16. Jer. 1: 5. Gal. 1: 15. comp. Acts 26: 19. God had appointed the apostle Paul, from his birth, to be an apostle of the gentiles ; because he foresaw that he would obey §22.] THE DIVINE PRESCIENCE. 211 the heavenly call, ovx dnti&r,g iytvdpnv trj ovgavlm ontaala I did not disobey the heavenly vision. Therefore, God possesses the most perfect knowledge, not only of himself [scientia Dei necessaria vel naturalis], Matt. 11: 27. 1 Cor. 2: 10, 11, and of every thing which actually exists or has ex isted ; but also of all things possible, whether they are sueh as shall hereafter occur, or whether they shall never have actual existence. See § 30. Illust. 10. III. 11. Vide Jacobi sup. cit. No. XII. <§> 13—18. Vol. II. p. 209 etc. where the author adduces several cases, in which the pro visions of nature coincide, in the most perfect manner, with contin gent occurrences ; for example, the relative proportion in the num*- ber of both sexes of the human family. III. 12. The divine attribute which is commonly termed fore knowledge or prescience, is described as something peculiar to the supreme God, in the following passages : Is. 41: 22 etc. 42: 8, 9. 43: 8, 9 etc. 44: 6 etc. 45: 19 etc. 46: 9 etc. 48: 3 etc. Hess, (in his " Bibliothek of sacred history," Vol. II. p. 223, where he adduces these passages), remarks : " Isaiah undoubtedly sets the declarations of the God of Israel, as genuine and true, and as au thenticated by actual fulfilment, in contrast with the lying oracles of the heathen, when he calls upon the pagan gods to prove their truth and their prescience of events, in the manner the God of Israel did." III. 13. To his disciples Jesus predicted the destruction of Je rusalem, Mark 13: 3 etc. ; his death and resurrection, Matt. 20: 17—19 ; the denial of Peter, Matt. 26: 34 ; and in Mark 11: 1—6, he informed them, that they would find an ass' colt tied, and would obtain it without difficulty. In like manner, he predicted that they would meet a man carrying a pitcher, and that he would be their guide to the house where the, passover was to be prepared for him, Mark 14: 13— 16.1 III. 14. Jesus announces to a large multitude the destruction of Jerusalem, (Luke 18: 41 etc. Comp. Matt. 22: 7 with 21: 46). Thus also he declared before the chief priests and elders of the peo- 1 If we adopt the opinions of other interpreters (Gabler, Paulus, Kuinol, and Stolz), that Jesus had previously planned all this with the householder, in order that Judas might not too soon find out the place where he intended to keep the Passover, and lay hold of him at the time of it ; this narrative will then prove, that Jesus was perfectly acquainted, beforehand, with the measures taken by his enemies, and particularly by Judas who betrayed him. See Hess' Lebensges- chiehte Jesu, Band II. S. 317. " Jesus had a particular person in view, whom he did not wish to mention at that time; but he availed himself of this opportun ity to demonstrate to his disciples, how perfectly he was acquainted with the issue which his affairs would take." 212 OF GOD. [BK. II. pie, that the Jews would, by their own fault, be excluded from the christian church, and the Heathen be admitted into it, (Matt. 21: 43. comp. v. 23). He foretold the ill treatment which the heralds of the Gospel would receive from the Jews, and the consequences of it (Matt. 23: 34 etc.); the treatment which he should himself meet with from the Jews (Matt. 21: 37) ; his own execution (Luke 13: 33) (in the presence of the Pharisees, v. 31) ; his death and resurrection (John 2: 19 — 22) — (before the Jews who were assem bled in the temple, v. 14) ; and his death and the subsequent prop agation of his doctrines among other nations (John 10: 11 — 18). III. 15. Acts 6: 14. Matt. 27: 63 etc. 40. 26: 61. Flatt's Magazine, and Hess, sup. cit. p. 816. SECTION XXIII. The goodness of God. Of the fact, that God is good to all his creatures,(l) especially to his rational creatures,(2) for the sake of whose moral nature the world was created (<§> IS. Illust. 7), we may easily be convinced, if with a calm and candid mind, we lay ourselves open to those im pressions and feelings which the contemplation of nature(3) awak ens in us ; and especially, as it is natural for us to expect, that the Being who implanted parental love in our bosoms, would himself entertain love for his creatures.(4) Nor ought this conviction to be shaken by those frequent incidents of adversity which we meet with in life. For, experience teaches that they often pave the way to important blessings.(5) They tend to this important result, being only more vigorous means of education, which are perfectly consis tent^) with the paternal love of God. They enable us to make greater advances in spiritual irnprovement(7) and moral excellence and they inspire us with greater reverence(8) for that moral Gov ernor, whom, according to the dictates of our nature, we are bound to obey, but whom in prosperity we are prone to forget.(9) And thus they make us more tranquil in this life, and more happy in the world to come.(lO) It is indeed true, that those who submit en tirely to the providence of God,(ll) are sometimes overtaken by § 23.] THE DIVINE GOODNESS. 213 afflictions', the advantage of which they are not able immediately to discover. But our heavenly Father, whose intelligence far surpass es our conceptions (§ 22. Illust. 1), can discover advantages in ad versity (Heb. 12: 9, 10), which are concealed from the view of his children, (12) and which shall yet be enjoyed(13) at some future period. (14) Illustration 1. Psalm 145: 9. 104: 31, 10—14, 16—22, 25, 27 etc. 136: 25. 147: 8 etc. Luke 12: 24, 6. III. 2. Luke 12: 7, 24. Matt. 6: 26, 30. III. 3. Ps. 136: 5—9. 104: 1—24. Jer. 5: 24. Acts 14: 17. 17: 25, 28, SiSovg ndat ^oiijv xal nvoijv xal ndvta giveth to all, life and breath and all things. 1 Tim. 4: 3 etc. 6: 17, -&tdg nagixtav riplv navta nXovaicog tig dndXavatv God giveth us richly all things for our enjoyment. III. 4. Matt. 7: 9—11. Ps. 103: 13, am B^srl* 3N Blrp 1,*J"V-i» rijrTJ as a father pitieth his children, Jehovah pities them that fear him. Is. 49: 15. Luke 15: 11 etc. In the parable of the lost son, the character of Jesus as a merciful God, is represent ed by the disposition of a father toward his disobedient child. On the different modifications of the divine love, and its different names, (grace, mercy, patience, longsuffering),see Schott's Epitome theol. christ. dog. p. 47. III. 5. Gen. 45: 5 — 13. 50: 20. In the latter passage, Joseph says to his brethren, iia'ta*; MttJft B^ribe* Wl ib» BrjMJri BHN you designed evil against me, but God meant it for good. III. 6. Prov. 3: 12. comp. Heb. 12: 5 — 9, ov dyana xvgiog, natStvn whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth. III. 7. Rom. 5: 3 etc. Heb. 12: 10, 11, ndaa naiStla — vatt- gov Si xagndv tigyvtxov to7g Si avtijg ytyvpvaapivoig dnoSlScoai Si- xaioavvrjg all chastisement — afterwards it produces the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are exercised by it. III. 8. Is. 26: 16, *plj5B n»a i-jin"! Jehovah ! in distress they look around for thee. III. 9. Luke 8: 14, vno — nXovtov xal i^Sovcov rov §lov avp- nviyovzai. III. 10. Rom. 2: 14, 15, 16, 6—10. 214 of god. [bk, n- III. 11. Persons who disregard the intimations and chastise ments of divine Providence, are described in Rom. 2: 4 etc, Amos 4: 6 etc. III. 12. 2 Cor. 4: 17, 18, pn oxonovvttov ijpdrv zd pXtndptva, dXXd td pn pXmdptvu we do not look only at the things which are seen in this world, but at those which are as yet invisible. Rom. 8:24. III. 13. The divine permission of moral evil is discussed in § 39. Illust. 4 ; it is the permission of natural evil alone which is spoken of here. III. 14. Rom. 8: 17—23. Col. 3: 3 etc. 2 Thess. 1: 4—10. The benefit of such afflictions, will be brought to light onlyin the future world. Matt. 5; 12, 6 pia&dg vpwv noXvg iv to7g ovgavo7g great is your reward in heaven. SECTION XXIV. The justice and holiness of God. Even the love of God induces him to avenge the injury which the members of the human family, who are all equally dear to him, inflict on each other.(l) His love(2) urges him to support the dig nity of those laws, which the same love had prompted him to give to men because his wisdom pronounced them salutary. (3) The voice of conscience, and that belief of a future retribution which is so deeply founded in the constitution of our moral nature (Rom. 2: 14, 15. 1: 32. § 16), prove to us, that our conduct has the most im portant influence on our happiness ;(4) that God, on whom we are dependant, distributes(5) with the most perfect impartiality,(6) hap piness to the virtuous(7) and misery to the vicious ;(8) and that the measures of his rewards and punishments, is exactly proportionate to the degree of our faithfulness or unfaithfulness. (9) In reference to this twofold judicial(lO) act of God, we ascribe to him jus tice ;(1 1) and we infer from this attribute,(12) that he, whose earnest wish it is that we should be holy, must himself be the archetype of holiness; (13) or, that he himself loves that moral excellence which § 24.] THE DIVINE JUSTICE AND HOLINESS. 215 he endeavours to promote by his promises and rewards, and hates that evil which he endeavours to prevent by his menaces and pun ishments. (14) Illustration 1. 2 Thess. 1: 6, 7. 1 Pet. 2: 23. Psalm 10._ Luke 18: 7, d Si Otdg ov prj noir\ati ixSlxvatv tdrv ixXtxrcov avtov tdtv pomvzwv npog aiizdv ypigag xal vvxzdg ; — Xiyco vp7v bzi noirjan — iv tdxtt and will not God avenge his elect who cry unto him day and night ? — I say unto you, he will shortly avenge them. Matt. 18: 32 etc. comp. Michaelis on " the Scripture doctrine relative to sin and the atone ment." <§> 6, 8. 2d edit. III. 2. Compare Michaelis above referred to, § 8. p. 40 etc. _ III. 3. Is. 48: 17, 18. Ps. 119: 144. Rom. 7: 12, j? ivtoXrj— dya-d-t) the commandment is good. 8: 6 etc. III. 4. Mai. 3: 13—18. Gen. 18: 25. There is a difference between the destiny of the good and the wicked." III. 5. Rom, 2: 6—10. 2 Cor. 5: 10. (compare Heb. 10: 38.) These three passages speak of the future righteous judgment of God. Although, in the present life, happiness and misery fre quently appear not to be proportionate to the moral worth of men (Ps. 37. 73: 3 etc. :) yet it by no means follows, that we are de ceived by the opinion, so deeply rooted in our moral nature, that the destiny of every individual shall be according to his moral worth. For we often behold a reversion in the lot of men (Ps. 37: 35 etc. ;) and where this is not the case, a mind that reflects and is susceptible of moral feelings, if unable to account for the prosperity of vice or the suffering of virtue, will naturally be led to the antici pation of a future retribution from God (2 Thess. 1: 5— -7.) But we can discover some reasons, why, on the one hand, the children of God, always imperfect, should not, while in this world, in this nur sery for heaven, be exempted from all the grievances attendant on a state of probation ($ 23 ;) and why, on the other hand, God should not instantaneously annihilate the wicked, whom he wishes to gain by his goodness, and some of whom he foresees will actually reform. Nay, this forbearance of God toward the wicked, may, in various ways, be beneficial to those who are more virtuous ; for they sustain various relations to them, and also themselves stand in need of' similar forbearance, on account of their own sins and their slow progress in virtue. III. 6. Rom. 2: 11, ovx tati ngoomnoXtjipia nagd tm &tta there 216 OF GOD. [BK. II. is no respect of persons with God. 1 Pet. 1: 17. Col. 3: 25. 4: 1. Eph. 6: 8, 9. III. 7. Rom. 2: 13. 10: 5. Gal. 3: 12, o noiyoag avzd (sc. zd zov vdpov,) bjottai iv ai)ro7g he that doth these things, viz. the things of the law, shall live in them. JEph. 6: 8. Matt. 19:17. comp. Heb. 11: 6, 6 -&tdg to7g ix^vzovaiv avtov, pio&anoSotng yivttai God is a rewarder of them that seek him. t III. 8. Mai. 2: 17. Rom. 1: 18. 2: 2 etc., 12. Col. 3: 25, 6 &tdg ijpdiv xopit7tai, o ijSixno-e he that doeth wrong, shall receive what he hath done amiss. Heb. 10: 29 — 31. 12 : 29, d &tdg ijptSv nvg xatavaXlaxov our God is a consuming fire. Although the punishments of God (Luke 21: 23. comp. v. 22, and Rom. 2: 5,) and likewise his punitive justice, are called the wrath of God (ogyrj,) and are represented by figures of a terrific nature ; yet the writers of the Bible, and in particular the writers of the Old Testament, were well acquainted with the divine goodness and grace. See Ex. 34: 6, rwjsj lOrr-ani ttSN ?j-iN jisrn mni 1>n nirr Jehovah God, merciful arid gracious, slow to anger and abounding in grace and truth, Deut. 4: 31. Ps. 145: 8. 103: 8—14. 130: 4 etc. rprriS* *ja» forgiveness with thee. Joel 2: 13. Lam. 3: 33. And as they knew that God is not angry after the manner of men (Hos. 11: 9. comp. ¦§> 26. Illust. 5,) it is therefore reasonable, that no philosopher should denounce their anthropopathic expressions ; and the more so, since even the purest expressions which are applied to God, to his attributes and actions, are always anthropopathic. Relative to dgyri as applied to God, Kypke (on Rom. 2: 5) says, " ogyij non iram divinam, neque etiam qualescunque hujus irae effectus, sed poenam designat, quam Deus ut Justus Judex infligit ;" dgyri does not signify the divine wrath, neither does it denote the various effects of this anger ; but it designates the punishment which God as a just Judge, inflicts." He adduces passages from Demosthenes, Aeschines, and Dionysius Halicarn. in which dgyri signifies punish ment, and a few in which it denotes punishment inflicted by law. In the passage Rom. 2: 5, dgyri is explained dnoxdXvifjig ztjg Sixai- oxgtalag manifestation of the punitive justice of God. Comp. Heb. 3: 11, and Johan. van Voorst, " On the divine punishments," in the publication of the Society at the Hague for the defence of the chris tian religion, 1794, p. 56 etc. Compare also Schleusner's Lex. art. dgyri No. 3. See Jacobi's " Dissertations on important points in religion," No. X. vol. II. p. 87 etc. Kant's " Critik der Urtheilskraft," § 88. p. 430 etc. Prolegomena, p. 276 etc. " Critik der practischen Ver- nunft," p. 276 etc. (Compare with this, Flatt's " Observv. ad <§> 24.] DIVINE JUSTICE AND HOLINESS. 217 comparandam Kantianam disciplinam cum Christiana doctrina per- tinentes," § VI.) Fichte's " Versuch einer Critik aller Offenba- rung," p. 127. (2d ed. p. 189 etc.) Tieftrunk's " Censur des Protestantischen Lehrbegriffs," Pt. III. Introd. "On symbolic knowledge in reference to religion." Comp. " Letters on Kant's, Fichte's, and Forberg's Theory of religion," in Flatt's Magazine, Pt. V. p. 217 etc. See also Jacobi, " Von den gottlichen Din- gen," p. 182. comp. with Weisz, " On the living God," p. 23 etc. 220 etc. and Ewald's " Religious doctrines of the Bible," Vol. I. p. 6, 79. All these writings refer to the symbolic knowledge of God, or the knowledge of God according to analogy, and on the anthro popathic designations of the attributes and actions of God, which are founded on this kind of knowledge. Our knowledge of God is analogical (symbolic) or anthropomorphic, so far as we consider the divine Being, his attributes and actions, as resembling the actions and attributes of men ; for we do not know what God in himself is, nor how he acts. Compare Reinhard's Dogmatik, p. 93. Here may be mentioned the threefold method (stated by Sartorius) of ar riving at a knowledge of God, via negationis, via eminentiae, via causalitatis. Vide Sartorii Compend. p. 79. and compare Rein hard's Dogmatik, p. 92. Fichte, in his well known Dissertation, " on the ground of our knowledge of God" (p. 16 etc.,) objects, that " this symbolic knowledge of God, is contradictory ; because we represent to ourselves an infinite being, by predicates which be long only to limited and finite beings." Compare what is said in refutation of this, in the " Letters on Fichte's theory of religion," in Flatt's Magazine, Pt. 6. p. 206 etc. Pt. 5. p. 229 etc. And here it may not be improper to quote from Brastberger's treatise, "On the ground of our belief in God" (1802,) a passage (p. 104 — 107) containing the result of his reasoning : " It is true, the attri butes which I ascribe to God, are properties which I find in myself; only they are conceived apart from those limitations and particular determinations which they have and must have in me. It is true, that the removal of these limitations and particular determinations, leaves me only general conceptions, which can never have an actual existence. And it is further true, that as soon as we wish to deter mine those indefinite conceptions or properties, we are compelled to ascribe to God, finite and limited attributes. But notwithstanding this, our knowledge of God, is neither vain nor contradictory. For, when I ascribe to him human attributes, such as understanding and will, with the removal of the particular determinations of our finite understanding and will ; my idea amounts to this : " if I possessed the faculty of knowing God immediately, I should find in him only such properties, as could and would effect every thing which my faculties would effect, if they could ever be divested of limits and 218 OF GOD. [BK. II. extended to infinity. This knowledge of God, is by no means so definite and perfect as I could wish ; yet it is perfectly adequate for that purpose for which, in general, faith in God is necessary to me.' " III. 9. Luke 19: 16—19, 24—26. 2 Cor. 9: 6. Matt. 11: 22, 24. Luke 47: 48. All these passages contain this position : the measure of future happiness or misery, will differ, according to the obedience or disobedience of different persons. III. 10. 2 Tim. 4: 8, dndxtital pot d trjg Sixaioavvvg aii- qavog, ov dnoSwau poi~d Slxatog xgitn? a crown of righteousness is laid up for me, which the righteous Judge will give me. Compare Dissert, de sensu vocis Slxatog, Note 9. Ps. 7: 12. Rev. 16: 5 — 7. 19: 2, dXrjdivut xal Sixatai al xglatig avtov true and righteous are his judgments. III. 11. Ps. 7: 10, 18. 2 Thess. 1:5—7. Rom. 2:5, 6, Stxaioxgiala tov &tov, og dnoScdoti ixdazoi xata td i'gya atov the just judgment of God, who will render to every one according to his works. Acts 17: 31. III. 12. Ps. 5: 4 — 6, St") ysh bN tfb thou art not a God who delighteth in wickedness. Rev. 15: 3. III. 13. 1 Pet. 1: 16 etc. dyioiytvta&t, dti iyta dyidgtlpi be ye holy, for I am holy. Eph. 4: 24. Matt. 5: 45, 48, i'ota&t tiXtioi tuamg o natrig vpdiv d iv to7g ovgavdtg ziXtiog iati be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect. 2 Pet. 1: 4. III. 14. 1 John 1: 5, &tog qdjg iati, xat axozla ovx iati iv avtm ovStpia God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Deut. 32: 4. James 1: 13. SECTION XXV. The spirituality of God. As every rational and moral power, is termed a spirit ; so God is a Spirit, John 4: 24.(1) And he regards not the external service of his worshippers, but the uprightness and sincerity of their minds (nvtvpa xal aXri&tiuv,) v. 23: 24. And man can resemble God,(2) only by the excellence and perfection of his spirit, or mind ; and § 26.] THE DIVINE SPIRITUALITY. 219 not in his corporeal properties and actions, for these cannot in any measure belong to God. (3) Illustration 1. John 4: 24, nvtvpa d -dtog' xal tovg ngoaxvvovvtag avzov, iv nvtvpati xal dXyd-tiq Stl ngoaxwe7v God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. — IIv t v- p at i xal d Xv & t i a is a hendiadys,1 for nvtvpati dXii&tvq>, or, as it is expressed in Heb. 10: 22, ivdXw-d-ivrj xagSla with an up right heart. Similar examples may be seen in the Dissert, de sensu vocis nXygtopa, Note 60. Opuscul. Acad. Vol. I. p. 174 etc. III. 2. Col. 3: 10, ivSvadptvoi tdv viov (dv&gmnov,) tov avaxaivovptvov — nut' ttxova tov xtlaavtog avtov have put on the new man, who is renewed according to the image of his Creator. — Luke 6: 35 etc. comp. § 24. III. 3. Rom. 1: 23. Ex. 20: 4, " Thou shalt not make any image of God."1 1 Tim. 6: 16, ov tlStv ovStigdvdgidncov,dvSiiSt7v Svvatai whom no man hath seen or can see. 1: 17, dq&agtog — ddga- ios #t6g incorruptible — invisible God. SECTION XXVI. The veracity of God. The vast intelligence, power, goodness and holiness of God, re- quire,(l) that we should place unlimited confidence in him ; and particularly, that we should regard his declarations as perfectly to be depended on. (2) For he who is not willing to repose implicit confidence in God (1 John 5: 10), must either be so foolish, as to believe that whatever is concealed from himself must be unknown [1 Hendiadys, is a figure of speech, used by grammarians to designate that mode of expression which consists of two substantives joined together by the conjunction and, and put in the same case, whereas, according to the sense one of these substantives should be an adjective qualifying the other, or a genitive following it. Thus in Hebrew, i&s KSai niS^rj. changes and a host are against me, i. e. changes of hosts, or hosts 'constantly' receivine new suoDlies Job 10: 17. S.] y B "P"^, ¦ 2 Staudlin observes (Elements of Dogmatics, 2d. ed. p. 199): " It deserves notice, that God, though represented under the strongest anthropopathic ex pressions, would not be worshipped by any image." 220 OF GOD. [bk. II, to God also, or he must distrust him who is the archetype of holi ness ;(3) or, forgetful of the providence and power of God,(4) he must apprehend, that God may become involved in difficulties, and have occasion to revoke his purposes ; — a supposition derogatory to the divine dignity,(5) and applicable only to a weak and changea ble man. Even the idea of a future retribution, which leads us to believe the existence of a God (¦§> 18), leads us also to believe him a God of veracity (6) and immutability, (7) a God in whom implicit confidence(8) may be reposed. And that anticipation would itself be unwarranted, and might prove delusive ; if we could suppose it possible for God to deceive us, or to awaken in us an expectation which he either would not or could not fulfil ; or if we could admit, that the God who formed a moral plan to which he adapted the structure of our moral nature, and which he has announced to us by our conscience (§ 17, 18), could be unstable and changeable, that he could abandon the plan which he had adopted, and suffer the expectations of our moral nature to remain unaccomplished. We assume as infallible, whatever the constitution of our nature, or God the Author of our nature, teaches us. Nay, the principles of hu man knowledge generally, would become uncertain,(9) if, as Des Cartes expresses it, God had so framed our nature, that we should mistake delusions for the plainest and clearest truths. If, therefore, we would not be universal sceptics, and doubt of every thing ; we must admit,(10) that the Author of our nature, is a God of truth, and deserves our implicit confidence. Illustration 1. Is. 40: 12—31. Ps. 146: 5 etc. 48: 31 etc. 118: 1—9. In these passages, confidence in God is founded on the divine good ness, power, and wisdom. III. 2. Ps. 33: 4, iiii-p— ai niir the word of Jehovah is true. John 3: 33. . - . . » I,LL; 3. 2 Cor. 1: 18, 19, maidg d Qtdg, ozi d Xdyog rjpdjv d ngog vpdg odx iyiveto v a I xal o v, " My doctrine among you, the author of which is the God of truth, was not mutable and unstable." Comp. Notitt. histor. Epist. ad Corinth, interpret, servientes, p. 101 etc. in Opusc. Acad. Vol. I. p. 360 etc. $ 26.] THE DIVINE SPIRITUALITY. 221 III. 4. Is. 46: 10 etc. Rom. 4: 21, " He who hath promised, is able also to fulfil." III. 5. Rom. 3: 4, ytvia-Qm -d-tdg aXij&rjg, nag Si av&gomog xjjtvazng let God be true, but every man a liar. 1 Sam. ] 5: 29, " The unchangeable God of Israel does not deceive, or repent of anything; for he is not a man, that he could repent." When, therefore, we read in the 1 1th verse of this chapter, that God re pented of his having made Saul king, we must not suppose that he repented as man does. Neither did Moses intend to ascribe human repentance to God, Gen. 6: 6 ; for he well knew, that God is not a man that he should lie or repent. It therefore follows, that the anthropopathic expression repentance, like that of anger (<§> 24. Illust. 7), has a sense which is not unworthy of God ; — it imports, that ac cording to the immutable plan of God, persons who have reformed, are not treated in the same manner as before their reformation. Comp. Joel 2: 14, with v. 12, 13. III. 6. John 3: 33, &tdg aXri&rig ian God is true. Tit. 1: 2, 6 dipivStjg &i6g God who lieth not. 2 Tim. 2: 13, ti dniazovpiv, ixt7vog matdg pivti if we do not believe, he remaineth faithful. Heb. 6: 18, dSwatov xpevSta&ai &edv it is impossible for God to lie. III. 7. Ex. 3: 14—17, n;nt< la'N n?/!N I am that I am. 6: 2 — 8, nirT; ^N I am Jehovah.' Deut. 7: 8 etc. Mai. 3: 6, rrrr ""SK "lt]\']5 tfb I am Jehovah, I do not change. Rom. 11: 29 dpitapt'Xy- ta zd xaplapata xal tj xXijatg tov &iov God will not repent of his gifts and calling. Heb. 6: 17, to dpttd&ttov zijg povXijg ¦fttou the immutability of the counsel of God. James 1: 17, nagd &td) ovx i'vi xutaXXay?j tj tgonijg dnoaxtaapa with God there is no variable ness or shadow of turning. Michaelis remarks, on Ex. 3: 14—17, quoted in this illustration : that by the name JT/iN, as well as by that of fiifP, God represents himself as unchangeable, (particularly in his promises, his friendships and love), as a being who will remain the same forever. Comp. al so Dathe, on Ex. 6: 3. III. 8. 1 Thess. 5: 24. 1 Cor. 1: 9. Heb. 10: 23. III. 9. Compare Flatt's Detached contributions for the deter mination and deduction of the idea and the principle of causality, p. 122 etc. Michaelis, Dogmatik, p. 164. III. 10. " The veracity of God is as important to the Deist, as to the believer in revealed religion. For, if it were in itself possi ble, and God felt disposed, he might deceive us in nature, by pro ducing a constant confusion and contradiction of things, and by mak- 222 OF GOD. [bk. II. ing reason mislead us ; as truly as he could in the Scriptures." AUgemeine Litteratur Zeitung, for 1792, p. 137. SECTION XXVII. Inference drawn from the veracity of God, in favour of the truth of Scripture. If there be, (as has been proved 17—19), a God to whom ve racity belongs (§ 26) ; then we may receive, with perfect security, the declarations of the Holy Scriptures ; which were either produc ed by God, and under his influence (§ 6, 9, 10, 11, 13), or at least were sanctioned by him (<§> 9, 12, 13) ; and therefore have divine authority (<$> 11 — 13). We may of course use them, in the dis cussion of all doctrines in general, and of that concerning the divine attributes in particular, not only to elucidate the dictates of our rea son, or to prove the coincidence* of Scripture with those dictates, but in order to derive from them direct and solid arguments or evi dence in support of doctrines of which they treat. Illustration. *The beautiful coincidence of the doctrines of the Bible concern ing God, -with the established conclusions of reason, as appears from a comparison of. the Scriptures with the religious opinions of those philosophers1 who could not have drawn any thing from the sacred volume ; should at least inspire us with respect for this volume, the superior excellence of whose instructions so far surpasses those of all other ancient writings. It ought to induce us to read without prejudice, and to estimate without partiality, all that they contain concerning a particular dispensation of God ; and especially, as the superiority of the holy Scriptures over all other writings of antiqui ty, so well accords with the assumption, that the knowledge of God, was in an extraordinary manner, made plainer to the sacred penmen than to any other persons. Compare the Dissertation entitled, " The natural views of God given in the Scriptures, compared with the revealed views of the divine Being."2 1 See Jacobi's " Dissertations on important religious subjects," No. XV, XVI. 2 In Hess' Bibliothek of sacred history, Vol. II. p. 113 etc. § 28.] THE DIVINE UNITY. 223 Ewald, in his " Religionslehren der Bibel,"1 remarks : " The pre tended revelations of other ancient nations, are not at all calculated to satisfy the spiritual necessities of well informed persons, who are acquainted with themselves. To many of these necessities, they have no reference at all. — They cannot, in the view of reason, as sume an authenticated character ; as well because they contain much that is manifestly fabulous, and of human invention ; as be cause they are destitute of the positive evidences of a divine origin." — " The writings which the Christian regards as a divine revelation, even independently of their divinity, contain much interesting matter calculated to enlighten the understanding and improve the heart ; they contain an elevated and dignified Theodicea. In no other re ligion was every thing connected so closely with God, with one God, as in the Jewish ; in no other was holiness so made the object and aim of every thing. — No other religion ever exhibited such striking, such undeniable proof of the supernatural agency of God ; none ev er combined so closely morality with religion." — " And the most refined and enlightened person, however numerous and various his necessities, never fails to find in Christianity, what is necessary to meet all his wants. — And all this he, can find no where else." SECTION XXVIII. The unity of God. We can discover no reason for believing in the existence of more than one God. For, when we contemplate(l) the works of nature, we find that, so far as our observation extends, they stand in such intimate connexion with each other, that their dependance on one Creator and Lord becomes highly probable ;(2) or if we reason from the idea of a moral government of the world, we cannot conceive how it can be divided among a multitude of regents ; unless we ad mit that among these regents, so arbitrarily supposed, there is a per fect unity of purposes, and of manner of accomplishing them. (3) But in a matter of such importance, one which has so great an in fluence on our exclusive reverence and respect for God (Deut. 6: i Theil I. S. 65, 67. 232—235. and Theil II. S. 197—200. 224 OF GOD. [bk. It. 5. Mark 12: 30), we ought to regard the testimony of God himself as of the greater consequence ; because thereby our belief (4) of the divine unity, is so confirmed, (5) that we may now, with perfect certainty, affirm that there is but one God. For if the Creator and Lord of nature had been produced by another being on whom he is dependent, or if he formed and governed this world in conjunction with another being ; he would certainly, as his knowledge is so ex tensive, know something of such a being. But he knows of none who existed before him, or was his superior, or who cooperated with him in the work of creation. (6) Jehovah, the God of the Israelites, is the only Jehovah (Deut. 6: 4. Mark 12: 29 ;) that is, Jehovah, the Creator and Lord of nature, is the only Being to whom the name Jehovah belongs :(7) he cannot possess the adorable and glorious perfections (1123 iibrifi) indicated by the name Jehovah, in common with any other being (Is. 42: 8 ;) beside God (the only Governor poveo Svvaatrj) there is no governor ; for all others are subject to him tio xvgloj td>v xvgtevdvtwv 1 Tim. 6: 15. No one, however distinguished he may be for wisdom, is wise, in compari son with "the only wise" (pdvtp aoqa) Rom. 16: 27.) Compared with God, there is no one good, ovStlg dyu&dg, ti pij tig, d ¦&tdg Mark 10: 18.(8) The excellences of every other being, com pared with those of God, are as nothing ; much less can any being surpass or equal God in divine attributes. Illustration 1. "Every thing in nature proves the unity of its own adaptation, the unity of its object, and the unity of the means appointed for that object. There is nothing which can justify the idea of different sys tems, objects, and means. And beyond this, reason cannot carry the proof of the unity of God." Platner's Aphorisms, Pt. I <§, 1143. edit, of 1784. (in the edit, of 1793, § 959.) Compare Michaelis' Dogmatik, «§. 41. p. 176. III. 2. It has been seen above ($ 18. Illust. 1. <§> 23, 24. Illust. 8,) that when the attributes of God have been proved, even those things which appear to be at variance with these attributes, may be made to harmonize with them. III. 3. See Flatt's Letters, " Uber den moralischen Erkennt- nitzgrund in der Religion," (p. 76.) " The perfect harmony be- § 28.] THE DIVINE UNITY. 225 tween morality and happiness, does not indeed prove an absolute numerical unity in the Author of the world ; but it does prove a perfect unity of design." III. 4. Jacobi says " No one has yet proved, that it is impossi ble that several necessary and eternal beings should possess creative power, and should have produced and governed this world in com mon." But Whatever want of evidence may attend the supposition which reason makes : that there is only one God ; it cannot be per fectly supplied in any other manner, than by the declarations of God himself. Hence it is not strange, that the unity of God should be entirely denied, or at least greatly adulterated, by those nations whieh had not even a traditional knowledge of divine revelation. Kant, in his work entitled, " Religion within the limits of mere reason," (p. 179,) asserts that the doctrine of the unity of God, was not so very important a superiority of the Jewish religion over the religions of other nations. In refutation of this assertion, it is re marked, in the dis'sertation in Flatt's Magizine (Pt. 3. p. 131 etc., entitled, "An apology for the Mosaic Religion,") that the religious history of the polytheistic nations, most clearly proves the contrary to be true. " Polytheism" (Ewald justly remarks) " has a neces sary and unavoidable tendency to lead the human mind into other errors; as is clearly evinced by the history of man. The idea of deity, wherever it was not raised to monotheism, always became more and more gross. One deity was conceived as differing from another ; and consequently they were not all viewed as perfect pat terns of every moral and other excellence ; some were necessarily represented as lacking- in morality and perfection ; in short, the idea of God, was depressed to the level of humanity, and was debased by human passions." '" Moreover, the principle of unity, is manifestly a principle which our reason approves. In every science, reason searches, for some one fundamental principle. — She requires one first cause, one ideal of perfection, one supreme lawgiver. And when ever reason has to content herself with, plurality, as the ultimate and absolute in any thing ; she feels that she has not yet attained a rest ing place: the innate demands of reason are not satisfied." The arguments by which Steger has attempted to prove, that Moses did not teach the unity of God, admit of a satisfactory reply. See, in opposition to them, Staudlin's Lehrbuch der dogmatik, p. 199 etc. and Jahn's Biblical Archaeology, Pt. III. $ 14, where it is proved, that Moses did not teach the existence of merely a national God. III. 5. Among the texts which assert the unity of God, are the following : Deut. 4: 35, 39, i^u lis "p« tfTrbitrj nHsi nirr; Je- 29 226 of god. [6k. ii. hovah, he is God, and there is hot another beside him. v. 39, -ris ¦ps nrma yhsn-bsi. b^aa traiaia taTy'bNfi sin riirr; Jehovah, he is God, in the heavens above and upon the earth be neath, there is no other. Deut. 32: 39 tnrrbN ytt] Niln "•:« "^N "HJaJ» I, I am he, and there is no God vvith me'. Is. 44: 6. 45: 5, 6, 14,' 21, 22. 46:9. Psalm 86: 10. John 17: 3, pdvogjaXn&ivd? &t6g the only true God. John 5: 44, nagd zov pdvov &tov from the only God. Rom. 3: 29, 30. 1 Tim. 2: 5. Comp. James 2: 19. 1 Tim. 1: 17, pdvm ¦&td>. Jude 25, and 1 Cor. 8: 4 — 6, ovStig -dtdg iztgog, ti pn th — th &tdg d natrjg i ! ov zd ndvta there is np other God but one— one God, the Father, of whom are all things. In the work on " the Object of the Gospel and epistles of John," <§> 95, it is remarked, that the context of John 17: 3, and 1 Cor. 8: 4 — 6, proves, that God the Father is denominated the only true God, in opposition to the false deities of the heathen,. In the first passage (v. 2) the phrase ndaa odg£ all flesh, refers to this contra distinction ; and in the second passage, it is expressly mentioned. III. 6. , Is. 44: 8, TW'r-ba "na .¦pa « There is no other Being beside myself in whom unbounded confidence can be reposed, I know none." 43: 10, is -iai3-{& ^eb mn "•:» I am he, before me there was no God formed. 44: 24, spfi "nab trail! MUb bb ntos nVrr; ¦•SiB ">l^Na V"5Nri I am Jehovah who made all things, who stretched out the heavens by myself, who spread abroad the earth by myself. III. 7. Deut. 6: 4, *rh{j rjiir: irn'bw i-Tii1; Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. This is a figure of speech in which the subject of the (proposition is repeated in the predicate, as is the case in John 3: 31 ; and it may be explained by Is. 45: 5, 6, 18. In these vers es, the words nii> ytri l-pro ">3N " I (he is called Jehovah, v. 1, 3, 18) am Jehovah, and there is no other Jehovah." The name Je hovah, here used as the predicate of Jehovah, designates the great ness of Jehovah ; by virtue of which he is able to foretell and to perform such great things (v. 1 — 3, 7, 19 — 21), and to be the Cre ator of the heavens and the earth (v. 18), which of course belong to him alone, to the exclusion of all whose greatness might be com pared with his. The proper name Jehovah, is therefore in this place synonymous with the appellative -God; and the words, " I am Je hovah, there is no other Jehovah," signify the same as the words (in v. 5) : " besides me, there is no God ;" that is, no other is, what I Jehovah aim — the character of God, which belongs to me, is as- cribable to no other. •III. 8. Compare Job 4: 18, with 15: 15. Even spirits of the higher orders are not perfectly pure. § 29.] SELFEXISTENCE, ETERNITY, IMMUTABILITY. 227 SECTION XXIX. Absolute selfexistence, eternity, and immutability of God. As God does not derive his existence from any other being, he must have " his life within himself,"— Jojj?j> i'xtt iv iavtd) John 5: 26. This life in himself, is nothing else than his absolutely neces sary existence ;(1) which renders it impossible that his existence should terminate,(2) or that his power should be diminished, or any change in him occur,(3) or that his existence should have had a be ginning ;(4) in short, which renders him eternal. (5) Illustration 1. The absolutely necessary existence of God. 1 Tim. 6: 16 d pdvog i'xojv d&avaqlav who alone has immortali ty. The immortality here ascribed to God exclusively, must be something different from that immortality which belongs to all ra tional beings ; it, must denote the absolute necessity of his existence, such an existence as not only will never terminate, but which con tinues necessarily, and on account of this necessity neither had a .beginning nor will have an end ; in a word, an eternal life fojjj aiwviog 1 John 5: 20. 1: 2. Comp. v. 1. John 1: 1 — 3. But as absolute immortality belongs to God exclusively, it follows that the ¦spirits whom God has created, are not necessarily immortal ; but as ¦they began to exist, so they may cease to exist, if their Creator, on whose will they are dependent, should not wish their existence to continue. That the word atoivtog, in the phrase ?(ujj alaviog 1 John 5: 20, refers not only to future existence or immortality, but also to past existence, eternal preexistence ; appears from 1 John 1: 1,'o-rjv an dpx*jg, which is equivalent to iv apxy John 1: 1, i. e. in the begin- nipg of the world, before all creatures (John 1: 3)? from eternity (Is. 43: 13 in LXX). See the " Object of St. John," p, 385, Note, p. 437 etc. III. 2. Ps. 102: 25, 27, 28, Kirr rim 5^niaa ta^n liia ;i»rp rib sprjiaaji throughout eternity are thy years — thou art (he) the same, and thy years shall not terminate. Deut. 32: 40, "ObiOn Db!?b. I live forever. Dan. 12: 7. Rev. 10: 6, £div tig rovg aioivag tdJv 'aioivtov living forever and ever. 228 OF GOD. [bk. II. III. 3. Ps. 102: 27, 28, Nin ,nm niayn Tim thou shalt endure — thou art the same. This immutability of the essence and attri butes of God, renders the immutability of his purposes the more certain (§ 26). On account of the immutability and indestructibility of his nature, God is called aq&apzog incorruptible, Rom. 1: 23. 1 Tim. 1: 17. III. 4. Ps. 90: 2, bij rifts* DbiJ>— W abiya from eternity to eter nity thou art God. III. 5. Rom. 1: 20, dtSiog avzov Svvapig xal dtidtng his eter nal power and Godhead. SECTION XXX. Incomparable excellence or infinity of the divine attributes. As the highest excellences by which other beings are distinguish ed, must be regarded as nothing, in comparison with the divine attributes ; God is termed the incomparable One (sanctus, dyiog, uni;; ;(1) or he is the being who is separate from all other beings, (2) and who cannot be compared to any other.(3) This incompara ble excellence, which philosophers and divines have denominated the infinity(4:) or the boundless perfection of God,(5) refers to his holiness,(6) his justice, (7) his power,(8) and in short, to each di vine perfection. If applied to his power, it is termed omnipotence ; (9) if to his knowledge, omniscience. (10) Both are included in the expression, omnipresence. (11) And on account of his infinite good ness, he is called the blessed God (paxdgiog -&tdg 1 Tim. 1: 11. 6: 15,) who needs the aid of no other, because he is self existent, (all things depending on him,(12) and the sum and substance of all grace) ndaa ydpig 1 Pet. 5: 10,) and love itself dyanv" 1 John 4:8, 16 (13.) Illustration 1. Is. 6: 3, rnsm Min1; iBinjs ttiinp, mipr holy, holy, holy is Je hovah of hosts. " Ezek. 38: 23, "Ti^prin " I have proved myself the incomparable One." Ps. 22: 4.' 99: 3, 5, 9. Ill: 9 (here the <§>: 30.] THE DIVINE INCOMPARAB1LITY. 229 predicate ini 3 is placed with 2J-i1j5, as in Ps. 99:3) Rev. 4: 8-, dyiog, dyiog, dyiog xvgiog d dedg d navtoxpazcog holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty., III. 2. 1 Tim. 6: 16, qdSg oixojv dngdatzov, ov tlStv ovStig av>onoiv, ovSi iSt7v Svvazat dwelling in inaccessible light, whom no man hath seen or can see. 1 Tim. 6: 16. ("iiinp, according to its primitive import, as is known, signifies, " to separate a thing from others.") III. 3. Ex. 15: 11, nitT.-ri^BS *a who is like thee, Jehovah ? Ps. 77: 14, tFrrrNS biia bN-'^a who is so great a God as thou God art? Is. 40: 25, ajinj; -iaio rnia'Ni "Wann "l»-bK " to whom will you compare me ?" whom shall I resemble ? saith the holy One, ¦Jiilp.1 See also, on this incomparableness of God, the following passages :_ Ps. 86: 8—10. 89: 7—9. 113: 5. 148: 13. The ex pression dyioztjg zov ¦dtov Heb. 12: 10, seems also to signify the superior perfections of God, in general ; as well his happiness as his moral perfection. Vide Comm. in loc. note h. III. 4. Ps. 145: 3, ipn ^N inb^b — LXX, trjg ptyaXtaavvtjg aiizov ovx iazi nigag- his greatness is unsearchable — has no end. III. 5. In Job 11: 7 — the immensity of God is represented in a poetic manner, according to height, depth, length, and breadth.2 III. 6. 1 Pet. 1: 15, 16, dyioi yivta&t/dzi iytd dyiog tlpt be ye holy, because I am holy. As all the attributes of God, and espe cially his holiness, are distinguished from the characteristics of all other beings, by their greatness and elevation ; so also should that people, whom he has separated from others, (yivog ixXtxzdv, i&vog dyiov, a chosen generation, a peculiar people 1 Pet. 2: 9,) be dis tinguished from others by their lives and principles, Lev. 20: 22, 23 ; so that the people of God may be distinguished from others, not only by the enjoyment of the divine blessing (v. 24,) but also by their conduct ; or that they may be a peculiar people,'iJilp v. 26. III. 7. Is. 5: 16, MRlsa «ip,3 ajil^rt blttl God who is holy, shall be sanctified in righteousness. III. 8. Ps. 17: 14. comp. with v. 12, 13. Ps. 98: 1, rill 1 Michaelis has elucidated the meaning of aiiip, in a very appropriate manner, by the phrase of Horace : "Nil habens simile 'vel secundum." Supplem. ad Lex. Heb. 2 The immensity of God, is that attribute of his greatness, which consists in its sustaining no relation to any known measure or standard ;— his infinity signi fies, that no divine perfection will admit of comparison with any finite excellence. See Car us' Religionsphilosophie, S. 284: 230 OF GOD. [bk. I{. ivij'ip his holy arm. 1 Pet. 3: 14, 15. "Be not afraid of your ene mies, but honour God so much, as to believe him more powerful and terrible, than the most terrible enemies," dyidaazt tov &tdv iv zaig xagSlatg vpdiv sanctify the Lord in your hearts. Luke 1: 49, inolvai poi ptyaXt7a d Svvatdg, xal dyiov to ovopa avzov he that is mighty hath done wonders for me, and venerable -is his name. .III. 9. As God is subject to no other being, and as no being can be compared to him in any perfection (¦§> 28 ;) it follows, that no one can resist his supreme and all-controlling power, Is. 43: 13. John 10: 29. Rom. 8: 31, 35 etc. 1 Cor. 15: 27. And hence nothing is impossible with God ; Gen. 18: 14. Luke 1: 37. Jer. 32. 27. Mark 10: 27, and he doth whatsoever he will. Is. 46: 10 etc. fito>J< ^ft-bai t»pn Tiar ia i» saying, my purpose shall stand, and I will accomplish all my pleasure. Ps. 135: 6. 115: 3. Eph. J: 1 1, navta ivt gydjv xata tr\v fiovXrpi tov ¦&tXijpatog avtov working all things according to the counsel of his own will- And the power of God is the more unlimited, because in the formation and govern ment of the world, he is not a mere artificer, whose wishes could be controlled by the nature of the preexistent matter ; but is a proper Creator, who by his fiat gave existence to both the matter and the form of the world. This boundlessness of the divine power, which makes all creation dependant solely on the divine will, and by vir tue of vvhich he actually created this world by his will ; is described in the following passages : Ps. 33: 9, comp. v. 6. Rev. 4: 11. Jer. 23: 17. III. 10. That God has a knowledge, not only of all those pos sible things which shall actually occur (<§, 22. Illust. 11,) but also of all those possible things which never did or will take place ;• — or in other words, that God possesses scientiam mediam (scientiam simplicis intelligentiae,) is taught by the following passages ; Jer. 38: 17—20. 1 Sam. 23: 11—13. Matt. 11: 21—23. III. 11. A being is said to be omnipresent, whose agency and knowledge extend to every place, or are confined to no particular place. To the universal agency of God, the following passages re fer :_ Amos 9: 2 etc._ Acts 17: 27, 28, ov paxpav and, ivdg ixdatov rjptav vnapxn ' iv avtw yap Ctoptv xal xivovpt&a xai iapev he is not far from each one of us ; for in him we live and move and have our being. And bis omniscience is alluded to in Ps. 139: 6 — 12. Jer. 23: 23. That God is not circumscribed or limited by place or space, is taught in 1 Kings 8: 27, ^ibsbs-1. N'b tPniBn TOl d'aizJn the heavens and the heavens of heavens cannot contain thee." Is^ 66: 1. John 4: 20—24. We however, are notable to comprehend § 30.] ALL THINGS DEPEND ON GOD. 231 the relation which the substance of God bears to the objects which he beholds, or on which he exerts his agency. Nor ought we to be surprised at this incomprehensibility ; for we are unable to compre hend the mode of the presence even of a human soul ; and can on ly infer that presence", from its agency, and the appearances man ifested at a particular place ; without knowing any thing of the mode of that presence which belongs to the unknown substance of a spiritual being. Compare Michaelis' Dogmatik, <§> 39. p. 174. and Reinhard's Dogmatik, <§> 36. p. 115. Ill, 12. All things dependent on God. Rom. 11: 34 — 36, eig avtov td ndvta to him are all things; Acts 17 : 25, ov ngoaSsdptvdi ztvog, avzog SiSovg ndai fwjjV xal nvoijv xai td ndvta he doth not need any thing, he giveth unto all, life and breath and all things. As God alone possesses an absolutely necessary existence (^ 29* Illust. 1,) it follows that the existence of all other things is a de pendent existence ; and as there is no necessary cause of the exist ence of things, at which reason is obliged to stop, excepting God; it appears that the existence of all things depends ultimately on God, John 1: 1, 2. And he is the Creator, not only of living creatures, but also of inanimate objects ; in a word, he is the Creator of all things (Illust. 9.) Now, the more independent God is, and the more unlimited, his power over all things, considered as being his property in the strictest sense; the greater1 should be that rever ence with which we should adore his free bounty and unmerited patience, long suffering, and forbearance f 1 John 4: 10, 19, avxog npoZzog rjydnvaev ypag he first loved us. Rom. 9: 22, noXXrj puxpo- S-vpltx — nXovzog tijg Sd&g inl axtvri iXiovg much long suffering — the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy. On this passage, see the second Dissertation on the epistles to the Col. and Phil. Note 165. III. 13. 1 Pet. ,5:10, 6 Otdg ndarjg ydgirog the God of tall grace : this properly stands for d &tdg og iazi ndaa xapiS the God who wall g-raee, Deusclementissknus. Vide Observv. ad analogiam et syntaxin Ebraicam, p. 234. In the passage 1 John 4: 16, the substantive dydntj stands in the place of the superlative, Deus longe omnium amantissimus. Vid. ibid. p. 22. 1 Job 40: 3—6. 42: 6. Rom. 9: 20 etc. 2 § 24. Illust. 8. PART II. OF CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. SECTION XXXI. Every thing which exists, was both as to matter and form, prqduc- ed by the will of God. Agreeably to the idea of the divine Being which has been already established (§ 20), and which is now to be more particularly eluci dated; God created the heavens and tlie earth, (1) i. e. the world, (2) or(3) the universe,(4) all things visible(5) and invisible, ani mate1 and inanimate ;(6) in other words, he, by an act of his will, (7) brought into existence(8) that which had no existence, and which began to exist only because he willed it, or only in conse quence of the efficiency of the divine will. (9) The chaotic mass, also, out of which our earth2 was formed, (10) did not exist from eternity,(ll) but was created by God, was produced by his will. Illustration 1. Gen. 1:1, V^n nan tnaiari nN tFrybN (iitor) ana God creat ed the heavens and the earth. Ps. 121: 2. 102: 26. As the earth consists of land and water,3 the inspired writers, ipstead of heaven and earth, use the expression, the heavens and the water (or sea) and the land (or earth) ; see Ps. 146: 6. Acts 14: 15, og inoivae tov ovpavov xal ttjv yrjv xal trjv {taXaaaav, xal navta ta iv avzo7g who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all things in them ; compare Rev. 10: 6. 14: 7. Neh. 9: 6. III. 2. Acts 17: 24, 6 noifjaag zov xo'apov who made the world. III. 3. Col. 1: 16, za navza ta iv tdlg ovpavo7g xal td inl tijg yijg all things which are in the heavens and on the earth. Jer. 10: 11, 12^ comp. v. 16, ban— ban. the earth — all things. III. 4. Heb. 2: 10. 3: 4, i£ ov td ndvta — Si ov td ndvta — 6 td navza xataaxivdaag, &tdg he from whom are all things — by whom are all things ; — he who formed all things, is God. comp. 1 Cor. 8:6. Rom. 11:36. 1 John 1: 4. § 30. Illust. 12. 2 Gen. 1: 2. v. 3. 3 Gen. 1: 9 etc §31.] CREATION. 233 III. 5. Col. 1: 16, tot dgatd xal td do gar a things visible and things invisible. III. 6. John 1: 3, xmglg avtov iytvtto ovSt ev, d yiyove without him was nothing made which was made. Note. In the work, " Uber den Zweck Johannis," (p. 183 etc.), it is remarked, that the words #©jp(S— yt'yovtv would be a su perfluous supplement to ndvta Si avzov iytvtto, if they were not directed against a party of Gnostics, who regarded God as the crea tor of only the invisible world, whilst they ascribed the creation of the visible world (xdapog verse 10), to another power unacquainted with God. III. 7. Psalm 33: 6, riVT] ISTa by the word of Jehovah, v. 9, 1hs^i_ Mist Nin "rtji 1»N Nirr he' spake and it existed, he com manded and it stood there'. Is. 48: 13, TitP liar; Brj^N '"ast tnj? when I call unto them, they stand up together. Thus, in the epis tle to the Hebrews 11: 3, the word ana (Gen. 1: 1) is explained as denoting a production by the word of will of God, gijpati d-tov' and in Rev. 4: 11, Sia td tfiXiipd aov eial (zd nanza), xal ixtta-d-i]- cav by thy will (all things) are, and were created, or, " in conse quence of thy will, all things came into existence or were created ;" the signification here given to xal, is its signification in Luke 12: 38 comp. Mark 13: 35. James 4: 13, aijptgov xal avgtov to day or to morrow. It is true, we cannot comprehend the mode of the divine agency in creation, or the nature of the creative will. But even the imperfect idea of creation, which at least excludes a preexistent matter and all external auxiliary means, and ascribes the incompre hensible work of creation to God alone, is of great importances us. Compare <§> 30. Illust. 9, 12. III. 8. Heb. 11:3, eig to pn ix qaivopivmv td fiXtnoptva yty- ovt'vai so that the things which we see, were not formed out of any thing preexistent. The same thing is thus expressed in 2 Mace. 7: 28, *| ovx dvztov inoiriatv avrd (tov ovgavov xal trjv yrjv) o &tog. In this case, qaivdptva is equivalent to dvta ; for as there existed nothing except God, which could see or know, qaivdptva must signify something which was visible to him (God), and con sequently the sense must be this : God did not create the world out of any thing. See Comment, on Heb. 11: 3, Note e. III. 9. _ Gen. 1: 1, " God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning ;" i. e. when he created the world, there was a be ginning made to every thing except God. John 1: 1 — 3, ndvxaiyi- 30 234 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. II. vtto—d yiyovt all things were made — which were made. John 17: 5, 24, ngo tov tov xoapov thai— ngo xata^oXrjg xoapov before the world was, — before the foundation of the world, and Eph. 1: 4. 1 Pet. 1: 20. Ps. 90: 2. III. 10. If v/e suppose that the formation of the earth is repre sented (Gen. 1: 2) as the formation out of a mass of preexistent matter, we must nevertheless regard this formation, not as the natu ral operation of the preexistent mass ; on the contrary, it was the effect of the same creative will, or omnipotence, by which God had previously created the heavens and the chaotic mass out of which our earth was formed. Gen. 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, la.tfv, fiVjbaj and God said ; compare with Ps. 33: 6, JriiiT.— -fi^a by the word of Jehovah. Note. In the Dissertation on the " Object of the death of Je sus," appended to the Comment, on Hebrews,1 it is said : " In the formation of the earth, whatever God willed, instantly existed just as he wished it. The interval between the production of things in the beginning of one day, and the production of others at the com mencement of another, only facilitated to spectators (the superior spirits), the discrimination and contemplation of the divine works. To these spirits, who could not possibly have been spectators of the production of their own world and themselves ; the truth, that God is the author of every thing which exists, would be presented in the most visible and distinct manner, by the gradual formation of the earth before their eyes. The earth, which they first beheld " with out form and void," in a short time appeared before their eyes clothed in magnificence. And as it did not at once arrive at this state, but during successive portions of time ; they could the more easily perceive and contemplate the principal kinds of excellence which the omnipotent will of the Creator gradually bestowed on this work of his ; and by comparing each successive state of the earth with that which immediately preceded it, they could appre ciate the peculiar value of every successive exertion of the divine will, and the suitableness of every new arrangement ; and thus be come the more firmly convinced of the wisdom of all the arrange ments of God in the other world," Comp. <§> 32. Illust. 4. These remarks may serve as a refutation of the objections, which those who regard the Mosaic account of the creation as a mytholo gical or allegorical narrative, or as a philosophical speculation, urge against the literal, historical interpretation of it. A collection of the principal views which have been entertained of the Mosaic narrative of the creation, together with the arguments for and against them, I P. 621 etc. § 31. J CREATION. 235 is contained in " Eichhorn's Urgeschichte," edited by Gabler, with notes and an Introduction, II parts in 3 vols. 1790 — 92. compare (Bauer's) " Theology of the Old Testament," Leipsic, 1796, <§. 64 — 66. They may be reduced to the following : 1 . The Mosaic account of the creation is a real and true history, which must be interpreted in a more or less literal manner. 2. It is not a true and real history ; but (a) A historical fable. In refutation of this opinion, see Ewald's Religionslehre der Bibel, Vol. I. p. 147, and Bauer's Hebra- ische Mythologie, B. I. S. 67—76. (b) A philosophem — the reflections of some ancient sage. On this view of the subject, see Ziegler's Critique on the dogma of creation, in Henke's Mag. Vol. II. and Bauer's Hebrew Mythology, Vol. I. p. 63 etc. Staiidlin's Lehrbuch der Dog matik. (c) An allegory, poesy, a figurative representation. See Teller's Aelteste Theodicee, and Ewald, ubi supra, p. 133 etc. In opposition to the hypothesis of Eichhorn, (advanced in Ur- gesch. in Repertor. for Biblical and Oriental Literature, Pt. 4), that the account of the creation, is a fiction of Moses, made for the pur pose of recommending in a sensible manner, the sanctification of the Sabbath or Seventh day ; we find the following remarks, in the " Dissert, on the Object of the death of Jesus," (p. 623 etc.) : " Such a holy fraud militates against the accredited authority of a divine messenger. — It would have cast suspicion on the authority of Moses, and could not have answered the intended purpose ; for it was only the belief in the divine authority of Moses, which could, in the view of the Israelites, have imparted the sanction of a divine institution to the law relative to the observance of the Sabbath." And in answer to the objections to the literal interpretation of Gen. ch. 1 : " how could the succession of day and night be effect ed, prior to the fourth day, on which the relation between the sun and our earth, was first established ; and how could vegetation have taken place on the third day, without the solar heat ?" it is remark ed in the same work : " It was not necessary that the light which caused the distinction between day and night, should have proceed ed from the sun ; — and for the productions of the vegetable king dom, the omnipotence of God required not the influence of the solar rays." III. 11 . We have no occasion to deny, that when our earth was formed, together with the rest of the universe, (Gen. 1: 1), though for the particular reasons the whole was inai irin Gen. 1: 2 ; yet the mass forthwith received the particular form and structure which is described Gen. 1: 3 etc. In other words, we may well admit 236 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. II. that the creation of the chaotic mass, preceded its formation into a world, by an imperceptibly brief space of time. Compare Gen. 2: 1 — 4. Ex. 20: 11, where the formation of the earth and the cre- tion of the universe are combined. With regard to God, who has happiness within himself, and is independent of all things without himself; it is immaterial whether we date the existence of the world, earlier or later.1 And as for the arguments derived from particular productions of nature, in favor of the extreme antiquity of our earth ; — they by no means establish the point in support of which they are adduced ; because neither the causes of these productions nor the length of time requisite for their formation, can be certainly deter mined ; and the hypotheses formed on this subject, have no author ity, being merely the conjectures of the strenuous advocates of the extreme antiquity of the earth. SECTION XXXII. Mediate creation. God must also be regarded as the mediate Creator(l) of all those things which are generated by others ; because he created all the creatures and things which propagate, and he endowed them with the power of propagation, for the very purpose that they should bring forth " after their kind. "(2) In like manner, God is, proper ly speaking, the source from which all living creatures derive the good which flows to them through the medium of their fellow crea tures. (3) For from God all creatures derive their powers, which were bestowed on them with a view(4) to their promoting the hap piness of one another.(5) To God, therefore, our gratitude is due, for all the good which we derive from the powers and agency of universal nature. (6) Illustration 1. Acts 17: 25, avtdg SiSovg ndai £mrjv he gave life to an. v. 28, iv avtd} iaptv " by him we were brought into existence — to him we are indebted for our being." See Dissert. I, in Libror. N. T. histor. aliquot Ioca, p. 92 ; where the whole passage is thus render- 1 Jerusalem's " Meditations etc." Pt. II. p. 448 etc. § 32.] MEDIATE CREATION. 237 ed : " to him we are indebted for our comfortable existence (£d>ptv), for the continuance of our powers (xtvovptda), and even for our ex istence itself (io-piv)." 1 Tim. 4: 4 etc. na v xt'tapa -dtov every creature of God. Matt. 6: 30. comp. Heb. 2: 11, i% ivdg navztg all are of one. Eccl. 12: 1, T^-pa thy Creator. Job. 33: 4, ba<-rpn "Wtos the Spirit of God made me. Rev. 8: 9, to tgltov tdiv xziapdtuv the third part of the creatures. III. 2. In Gen. 1: 28. 22: 11 etc. it is said, God created man and animals and plants, ordaining that they should perpetuate their species. And in Gen. 8: 17. 9: 1, we learn, that according to the divine purpose, this propagation was to continue after the flood. III. 3. . Hos. 2: 21 , 22. comp. Psalm 104: 27, 28. 145: 15 etc. iftsa fibaaj~na! drib jni ttFias thou gi vest to them their food in its proper time. 147^ 8"etc. Tf4; Job 38 : 41. Jer. 5 : 24. 14:22. Matt. 5 : 45, tov ijXiov avzov avaziXXti — xal figixtt maketh his sun arise— and Sendeth rain. 6: 25—33. 1 Tim. 6: 17, Acts 14: 17, ovgavo'&tv Sidovg vttovg xat xatgovg xagnoqogovg, ipnmXmv tgoqng xal tvqgoavvrig tag xagSiag tfpdiv gave us rain from heaven and fruit ful seasons, filling our hearts with nourishment and joy. 17: 25, SiSovg td ndvta' v. 28, iv avto~> £wptv to him we owe it, that we live in prosperity and gladness, see Illust. 1. III. 4. It seems as if God, who could certainly have created the world in an instant, employed a series of days in forming it, for the purpose of conveying to the angels, (who were present at the crea tion, Job 38: 4 — 7,) an ocular demonstration of the wisdom of his plans ; and that the narrative ofit might be adapted to our compre hension, and yet be true and convey to us distinct and correct views of his designs. Compare § 31. Illust. 10 Note. III. 5. Gen. 1: 14— 17, 29 etc. 8: 22. Ps. 104: 10—24. 1 Tim. 4: 3. §go)puta a d &eog ixziatv tig pttdXrjipiv meats which God created to be received. ^ III. 6. 1 Tim. 4: 3 etc. 1 Cor. 10: 26, 30 etc. Rom. 14: 6. o ia<ov, xvglta io&lu, evxagiatel ydg zd> ¦d-to) he that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth thanks to God. 1: 20. Psalm 104: 1, 33 etc. 147: 7. SECTION XXXIII. Preservation of the world. We are the more indebted to God for the powers and properties of nature, and for the benefits we derive from them ; because the 238 CREATION. [BK. II. world, even when created, cannot support itself, but is upheld by him who formed it.(l) For the creatures could not continue in ex istence and be active, if God did not will their continuance in being, and their retention of those powers by which they act. (Ps. 104: 29. comp. <§> 29. Illust. 1.) The same divine power(2) which created the universe, also upholds it. (3) Illustration 1. All things belong, in the most unlimited sense, to him who brought them into existence. He is Lord over the universe, in a sense in which no other can be lord over any thing : Ps. 50: 10 — 12, natbai ban ¦'b the earth belongs to me and the fulness of it. Matt. ll: 25. Acts 17: 24, ovgavov xal yijg xvgiog vndgxwv being Lord of heaven and earth. 1 Cor. 8: 4 — 6, tig xvgiog one Lord. That xvgiog is here a name of God, denoting his universal Lord ship, is proved in the work "On the object of St. John's Gospel," p. 463, from the following considerations : 1 . Because the phrases, ytydpevot &tol and -&toi xal xvgiot, in v. 5, are evidently synony mous ; and 2. Because we find, in v. 6, that Vtdg i£ ov zd ndvta, and xvgiog Si ov td ndvta, are considered as two predicates of the same import. Comp. Sid and ix Rom. 3: 30. Gabler, in his Theolog. Journal, proves that xvgiog with and without the article, is used as well of God as of Jesus Christ. Vol. I. p. 11. III. 2. Heb. 1: 3, compared with 11:3. In the first passage, we find qigtov td ndvra rw grjpatt zijg Svvdptoug avzou supporting all things with the word of his power ; and in the second, voovptv xatrjgr to&ui tovg aiolvag grjpazi -&eov we know that the world was formed by the word of God. In the former, the preservation of the universe is ascribed to g-rjpa &tov' and in the latter, creation is refer red to the same divine atribute. To this place belongs also the text, 2 Pet. 3: 5, yrj i'i vSaiogxal Si vSazog avvtazwaa, zto zov -tttov Xoyo) "the earth was produced by the divine will (Gen. 1: 9,) out of the water (v. 2, 9) ; and in like manner was preserved by the di vine will, notwithstanding the water (of the flood)." (Aid signifies notwithstanding, in Rom. 2: 27. 4: 11. 1 Tim. 2: 15. and thus the Hebrew a is used Deut. 1: 32, -ia-3 and Ps. 78: 32, najf-baa). Comp. Ps. 104^ 6— 9. Job 38:' 10, 11— The word avvtazmaa is used for avvtazdiaa zjv, and has in this place a twofold1 meaning. In connexion with the first preposition i%, it signifies the origin2 and 1 There are other instances in which a single word lias a double signification, and though but mentioned but once, stands in more than a single connexion • e. g. Heb. 5: 11. and Tit. 2: 6, 8. 2 On this signification of ovviarijpi, compare Kypke, on 2 Pet. 3: 5. and Schleusner's Lex. in voc. No. 4. § 34.] divine government. 239 production of the earth from the water ; but in connexion with the second preposition Sid, it signifies the preservation1 of the earth, which is also ascribed- to the Xdyog&tov in 2 Pet. 3: 7.2 III. 3. Acts 17: 25, avzdg StSovg ndatnvo^v — v. 28, xtvovpt&a he gave breath to all — we move. Both expressions refer to the continuance and preservation of. the natural faculties and powers. Compare Dissert. I, in libror. N. Test, aliquot loca, p. 92. Col. 1: 17, zd navza iv avzrn awiaznxt by him all things subsist, compar ed with Heb. 1: 3. Neh. 9: 6, fcba-ns* n*ha M thou preservest them all. Gabler, in his Journal (for 1807,) shews that the pre servation and creation of the world, maybe separated, although both are contained in the proposition : " the entire ground of the exist ence of the world, is in the will pf God." " The same eternal and immutable act of God, is, by the idea of creation, referred to the origin and being of the world ; and by the idea of preservation, to its continuance." SECTION XXXIV. The divine government of the world. The Lord of the world, also governs(l) the world, and overrules the various operations of natural causes to the accomplishment of his purposes.(2) The world consists partly of mechanical, and partly of free moral agents. As the latter constitute the great object of crea tion, (3) the divine government of the world consists in this : that God pays the most vigilant attention to the free actions of all ration al beings (§ 17,) and that he governs the rest of the world in a manner accordant with the great moral end which he has in view. $ 18. Illust. 7. Illustration 1. Ps. 145: 13, trab's-ba niab:a ^niab:a thy kingdom is an eter nal kingdom. Ps.*66: 7, Dbii> in-Vfi'aa b'ia he governs by his 1 This is a very common ellipsis, which is derived from a Hebrew idiom, in the Observv. ad analogiam et syntaxin Ebraicam, p. 135 etc. See also Dissert. II, in libror. N. T. histor. aliquot loca, p. 26. 2 The word awiazrjpi likewise signifies, to preserve, in Col. 1 : 17. See Dissert. I, in Epist. ad Coloss. Note 28. and Schleusner's Lex. sup. cit. No. 240 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. II, power forever. 1 Tim. 1: 17, fiuaiXtvg tdrv aioivtov Governor of the worlds. 1 Chron. 29: 11, 12. Note. In the Comm. on the Hebrews (ch. 1: 2. Note e.), it is remarked that paoiXevg tdiv alwvmv cannot well signify here, eternal Governor ; because it would have been more natural for St. Paul, who places three adjectives in immediate succession, to say aitavtog" and because the predicate eternal is comprehended in the subse quent word aq&agzog. Michaelis remarks that the Hebrew expres sion Bbi» among the Rabbins, commonly signifies world; and that the plural tTabi>, almvtg, probably originated from a Rabbinical di vision of the world into upper and lower. Introduction to N. T. Pt. II. p. 1378, 4th edition. III. 2. Ephes. 1:11, ivtgyojv navza xat a trjv fiovXnv dtXripatog avtov. Col. 1: 16, navta tig avtov i'xtiatai, " every thing is so con stituted as to be dependent on him ; all things shall accomplish his will, and promote his honour (his purposes). See Dissert. I, in epist. ad Coloss. Note 27. Eig avtov is used in the same sense, in Rom. 11: 36. 1 Cor. 8: 6. Comp. Kypke on Luke 12: 21. Koppe on Rom. 11: 36. and Schleusner's Lex. voc. tig No. 24. III. 3. When it is said that God exercises a special or particu lar providence over his rational creatures ; it is not supposed, that his knowledge of the other creatures is less perfect, or that his at tention to them is less. This cannot be supposed of the omniscient God, Matt. 10: 29. Luke 12: 6. But while he treats rational moral beings according to the rank which he has assigned them in the universe, that is, as beings of a nobler species, and who are more nearly related to himself (yivog &tov; J1 he also treats the lower orders of creatures, according to their respective ranks and the design of their creation. <§, 18. Illust. 7. The providence of God over all created beings and things, is termed providentia generalis ; that over the human family, is termed specialis ; and that over those persons who are distinguished for virtue and piety, is called specialissima. SECTION XXXV. It is possible that God should, by immediate interposition, suspend or alter the course of nature in the material world. In consequence of our ignorance of the interior of nature, we 1 Luke 12: 7. Matt. 6: 26—30. Acts 17: 28. § 35.] IMMEDIATE INTERPOSITION. 241 cannot determine, whether it was possible for God, without preju dice to the freedom of rational beings, which he would not violate, to adopt such a constitution of the world at the time of the creation, and to establish the course of nature so unalterably, that his pur poses would be fully accomplished by the agency of mere natural causes, and in the natural course of things, without any interposition or immediate influence from him on the created world. We can not determine, whether it would not be an absolute impossibility, so to frame the world, that every thing at ' variance with the divine purposes and the welfare of his individual rational creatures, should be prevented, by the mere laws and powers of mechanical nature, without any immediate interference of the Creator ; and yet, that the freedom of rational creatures should not be infringed, amid the various consequences which may result from the influence of ration al beings upon nature, in consequence of its mere mechanical pow ers and laws. We must at least admit, that in those cases in which the adaptation of the course of nature to the moral ends and the moral condition of rational beings, cannot otherwise be secured, it is effected by the immediate interposition of God.(l) Nor does this admission in the least derogate from the honour, the power, or the intelligence of God. For contradictory things are not subject to power.(2) And it is by no means necessary, that we should re gard these occasions for the divine interposition, as unforeseen by God. On the contrary, we must consider these interpositions as having been determined on from eternity. (3) Moreover, such im mediate influence of God on the course of nature, does not suspend the laws of nature, although the course of nature is altered, and a train of events produced, different from that which would have oc curred, if the powers of nature had been left to proceed in their or dinary course. For, the laws of nature are not so constituted as to produce the same results under all circumstances. On the contrary, they are suspended on conditions; and according as one or the other of these conditions occurs, different^ effects are produced ; yet all equally agreeable to the laws of nature. Thus, for example, with out the least violation of the laws of nature, this or another very different event may take place, according as this or another free 31 242 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. II. agent exerts his influence upon nature, or exerts this or another kind of influence, or no influence at all. (4) Illustration 1. The Scriptures represent that as certain, which we have above proved to be not impossible. They refer the future resurrection of the dead and future retribution, to the immediate divine agency (of God or Christ.) Phil. 3: 21, xatd t-rjv ivigytiav tov Svvaa&ai uvrdv xal vnotdgai iavtM td ndvta according to the working, by which he is able also to subdue all things unto himself. Matt. 22: 29, Svvapiv ¦&tov the power of God, 16: 27, pt'XXti tpxiodat iv trj S6%n tov nat- gdg avzov shall come in the glory of his Father. John 5: 20 — 29. Acts 6: 28. III. 2. It is very possible, that God would have been obliged to bind the various operations of natural causes to such laws as would have infringed the freedom of rational beings, and thus have counteracted his own purpose ; or if he did choose to do this, it is possible that the course of nature would have militated against his other purposes, unless prevented by his immediate agency.1 But the inscrutable God may also have had other reasons why he chose not to exclude himself entirely from all immediate connexion with his world ; and perhaps would not create a world which should be governed by an everlasting mechanism. III. 3. Compare Koppen's work, Pt. I. p. 46 (2d ed. p. 56.) III. 4. Just as free creatures, without the least violation of the laws of' nature, very frequently change the natural train of events ; so also can God, in perfect accordance with the laws of nature, either himself exert an influence on the created world, or he may commission other spirits, such as angels2 to exert their agency ; and thus cause effects to be produced which would never have been produced without this immediate or mediate interference of God, and effects which shall draw after them other effects, and greatly 1 " No one (says Kant) can be so inflated with a sense of his own discern ment, as to undertake to decide, whether that wonderful preservation of the various species in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, in which every new plant or animal generated, possesses the entire perfection of structure of its original ; and (in the vegetable kingdom) all the delicate beauties of colour; so that each species of plants, at the return of every spring, is reinstated in all its unabated excellence, its seeds being protected from the destructive influence of disorgan izing nature, during the unfavourable weather of fall and winter ; — no one, I say, can determine, whether this is produced by the mere influence of natural causes, or whether it does not rather in every instance require the immediate influence of the Creator." Religionslehre, S. 115. 2 Acts 12: 7—11. 5: 19,20. § 36.] IMMEDIATE INTERPOSITION. 243 change the course of things in the world. For if we were to sup pose it to be a law of nature, that God can never exert an imme diate influence on the world, and that creatures are the only agents in this world ; we should without any reason, take precisely that for granted, which is yet to be determined in this investigation. SECTION XXXVI. The reality of the immediate operation of God on the course of nature, is proved by the miracles recorded in the Scriptures. That we not only have no reason to regard the immediate agency of God on the created world as improbable, but have proof of the reality of such agency, is evident(l) from that train of extraordinary events termed miracles. For, these miracles, if we regard them not separately, but in connexion with other events (§ 8. Illust. 4,) were evidently performed for a specific purpose, viz. to establish the au thority of Jesus ; and to this purpose, notwithstanding the variety of their nature, they all harmoniously tend. They must therefore be ascribed to some rational cause ; and as they evidently transcend the power of man, their Author must be superhuman. These mira cles the Scriptures expres'sly(2) ascribe to God. (3) Illustration 1. The reality of immediate divine agency. Luke 1: 35— -37, Svvapig vxplatov — ovx dSvvatov nagd to) &tdj ¦ndv pijpa the power of the Highest — nothing is impossible with God. Eph. 1: 19, 20, ivipyttatov xpdzovg tijglaxvog avzov,ijv iv^gyrjatv iv td) Xptotdr iytlpag avtov ix vtxpwv the energy of his mighty pow er, which he exerted on Christ when he raised him from the dead. Acts 10: 38, txptotv avtov d &tdg nvtvpati xal Swdpti God anoint ed him with the Spirit and with power. John 11: 41 etc. Jesus represented the miracle of the resuscitation of Lazarus as the effect of God's hearing his prayer, and of course as the act of God. John 5: 17, dnatrip pov ipyd£ttai,xdyd> ipydfrpai " as my Father per formed miracles on the Sabbath day, so do I also." John 11: 25 244 creation and providence. [bk. ii. etc. Acts 4: 9 etc. (comp. § 44. Illust. 6. §82^ Illust. 10.) 1 Cor. 12: 7 — 11, navza zavta ivtpye7 zd tv xal zd avtd nvtvpa all these things are wrought by that one and the same Spirit. Compare <§> 8, 10. Those who ascribe these miracles to recondite natural causes, and allege that these causes were provided (performed) at the time of the creation ; assume gratuitously the existence of causes, which can neither be proved from experience, nor rendered probable by any other reasoning (a priori, <§> 35.) On the contrary, a preforma tion Df natural causes from those miracles, is rendered improbable by the great diversity of their nature, being not confined eitherto particular persons and places, or to particular and specific modes of operation. Had they been performed only on particular persons and at particular places, we might possibly suppose, that the efficient cause of the phenomena, foreseen and foretold by a worker of mira cles, lay in the original constitution of nature ; or if these extraor dinary effects had been of one or only a few specific kinds, we might possibly regard natural causes as adequate to their production. But as they were of so many various kinds, and were performed without the least restriction of any sort, even on the most unexpected and accidental occasions, neither of the above suppositions is ad missible. Compare § 8. Illust. 3, 4. $ 21. Illust. 5. III. 2. Miracles were ascribed to the agency of God. This was done by the explicit declarations of the persons by whom the miracles were performed. On some occasions also God himself, the proper Author of these miracles, (or at least, a superior being who acted by the command of God, § 35. Illust. 4,) manifest ed his presence, without the intervention of any human voice, John 1: 32 etc. 5: 37. Matt. 3: 16 etc. 17: 5. Acts 9: 3—7. 26: 13—16. Luke 1: 11 etc. 26 etc. Acts 12: 7. But the inward feeling which convinced the divine messengers of the reality of an extraor dinary influence of God on their souls, was confirmed and proved by such outward acts, as could not have been the mere figment of imagination, nor the effect of mere human volition. So also, in those cases in which the evidence of the presence of God or of an angel was perceived through the medium of. the senses, the reality of that presence was confirmed by the connexion of those appear ances with other incidents, which were either interwoven with the public life of the person concerned (John 1 : 51 ;)1 or were connect- 1 " The open heaven and the ascending and descending," i. e. the Ministry " of angels," denoted the visible evidence of the greatness of Jesus, or that series of miracles the performance of which he shortly after commenced. In this pas sage, Jesus had before his eye the miracle of the opening of the heavens (Matt. 3: 16,) and the ministry of angels (4: 11,) both of vvhich had already taken place. See Dissert. I, in librorum N. T. histor. aliquot loca, p. 81 etc. § 36.] IMMEDIATE INTERPOSITION. 245 ed immediately with those appearances themselves, (as, for example, Acts 9: 8—18. Luke 1: 13, 24, 36, 39 etc. 2: 12, IS. Acts 12: 7 etc.;) or at least, were always of such a nature that they could not have been the effect of mere imagination, or the result of hu man knowledge or power. In like manner, we must ascribe to God those extraordinary phenomena which a divine messenger had not been particularly expected or requested to perform, but which, from their nature, relate to a person or transaction, in regard to which we have reason, from a prior declaration substantiated by miracles^- to expect a special agency and an extraordinary assistance of God. — Examples of such extraordinary incidents, which had not been pre dicted by any divine messenger, are found in Matt. 27: 50 — 53. 1 Sam. 5: 6. 2 Sam. 6: 7. The miracles mentioned in the first pas sage, and which occurred immediately after the death of Jesus, although they had not been foretold, are with propriety regarded, not as accidental occurrences, but as effects produced by divine power, for the purpose of authenticating the divinity of Christ's mission and doctrines ; because this mission and these doctrines had been before authenticated by so many other miracles to which Jesus himself had appealed. John 10: 36, 37. So also the calamitous oc currences recorded 1 Sam. 6: 7, and 2 Sam. 6: 7, may justly be regarded as intentional acts of God ; because they followed the transgression of a law of Moses (Num. 4: 17 — 20,) the divinity of whose mission and legislation had been proved by many miracles, Deut. 34: 10, etc. III. 3. The view of miracles, given in this section, is not appli cable to all supernatural phenomena ; but only to those which are to be regarded as indications and proofs of the reality of that inter nal divine influence which particular persons, such as Jesus and his apostles, profess to have experienced. It cannot be denied that God can, in a supernatural manner, not only awaken certain ideas in the minds of individuals, but also produce at the same time a firm conviction of the supernatural and divine origin of these ideas (§ 7. Illust. 1). But of the reality of such operations on the minds of individuals, others cannot be convinced, unless a persuasion of their reality is produced in their own minds by a similar supernatural di vine influence, or unless the pretensions of the individuals to super natural influence, is substantiated by outward facts which are learn ed in the ordinary way, 1. e. by experience or history, and which can be viewed as conclusive evidence of the truth of- those profes sions. Now, if persons whose character gives them the strongest claims to credibility (<§. 7), profess that the same divine Being to whom they attributed their doctrines (<§> 6, 9), excited in them also the expectation of such miraculous phenomena in the material 246 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. II. world (<§> 8. Illust. 8. <§> 10. Illust. 26), phenomena the production of which the concurrent testimony pf all past ages pronounces to have surpassed the ability of the ablest and most distinguished men, and which the experience of our own age proves to be beyond the power of any person living ; and if the confident expectations of these men, which led them to announce and predict these extraor dinary phenomena (<§> 8), (however strange it may appear), were actually followed (§ 5), and beyond all suspicion of deception (<§> 8. Illust. 4), by the occurrence of those very phenomena, and this not only in one or in several instances, but in every instance and uniformly and without fail (§ 8. Illust. 6) ; would it not betray an un reasonable obstinacy, if, in defiance of all these facts, we should still doubt the correctness of these men's conviction of the divine origin of their doctrines, and especially since we are compelled to admit the possibility of such a conviction ? To others, to whom this in ward conviction could not be communicated, the truth and certainty of that personal consciousness from which Jesus and his apostles derived their conviction of the divine origin of their doctrines, are adequately proved by those miracles which most visibly and invari ably followed the declaration of these persons that they had an in ternal intimation and an expectation of them (nlotig§ 38). When ever the Spirit of God, acting through his messengers, produced vis ible effects (Acts 10: 38. Matt. 10: 28. Compare <§, 82), which, according to the experience of all ages, no other persons could pro duce ; that Spirit, though himself invisible, gave a demonstration that he really exerted an influence upon those his messengers who ascribed their doctrines to him (John 3: 34. Luke 4: 14), and proved that those doctrines, as well as their visible miraculous works, originated from himself, and were therefore true, because he, the Instructor of mankind by his divine messengers, is true.1 Nor should our inability to discriminate between absolute and relative miracles, involve us in doubt respecting the object of them.2 Whether these miracles were of an absolute or relative kind, is a matter of no im- 1 Jonn 5r 6- I" the work on the Object of John, p. 227, the words xal to* 7tvevpa—akif&eia are explained thus : " The Spirit, or gia of working miracles which was promised by Jesus for the confirmation of faith in him (John 6: 38. 14: 12), and whjch still continues since his. exaltation, proves the fact that the Spirit is true, {dXij&eia i. q. dli/thfe,) that Spirit which since the exaltation of Je sus, promulgates the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God." The miracles of the Spirit testify to the truth of his doctrines. By itvevfia, in the first clause, some interpreters (such as Grotius and Gabler) understand the miracles of Christ ; others, the religious views and feelings of Christians, which are the ef fects of christian doctrines ; Knapp includes in the testimony of the Spirit, all the evidences for the divinity of the person and doctrines of Jesus, in general : his miracles, his resurrection, and the internal excellence of his doctrines. See Lofler's Comment. Theolog. Paulus' Introd. to New Test. p. 44. s Schmidt, sup. cit. p. 108. $ 36.] IMMEDIATE INTERPOSITION. 247 portance here ; for in either case, it is certain that their avowed (and not merely afterwards conjectured) object,1 as stated by the persons themselves who wrought the miracles, was, to evince the truth of their conviction and profession of the inward influence of God upon their souls. Jesus and his apostles most certainly could not have accomplished this object, by the performance of numerous and various miracles, which always followed when they expected them, and which could not have been the result of chance f unless either natural talents superior to those of all other men had been given them, or a superior (a superhuman) being produced these mi racles through their instrumentality. Now, if it was the Lord of nature himself, (and the great variety of the miracles of Jesus and his apostles, most naturally leads us to the omnipotence of the God of nature as their cause), who in fact produced these phenomena, so that they were absolute miracles, wrought immediately by God himself; then God, by his immediate agency, did promote the pur poses of those who instrumentally wrought the miracles ; and the miracles actually evince, what they profess, that he exerted an in ward influence on their souls, to prove which, was, according to their declaration, the real object of those miracles. But if we re gard these miracles as relative, then they must either have been performed by a spirit of a higher rank, acting by divine command,3 or by the extraordinary natural talents of Jesus and his apostles. If the former was the case, then God did actually confirm what Jesus and his apostles wished to prove by those miracles, namely, that their souls were under the influence and agency of God. For it is one and the same thing, whether this declaration be confirmed im mediately by God, or mediately by a superior spirit acting under him. Thus, for example, the declaration of God that Jesus is the Messiah, is just as valid when made through the instrumentality of angels (Luke 2: 9 — 14. 1: 30 — 33), as when given immediately by himself (Matt. 3: 17. 17: 5. Comp. John 5:37. 2 Pet. 1: 17). — If the latter be the case, if the miracles were wrought by the ex traordinary natural powers of Jesus and his apostles, which is in the highest degree improbable (Illust. 1) ; even on this very improba ble supposition, the affirmation is not invalidated, that the object of the Author of nature in originally bestowing on them the extraor dinary talents by which they wrought these miracles, was the same as that which they themselves wished to accomplish by them.4 For, as the character of the miracles which Jesus wrought, corres ponded so perfectly with the doctrines which he wished to confirm by them ; we should be obliged to admit, that the Author of nature in- l § 8. Illust. 1 , 2, 6. § 10, 19. 2 § 8. Illust. 6. 3 § 8. Illust. 7. i § 8. Illust. 1,2,6. 248 CREATION' AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. II. tended to substantiate the doctrines of Jesus; and that he had no other object in view, as he gave Jesus ability to perform precisely such miracles, and only such, as corresponded perfectly with the doc trines he taught. Moreover, as those miracles recorded in the New Testament, which were performed by other persons besides Jesus, such as those wrought by his apostles and by his seventy disciples (Luke 10: 17), and even by those who were not professed disciples of Jesus1 — as all these miracles unitedly tend to support the author ity of Jesus,2 or that of his apostles3 which depended on his ;4 it necessarily follows, that we must believe that the object of these miracles was, to establish the authority of Jesus and his apostles, even if we adopt the supposition, that they were performed by vir tue of some natural powers to work miracles. And why should it be supposed, that the Author of nature, in bestowing on these per sons the power of working miracles, had any other object in view, than that which Jesus had when he wrought them, and which he openly avowed, namely, to establish his doctrines and authority ? For the miracles of all these different persons harmonized most per fectly, for the accomplishment of this same purpose ; nay, their na ture was such, that they were confined to this single purpose.5 Thus, for example, Paul could not use his miraculous powers in vindication of his Pharisaic principles, and in opposition to Chris tianity (Gal. 1: 14, 23) ; but was then only enabled to exert them, when he wished to use them in confirmation of the authority and doctrines of Jesus ; for while he was yet persecuting Jesus and his followers, he wrought no miracles, but assailed them only with im prisonment and punishments. But although this latter hypothesis, improbable as it is, would not militate against the authority of Jesus and his apostles, still the supernatural interference of God with the ordinary course of nature, can be proved only by those miracles, which were either absolute in their nature, or relative of the first class, that is, such as were wrought by a spirit of a higher order acting by command of God. 1 Mark 9: 38. Matt. 7: 22. 2 Mark 6: 7, he gave them power over unclean spirits. Acts 3: 16. 4: 7—10, 30. Luke 10: 17. Mark 9: 38. Matt. 7: 22. 3 Comp. the Dissertation "Von der Geistes Gaben der Korinthischen Chris ten, Neues Repert. Th. III. S. 346. See also supra, § 10. Illust. 27. 4 John 13: 20. 14: 13, 14. 15: 4, 7. Acts 3: 12—16. 2 Cor. 4: 5. § 9, 10. 5 Mark 9: 39. 1 Cor. 12: 3. In the " Dissert, on the epistles to the Corinthi ans," this passage is thus explained-: no ope who speaks in a strange language {iv ¦Ttvevpazi &eov,) can detract from Jesus ; and no one that speaks in a strange language, can praise Jesus, unless by the influence of the Holy Spirit: Opusc. Academ. Vol. II. p. 319. The miraculous gift of speaking in strange languages, could therefore be used only in honor of Jesus. § 37.] SUPERNATURAL DIVINE AGENCY POSSIBLE. 249 SECTION XXXVII. The possibility of other supernatural operations of God in the world, besides miracles. If it be a fact, that God exerts a supernatural agency in the world, then it is possible, that some phenomena are produced by his agency, which cannot with propriety be denominated miracles ;(1) either because there is nothing strange(2) about them, or because we have no express declaration from God, to assure us that such is their nature. (3) Illustration 1. We sometimes meet with occurrences of an extraordinary nature which excite admiration, and yet, as they can be explained in dif ferent ways, and as we cannot ascertain to a certainty the agent by which they are produced, they are not valid proofs or indications of a particular divine influence, like the proofs from miracles (otipt7a John 6: 25, 30. 2 Cor. 12: 12. Mark 16: 20, 17). And when any phenomenon is not intended to substantiate (§ 8, 10) the dec larations of some divine messenger, who professes to have an invis ible influence of God upon his soul (§ 6), but is produced merely that it may exist ; it is neither important (§ 39) nor necessary, that we should be able to distinguish the ordinary from the extraordina ry providence of God. III. 2. We can easily imagine that in particular circumstances of time and place, the agency of some natural cause or causes, unknown to us, may render the occurrence of a certain event, which has noth ing extraordinary in itself, impossible ; unless the immediate agency of God is exerted. Moreover, there actually are some instances of the supernatural agency of God (the influences of grace), the super natural origin of which cannot be discovered from their own nature, but must be learned exclusively from the declarations of God him self (§ 115). But as these divine influences are distinguished by nothing extraordinary to excite our astonishment,1 and as they make no deep impression on our senses f they do not point us distinctly to the superior cause whence they originate : and they are accord ingly no evidence of the extraordinary agency of God (Illust. 1). 1 Comp. " Dissert, de efficientia Spiritus Sancti, in mentibus humanis,'' § 20 a § 5. Illust. 6. § 8. Illust. 4, 6. 32 250 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. II. III. 3. Extraordinary occurrences, especially solitary ones ($ 8. Illust. 8), which we are unable to explain by the laws of nature known to us, may have been occasioned by the intervention of a circumstance which escaped our notice, or may be the natural effect of some cause with which we are unacquainted. SECTION XXXVIII. To believe the possibility of a supernatural agency of God in the world, is important in reference to prayer. We must admit, that God can exert a supernatural influence on the course of things in the world, or we cannot discharge the duty of prayer,(l) with perseverance and without any discouraging reflections. For, although prayer is prescribed for the benefit of men, (2) and not for the sake of God (Matt. 6: 8) ; still even the moral benefit of prayer(3) cannot be attained by us, unless we pray with earnest ness and fervour. But this, fervour in prayer will unavoidably sub- side,(4) unless we are convinced that God now regards our prayers, or that he did regard them in the primitive construction of the world. (5) Now, no firm conviction of this kind will be possible, if we suppose, what cannot be proved, either that God cannot any longer exert an influence on the created world, or that he very rarely does so, and only in case he finds miracles, necessary (<§> 36, 37. Illust. 1). For, as the natural course of things in the world very much depends on the free actions of beings (<§> 35. Illust. 4) who are neither acquainted with our circumstances nor concerned about them ; as it depends on the agency of beings whose actions God has determined to leave free, and not to confine by irresistible laws (§ 35. Illust. 2) ; our prayers would constantly be disturbed by the apprehension, that the course of nature might not coincide with our wishes or subserve our interest ; and our hope, that God him self would aid us, would ever be a doubtful one; inasmuch as he would be bound by an immutable law not to change the natural course of things, even in those cases where it militated against our interest and our wishes (James 1:6). If it were the first and su- § 38.] PRAYER. 251 preme object of God, even at the time of creation, to leave the cre ated world to its own course ; we should have reason to fear, that this fixed purpose of his would not suffer him to regard our prayers and provide for our happiness. But if God can act freely, and to any extent, in and upon the created world ;(6) then we may confident ly hope that, in every instance, let the natural course of things be what it may, God will not suffer any thing to befal us,(7) but whal is, according to his infallible judgment, best calculated to promote our interest, nothing but what will correspond with the desires ut tered to him in our prayers, or at least with the purport of such prayers as are well pleasing in his sight. (8) Illustration 1. Luke 18: 1—8. Ps. 50: 15. Philip. 4: 6. comp. Rom. 15: 30—32. III. 2. Compare the Programm of Nitzsch, (at Wittenberg), on the Manner in which Jesus enforced the duty of prayer, p. 13, 38. III. 3. The advantages of prayer. Michaelis, in his System of practical divinity (Pt. I. p. 222), specifies the following benefits of prayer : " It imparts a sensible form (a visible reality) to our abstract and theoretical faith, and thus renders it a better shield against the assaults of vice, which comes armed with the powers of sense : — It renders us familiar with things invisible : — It makes us recollect the invisible God, more fre quently, amid our ordinary avocations : — It makes us afraid of trans gressing the divine laws, and causes shame before God for our past sins : — And, lastly, it awakens a lively feeling of gratitude to God." Nitzsch, in his programm (p. 8), remarks thus : " The desire of di vine aid, which is brought into action in prayer, awakens in us a more vivid idea of God and of his attributes, and especially it ex cites a feeling of our dependance on him, as our Lord and Judge, and as the Author of our happiness ; and thus in many respects contributes to improve our hearts and spread tranquillity through our souls." III. 4. The ground of earnestness in prayer. Nitzsch, in the above cited programm (p. 37 etc.), remarks : " If, agreeably to the purpose of God, prayer is nothing more than a religious exercise for the promotion of practical piety ; still, as he 252 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. 11. commands us to pray to him, he must wish us to believe that he regards our prayers. For, the fervour of our prayer would neces sarily and instantly subside, if whilst we were engaged in earnest supplication, the thought should arise, " God does indeed command me to pray, but this prayer will not secure to me a single blessing which he would not have given me without it." III. 5. Luke 11: 8, 9, v.hfizt, xul So&ijaetat vp7v ask and it shall be given to you. 1 Pet. 3: 12, td olia xvgiov tig Strjaiv Si- xaitav the ears of the Lord are attentive to the prayer of the right eous. Compare Psalm 24: 16, 18. 145: 18 etc. rrrr rrhjj TN-ij?-iob Jehovah is near to all who call upon him. III. 6. Mark 14: 36, «/?/?<* o nat-^g, ndvta Sward aoi Abba Father, all things are possible to thee. Ps. 86: 6 — 10. III. 7. Rom. 8: 28 etc. to7g ayanwai tov &tdv, ndvta qvvtgyu tig zd dya&dv to those who love God, all things work together for good. v. 31 etc. 1 Pet. 5: 7. Heb. 13: 5, 6. III. 8. The proper nature of prayer. The nature of that confidence in God which we are to manifest in our prayers, requires that we should regard God's views and de signs as the wisest and best, and that our prayers for all those things which it is lawful for us to ask of God, such as the supply of our bodily necessities,1 but which have no necessary influence on our moral improvement,2 should never be absolute and unconditional ; but we should pray that God would bestow them, if in his wisdom he sees them to be good for us ;3 for often the things which we de sire as blessings, would, if bestowed, prove a curse.4 " Germanus5 Christi discipulus in eo gehere precationis, quo certa hujus vitae com- moda expetit, mala deprecatur, ipsi Deo, quod sibi conveniat decer- nendum relinquet ; ea vero bona, quorum nobis spem certain fecit Christus, (e. g. nvtvpa dyiov Luke 11: 13), ita Deum rogabit ut nihil intermittat eorum, quae ab ipso fieri oporteat ad impetrandum auxilium divinum."6 Very different was the case with those who 1 Matt. 6: 11. 24: 20. Phil. 4: 6. 1 Pet. 5: 7. 2 Luke 11: 13. 3 Matt. 26: 39. Gen. 1: 10. 15: 32. 4 2 Cor. 12: 8. compare Michaelis' Dogmat. p. 6G8. 5 Nitzsch, Programm, p. 48. 6 [i. e. A genuine disciple of Christ, when supplicating for particular tempo ral blessings, or praying to be shielded from temporal- evils, will leave it to God to decide what things are best for him ; but when praying for such blessings as Christ has assured us will be granted, (e. g. the Holy Spirit, Luke 11: 13), he will so pray as not to neglect any means necessary for obtaining the divine as sistance. S.] § 38.] NATURE OF PRAYER. 253 wrought miracles, and whose prayers were followed by the extraor dinary events which they expected.1 For in them God himself ex cited the assurance (niaztv)^ that precisely those miracles for which they prayed, were agreeable to his will. Illazig in this passage, signifies an antecedent conviction that an extraordinary occurrence, which was yet invisible and only anticipated, would actually take place, when desired or prayed for by the worker of miracles. 17/(7- ttg expresses the generic idea, including yaglapata lapdttov gifts of healing, and ivepyrjpaza Svvdpttov the exercise of miraculous pow ers v. 9, IO.3 But this special assurance (nlang), which those who wrought miracles must have possessed, if the extraordinary effects produced by them are to be regarded as real miracles (¦§> 36. Illust. 3), is not given to us. Nor is it necessary it should be; for, the general belief of a divine providence which takes charge of all our interests and necessities, is amply sufficient for us.4 Note on this paragraph. In the annunciation of his " Elementary Course etc," given by the author, in the Tiibing. gel. Anz. (sup. cit.,) is the following further exposition of his views : " the author does not believe, that his view of the doctrine of divine providence tends to encourage the expectations of those who regard the faith of miracles as continuing through every age of the church, and as being attainable at any time by real Christians. — If we are convinced, that God is not con fined to the ordinary course of nature (§ 35, 36. Illust. 1,) that whenever it is necessary to the attainment of his purpose, he can exert his personal agency for its accomplishment (§ 37,) and is never obliged to sacrifice our best interests to the immutability of nature's laws (<§> 38 ;) then we can with the greater propriety re gard every event which God suffers to occur in the natural course of things, as accordant with his benevolent intentions (§ 39). Hence, as we admit that God can interfere with the course of na ture, we shall be the more contented with the course of nature as it 1 John 11: 42. 14: 12 — 14 (comp. Dissert. II, in libros N. T. historicos, p. 54. Opusc. Acad. Vol. III. p. 153). Acts 8: 15—17. 28: 8. 9: 40 (compare James 5: 15 etc.) 2 Mark 11: 22—24. 1 Cor. 12: 9. 3 " On others, the same Spirit bestows faith ; some are taught by the same Spirit to perform miraculous cures, and others, to perform other miracles." To the other spiritual gifts mentioned in this chapter, Xoyoe eotpiag, yvojoeojg,ngoqyri- zeia, yivrj yhuooiuv, this it'uszif was not required ; for the individual was already conscious of the possession of these gifts, at the time of using them. This ex planation ofniazis, is found in the Neuem Repert. Vol. III. p. 322. See in this connexion, Matt. 17: 20. 21: 21. l See Tubing, gel. Anzeigi for 1793, p. 372 etc. 254 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. II. is, and feel less need of the extraordinary interposition of God. For, the composure of our minds does not require an actual change in the course of things in every particular instance, but only the possibility of such change ($ 37,) and an expectation that such change will be made, whenever a case shall occur in which our interest shall, in the judgment of God, render such change necessary. But, to under take to determine the particular cases in which such interference is necessary, would be laying claim to the possession of the faith of miracles. Whoever confides in the omnipotent and omniscient God of love, as one that has all things under his control, will act, in every instance, agreeably to his best judgment and abilities (§ 40 ;) for he knows that such a dutiful course of conduct is agreeable to the di vine will ; and he is assured, that if the interference of God with the course of nature should at any time be necessary, God does not stand in need of our wisdom to point it out to him, or of our co operation to enable him to effect it." SECTION XXXIX. Every thing takes place according to the will and the purposes of God: — an inference from the preceding paragraphs. • If God can at any instant interfere with the course of nature (§ 37, 38,) it necessarily follows, that all things take place in accor dance with his pleasure. For, as nothing can occur without his knowledge(l) and foresight of it (§ 22) (2,) and as God is not bound to leave all events to their natural course ; it is evident, that whatever he leaves to the course of nature, not choosing to interfere in the case, takes place, not merely because such is the course of nature, but because the Regent of the course of nature found this event to be in accordance with his wise and benevolent purposes ; (3) for, otherwise he would have interfered, in a supernatural man ner, with the operation of natural causes. (4) With the utmost pro priety, then, we acknowledge a design and a providence(5) of God, in every event which transpires in the world, even when we can discover no traces of a particular divine agency. (6) Illustration 1. See Ps. 139: 16. Acts 11: 28. 20: 23. 21: 11, and other passa ges. $,39.] MORAL AND PHYSICAL EVIL. 255 III. 2. The omniscience of God. Matt. 10: 29, tv atgov&lov ov ntae7tat inl zrjv yrjv, avtv tov natgog vpmv not a sparrow falleth to the ground without your Father (see also Luke 12: 16. Ps. 139: 1 — 15.) "Avtv tov natgog vpdlv is rendered by Kypke, " inscio et invito Patre vestro" with out the knowledge and consent of your Father. This signification of avtv, he proves by several passages from profane writers. Jose phus1 uses in the same sense, the expression Slxa Qtov absque Deo, without God ; and in the same passage, he uses the phrase Siya tdiv initgonmv, which he himself explains thus, " prj ziov intptXrjttZv ngoata'^avtmv without a direction (or command) from the inspec tors." III. 3. Thus, for example, the elder James was killed by Her od (Acts 12: 2 ;) but not contrary to the will of God [avtv &t ov.] For, if the execution of this apostle had not accorded with the designs of God, he could as easily have prevented it, as prevent the execution of Peter, which he did at the same time and under similar circumstances (v. 6 etc.) III. 4. The object of God in the permission of physical and moral evil, is benevolent and wise. God has wise and benevolent objects in view, not only in the difficulties and afflictions which befal us in this life, that is, in the physical evil (§ 23 ;) but also in the permission of moral evil. For, as rational and free moral agents are the most noble and the princi pal creatures in the universe, and as freedom in rational creatures who are not absolutely perfect,2 necessarily implies ability to sin ; both the perfection of the best possible world and the wisdom and goodness of God require, that beings should exist who are capable of sinning. The objection, " that if we suppose God permitted evil, we shall make him a co-worker with evil doers, since permitting it in an absolutely dependent being, is little better than being a co-worker with him," is thus answered by Siiskind : 3 " This objection posses ses no force, unless it can be proved that God could have prevent ed the evil in dependent creatures, without detriment to the highest good ; or that God permitted the evil for the same reason as the good, namely, because it was pleasing to him, i. e. that he permitted - evil to exist, for its own sake. But neither of these suppositions is admitted in the usual view of this subject ; for, ability to sin is con- i De bell. Jud. Lib. II. o. 8. § 6. 2 Job 15: 15. 4: 18. 3 Mag. fiir christliche Dog. und Moral, St. 17. S. 161 etc. 256 CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. [BK. II. sidered in the common system, as an indispensable condition of the existence of morality and freedom." — Actual transgression God prevents only by moral means ; by various motives he endeavours to bring his free creatures to abhor the evil and love that which is good. See°Gen. 2: 16. 3: 3. Rom. 2: 14. 1: 32. Luke 16: 29 etc. Matt. 11: 20. John 15: 22 — 24. In these passages, the physical evil which is connected with moral evil, and the menaces of conscience, and the revelation contained in Scripture, and miracles, are men tioned as the means by which God endeavours to excite a hatred of evil and a love of virtue. If men form sinful resolutions, God can render their execution impossible ; and by his special agency, if the operation of natural causes is insufficient, frustrate their immoral purposes. This may be exemplified by the liberation of Peter, through the instrumentality of an angel (Acts 12: 6 etc.;) the with ering of Jeroboam's hand, when he extended it against a prophet (1 K. 13: 4 etc.;) the transportation of Jesus to Egypt by a divine command to Joseph (Matt. 2: 13 ;) by the preservation of Paul from being murdered through the intervention of the Roman cap tain of the band who heard the noise (Acts 21: 31 ;) and on anoth er occasion, by his being apprised of their murderous intention by his nephew (Acts 22: 16.) But the wicked intention remains the same, although prevented from going into execution by an external power. Beings possessed of moral agency, are generally not rendered either better or happier by the obstacles which prevent the execution of their plans. And if every sinful undertaking were hindered, and all wicked actions rendered impossible, by an external force ; the consequence would be, that rational agents would lose their freedom, and with it their dignity and happiness. On the other hand, criminal actions, which are actually perpetrated, may be followed by effects very different from what their wicked agents ex pected, and may advance the purposes of a wise God.1 For these reasons, God very frequently does not interpose and prevent moral evil. But the object for which God permits sin, is very different from the sinful guilty object of those who commit it ; for the wick ed are punished for their crimes, even when they promote the ac complishment of the divine purposes.2 The object of God is always and exclusively good and benevolent. Thus Joseph says (Gen. 50: 20,) fDrf; nsicfi WrrbN nan " 39,) that God exerts no extraordinary agency, excepting when the Ordinary course of nature does not har monize with his purposes. But we cannot determine what the di vine purposes are (§ 22. Illust. 1 ;) yet this we certainly know, that indolence(l) and presumption(2) are displeasing to God(3;)and we have no reason to expect, that God will exert an extraordinary influence to counteract the consequences of these sins. (4) Illustration 1. 1 Thess. 4: 11, ngdaattv td iStu, xal igyd^ta&aitoTig iSiatg xtgoiv to transact your own business, and to work with your own hands. 2 Thess. 3: 6 etc. Luke 16: 10—12. Matt. 25: 26. III. 2. Matt. 4: 5 — 7, ovx ixniigdatig xvgiov tov -&tov aov thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God. III. 3. Although Paul, in his voyage to Italy (Acts ch. 27,) had received a divine assurance of the happy results of the perils of the ship's company (v. 23, 25,) still he did not neglect to employ hu man assistance and precaution (v. 31, 34.) Though convinced that it was the intention of God to save the persons in the ship, he was also persuaded that human prudence and exertion must cooperate for the accomplishment of the end. III. 4. See Prov. 6: 9—11. 24: 30 etc 13: 4, 5. SECTION XLI. Conclusion. As the providence of God in the affairs of men, has been mani fested in an arrangement of a very peculiar nature, an arrangement <§> 41.] CONCLUSION. 25S deserving of our highest regard, as well on account of its intrinsic nature as of its reference to us ; it is necessary that this arrangement (for our salvation through Christ) should be considered more speci fically and at large. This shall be done in the second chapter oi the third book, and in the fourth book. But as this same arrange ment has given us some new views of God himself, and has also cast some new light on the subject of Creation and Providence, dis cussed in this second book ; it is necessary to add a supplement to it, wliich is contained in the following Third Part. PART III. OP GOD, AS FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST. SECTION XLH. Christ is god, and is called god in the highest sense. Christ, the Being through whose instrumentality (§ 6 — 8, 65, 4 etc.) God accomplishes the purposes of his special providence over man ($ 41,) is represented to us as not being a mere man ;(l) for to him the Scriptures ascribe an existence before his human birth, (2) and even prior to the beginning of the world :(3) in short, they attribute to him an eternal(4) existence. Nor can it be deemed strange, that this divine attribute,(5) as well as other perfections of God, (6) together with that adoration(7) which results from them, and which can properly belong only to the divine Being,(8) should be ascribed to Christ ; inasmuch as even the Scriptural representa tion of the true God (§ 20, 33,) is also transferred to him. (9) And hence we may easily determine, in what sense(lO) the name God(ll) is applied to him. (12) Illustration 1. Evidence of the twofold nature of Christ. The fact that Christ possesses another nature, in addition to the o-ao-g1 or human nature, is proved by the following passages : John 6: 62, idv ovv deojgijrt zov viov zov av&gwnov avaftulvovra bnovrtv zd npoztgov; what if ye should see the son of man ascending thither where he was before ? 16: 28, i^rjX&ov naga zov nazgog, xal iXrjXv- ¦9a tig zov xoapov ndXiv aqjlrjpi zov xoapov, xal nogtvopaingdg zov naziga I departed from the Father and came into the world ; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. 8: 14, Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, my record is true ; for I know whence 1 came and whither I go ; but ye cannot tell whence I came and whither I go. 3: 11, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, we speak what we know, and testify that which we have seen ; and ye receive not our testimony, v. 4, For none ascendeth into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, 1 Rom. 1: 3. 9: 5. §42.] THE TWOFOLD NATURE OF CHRIST. 261 the Son of man, who is in heaven [whose abode is in heaven.] 6: 46, Not that any man hath seen the Father, except him who is from God ; he hath seen the Father, v. 33, For the bread of God is that (o — dgzog) which descendeth from heaven and giveth life to the world, v. 38, For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me ; comp. v. 50 etc. 8: 23, And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath ; iytd ix tdjv dvm tlpl I am from above. 1 Cor. 15: 47 — 49, The first man is made of earth, and is earthy ; but the Second Man is xvgiog t j; ovgavov the Lord who came from heaven. The passage 1 Tim. 3: 16, (Great unquestionably is the mystery of godliness [the divine secret,] God was manifested in the flesh etc.,) even on the supposition that og, and not & e 6 g, is the true reading ; proves at least, that there was in Christ a nature different from that feeble human nature in which he appeared. In the Programm, re ferred to in the margin, reasons are assigned, to prove that the sense of this text will be the same, whether og or &tdg be the true read ing ; and the words dg iqavtpoi&t] iv aapxl are explained thus :¦ " The words og—Sd^, might easily be so construed, that the first clause dg iqavepw&t] iv aagxl should be the subject, and all the subsequent propositions, predicates. But in this case, the inspired writer would have said, o iqavtgco&ttg iv aapxl, in order to distin guish the subject from the several predicates which follow. It is, therefore, better to refer og to the preceding word pvat-iipiov, and to translate (persynesin) thus : " The great secret, the subject of which etc. (cujus objectum, materies ;) i. e. the person who was the sub ject of this great secret etc." In 1 Tim. 6: 10, qiXagyvgia, rig (cujus objectum, sive materies,) and in Col. 1: 27, dgiati Xgtatdg, the relative pronoun og has the same signification, as we give it here by referring dg to pvazrigiov immediately preceding. Agreeably to this explanation of dg, the words og— aapxl presuppose a higher in visible nature of Christ ; or they must be understood thus : " A high er being which was united with Christ, made his appearance as a man." For if Paul had merely intended to say, " He (the man Jesus) appeared as a weak man ;" then the qavipwatg iv aagxl of Christ, on the supposition of his having been a mere man, was some thing so perfectly natural, that it [his appearance] could not be represented as being piya pvazrigiov a great mystery, or any part of one. This is corroborated by the following words : iSixuita&i} iv nvtv pati, when explained thus : " the professions of Jesus relative to his superior dignity, which seemed to be inconsistent with his appear ance in frail human nature, were proved true (justified, confirmed,) by his subsequent glorious happiness, nvtvpa — dvtXziqO-v iv Soln." If Paul referred, in these words, to another and a higher nature of Christ, distinct from the man Jesus ; it was the same nature which 262 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. he ascribes to Christ in other passages, namely, a divine nature, in the highest sense of the word. The twofold nature of Christ, is also proved by the fact, that he is often distinguished from men. Gal. 1:1, 10 — 12, An apostle, not by man, but by Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 7: 22 etc. If any one who is a servant, is called of the Lord [converted to Christianity,] he is made free by the Lord [he enjoys the liberty of the children of God ;] and in like manner, if a free man is called [converted,] he becomes the servant of Christ etc. Eph. 6: 6 etc. Not with eye service as pleasing men, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God with sincerity of heart. Col. 3: 23 etc. And whatsoever ye do, do it from the heart, aS to the Lord, and not unto men : — for ye ' serve the Lord Christ. Heb. 7: 28, For the law makes feeble men highpriests ; but the declaration, which has been made since the law, and which was confirmed by an oath (Ps. 110: 4,) makes the Son Highpriest, who is raised forever into glory. See the Dissertation of Dionys. van de Wijnpersse, entitled, " A vindication of the true and eternal divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, against the more recent objections to it," which is found inthework of the society at the Hague, For the defence of the christian reli gion (1792). This dissertation proves in the happiest manner, how utterly inconsistent with the whole spirit of the New Testament, is the supposition that Christ was a mere man ; and how perfectly that spirit harmonizes with doctrines maintained in this paragraph (<§. 42). III. 2. The existence of Christ, before his appearance in the flesh. Proof of this is found in the two following passages of John's Gospel : I. John 8: 58, 'Aprpi, dprjv, Xiym vp7vm nglv 'Afipadp ytviad-at, dpi verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am. The following translation of this passage is given in the works re ferred to : " Before Abraham was, I existed." Wetstein (on John 8: 58) does indeed observe, " Desidero locum Scripturae, ubi, iytd t ip i significat, ego eram (I existed), vel ego sum simpliciter ;" but there _is no necessity for such a passage, if it can only be proved that thai has the signification to exist ; and this it certainly has in John 17: 5 ; as also its participle ovta in Rom. 4: 17. This trans lation is vindicated against the explanations of the Socinians and others, (who supply to tipl, either Xgtatdg or some other predicate consisting of a word or proposition), on the following grounds : 1. Agreeably to the idiom of the Hebrew, and also of the Evan gelist John, the present dpi may be used instead of the imperfect yv, see 1 John 3: 7. 2: 29. 4: 17. This, says Bengel, is particularly the case, when that which is affirmed to have been, still continues <§> 42.] PREEXISTENCE OF CHRIST. 263 to be ; and thus the sense of both the present and preterite is com prehended in the present; as in John 15:27, iati. Jer. '1:5 (LXX), iniazapai at. 2. The explanation, " Before Abraham was, I was appointed to be the Messiah," (which is adopted by Loner, in the German ver sion of Souverain's Essay on the Platonism of the Fathers of the church p. 385, and in Eichhorn's Bibl. VII. p. 1027) is certainly not founded on the words iyto dpi. The phrase d Xgiazog, or o ipxdptvog, if applied to dpi, should stand immediately before it, and in the context as it does in ch; 4: 26 ; but this is not the case here. So Ziegler says : " The explanation, ' I was appointed to be the Messiah,' is unsupported by a satisfactory proof of such an idiom ; and consequently this passage itself cannot be used as such a proof,"1 3. Another explanation, (given in the Allgem. Litter. Zeitung,) is this :2 " Before Abraham was born, I am he, at whose day he sincerely rejoiced, i. e. I am the Messiah." To this view of the text, the following objections present themselves : (a) Christ would, on this supposition, merely repeat (in v. 58) what he had previous ly said (v. 56), in the words 'Afigaap rjyaXXidaazOt'iva 'iSrj zrjv rjpt- gav zt]v iprjv. For, the assertion iyto dpi or " I am he," at whose day Abraham rejoiced, is already contained in ipr]v. — (b) The words nglv 'Appadp ytviaitai, would not only be superfluous, but would appear unnatural, if Jesus had intended by the words " I am he to see whose day Abraham rejoiced," to represent himself simply as the Messiah ; and this without regarding the question of the Jews (v. 57), but passing it by altogether, as unworthy of notice. — (c) Nothing which can suitably be supplied to iyto dpi, can be taken from the remote 56th verse, but must be derived from the 57th verse which immediately precedes it : so that the sense would be, iyoi dpi, dg itdgaxt zov 'Afipadp, i. e. " I am he that knew Abra ham, before he was born." — (d) Agreeably to the version, " Before Abraham was, I existed," the passage contains the proof requisite to support the assertion, that Jesus is greater than Abraham (v. 53). This proof lies in his preexistence ; and Jesus took occasion from the question of the Jews (v. 57), to appeal to this evidence of the dignity of his person. II. John 1: 15, 'O dniaw pov ipyoptvog, t'pnpoa&iv pov yiyovtv" dti npdizdg pov r\v he that cometh after me, is preferred to me, for he was before me. In the work referred to in the margin, the following version is given of this passage : " He that cometh after me, goes before me 1 See Henke's Magaz. fur Religionsphilosophie, B. V. St. 2. S. 262. 2 Jahi-g. 1793, No. 235, 296. comp. Paulus' Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 461 etc. 264 THE TRINITY. [bK. II. is greater than I, v. 27, ov — vnoxrjpazog' Matt. 3: 11, iaxvgdttgdg pov iaziv. John 3: 31, inavto navzwv iozt] ; for he existed before I did." An^ tne remark is added, " that the Evangelist probably ad duces this declaration of the Baptist, in opposition to the objection which was advanced against Christianity, at least by the later disci ples (<§> 16) of John : that the doctrines of the Baptist are older than those of Christ. Ewald remarks, that if both expressions, i'pngoa&iv pov yiyovtv and ngiozog pov i)v, are referred to any other precedency than priority of lime, there would be a tautology. And Kuinol subjoins the additional remark, that tpngoa&tv is never us ed to express precedency in dignity or respectability, either in the New Testament or the LXX, or in the profane authors. To the explanation of these words given by Bolten, who refers them to an earlier residence of Jesus near the Jordan ; Paulus justly objects, (a) that it should then read, ngwtdg pov mSt rjv, or nagtjv, he was here before me, or be was there before me : — and (b) that agreea bly to Matt. 3: 13, Jesus was just come from Galilee, to be baptized. III. 3. The antemundane existence of Christ. That Christ existed prior to the beginning of the world, is evi dent from the following texts : I. John 1: 1, 'Ev dgxfi r)v d Xoyog in the beginning was the word; comp. v. 3. In the work " on the Object of the Gospel of John," the version of the words iv dgyri " in the beginning of the world," is vindicated against the Socinian translation, " in the beginning of the Gospel." The grounds of the defence are the following : 1. The position, that the words iv dgyy, when standing alone, can sig nify " in the beginning of the Gospel," is altogether unsupported by evidence. In Mark 1 : 1, we find the words iv dgyfj tov tvayytXLov, but not dgxfj alone. — 2. It is evident from the third verse, that all created things must be conceived as not existing previously to this dgyfi or beginning. See infra, Illust. 9. 1. II. John 17: 5, 24, AoSa, fi eixov ngo tov zov xoapov eivat, nu- ga aui'—ztjv^ So'^av ztjv iprjv, ijv tSwxdg pot, dzi zjydnrjadg pt ngo xatapoXng xoapov the glory which I had with thee before the world was :— my glory, which thou gavest me, because thou lovedst me before the formation of the world. The following explanation of this passage, is given in the work " on the Object of the Gospel of John :" " the glory which thou gavest [art about to give] me, be cause thou (as I was with thee before the world was) didst love me before the world was formed."— In opposition to another exposition, (which renders the words in v. 24 and 5, So£u rjv i'Swxdg poi, and fl t'lxov nagd aol, thus : " the glory which thou didst appoint for me or which I had agreeably to thine eternal appointment,") the form- § 42.] ETERNITY OF CHRIST. 265 er version is supported by the following arguments : 1. In the oth er passages, Jesus combines together, his going to the Father when he leaves the world, and his existence with him before he appeared on earth. John 3: 13. 6: 62. 16: 28.-2. St. John himself seems to favour the former explanation. Compare John 1: 2, ovtog vv iv dgxfi ngdg tov fttov, and 1 John 1 : 2, r] fan} r] aitaviog, ijtig nv ¦ngog tov natiga, with the words fi tixoy nagd aol ngo tov zov xoa pov e7vai, this was in the beginning with God — that eternal life which was with the Father — which I had with thee before the world was. That *#£«' can signify, " to have any thing in purpose," which is maintained by Grotius and Wetstein, is denied by Ewald. By similar phraseology, the existence of Christ before the formation of the world, is expressed in Col. 1: 17, xal avtog iati ngo ndvttov " therefore (because he is the Creator of all things v. 16) he also existed before all." III. 4. The eternity of Christ. That Jesus existed from eternity, is distinctly taught, in 1 John 1: 2, tryv £ojrjv tyv aituviov, rytig rjv ngog tov natiga, xal iqavtgto&y yp7v (we bear witness, and show unto you) that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. Compare with this, Heb. 1: 10 — 12, thou Lord (Christ, v. I — 10) in the begin ning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands ; they shall be destroyed, but thou shalt continue to exist, and they shall all grow old as a garment. Rev. 22: 13, iyot dpi td A xal to Si, ngdizog xal eaxazog I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. In the New Apology for the Revelation,1 it is stated that these words which are applied to Christ, manifestly contain a description of the true God, and represent him as the Author and End of the whole creation ; for, in Rev. 21: 5, 6, God is described in simi lar terms : iyoi dpi zd A xal to Si, r] dgxt] xal to tiXog. The same idea is, in Rom. 11: 36, expressed thus : St avtov xat tig avtov id ndvta, and in Heb. 2: 10, as follows : Si ov za navta, xal St ov ta navza. Michaelis2 indeed thinks it possible, that the words iyto dpi d ngoltog xal d iayatog, in the two passages Rev. 1: 17. 2: 8, should signify, " I am the first whom thou didst know as a mortal, and the last whom now immortal, thou shalt again see ; i. e. 1 am still the same whom thou hast known." And his reason is, that in both these passages, the resurrection of Jesus is spoken of immediately after. But in Rev. 22: 15, at least, there is no allusion to the re surrection of Christ from the dead. 1 p. 381 etc. (Illust. 7. inf.) 2 Introd. to N. T. 3d ed. d. 1352. 34 266 THE TRINITY. [BK. H. III. 5. 1 John 5: 20, o dXtj&ivSg -frtdg xal r] Cf»v aiuvtog the true God and eternal life. Rev. 21: 6. Is. 44: 6. 48: 12, "•:» ¦jiiriN "'iN-^N "pawn I am the First and the Last. Compare §29. III. 6. Other divine attributes ascribed to Christ. 1. Omnipotence: Phil. 3: 21, ivt'gynu tov Svvaa&tti avtov xat vnotdl-ai iavza td ndvta the power by which also he is able to sub due all things to himself. Compare John 10: 28 — 30. In the work on the Object of the Gospel of John, the sense of this last passage is given thus : " As the Father is greater than all, so that no enemy can wrest those who are mine, out of his hands (v. 29) ; in like manner, nothing can wrest them out of my hands (v. 28) ; for I and the Father are one ; we are so united, that the dominion and the omnipotent power of the Father are mine." The explanation of the words iv iapev, as signifying an agreement of the Son with the Father, in their views and feelings in regard to the improvement of the human family, is exposed to the following difficulties : (a) It is not proved, that tv thai is frequently synonymous with to uvto qgovitv or to be of one mind. Even in John 17: 11, tv that does not necessarily refer merely to oneness or similarity of views, but can very naturally include union in the enjoyment of the same priv ileges, hopes, and happiness, (b) The context of this passage (10; 28 — 30) leads us to the explanation above. For Jesus uses the same expressions in v. 29 and 28, " No one can wrest my sheep from the Father's hand — no one shall wrest them out of my hand." Both clauses must therefore be understood alike, and as the first is deduced from the power of the Father (o nazrjg pov ptiCojv ndvtoiv iati v. 29) ; so also must the latter, namely, the impossibility of wresting the sheep of Christ out of his hands, be grounded on the protecting power of Christ ; and this is confirmed by the preceding words xayoi £tor]v aitdviov SlStopt aito7g I give them my salvation. John 10: 18, e£ovoia.v i'xto &e7vai avzrjv (zrjv Wvxrjv), xal i£oveiav i'Xto ndXiv la§e7v avtrjv I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to resume it. In ch. 2: 19 he says, Destroy this tem ple, aijd I will build it again in three days ; and in other passages, his resurrection is ascribed to God, e. g. Acts 2: 24, 32. 3: 13, 15, 5: 30. 1 Cor. 6: 14. 15: 15. Divine power [&tia Siivapig] is also ascribed to Christ, in 2 Pet. 1:3. comp. v. 16 Svvaptg and peya- Xetdtyg. For, avzov (v. 3) must refer to 'irjaov tov xvoiov vporv (v. 2). 2. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ, in 1 Cor. 4: 5. Rev. 2: 23.— [Matt. 1 1: 27, " AU things are delivered to me of my Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." § 42.] ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST— OMNISCIENCE. 267 If in this passage, the same omniscience be not ascribed to the Son as to the Father ; I am unable to make out satisfactorily what the meaning of it is. In the latter clause of the verse, men are de clared to be entirely dependent on the Son for that knowledge of the Father which is revealed ; i. e. he only makes this revelation. John 1: 18, " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only begot ten who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him." At the same time I concede, it is possible, that the knowledge here spoken of,, may be merely that which is intended to be revealed in the Gospel. John 6: 46, " Because that no man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." The word itdguxe here, does not mean to see with bodily eyes, but with the mental eye, i. e. to know. What but omniscience could be adequate to the knowledge here predicated of Christ ? And is it a satisfactory explanation of the text to say, that the knowledge here meant, is simply that which is conveyed in the instructions of the Gospel ? In the same manner, the knowledge of the most intimate secrets of the human heart, is ascribed to Christ. John 2: 24, 25, " But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men ; and needed not that any should testify of man ; for he knew what was in man." John 6: 64, " But there are some of you that be lieve not. For Jesus knew who they were that believed not, and who should betray him." Acts 1 : 24, " And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen." That Lord (xvgiog) here means Christ, seems to me very plain from verses 21 and 22 (compare ve;rse 6) of the context. Besides, this is the common appellation of the Saviour, in the Acts of the Apostles. The appeal made in this case, respects the choice of an apostle. " Shew, Lord," say the apostles, " which of these two thou hast chosen ; that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship." Is there any room to doubt, here, that the apostles did appeal to the same Lord who had chosen them, to designate who shall fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas ? 1 Cor. 4: 4, 5, " For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified ; but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts ; and then shall every man have praise of God." That Lord (xvgiog) here means Christ, is plain, both from the office of judging ascribed to him, and from his coming to judgment. Without citing numerous other passages, which confes sedly represent Christ as the final Judge of all the human race ; 268 the trinity. [bk. II. om- permit me here to ask, Is it possible for any being who is not niscient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures ? Can he for thousands of years, (possibly of ages), be present every where, and know what is transacted ; can he penetrate the recesses of the hu man heart ; can he remember the whole character and actions of countless myriads so diverse in talents, temper, circumstances, and situation ;— and yet be finite ? be neither omnipresent nor omnis cient 1 God claims it as his distinguishing and peculiar prerogative, that he knows the secrets of the human heart (Jer. 17: 10) ; what then must he be, who knows the secrets of all hearts at all times, and in all worlds ? If he be not God, the proof that the Father is God, is defective too ; and we have the question again to dispute with the Manicheans, whether Jehovah be not a limited and imper fect being. " But," you will say, " Christ acts as Judge by delegated au thority : why not then, by knowledge imparted to him ?" He does indeed act as Judge by delegated authority, because it is in his me diatorial capacity that he acts as Judge ; but to act as Judge is one thing, to be qualified for such an office is another. Exaltation as Mediator constitutes him Judge in that capacity ; omnipresence and omniscience only can qualify him for the duties of that station. And can omniscience be imparted 1 We may as well say omnipotence or self-existence can be imparted. There is, and there can be but one God ; and a second omniscient being, (omniscient simply by knowl edge imparted), would force us into all the absurdities of polytheism. Rev. 2: 23, " And all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts ; and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." The same person speaks here, who " was dead and is alive," i. e. Christ, (chap. 1: 18). The sense of the passage is too plain to need any comment. To conclude this head : when I compare such passages as those above cited, with the description of divine omniscience, how can I doubt that the New Testament writers mean to ascribe the knowl edge of all things to Christ ? To say that whatsoever pertains to God or man, is known by any being, is to predicate omniscience of that being. Compare now with this, the knowledge which God as cribes to himself only, in Jer. 17: 9, 10, " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked ; who can know it ? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."1] [1 See " Letters to the Rev. Wm. E. Channing etc." on the divinity of Christ, by Professor Stuart ; from which the above paragraphs relative to the omnis cience of Christ, are extracted. S] § 42.] ATTRIB. OF CHRIST HONOUR, WORSHIP. 269 III. 7. Divine honour and worship are ascribed to Christ. I. John 5: 23, "Iva ndvztg tipoZai tdv vlov, xa&tdg tipwai tov na tiga that all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father. Even allowing that xa&tag would admit of such an explanation as would not imply a similar adoration of the Father and of Christ ; still, in the passage before us, the context will not admit of such an exposition. Because (a) in v. 27 — 29, Christ ascribes divine works to himself; and in v. 21, an equality with the Father. — (b) As the Jews (v. 18) immediately preceding, had pronounced a declaration made by Jesus, to be blasphemy, and charged^ hirn with " making himself equal with God" ioov iavtdv noiti to) &ttp' Jesus would have been bound, by his reverence for God and love to his hearers, to avoid using an expression which could so naturally be understood as indicating divine worship ; and it would have been his duty dis tinctly to declare, that he did not desire any thing of this kind. II. John 14: 1, 13, 14, idv ti ainjorjit iv tdj ovopazi pov, iyto noirjato if ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it. Jesus here directs the apostles to pray in a manner that will be to his honour (iv ovopazi, comp. § 43. Illust. 4), i. e. to pray with the confident expectation that he would grant their petition (v. 1). Through the Son, by his answering the prayers of his people, the glory of the Father was to be manifested, 'iva Sol;ao&fj d natrjg iv to} vtto that the Father may be glorified in the Son ; (v. 7 — 9. ¦§> 44. Illust. 9). III. 1 Cor. 1:2, inixaXovptvoi to tivopa tov xvgiov r)pdiv' Inaov Xgiatov who worship [call on the name of] our Lord Jesus Christ.1 Acts 7: 59, inixaXovptvov xal Xiyovta' xiigu 'Iyaov (and they ston ed Stephen) calling upon [Jesus] and saying : Lord Jesus, (receive my spirit). The first of the two passages here adduced as a proof of the divine honour due to Christ, is of divine authority, because it declares that the apostle (Paul) sanctions the worship of Christ ; which he also confirmed by his own example, 2 Cor. 12: 8. 1 Thess. 3: 11. 2 Thess. 2: 16, 17. Rom, 1: 7. 1 Cor. 1: 3. 2 Cor. 1: 2 etc. Eph. 3: 6. The second passage has divine authority, be cause it contains the expressions of Stephen, who, at least at that time, spoke by divine inspiration, nXrjgng nvtvpazog dylov v. 55. But both passages, even when considered as historical testimony, prove that in the apostolic age Christ was worshipped as God by all christian churches (1 Cor. 1: 2), and even by the churches in 1 The explanation of this text, as signifying " who are called after the name of Jesus Christ," is inconsistent with the passages hereafter to be considered : Acts. 7: 59. Rom. 10: 9—13: also Acts 22: 16. 270 THE TRINITY. [fiK. II. Palestine (Acts 9: 21, 14), which at a later date abandoned the ancient faith.1 The well known passage in Pliny : " Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem" (L. X. Ep. 97) they sing a hymn together to Christ as a God, refers to the churches situated in a province of Asia Minor. And as the Gospel of John had been published in the country from which Pliny wrote, and a short time before he wrote his epistle ; the words " quasi Deo," are doubtless to be understood agreeably to John 1:1, The Logos (or word) was God. Eusebius also (Hist. Ecc. V. 28,) in opposing the followers of Artemon, ap peals to ancient hymns of the christians, in which Christ is repre sented as God : " \UaX.pol Si oaot xal toSal dStkqcbv an dg%fig vnd ntottov yguqe7oai, tov Xoyov tov d-tov, tov Xgiatdv, vpvovai &toXo- yovvttg.''2 Tbere is no example known of a christian church in the 1 See also, on the divine worship of Christ, Rom. 10: 9—14. Rev. 5: 8 etc. and § 78. 2 The work from which Eusebius makes this quotation, was by some regarded as the production of Caius; by others it was ascribed to Origen ; and the third and most probable opinion is, that it was the work ot an anonymous author, and the same in substance as that which Theodoret calls " the Little Labyrinth." The object of Eusebius in quoting this passage, was, to prove the opinion, that Christ is a mere man, to be of recent date, in opposition to its advocates, who maintained that it was even of apostolic origin ; and as the whole context of Eusebius reflects light on the subject before us, I will translate it for the gratifica tion of the reader. "The works of very many others have also reached us; whose names we cannot indeed specify, but they were orthodox and ecclesiasti cal [persons,] as is proved by the interpretation given by each of them of the di vine Scriptures ; but they are unknown to us, because their names are not pre fixed to their books. In an elaborate piece of one of these authors, composed a- gainst the heresy of Artemon, (which Paul of Samosata has attempted' to revive lo our age,) there is extant a narrative very relevant to the history we are com posing. For, the author,.in proving that the above named heresy, which makes the Saviour a mere man, was an innovation of recent date, (the propagators of it boasted of its antiquity ;) after saying many other things in reprehension of their blasphemous lies, uses the following language : ' they assert that all the ancients and even the apostles themselves, believed and taught the same things which they now maintain ; and that the preaching of the truth was preserved until the times of Victor, the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter ; but that from the time of his successor Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted.' And this assertion of theirs might perhaps have been believed, were it not that they are contradicted, first by the divine Scriptures (dtltu ygatpai,) and then by the writ- rngs of some brethren more ancient than the times of Victor, and which were composed in support of the truth against the gentiles, and against the heresies of those days. I refer to the works of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many others; in all of which divinity is ascribed to Christ {9eoXoye%Ttu Xoitrros.) tor, who is ignorantof the books of Irenaeus and Melito and of the rest! which -h.n .h • " y 1 "l u °l VlTr> 3h0uId have taught ">>« they assert when the opinion of the church through so many years is declared and known ? And why are they not ashamed to assert such a falsehood concerning Victor ; when they well know that it was Victor who excommunicated Theodotus the currier, the father and chief of this God- denying apostacy ; for Theodotus was § 42.] ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST WORSHIP. 271 apostolic age which can be shown to have denied those personal excellencies of Jesus which John ascribes to him. The sects of the Ebionites and other Jewish christians in Palestine, who denied the deity and supernatural conception of Christ, or at least the former of these doctrines, probably took their rise after the second Jewish war, when one part of the Jewish christians separated from the oth ers, and as we may suppose, attached themselves more closely to the unbelieving Jews.1 III. 8. That adoration belongs exclusively to God, is expressly taught in Is. 42: 8, "JM* itb "irmi; "HiM I will not give my honour to another. Jer. 17: 5 etc. Matt: 4: 10, compare the work on the Ob ject of the Gospel of John, p. 505. But so far is the adoration of Christ from being idolatry, that it is represented as a genuine wor ship of God, and expressly distinguished from idolatry, 1 Cor. 8: 4 —6. 1 Thess. 5: 9. 1 John 5: 20.2 [The following remarks on the subject of this and the preceding Illustrations, are found in the work of Professor Stuart, to which reference was made above. S.] Heb. 1:6," Let all the angels of God worship him." The word worship, it is said, has two significations ; viz. obei sance and spiritual homage. This is true ; and the first of these meanings often presents itself in the Old Testament and, (as I am willing to concede,) in the Gospels. Many who worshipped Christ while he sojourned among men, i. e. prostrated themselves before him, probably knew or acknowledged nothing of his divine nature. But what shall we say of the angels ? Are they ignorant of his true nature ? And is not the worship which they who are pure spirits pay, of course spiritual and not simple obeisance ? Philip 2: 10, 11, " That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." " Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth," is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament writers, for the uni verse (tondv or td ndvta.) What can be meant, by things in heav en (i. e. beings in heaven) bowing the knee to Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant ? What other worship can heaven render ? And if the worship of Christ in heaven be spiritual, should not that of others, who ought to the first that declared Christ lo be a mere man ?" Euseb. Eccles. Hist. V. 27, 28, ed- Valesii, Amstd. 1695. The words above quoted in the text, are here print ed in italics. S.] 1 See Weber's Beitrage zilr Geschiehte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, p. 48 Tubingen. 1791. 2 See the Dissert, sup. cit of Wijnpersse, § XVII. p. 174 etc. 272 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. be in temper united with them, be spiritual also ? And when it is added, this worship shall be " to the glory of God the Father," I understand the sentiment to be, that Jesus in his mediatorial charac ter is the proper object of universal adoration ; but as this character has a peculiar connexion with and relation to God the Father, so the worship paid to Christ the Mediator, should redound to the glory of the Father as well as of himself. Rom. 10: 9 — 14, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness ; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek ; for the same Lord over all, is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed ? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? and how shall they hear without a preacher ?" The Lord on whose name they are to call, is plainly Christ ; for he is the same in whom they are to believe (v. 11 and 14.) And this Lord, (Christ,) on whom they are to call, and in whom they are to believe, is xvgiog ndvttov, universal Lord, and therefore able to bestow the blessings which they need. Rev. 5: 8 — 14, " And when he, (i. e. Christ, see v. 6, 7,) took the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down be fore the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof ; for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and na tion ; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests ; and we shall reign on the earth. And I beheld and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the beasts and the elders ; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands ; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever. And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and wor shipped him that liveth forever and ever." If this be not spiritual worship — and if Christ be not the. object § 42.] ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST — WORSHIP. 273 of it here ; I am unable to produce a case, where worship can be called spiritual and divine. The apostles and primitive martyrs ivorshipped Christ ; and they recognize the practice of worshipping him among other Christians. Acts 7: 59, 60, " And they stoned Stephen, making invocation (inixaXovptvov) and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this he fell asleep." Now here is a dying martyr, who is expressly said to " be filled with the Holy Ghost," and to enjoy the vision of the heavenly world and of the Saviour who was there ; in his last moments too — on the very verge of eternity ; here is such a martyr, commiting his de parting spirit into the hands of the Lord Jesus, in the very same language and with the same confidence, with which Jesus, when ex piring upon the cross, committed his spirit into the hands of the Fa ther. This expiring disciple also implores forgiveness for his mur derers. Of whom does he implore it ? Of the same Lord Jesus. Can a departing spirit be intrusted to any being, and the forgiveness of sin be expected of him, who has not omnipotence and supreme authority ? And can a dying martyr, with his eyes fixed on the very vision of God, and his soul filled with the Holy Ghost, ask and pray amiss ? 2 Cor. 12: 8, 9, " For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart, from me. And he said unto me, My grace is suf ficient for thee ; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." The Lord whom Paul here besought, is plainly Christ ; for this same Lord in answer to the apostle's supplication, says, " My grace is sufficient for thee ; for my strength (jj Svvaplg pov) is perfected in weakness." Then the apostle immediately subjoins, " Most gladly then would I rejoice in my infirmities^ that the strength of christ (r) Svvapig Xgtatov) may rest upon me." A clearer case that Christ was the object of the apostle's repeated prayer, cannot well be presented. 1 Thess. 3: 11, 12, "Now, God himself, and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you." Can any distinction be here made, between the rank of those who are addressed by the apostle ? And does not the twelfth verse very plainly show, that the supplication of the apostle is specially directed to the Lord, i. e. to Christ ? 2 Tness. 2: 16, 17, " Now, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and 35 274 the trinity. [bk. h. God even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us ever lasting consolation, and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work." Here the order of the persons to whom supplication is made, is the reverse of that in the last instance quoted ; which shows that nothing depends on the order, but that it was a matter of indiffer ence with the apostle, which was placed first ; the supplication be ing equally addressed to the Father and to Christ. Rom. 1:7," To all that be in Rome, beloved of God ; called to be saints ; grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Here the same blessings are solicited and expected, from Christ and the Father. See the same formula repeated, 1 Cor. 1: 3. 2 Cor. 1:2. Acts 1: 24, " And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen." That Lord here means the Lord Jesus, seems evident from v. 21 and 22. It is the usual appellation, moreover, which the book of Acts gives to the Saviour. (See above p. 408 bot.) 2 Tim. 4: 14, " The Lord reward him according to his works !" Again, v. 17 and 18 ; "Notwithstanding, the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me ; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the gentiles might hear; and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen." (Compare ch. 3: 11). Usage hardly admits a doubt here, that Lord means Christ. Nor can I separate from religious invocation, trust, and confi dence, such expressions as these, (Acts 3: 1), " Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none ; but such as 1 have give I thee : In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." Nor can I see how the solemn adjuration by Christ (iv Xgtatto), which the apostle uses, in Rom. 9: 1, and 1 Tim. 2: 7, can be separated from religious invocation, or appeal. We must add to all these instances of worship, the fact that Christians were so habituated to address their supplications to Christ, that " They who invoke Christ," became, it would seem, a kmd of proper name, by which they were in primitive times designated as Christians. Thus Paul (1 Cor. 1: 2) addresses himself to all who invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in every place. That the verb inixaXia) is an appropriate one to designate the act of prayer, will not be questioned. The literal translation of it is to invoke. The § 42.] attributes of christ — worship. 275 simple meaning of the passage is, " I address myself to all Chris tians." But instead of using the name Christians directly, the apostle uses a periphrasis, and says to all the invokers of Christ, i. e. to those who pray to him ; meaning the same as dylotg, xXrjto7g, etc. in the context. He has signified, too, that the practice of in voking Christ, was not confined to Corinth. He addresses " those who pray to Christ, in every place," (iv navtl/tonto). Exactly in the same manner, does Ananias describe Christians, when the Lord Jesus bade him go to instruct and comfort Saul (Acts 9: 13, 14) ; " Lord," said he, " I have heard of many con cerning this man, what things he has done (to7g dylotg aov) to thy saints at Jerusalem ; and even now, he has a commission from the high priest, to bind all (tovg inixaXovpivovg zd dvopa aov) those who invoke thy name," i. e. Christians. See the same thing re peated, v. 21. The very heathen in the primitive age of Christianity, little as they knew about Christians, discovered that they made Christ an object of worship.1 Did not the Saviour give his disciples a general precept and en couragement, to make him the object of prayer? John 14: 13, 14, " If ye shall ask any thing in my name," i. e. as my disciples, on my account, said he to the apostles, " I will accomplish it," (iyto noiriato). They appear to me to have understood this, as directing that he should be regarded by them as the special object of prayer. Hence, instead of finding few or no examples of prayer to Christ, in the history of the primitive Christians as exhibited in the New Tes tament, I find more of this nature than of any other. When I have contemplated the precepts, which encourage pray er to Christ and the worship of him, both by the inhabitants of the heavenly world, and by the churches on earth ; I then compare these things with the exclusive worship and trust which Jehovah claims to himself. — Is. 45: 22, 23, " Look unto ine and be ye sav ed, all the ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." Is. 42: 8, "I am the Lord ; that is my name ; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Jer. 17: 5 — 7, " Thus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. For, he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh ; but shall inhabit parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose [1 See the quotations from' Pliny and Eusebius, on p. 270 of this work. S.] 276 the trinity. [bk. ii. hope the Lord is." Matt. 4: 10, " Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan ; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." I am ready now to ask, whether 1 can avoid coming to the con clusion, either that Christ is truly divine, in as much as he is so often represented as the object of worship ; or that the sacred writers have mistaken this great point, and led us to that which must be consid ered as idolatry. And yet the worship of Christ is placed, as it would seem, in opposition to that of idols, 1 Cor. 8: 4 — 6. That Christianity utterly and forever renounces all idolatry — all polythe ism, in a word, every thing inconsistent with the worship of one on ly living and true God ; is a point so plain and so universally con ceded, that I shall not dwell for a moment upon it. Were it not that I fear becoming tedious, by detailing my reasons for believing in the divine nature of Christ, I should add a great number of texts, which require us with all the heart to love him ; to obey him ; to confide in him ; and to commit ourselves to him ; in such a manner as I can never persuade myself to do, with respect to any being, who is not God. The New Testament tells me that my consolation, my privilege — my happiness, must be derived from trusting in Christ. But can I trust myself to a finite being, when I have an infinite, almighty, all-sufficient GOD, to whom I may go ? Shall I be satisfied with a mite, when I can have the mines of Peru?] III. 9. Creation is ascribed to Christ. I. John 1: 3, 10, ndvta Si avtov iytvtto — 6 xdapog Si' avtov iytvtto all things were made by him — the world was made by him. A version of these passages maintained by Socinians, is this : " Every thing was done by Christ which belongs to the Gospel— the world was reformed by him." In reference to this first passage, it is objected, that the apostle gives no sanction for the addition, " which belongs to the Gospel :" in regard to the second, it is to be remarked, that no evidence can be adduced to prove that ytvia- ¦&ai can signify to make anew or reform. Moreover, a different sig nification of this word js adopted in verse 3. Again, in v. 10, it is said, d xdapog avtdv ovx i'yvto the world knew him not ; and yet it is pretended, that the sense of the other clause of the same verse is, that 6 xdapog the world was reformed by him ! A different modifi cation of this exposition is this : a part of the world [men] was spir itually improved by the light, another part knew it not. But, agree ably to the New Testament, the word xdapog, in its synecdochi- cal sense, always denotes the unreformed part of mankind. Be- <§> 42.] attributes of christ — creation. 277 sides, the parallelism of v. 10 and 11, seems to forbid this exposi tion.1 Another exposition of v. 3, urged by the Socinians, is this : " Ev ery thing was created for him, on his account." But Sid [with a genitive case] is not clearly proved to signify on account of or for the sake of; and the following words, jfwpi? avtov iytvtto ovSi iv without him was nothing made ; evidently refer to the active cause, and confirm the ordinary signification of Sid, by.z II. Col. 1: 16, 17, iv uviw ixtia&rj za navza — za navza Si av tov txtiatat — ta navza iv avtto avviazrjxt by him were all things created — all things were created by him — all things are sustained by him. On this passage, the reader may consult Lang, On the profitable use of Teller's Lexicon.3 Flatt's Commentatio de deitate Christi (<$> 9). Oertel's Christology ;4 and Ewald, On the dignity of Jesus.5 The principal arguments against the interpretation of those who make xtl£ttv to signify a moral creation [a reformation], or merely a great change wrought by Christ ; are the following : 1. Xtl^tiv alone, and without any addition, does not, in a single other passage, signify either a moral reformation, or in general, a great change.6 2. Philological proof, that the expressions yij and ovgavdg, dgatd and ddgata, can denote Jews and Gentiles, it is utterly impossible to adduce. In the Miscellaneous Dissertations on important sub jects of theological learning,7 Justi would defend this meaning in the following manner : " The Jews are called td iv to7g ovgavo7g (the things in the heavens), because they were governed by divine laws, and were citizens of a theocratical nation (paoiXtia tdov ovga- vtov); and dgazd (things seen), because their worship of God con tained many external, visible ceremonies. The gentiles on the con trary, are denominated ta inl zijg yijg (the things on earth), because they were governed by human laws ; and dogata (things invisible), because, they were to worship God spiritually" (John 4: 24). See Nb'sselt's refutation of this exposition, in his Exercitt. ad Sanct. Scriptt. interpretationem.8 Another interpretation proposed by Jus ti, is, that the words td iv zo7g ovgavo7g — ddgata, denote all man- ' 1 See Silskind, on the recent Expositions of John 1: 1 — 14, in his Magazine, No. 10, p. 32 etc. 2 On the Socinian Expositions of John 1: 3, 10, see Bengel's Historico-analyti- cal exposition of the Socinian doctrinal system ; in the Tab. Mag. No. 15. p. 156 etc. 159 etc. 3 Pt. III. p. 52 etc. 4 p. 649, § 33, Note 2. 5 p. 61—67. 6 See the work on the Object of the Gospel of John, p. 434. Schotl's Epitome theol. christ. dogmatic, p. 106. 7 2d Collection, p. 200 etc. Halle 1798. 8 p; 205 etc. Halle 1803. 278 the trinity. [bk. ii. kind (the whole world, every creature, in the popular sense). A- gainst this, bears the remark of Keil : " The generic idea (the whole) can be expressed per ptgtapdv, only by the enumeration of such species (parts) as are actually comprehended under the generic idea (or the whole)." 3. If by dvgavdg and ddgata, we understand citizens of heaven, or the angels ; then no moral reformation can be predicated of them. Equally inadmissible is the following exposition, given in Henke's Magaz. : " Every thing that belongs to his church, in heaven and on earth, is formed anew by Christ ; as well those members which are known to us, as those which are not (ddgata''), all who are morally reformed, from the highest to the lowest, powerful kings and princes and lords (?)" Nb'sselt, in his Programma de una Dei in coelis terrisque familia,1 understands the passage Col. 1: 16, as referring to the formation of a church consisting of citizens of earth and heaven. But this explanation also, is liable to the objection, that this sense of xtlfeiv is without proof; see 1 sup. And it is evinced, in the Tiibing. gelehrt. Anzeig.2 that we are by no means required to understand here a moral or spiritual creation, by the preceding or succeeding context ; and yet both are appealed to by Nb'sselt, Lofler, and Stoltz. In 1 Cor. 8: 6, also, Christ is represented as Creator and Lord of the world. III. Heb. 1: 10,2, 3, St ov tovg atowag inoiriatv — qiptovzdndvta tto gripati trjg Svvapttag avtov by whom he made the world — sup porting all things by his powerful word. On this passage, the reader may consult the works of Lang, Flatt, and Ewald. In these works, the exposition of this passage, which makes Christ the Supreme Creator of the world, in opposition to those interpreters who make the word aitovtg signify " times" (new times — times of the Messiah — oeconomiae divinae,) or Sid to refer only to the instrumental cause ; is supported by the following ar guments and observations : 1. It is evident from chap. 11:3, that aidivtg does signify worlds or world. Comp. § 34. Illust. 1 . 2. The words St ov aldivug inoiriatv cannot justify any of the fol lowing versions : " By him he created new times ;" or, " He suffered new epochs to arise, through him ;" or, " By him, he created anew [reformed] the world of mankind, the human family." The ex planation, " By whom God determined certain periods of time [the time of the Messiah, and the preceding period,"] would either ex press too insignificant an idea, and one, moreover already included t Exercitt. ad Sanct. Scriptt. interpretationem, p. 198—210. 2 For 1805, No. 10. p. 77. <§» 42.] attributes of christ — deity. 279 in the words in iaxdzov ztov rjpigoiv (v. 1 ;) or, if the sense is this, " He so governed the course of events in the world, that the epochs of the world coincide with the advent of the Messiah ;" then the idea is foreign from the terms Si ov tovg aialvag inoirjat. 3. It is an undeniable fact, that the 10th verse of this chapter does ascribe the creation of the world, to Christ. 4. That Sid does not denote merely an instrumental cause, is evident from those passages in which it is also said of the Father, " All things were created by him (Si avzov) Heb. 2: 10. Rom. 11: 36 ; as also from the general fact, that Sid and ix are used inter changeably for each other ; see $ 33. Illust. 1. But as Heb. 1:1,2 relates to the person through whom God in structed us (ivvid) jXaXtjatv r]p7v,) namely, the incarnate Logos; the words Si ov xal tovg aiutvag inoiriatv must be understood thus : " God created the world by the same person, through whom he has spoken to us, in as much as this person is God himself, and one with the Father ; i. e. he created the world by himself." In like man ner, in Hos. 1: 7, it is said, "I (Jehovah) will save them through [or by] Jehovah."1 III. 10. The sense in which Christ is called God ; an explanation of passages which seem to militate against his supreme divinity. He is called God in such a sense, that it can be said of him, that he possesses power to do whatever God can do ; or, such, that the perfections of the divine nature can be predicated of him. This is evinced by various passages : Phil. 2: 6, iv pogqfi -Otov vndpytov — laa -&td) thai being in the condition of God, (i. e. in the divine state or nature) — to be equal with God. Martini makes a distinction between the phrases iv popqfj&tovtivat, and laa &to) thai, and explains the passage thus : Although Christ possessed a high degree of similarity to God, he was not solicitously desirous of being equal with God ;" i. e. he was far from arrogating to himself equality with God, or requiring divine worship. But neither usage nor the context favour this interpreta tion, more than they do several others, which agreeably to this Section better accord with the declarations of Jesus and the doctrin al system of the apostle Paul. Comp. Storr's Opusc. Academ. Vol. I. p. 322—324. Col. 2: 9, iv avid) xatoixti nav to nXripwpu zrjg Hnozrjzog in him dwelt the entire fulness of the deity ; i. e. all the attributes of the divine nature. 1: 19. John 16: 15, navza oaa eyei d nair)p,ipd iazt all things which the father hath, are mine. 5: 19 — 21, a dv d 1 See the work on the Object of the Gospel of John, p. 457. 280 the trinity. [bk. ii. nazijg noifj zavza xal d vldg dpolaig noiii whatsoever things the Father doth, all these things doth the Son likewise. These words contain the reply of Jesus, to the accusation of the Jews immediate ly preceding : " That he made himself equal with God," v. 18. In the work just referred to in the margin, several other declarations of Christ are adduced (John 12: 45. 14: 7, 9, 6 impaxcog ipi, itogaxt tov natiga, compared with v. 10. 8: 19) as evidence of that one ness with the Father, to which he laid claim. And this remark is subjoined : " If these expressions merely signify, that God spake and acted through him ; they contain no more than every prophet could have said of himself." Those passages of Scripture which appear to militate against Christ's being God, in this sense, (viz. John 14: 28. 10: 35. 17: 3. 1 Cor. 8: 6. 15: 28,) are all explained in the work on the Object of the Gospel and epistles of John ; in the Dissert, de notione regni coelestis ; and in Flatt's Comment, de deitate Christi. 1. John 14: 28, d natrjg pov ptl£tov pov iativ "The Father is happier than I — he enjoys a happiness and glory which 1 do not enjoy in my present state." Compare pti£tov with b"W Gen. 26: 13. It is evident from the context, that Jesus is not comparing his hu man nature with the divine nature of the Father ; but the situation of his human nature at that time, with the happiness of the Father. The connexion of the words oti d natijp pov — ton with the previ ous clause ti rjyanari pt, appears thus to be more natural and per spicuous, than in the explanation of Kuinol : " the Father will do more through you, for the dissemination of my doctrines, than I effected whilst on earth, or than I could effect by a longer residence in this world." And the reference to the previous clause, seems almost entirely neglected in the explanation : " God can protect you better than my visible presence could." — Moreover, Jesus could ascribe to his person in general, such predicates as belonged properly to only a part of his entire person, i. e. only to his human or to his divine nature ; just as we attribute to a man [the whole man,] properties and actions which belong exclusively to either his soul or his body. 2. John 10: 35, 36. ti ixtlvovg tint d-tovg — d vldg tov &iov dpi if the Scripture called them gods, to whom the word of God was addressed ; and if the Scripture is incontrovertible ; do ye say of him whom the Father hath consecrated and sent into the world, " Thou blasphemest," because I said I am the Son of God ? That Jesus called himself Son of God, in a far higher sense, than that in which the Jewish judges are so called (Ps. 82: 6,) is proved by the words ovo natrjp ijylaoe xal aniattiXtv tig zov xoapov " whom the Father distinguished, by sending him." " Besides, Jesus had previously determined the sense in which he called himself vldg &tov § 42.] attributes of christ — deity. 281 (v. 28, 30,) and he was distinctly understood by his opponents, who charged him with making himself God [-8 tov atavzdv noidg.] He also repeated the explanation, v. 38, iv ipol dnatrjg, xaytdiv avtto the Father is in me, and I in him. But it was not his intention, in that place, to give them a more definite explanation of the nature of his person. 3. John 17: 3, avtn iaziv r] £torj »J aitoviog, 'iva yivtoaxtoal at tov povov dXrj&ivdv &tdv, xatdv dniazuXag' Itjoovv Xpiazov this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Christ styles the Father, " The only true God," not in opposition to himself, but in opposition to the false gods of the heathen. This is evinced by the expression ndaa adpl in v. 2, all men, Jews or Gentiles, [over whom power was given to the Son to give them eteranl life ;] and by the glorification (v. 1) of the Father through the Son [by the propagation of belief in the one true God, by means of Christianity.] This interpretation is further supported by the fact, that we have every reason to be lieve that in this text, Christ expressed the very essence of Chris tianity. 4. 1 Cor. 8: 6, But we acknowledge only one God, the Father ; from whom are all things (derived,) and we in him [for whose glory we also exist ;] and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things [by whom all things were created,] and we by him [by whom also we were created.] The fact that the Father is called dg &tdg one God, no more denies the divinity [¦d-tidttig] of Jesus, than the circumstance that Jesus is called dg xvgiog one Lord denies the do minion [xvgtozrig] of the Father. But that xvgiog cannot, in this place, signify teacher, as Teller contends ; is evident from the fact, that in the 5th verse friol and xvgioi are synonymous ; and from a comparison of the two predicates i£ ov zd navza and Si ov td ndvta in v. 6, the former of which is attributed to the &tdg natrjg, and the latter to xiigiog'lTjaovg Xgiatogthe Lord Jesus Christ. Comp. Illus tration 9. 5. 1 Cor. 15: 28, btav Si vnoiayij avtto (iw Xgiatm) ta navta, tozt xal avzog d vlog vnozayijaezai to) vnoza^avti avtto ta navza but when he shall have subjected all things unto him (Christ,) then shall the Son himself also be subject to him who made all things subject to him. The following explanation of this passage, is given in the Dissertation de Notione regni coelestis : Moreover, if every thing has been subjected to the Son (by the Father,) then the Son himself must also be subject to him (then it is evident, that the Son is subject to him) who made all things subject unto him." "Otav does not here indicate, a precise time, any more than in v. 27 ; but it signifies if, whereas. See Rom. 2: 14. The future vnotaynattai indicates an inference made : as if it were written SrjXov dti (comp. 36 282 the trinity. [bk. ii v. 27) xat avtdg o vldg vnozaaatzai. The same sense is expressed by the future in Rom. 6: 5. 2: 26. In like manner, Tu'r*does not here express succession of time ; but is either the sign of the apodo- sis (comp. LXX, Ps. 119: 91. Prov. 2: 5,) or a pleonasm (LXX, Psalm 69: 5,) or it is equivalent to therefore. (Comp. Jer. 22: 15, the Heb. Iii.) In the opinion of Grotius and others, the passage 1 Cor. 15: 24 — 28, refers to what is termed the Mediatorial reign of Jesus, regimen oeconomicum. III. 11. Explanation of passages in which Christ is called God. 1. John 1: 1, fi-idg rjv d Xdyog the Word was God. On this pas sage and onward to v. 14, the reader may consult the work on the Object of the Gospel of John, Flatt de Deitate Christi, and Siiskind on the late explanations of John 1: 1 — 14. The principal remarks contained in these 'several works, relative to this subject, are the following. 1. The conjecture, that the introduction, v. 1 — 5 or 1 — 18, may not be genuine, is totally unfounded. Neither is- there the semblance of evidence, in support of the violent change of the text by Crellius, who would read : &t o v r) v d X 6 y o g, or of Bardt, who would read : -dtdg r)v xald Xdyog. 2. The general sense of the whole passage v. 1 — 18, has been stated thus : " Wis dom and understanding, or power (the Word,) were present in God, at the Creation of the world — by his wisdom or power, he created all things; — and this wisdom or power was visibly manifested in Jesus." In Paulus' Memorabilia, Vol. VIII. No. 3, to support the explanation, " The deity as teaching by words and works," it is urged, that John, in v, 1 — 3, in refuting the error of the Jewish literati, who regarded the personified Word of God, or the creative word, as something separate from God, as an intermediate being. — But, it may be replied : (a) it is not natural, by the words 6 Xdyog adg^iyivtzo the word became flesh, to understand merely the mani festation of the divine power or wisdom, through Christ.— (b) Xdyog is, the same subject which in v. 5 is called to qwg, and this subject is manifestly described, in v. 9—12, as a concrete.— (c) If all the propositions, v. 1—3, expressed nothing more than, " God has cre ated all things by his wisdom or power," the evangelist would be guilty of intolerable garrulity. And where would be the necessity of reiterating the assurance, v. 1, 2, " the power or wisdom of God was with God," d Xdyog rjv ngog zov ¦dtdvl The hypothesis, that " the notion of a real union of an emanated divine power with Jesus, was either taught by John in accommoda tion tt> the current opinions of those days, or was proposed by Jiim as his personal opinion ;" is refuted in the dissertation of Siiskind, to which allusion has been made, (p. 51 — 75,) where it is shewn, that the existence of such opinions in that age cannot be proved from history. $42.] ATTRIBUTES OF jCHRIST DEITY. 283 3. &tdg, without the article in the sentence1 &tdg yv d Xdyog, cannot be understood in a lower sense, than 6 &tdg, with the article. For, — (a) -b^tog, without any addition, in other passages of the New Testament, never has any other signification, than that of the only true God. And that article makes no difference, appears from v. 6 (nagd -&iov,) 13, 18, 2 Cor: 1: 21. 5: 5.— (b) Not only is the Xdyog ¦&tog represented as existing before, the origin of all things (v. 1, 2,) but to him is attributed the creation of all things (v. 3 ;) an act which can belong only to the supreme God. Paulus, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, has given the most full developement of that explanation of &tdg rtv d Xdyog, which takes &tdg in an inferior sense ; and by Xdyog understands an intelligent being exterior to God, and inferior to hirn ; a being who, according to the idea of the Alexandrian Jews, proceeded from God, in a peculiar manner, before the world existed ; who was most inti mately connected with God, and was far superior to all other spirits. This explanation rests chiefly on the coincidence of the ideas of John with those of Philo his contemporary, relative to his Logos. — In the well known passage of his work " de Soroniis," Philo makes a difference between fed? with the article, and the same word with out it ; and applies the name -fed? without an article, to the Xdyog. But, independently of the fact, that it is doubtful whether John was acquainted with the ideas of Philo, or had reason to suppose an ac quaintance with them in his hearers ; to derive from Philo an ex planation of the words -&idg r]v d Xdyog, seems npt very consistent, from the circumstance, that in the very passage here alluded to, Philo himself twice notices the difficulty and novelty of transferring the name God to a being exterior to the supreme deity. In one place he says, the Logos (without the article) can be called God, only iv xataypriaii [by catachresis, i. e. wresting a word from its native signification.] In a. subsequent passage, he says, "the Scrip tures are not very particular in the application of names [they are not religiously scrupulous, ov StiaiSaipovmv ntpl zrjv ¦d-ioiv zdiv dvopdttov,] when they apply even the name of God himself (with out the article,) to the eldest Logos of God." The arguments ad duced in the Commentary of Kuinol, to prove that even in the time of Christ, there prevailed an idea among the Jews in Palestine, that before the creation, an intelligence emanated immediately from the Deity, which was to appear on earth in the person of the Messiah ; are very problematical ; and are derived in part from such Jewish writings as either were certainly written since that time, or whose date is very uncertain. 4. In whatever manner we explain the word Xdyog, it is perfect ly accordant with the usage of the Hebrew and the Hebrew-Greek, 284 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. to designate a concrete by the name of an abstract. If we look for the origin of the name Logos, in the earlier work of John, in Rev. 19: 13, d Xdyog {rtov, (where Jesus is represented as a conqueror of the enemies of his doctrines v. 19), its most probable signification is : "Speaker or Messenger of God, divine Instructer ;" just as nson prayer, in Ps. 109: 4 signifies, One who prays. Agreeably to this explanation, the name Xdyog (teacher) was a name of Christ, which John used in his Gospel, on supposition that it would be ad mitted by those against whom he wrote, namely, the Cerinthians and disciples of John. Nor must the late explanation, which has been advocated espe cially by Tittmann, be forgotten. Agreeably to this, 6 Xoyog is equivalent to o Xtydptvog, d igxdptvog he that was promised, the Messiah. 5. Another explanation of the words ¦8-tdg rjv d Xoyog, is this r1 God was the speaker, (d Xdyog instead of d Xiytov,) who commis sioned him, and made known his will through him ; for he spake nothing, except what he heard of God when he was with him (John 8: 26). The following objections to this view, are contained in the AUgemeine Bibliothek,2 and in the Tubing, gel. Anzeigen :3 (a) Agreeably to this explanation, no suitable signification could be at tached to the 2d verse, ovtog rjv iv dayf, ngog zov fitdv the same was in the beginning with God. For, if we translate it, " God was the speaker, this Speaker (who was God himself) was in the begin ning with God ;" then John could not say, that Christ as speaker, or as he actually taught mankind, was with God in the beginning of the world. For in the beginning of the world, before any members of the human family existed, he could not have existed as the Teach er of men, consequently also not as the Speaker. In other words, the conclusion of the first verse, in connexion with the second, could not signify, " It was properly God, who spake to man ; because he through whom God spake, was in the beginning of the world sent by God [r}v ngog zdv titdv] in order to instruct men."4 — By ovtog, we must understand the person of the speaker, as distinct from his office of teacher. But then the preceding words would signify, " God was the person of the speaker." And this is the very idea which this interpretation is intended to avoid. — (b) As the creation of the world is attributed to this Logos, in v. 3 ; no being distinct from the Deity, can possibly be intended. II. John 20: 28, o xvgiog pov xal d Stdg pov My Lord and my God. In the work on the Object of the Gospel of John (§ 90), the following remarks are made on this passage : " The exclama- 1 Paulus' Memorabilia. Vol. I. No. 2. p. 27—34. 2 Vol. 107. p. 271. 3 p. 323, 1702. 4 Memorabilia, p.' 32. § 42.] ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST — DEITV. 285 tion of Thomas, cannot well be a mere expression of admiration. Independently of the fact that this phrase, as an exclamation of ad miration, cannot be proved to have been customary among the Jews in the time of Jesus ; how could Jesus (v. 29) have regarded it as a proof of faith ? — Nor can &tdg be wrested from its proper signifi cation, and made to signify a great benefactor. This the usage of the language forbids. This exclamation of Thomas must, there fore, be taken in its literal sense ; and must be regarded as an open declaration of his belief, that there existed the closest possible union between Jesus and God (John 14: 9, 10), or of his belief in the di vinity of Christ. And had this exclamation implied what is errone ous, Jesus could not have approved it (v. 29) ; but on the other hand, must inevitably have censured it. Compare the passage next cited. III. 1 John 5: 20, ovtog iaziv d dXv&ivdg -dtdg this is the true God. In the work on the Object of the Gospel of John (p. 445), the genuineness of the reading &tdg, is vindicated against the objec tions of Semler, taken from Hilary de Trinitate. It is also remark ed (p. 231), that agreeably to Hebrew usage, the demonstrative ovtog is placed instead of the relative og, as in Acts 8: 26. 10: 36. and that ovtog is more naturally referred to the nearer antecedent Irjaov Xgiozo), than to the more remote iv zd) dXt]&ivo). IV. Rom. 9: 5, [ojv oi naziptg, xal ii- mv d Xgiozdg, zd xaza aagxa, o wv inl navztov ¦&tqg ivXayiytog tig tovg aidJvag. Aprjv, "Whose are the Fathers; and from whom, in respect to the flesh (his human nature), Christ (descended), who is the supreme God, blessed forever. Amen."1] It may be inquired whether the doxology in this passage, suppos ing it to begin at d cov inl ndvitov, or to be confined to the words ¦Credg evXoyrjtdg eig tovg aliovag, refer to Christ, or to God the Fa ther. Even in the Init. Evang. Joban. restaur, of Artemonius (or of the Socinian writer, Samuel Crellius), it is remarked, that a dox ology here would be altogether out of place, as Paul (v. 1, 2) is speaking under the influence of the deepest grief, and lamenting the loss of those privileges which his countrymen might have enjoyed (v. 3—8, 31. 10: 19 etc.) A prayer (Sir,atg 10: 1), and not a doxology, would have been adapted to the state of mind in which the apostle wrote these words (James 5: 13). In addition to this evidence, the following arguments are adduced in the works above referred to, in refutation of the opinion that the whole passage (d d>v—aid)vag) is a doxology, addressed to God the Father: (a) The words to xatd adpxa, which refer to the human nature of Christ, require a corresponding clause relating to his higher nature ; as for [l See Professor Stuart's Lett, to Wm. E. Channing, p. 78, 3d. ed. S.] 286 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. example, in ch. 1: 3. comp. Gal. 4:29. — (b) Such a sudden tran sition from one person to another, from Christ to God the Father, could not be made without some transitive particle, such as dt (in the doxology 1 Tim. 1: 17). The remarks made by Stoltz against the force of this argument appear to refer only to the statement that Si should stand between &tdg and tvXoynzdg. At least, it can by no means be asserted, that Si between 6 and div, would be erron eous. — (c) For the very reason, that the particle Si is not found between, o and div, it is1 most natural to refer d div to Xgiazog, the subject immediately preceding. The participle is put for og iati. and this doxology when referred to Christ, has a striking similarity to the doxology to God the Father (Rom. 1:25.) And Paul would have written dg iativ here as well as in 1: 25, if the word iati, understood from the preceding clause xal /£ — aagxa, had not been still in his mind. The difficulty stated by Crellius, attends also the explanation of Justi, who separates the words o cuV inl navzwv from those that fol low, d-tdg — uidivag ; and translates the passage thus : " whose an cestors were those (celebrated) fathers, from whom even in regard to his mortal body, the Messiah is descended, who is exalted above all (the fathers). Blessed be God (for this) to eternity !" But an- .other difficulty by which this explanation is encumbered, is that not only Paul, but also other writers always in their doxologies, place the predicate tvXoyrjtog before its subject. See 2 Cor. 1:3. Ephes. 1:3. 1 Pet. 1: 3. Luke 1: 68. 2 Mace. 15: 34. Ps. 68: 36, and ¦others. Trommius, in his Concordance to the LXX, gives a num ber of examples, under the word tvXoyritdg.1 J. F. Flatt re marks that tvXoyrjtog is placed first not only in those instances in which the doxology begins a discourse, but also when it is found in the middle or at the conclusion of a sentence. The only passage in the LXX, which seems to be an exception to the preceding re mark, is Ps. 68: 19, xiiptog d &t dg t vXoyrjzdg, tvXoyrjtdg xvgiog rjpi- gav xatf rjpigav, and on this Stoltz lays a great deal of stress. But a comparison of this verse with the Hebrew text, proves that the. words xvgiog d ¦d tog (verse 19), which correspond to the Hebrew DVTbN pp must be separated from tvXoyritdg, and be trans lated thus : "God (is) Lord (Jehovah)." Nor is the case altered, if, with Michaelis, we translate, " among whom God, Jehovah will [1 For the gratification of the critical reader who has not the version of the LXX, the translator has selected some of these examples, which fully evince the truth of our author's remark : Gen. 9: 26. eiXoyrftog xvgiog 6 &edg. 14: 20, xal ev- XoyTjtot 6 &eoe oy'yjiozog. 24: 27, evXoyijzog 6 -deog zov xvgiov pov. Ex. 18: 10, ev- Xoyrjzog xvgiog ozi il-iiXero rdr Xadv aurov. Ruth 4: 14, evioyr/zoe xvgiog os ov xariXvoi ooi. 1 Sam. 25: 32, evXoyrjzog xvgiog 6 'd-eog'logat/X. 2 Sam. 18: 28, tvXo- yr/zog xvgiog o &eog oov. Dan. 3: 28, xal avi;sxgi&>] NafiovxoSovooog o flaoiXevg, xal eircev, EvXoymbg 6 &tbg zov 2e8gA%, Mtao\%, 'A^eSvaym, Se aizioteiXt t&v ay- yeXov avtov xx. X. The number of examples adduced by Trommius, amounts to upward pf thirty. S.] § 42.] ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST DEITY. 287 dwell ;" or with Schnurrer, Dathe, Knapp, Rosenmuller, and De Wette, regard d,~'b&« n^ as an apostrophe to God, " there thou dwell- est, God Jehovah," or " that thou mayest dwell there." In the Hebrew, ^ynii (blessed) is not in the 19th but in the 20th verse. But if an appeal be made to the fact, that the LXX repeat the word tvXoynzog, I reply, they were not able to make sense of the words Brrbn PPi and therefore supplied tvXoynzog, ^jni, out of the begin ning of the 20th verse. But that they did this as a kind of desper ate measure, is evident from the fact, that they nevertheless put another tvXoy'tzdg in the beginning of the 20th verse. In so doing they themselves confess, that according to the usage of the language, tvXoyttdg ?p"i5 belongs to the subsequent "^iN xvgiog. And the only reason for their supplying a Tn'3 in this abitrary manner, was that they could make no sense out of the latter clause of the 19th verse. It is however, not impossible, (as J. F. Flatt remarks), that some transcriber wrote the word tvXoyrjtog twice, through inadver tence. But, be this as it may, a single exception to a rule which is established by such a vast multitude of examples, can prove noth ing. Their translation ought properly to be expressed thus : "Jehovah is the praiseworthy God ; praise be to God." Nearly all the ancient translators were entirely at aloss how to translate this passage, and ac cordingly they allowed themselves different, arbitrary methods. Justi does indeed remark, that "no reasonable cause can be perceived, why it must always be written tvXoyriidg og fttdg blessed be God! and why we might not just as well say, &tdg evXoyt]zdg, God be blessed ! But we should always be very cautious about reasoning against the usage of language; for that which is unnecessary in itself, may be render ed necessary by usage.1 So in the German language also [and in the English], we can say, God be blessed ! or, blessed be God ! praise be to God ! or, to God be praise ; but we cannot, instead of thank God ! say, God thank !2 In the same manner, the usus lo- quendi of the Hebrew may have rendered it necessary in doxologies, always to place the predicate ?pHS (Ps. 68: 29 etc) first. But had it been the intention of Paul here, to deviate from the uniform [1 Every schoolboy can repeat the lines of Horace, in which this principle, just in itself and acknowledged by every critical scholar, has been transmitted inviolate through successive centuries : " — si volet usus, Quern penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi." S.] [2 There are no authorized phrases in the English language, which would be a literal version of this last example in the German. The translator has therefore selected one which differs but little from the sense of the original, whilst it per fectly exemplifies the author's remark ; and which, in return, it may be observ ed, is equally incapable of being rendered literally into the German. S.] 288 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. custom of Hebrew writers,1 for the purpose of laying peculiar stress2 on the name of God ; then he ought to have put iati or tin between &tdg and tvXoynzdg, as the LXX have done (Ps. 119: 12. Dan. 3: 26), to prevent tvXoyritdg from being regarded as a mere epithet, and from being connected, together with Vtdg, with what precedes both.3 As this was not done, I cannot regard the conclusion of the verse, tvXoyritdg — aitovag, as a doxology to God the Father ; which, moreover, as has been already remarked, would here be out of place. The words which precede, 6 div inl ndvtiov, will admit of several explanations. They may signify, " Christ who is oyer all things (Eph. 4: 6. comp. 1: 21, and Acts 10: 36, 'irjaovg Xgtatdg iati ndvttov xvgiog), as the adorable God ;" i. e. " who was appointed Lord over all things, because he is himself the adorable God."4 Or, the plan of Justi may be adopted, and natigtav be supplied ta ndvtoiv. The sense would then be this : " He is exalted above the most illustrious fathers [ancestors] of the Jews, as the adorable God." In like manner, Jesus adduces his preexistence and his divine nature. (nglv iyto dpi v. 58), as evidence of the truth of his assertion, that he is greater than Abraham, John 8: 50. comp. v. 53, ptl£iov. Ei ther of these explanations may be adopted, provided it can be vin dicated against the grammatical difficulty urged by Justi (sup. cit.) He says, " If Paul had intended, by the phrases i£ tov d Xgtatdg td xard aagxa and d tov tvXoyritdg, to express the antithesis between the human and the divine nature of Christ, he must have said d xat div, or d a vtdg div (qui idem est dominus omnium rerum). But in Rom. 1: 3, 4, the two clauses of the sentence, in which Christ in considered xaza aagxa and xdza nvtvpa, are connected neither by a xal nor by an avzdg.5 Moreover, the words &tdg tv- Xoyvtdg tig tovg aitovag, are not placed in opposition to the words td xatd aagxa, but must be connected with the preceding o inl ndv ttov' to which, even according to Justi's own explanation, neither xai nor avzdg is required ; and they contain the reason, why he who. xaza aagxa was descended from the fathers, could still be said to be inl navttov. And the clause to xatd aagxa, which is frigid and 1 The Rabbinical expressions -pahi mrT> . and i>oni tstt (see Gabler's Journal for select theological literature, 1804, Vol. I. p. 547), can prove nothing against the uniform usage of the Old Testament, the LXX, and the New Testa ment. 3 It has been proved (in the Dissert, of Flatt sup. cit.), that it cannot be taken for granted, that Paul placed the word &e6g in Rom. 9: 5 first, in order to lay pe culiar stress upon it. For, even if the stress was to have been laid on &e6g, the same is the case in those passages of the Old Testament, in which God is oppos ed to the pagan deities ; and yet evXoyVz6g is placed first in every instance in which the substantive verb {eifu, ylvopai) is wanting in the doxology. 3 Flatt's Dissert, sup. cit. p. 25 etc. 4 See note 5 infra, on Heb. 1: 3. •5 Ewald on the Dignity of Jesus, p. 92. § 42.] ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST DEITY. 289 useless according to Justi's explanation, possesses an appropriate signification, only when the whole sentence is rendered thus : " Christ as the adorable God, is exalted over all things (or, over all the an cestors of the Jews)."1 V. Heb. 1 : 8, ngog Si tov vldv — aitovog but to the Son on the other hand, he says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." In reference to this passage, in which the words of Ps. 45: 7, d ¦d-gdvog aov, d fttdg, tig zov aldiva zov aioivog, are applied to Christ ; itmayberemarked,2 that the usage of the language admits of no other explanation than one, by which a human king is called 'God in the proper sense. Nor can a single instance be found, in which an in dividual specified person is called by the name d,!"I *3*|. , in any other than the proper sense of the word. The explanation of the words o &gdvog aov, d dtog, as signifying, " God is the security of thy throne," which is adopted by Socinians and by Grotius ; is inconsistent with the scope of the whole passage, which is, to evince the preeminence of Christ above angels.3 More over, both the ancient and the modern translators considered the phrase d &tdg, as being in the vocative case. On the passage 2 Pet. 1: 3, in which &tla Svvautg (divine pow er) is attributed to Christ, the reader may recur to Illustration 6. I would not appeal to Tit. 2: 13, inasmuch as it appears not to be a correct opinion, (though Henke subscribes to it)4 that if ptyd- }.ov fitov did not refer to Christ, the article tov before aojtijgog would need to be repeated.5 For the same reason, it may be doubt ed, whether in 2 Thess. 1: 12, tov&tov ijpdiv, as well as xvgiov, ought not to be joined with 'Iijaov Xgiatov. But, in 1 Tim. 6: 13, where Jesus Christ (v. 14) and God (v. 15) are distinguished from one another, no article is found between the words tov {rtov tov Cmonotovvtog td ndvta and Xgiatov Ivaov. III. 12. Other names by which Christ is designated, proving his divinity. Other names are given to Christ in Scripture, which amount to the same as &tdg. In 1 John 1: 2 (comp. 5: 20) he is denomina ted r] f to rj rj a i oiv to g eternal life. The words i y to t ip i, in John 13: 19. 8: 24, 28, signify, "lam God;" as has been proved, I Even if the writings of the apostle Paul did not contain any formal doxology to Jesus, still the predicates which are ascribed to him in the passages of Paul adduced in Illust. 6, 7, 9, accord with a doxology, in the most perfect manner. 2 Commentary on the Hebrews, Note 4. 3 See Ewald sup. cit. p. 98—102. < Lineamenta Inst, fidei Christianae, p. 73. Wolfii Curae philol. ad 1. c. 37 290 THE TRINITY. [bK. II. in the work on the Object of the Gospel of John (p. 400 etc.) For tip! is a translation of the Hebrew word wn (comp. LXX Deut. 32: 39 ;) which according to the usage of the Hebrews and Arabs, signifies God ; and the Greek word avtog has the same sig nification in 1 John 2: 29. Christ is also called xvgiog Lord, in 1 Cor. 8: 6 (comp. § 33. Illust. 1. $ 42. Illust. 9. He is called nvtvpati xrj n i z g a axoXov&ovaa the spirit ual rock which accompanied them, 1 Cor. 10: 4. In the Comment. on Heb. 12: 26, these words are explained in the following manner: " The invisible (and supremely perfect) rock, who accompanied the Israelites, through whose agency [tx, like the Heb. a] they were enabled to drink (out of the material rock.") In Deut. 32: 10 — 12, God is said to have accompanied the Israelites ; and in the same chapter, v. 14, 15, 18, the name rock (nix) is applied to him. — Ilvtvp a t ixdg designates the almighty power of God. See Gal. 4: 29. Rom. 4: 17 — 21. The reader may consult Michaelis' Notes on the 1st epist. to the Corinthians (p. 232 ;) and Ewald's Religions- lehren der Bibel. Vol. II. p. 136 etc. The name Christ is itself a divine compilation. For, in 2 Cor. 11: 10. Rom. 11: 1, Paul swears by the name of Christ. In the Dissert, on the epistles to the Corinthians, the former of these pas sages, iatlv aXrj&tta Xgtazov iv ipoi, is explained by " Mini cer- tissimum est." (l^rr y^: Gen. 41: 32.) 'AXr]&ti'a Xgtarov, ac cording to a well known Hebrew idiom, signifies the same as dXr,&tta ¦dtov, namely, res verissima. Finally, what the Old Testament asserts of God, is also applied to Christ, John 12: 41, on tlSt^ zr]v Sd'iav avtov. (comp. with v. 40 and Is. 6: 10.) The word avrov, in this passage, must be referred to Christ; as well as in v. 37, 42.1 Now, the 40th v. of this ch. corresponds with Is. 6: 1—5, where the prophet is describing the glory of God ; consequently, by applying this passao-e to Christ, John ascribes divine glory to him. Heb. 1: 10— 12,°unto the Son he saith, Thou Lord in the beginning of all things didst create the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands : they shall pass away, but thou remainest : they shall grow old as a garment, and thou shalt fold them up as a vesture to change them. Comp PS. 102:26-28. Heb. 12:26. (comp. Deut. 5: 22 etc.) Here Christ is represented as the person, who revealed himself on Sinai; ov v qtovrj rriv yrjv iaaXtvat zdzf and consequently as God himself.2 l Dissert. I, in libros N. T. historicos, p. 87 etc. ~* ' 2 Soe Comment, on Hebrews, in loc. Note o. $ 43.] IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE. 291 SECTION XLIII. Importance of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. No one can detract from the supreme dignity of Christ, without either totally denying him that adoration which is his due, or offer ing-it in an improper manner ;(1) and without detracting also from the value of that salutary influence which he has exerted and still exerts on mankind. For, on the dignity of his person (<$> 82, 78) the importance of this influence is suspended. Accordingly Chris tians, at their first reception among the professors of this religion, which places the divine worship of Jesus in indissoluble connexion with christian piety, (2) are dedicated to Christ as God, (4) by the ordinance of baptism. (3) Illustration 1. The obligation of men to believe in Christ as God. Whoever wilfully contradicts the declarations of Jesus, relative to his exalted nature and the adoration which is due to him, or who refuses to believe in the dignity of Jesus Christ the Son of God [niaztvtiv zto dvopan zov Jriaoo Xgtazou,] is guilty of transgressing the divine command, and is as far from pleasing God, as he who is destitute of love for his fellow man. 1 John 3: 23, aiitij iativ rj ivtoXrj uvroo, 'iva niaitvawptv tto dvdpati tov viov avtov J-rjaov Xgiarov, xal dyuntoptv dXXtjXovg this is his commandment, that we be lieve on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, com p. v. 22. John 3: 35, 36, o ajia&tov rq) vlto, ovx ouitrai £torjv, aXX' rj dgytjtov Otov pivti in avidv he that believeth not on the Son, shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him. On the disastrous influence which antiscriptural representations of Christ- may have on our conduct ; the reader may consult the work on the Object of the Gospel of John, § 103. III. 2. The same subject continued. Since it is a fact, that it has pleased God to take the man Jesus into an extraordinary union with himself, to commit all things into his hands, to appoint hirn the immediate judge of the world, and to bestow his love and blessings upon us only through him ; we are called upon by love to the Father and by reverence for him, as well 292 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. as by our dependance on him to make us happy both in the present and the future world— in short, we are called upon by our piety as Christians, to love and honour Christ, as being just what the Father has represented him, and to repose our confidence in him.1 In the Dissert. " On the Spirit of Christianity,"2 it is proved, that the dignity and exalted nature of the person of Christ, constituted a principal subject of the instruction of Jesus and his apostles. III. 3. The genuineness of the Baptismal Formula, matt. 28: 19. Matt. 28: 19, nogevd-ivttg ovv pa&rittvaatt ndvta td t&vy, flantlfavttg avrovg tig td dvopa tov natgog xal tov vlov xal tov dylov nvtvputog. Go therefore, make disciples of all nations, bap tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The doubt which has been advanced by Teller, rela tive to the genuineness of this passage, is not only unsupported by any critical authority, but is not favoured by the conjecture, which has been derived from the circumstance, that in several passages of the New Testament, instead of " baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" [tig to dvopa TOT TIATPOZ KAI TOT 'TIOT KAI TOT'AriOT nNETMATOZ,] baptism in the name of Christ only is mentioned ; as, for example, in Acts 8: 16. 19: 5, tig to dvopa zov xvgiov 'Inaov. Acts 10: 48. 2: 38, iv and inltd) dvdpati'lrjaov Xgtatov. Gal. 3: 27. Rom. 6: 3, tig Xgtato'v. For, it is manifest, that the latter mode of expression originated merely from abbreviation ; and for the same reason, also, the word baptism is sometimes placed entirely alone, without any additional clause ; as in Acts 8: 12. 16: 15. 18: 8. And if the writers of the New Testament wished to abbreviate the formula of baptism which Christ used at the institution of this ordinance, they would not be likely to use the first words, tig zd dvopa zov nazgdg, in the name of the Father, instead of the whole ; for these words could not sufficiently distinguish the christian profession of faith, from that of the Jews. On the other hand, the words tig zd dvopa zov vlov ('Ivoov Xgiazov,) in the name of the Son Jesus Christ, could with propriety be used -instead of the whole formula, without an imper fect expression of its spirit ; since no one can baptize in the name [i. e. to the honour] of Jesus Christ (Illust. 4,) who does not in the baptism confine himself strictly to the instructions and command of Christ, and of course also to the formula prescribed by him. More over, it is evident from Acts 19: 2 — 5, that the Holy Ghost was named at the baptism of those very persons of whom it is simply 1 See Opusc. Acad. Vol. II. p. 105—197. ' 2 Flatt's Magazine, Vol. I. p. 11—126. § 43.] THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA, 293 said, that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And in Titus 3: 4 — 6, where baptism [Xovtgdv naXiyytvtalag the wash ing of regeneration] is spoken of, there is an express mention of the Father [&tdg amzrjg v. 4,] of the Son ['ivoovg Xpiatdg atozrjpv. 6,] and of the Holy Ghost [nvtvpa dytov V. 5.] And Justin1, states, that it was a custom among the earliest Christians, to baptize in the name of the Father and Lord of all things, and of Jesus Christ our Saviour, and of the Holy Ghost. Teller has asserted, that Marcion rejected the baptismal formula ; but he does not cite any passage in proof of the fact, and I can find no such passage; but even if the fact could be proved, it would be no argument against the genuine ness of this text, for we know that Marcion rejected the whole Gos pel of Matthew, (as being the Gospel of a Jewish apostle, and in tended originally for the Hebrews,) and of course he rejected the baptismal form found in Matt. 28: 19.2 Why (it has been asked) did the apostles themselves hesitate so much to receive the gentiles to the christian church, and why did others make so much opposi tion to it (Acts 10: 11,) if they had an explicit command of the Lord, to baptize all nations, without any distinction, and of course the gentiles ?" To this Bekhaus replies : " Is it not possible for the apostles sometimes to havd lost sight of this command of Jesus ? Were they not under the influence of a secret national prejudice , against the pagans ? And may they not have had many conscien tious obstacles to contend with in the execution of this command :n III. 4. Divine honour ascribed to Christ in baptism. The words tigzo dvopa (Matt. 28: 19) must properly be transla ted in honour of . For, dvopa signifies honour, dignity : compare Heb. 1:4, where dvopa is synonymous with So'§a and ttprj ch. 2: 9. 5: 4. and Is. 48: 9, where the words d$ [name] and ftVrrn [praise] are parallel terms ; and 1 Chron. 22: 5, where m'sjoFi [glory, splen dour] and Ba?' [renown] are synonymous.3 Nor will the sense be changed, if with Paulus,4 we translate these words literally : " In reference to the name vldg." In the same mariner, also, may the phrases inl5 td) ovopazi and iv dvdpazi,he translated; and even the expression dg Xgiazov, has the same signification. Compare Mic. 4: 5, !-rirn tiffia *jia we will walk in the name of Jehovah. Philip. l Justini Apologia II, ed. Colon, p. 94. 3 Bekhaus on the genuineness of the baptismal formula, OfTenb. 1794. 3 See the Dissert, on the epistle to the Philippians, ch. 2: 9, Note i. and on Heb. 1:4, Note m. 4 Comment. P. III. p. 920. 5 tal—tUi comp. Gal. 5: 13. 1 Thess. 4: 7. Eph. 2: 10. 294 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. 2: 10, iv zt) dvdpazt 'itjaov in honour of Jesus (compare Ps. 63: 5, "©3 NiEN ^SttJa in thy name will I lift up my hands.) Col. 3: 17, navtaYv dvopati xvplov 'irjaod (nodit) perform all things in the name of the Lord Jesus.1 But if baptism is to be performed in honour ot Jesus, or the bon ; then he is here not regarded merely as a teacher (1 Cor. 10: 2.) Otherwise, baptism in the name of so great a teacher as Paul, could not have been so unbecoming a thing as he himself represents it, 1 Cor. 1: 13 15- The honour which Christ intends shall be paid him by baptism', is the honour of the Son.2 Christ does indeed require faith in his doctrines (Matt. 28: 19, comp. Acts 18: 8. 16: 15.) But they are to be received as the doctrines of the Son, of him who as Son3 is'exalted far above all teachers and messengers of God (1 Cor, i: 13 15,) as the doctrines of the Redeemer, and Lord of the church 2SiTHPxalKTP102. 1 Cor. 1: 13, (Christ alone is^ Lord and Redeemer of the whole church.) Rorn. 6: 3, (tig zov ddvarov avroZ ipanzio&riptv by his death, Christ becomes the aoniig of the church.) Eph. 5: 23—26, (by baptism Christ has consecrated the church to himself, as her Head and Redeemer, xtqaXrj zjig ixxXrjoiag xal ototW *<>" otoparog.) Acts 16: 31 — 33, (nlaztvaov inltdv xvptov, 'Itjo-ovv Xpiazdv — xal i§aitzla-&ri believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and be baptized.) 8: 16, (§t(lantiapivoi vnrjgxov dg to dvopa tov xvgiov 'Ivoov they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Hence it is evident, that the honour which the professors of Chris tianity are commanded to give to Christ in baptism, is certainly _a divine honour — (intxaXovpivotg zd dvopa tov xvgiov Irjaov Xptarou* who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. {idnzloai,i-nixa- Xtadptvog zd dvopa avzOv5 to be baptized, calling on his name)— it is such. an honour as he had demanded previously to the institution of the ordinance of baptism,6 and such as had actually been shown him by the apostles before that time ; for we are told, npoatxvvriaav auroj,7 they worshipped him or made obeisance to him, ngoaxv- vrjoavriguvtdv8 worshipping him. As it has been proved (§ 42,) that it is our duty to worship Jesus, as being God in the highest sense of the word ; so the hon our shown to the Son in baptism, must necessarily be the same honour (John 5:23) as that ascribed to the Father in this ordinance ; and therefore divine honour in the strictest sense (1 Pet. 3: 21.) l See Dissert. I, in libros N. T. histor. p. 89. (Qpusc. Acad. Vol. III. p. 91. 3 Matt. 28: 19, Gal. 3: '26. (comp. 4: 4—7.) Acts 8: 37. 3 John 1: 18. 3: 31 , 11—17. Col. 1: 13—22. Matt. 28: 18, 19. Heb. 1: 2. 4 1 Cor. 1:13. comp. v. 2. 5 Acts 22: 16. 6 John 5: 18—23. 10: 28—33. comp. § 42. Illust. 7, 6. 1 Matt. 28: 17. 8 Luke 24: 52. John 20: 28. See, § 42. Illust 11. $ 44.] THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA. 295 Just as circumcision was a declaration, on the part of its subjects, that Jehovah was the God of the posterity of Abraham (Gen. 17: 10—14. comp. 1: 7 etc.,) and that they regarded themselves under obligation to live to the honour [OifiS in the name, Mic. 4: 5] of Je hovah ; so also, by baptism in honour of the Father and the Son (§ 112,) its subjects declared that the Father and the Son are the God of the Christians, whom they are bound to adore, and to whom they are permitted to have access. This last clause is found in 1 Pet. -3: 21, where the words intgtdzrjpa avvetStjattog dya&rjg dg &tdv signify, " that baptism procures us an acceptable approach to God with a good conscience, through the resurrection and glory of Christ." ' SECTION XLIV. There is a real difference between the Father and the Son; but they are not two Gods.. Independently of the union of the Son with the man Jesus, he is so distinguished(l) from the Father,(2) that we are obliged to ac knowledge not only a logical but a real distinction between-them. (3)But as the Scriptures teach, that the Son is God, in the same sense (§ 42) as the Father ;(4) and yet as there is but one God (¦§> 28 ,;) therefore we must regard this distinction,. which has a foun dation and is a real distinction, as being such a distinction as does not imply a plurality of Gods. (5) The omnipotence bf the Son is no other than the omnipotence of the Father, but is one and the same omnipotence. (6) The omniscience of the Son and the omnis cience of the Father, are one and the same. (7) In a word, the very same and the entire divine perfection(S) which belongs to the Father, belongs also to the Son. (9) Col. 1: 19. ¦ Illustration 1 . John I 7: 5, Ao%a rj ttxov ngo tovzov xoapov tivai, nag a ao! the glory which I had with thee before the world existed, ch. 1: 1, o Xdyog rjv ng'd g t d v 0- 1 d v the Word (or Logos), was with God : comp. 1 John 1: 2. 296 THE TR1N1TT. [BE. II. III. 2. 1 John 1 : 2, rj feu?} rj dttdvtog, rjttgrjv ngog tov natiga that life eternal was with the Father. John 17: 24,'Hy a n va dg pt, n a t i g, npd xataBoXrjg xoapov thou lovedst me, O Father, hefore the creation of the world. See Comment, on Hebrews, p. 8 «tc. III. 3. The distinction between Father and Son is real. It was not God [d &t og], considered as distinct from the Logos [Ad- yog], but it was that Logos who was with God [d Xoyog d ngog tov &tdv John 1: 1,2], that became man [adgg iyivtto1]. Or, accord ing to 1 John 1: 2, that eternal life which was with the Father, re vealed himself to men [rj £wrj rj aitdviog, ijrig rjv ngog tov naiiga iqavtgto&rs rjfiiv]. The phrases, " the Logos was with the Father," " he was in the Father's bosom, " the Father loved him," will not suffer us to conceive of the distinction between the Father and the Logos, as a difference merely of relation, sustained by one and the same person. Thus, for example, it would be absurd to say, God, considered as one who promoted and still promotes the happiness of mankind, through the man Jesus ; was with God considered as the Creator of the world."2 III. 4. 1 Cor. 8: 6, &t dg d natrjg, i% ov zd ndvta — tig xvgiog Iriaovg Xgtatdg, Si ov td ndvta God the Father, of whom are all things — one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. John 17: 1, 3. 1: 1, 2. comp v. 18. 1 John 1: 2. III. 5. The unity of God. The proposition, " God was the Word [&tdg rjv d Xdyog,"] rec^ tifies our idea of the phrase preceding it, " the Word was with God ;" and guards against such a misconstruction as would contradict the unity of God. The proposition, " the Word was with God," is in precisely the same predicament with the proposition in dog matics, " the Father and the Logos are two persons." As the dis tinction between the Logos and the Father, is the only one of its kind, and is a distinction of which we have neither a perfect concept tion nor an appropriate expression ; the sacred writers had to use the language of approximation, or to borrow terms from things which are know to us : such as two men who stand connected, who are intimately united with each other, as a father and his son. Thus, too, the word person is only a term of approximation .\ it calls up l v. 14. comp. v. 18. 2 On the Object of the Gospel of John, p. 471 ff. comp. Flatt, de Deitate Christi, p. 30 etc. §44.] DISTINCTION IN THE GODHEAD. 297 the idea of two human persons, but is intended to denote a mere negative idea, or to deny that the difference is merely a difference of relation sustained by a single person. The language of the Augsburg Confession, Art. 1, is this: " Et nomine personae utuntur ex significatione, qua usi sunt in hac causa scriptpres ecclesiastici, ut signified non partem aut qualitatem in alio, sed quod proprie sub- sistit ;" i. e. and by the word person, is meant, not a part or a quality in another, but that which has itself a subsistence ; as the word is used by ecclesiastical writers on this subject. III. 6. John 10: 30, iyto xal d natrjg iv iaptv I and my Father are one ; comp. v. 28, 29. III. 7. The omniscience of the Father and the Son, is one. John 16: 13, zd nvtvpa ttjg dXrjfrtlag, oaa dv dxovarj (compare 1 Cor. 2: 10, II) XaXrjoei the Spirit of truth shall speak the things which he shall hear. The same idea is expressed thus in v. 14; ix tov ipov Xijipttai, xal dvayytXd vp7v, and in v. 15, it is added, navza baa i'xti o natijg, ipd iati. III. 8. The nature of the divine perfection in the Trinity. By the divine perfection, is here meant the combined whole of all the predicates contained in the idea of God, as they are stated above (4> 20 ;) although it is not denied, that the threefold distinc tion between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the close union of these three with one another, constitute a great perfection of the Deity. Each of these three (persons) sustains a relation to the other two, which is peculiar to himself. But, as to each (person) there belongs a certain relation to the others peculiar to- itself, the perfection of the divine Being does not so much consist exclusively of the characteristics which are appropriated to any one of the three (persons,) as e. g. to the Father ; but rather in the close union of these appropriate characteristics with the peculiar characteristics of the other two, e. g. of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And this divine perfection, which proceeds from the reciprocal relation of the three (persons,) or which is founded on the indissoluble union of each with the other two ; belongs in common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.1 Dr. Taylor has objected to the doctrine of the Trinity : that " the peculiar character which each of the two persons Father and Son, possesses, must be a perfection; and consequently a perfection is lacking to each of them ; and hence neither of them cap be an 1 Flatt. de DeitateChristi. p. 97. 38 298 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. infinitely perfect being, i. e. be God." This objection is thus answered by Flatt, de Deitate Christi (p. 97 etc.): " If the ex pression divine Being [ovaia divina, God] be taken in a more ex tended sense, so as to embrace in it what are, termed the personal characteristics ; then it is evident, that all the three persons consti tute one divine Being [one Godhead!] But if by divine Being [God,] we mean the complex of those characteristics and attributes which are ascribed to the Deity or supreme Being by natural religion, and thus exclude the personal characters from our idea of the Deity ; then this idea is applicable to all the three-persons of the Godhead. And as it cannot be proved that the peculiar charac teristics of either of the three persons, is a perfection inferior'to the peculiar characteristics of the other two persons ; it does not follow, that one is less perfect than the others, or that either of these persons is not possessed of divine perfection in the highest degree. III. 9. As the Father cannot be separated from the Logos, who became man and assumed a human form [iytd iv ti) natgl, xal 6 narrjg iv ipol ;'] we may say, that the father also revealed himself (John 14: 7 — 9) in the man Jesus, with whom the Xdyog {liog united himself, John 1: 1, 14. 1 John 1: 2. " The idea commonly attached to the word person, is that of an intelligent subsistence, or of a being subsisting by himself, apart from others. This idea, it is evident, cannot with propriety be ap plied to the relation existing between the Logos and the Father ; for the Logos cannot be regarded as existing apart from the Father. TI ey can be considered as two persons, or intelligent subsistences [vnoatdatig,] only so far as something (e. g. the incarnation) can be ascribed to one (the Logos,) which cannot equally be attributed to the other (the Father.)"2 1 John 14: 10. 10: 28, 30, comp. the work on the Object of the Gospel of John, p. 196, 478 ff. [2 On this mysterious and important doctrine, which is so intimately inter woven with the whole economy of redemption, it is important to the theological stude.nt to be habituated to the most rigid propriety and precision of language. — And as it may be interesting as well as instructive to tho critical reader, to have access to the phraseology of distinguished divines on this subject ; I shall add some brief extracts from the systems of the most distinguished theologians. I select only from 'the works of Lutherans, because they are most rarely accessible to the American Student :— And (1) from the illustrious M. Chemnitz, whom Tribbechovius terms, " Theologonim facile princeps." He says (in his work, " De duabus natnris in Chrislo"): "Essentia divina praedicatur dePatre.de Filib, et de Spiritu Sancto, non ut genus de speclebus, nee ut species de individuis, nee ut totum de partibus, sed alio quodam inerFabili et incomprehensibili niodo. Hypostases vero seu personae Triniiatis omnes unum sunt."— (2) Dr. Finck, who lived about the close of the 16th century, about forty vears after the death of Chem nitz, says: " Gott Vater, Sohn, und Heiliger Geist: Der Vater der einen Sohn von Ewigkeitzu seinem Ebenbilde gezeugt, der Sohn so vom Vater gebohren ist, und der Heilige Geiet, der vom Vater und Sohn auf unerforschliche Weise aus- *45.] DIVINITV OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 299 SECTION XLV. Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Just as the Son, who revealed himself to the world in the man Jesus, is joined with the Father in the formula of baptism (<§> 43. Illust. 4,) because, although there is a distinction between him and the Father, he is nevertheless one and the same God with the Father; so also is the Holy Spirit, in the same formula(l) joined with the Father and the Son, because, although there is a similar gehet" (Loci Common, p. 107.)— (3) William Lyser, Doctor and Professor of Divinity in the University of Wittenberg, says : " Trinitas est unitas in essentia trium personarum — Unitas essentiae distinctionem personarurn non tollit, nee distinctio personarum unitatem essentiae multiplicat." (Systema thetico-exe- geticum, p. 130, edit. J. G. Neumanni, 1680.)— (4) M. Dav. Hollatzius (Examen Theolog. Acroamatic. a most excellent work, which (he pious author, instead of dedicating to the illustrious personages of his age, formally inscribed " To the Triune God," in terms of the most ardent and intense devotion, on p. -311) says : " Augustissimum venerandae Trihitatis mysterium, niodo s'nnplissimo et pian issimo traditurusttstendat, quod Deus unus sit : Quod unus Deussit Paterf Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus : Quod alius sit Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus : Quod Pater in aeternum generet Filium, Filius ab aeterno a Patre sit genitus1 Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio procedat." — (4) The indefatigable and learned Dr. Buddeus, successively the ornament of Cobourg,.of Halle, and of Jena Uni versities, says : " Observandum, Scripturam sacram diserte et luculenter docere, I. Patrem a Filio, Filium a Patre, et ab utroque Spiritum Sanctum realiter dif- ferre, ut alius sit Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus: — It. Non solum Patrem, sed etiam Filium et Spiritum Sanctum esse verum et sternum Deum : — III. Nee tamen tres esse Deos, sed Deum unum." (Theol. Dogmat. p. 266:) — (5) Dr. S. J. Baurngarten, a most profound divine, who might not unaptly be styled the Lutheran Edwards, says: " Summa doctrinae de Trinitate hue redit, utcredamus, I. Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum esse verum Deum isingu- losque ad unum Deum ita pertinere, ut unus Deus sit Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus: — II. hunc Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum vere differre, ut supposita in- telligentia seu personas : — III. has tres personas habere eandem essentiam, sibi- que invicem non solum similes, verum etiam aequales simul esse :t— et IV. demum, has tres personas non essentia]! aliqua re ad Deum in se considerata pertinente differe, sed actibus internis etexinde ortis relationibus, quibus efficia- tur,ut unaquaeque sit alia a reliquis, non tamen aliud quid." ¦ (Evangelische Glaubenslehre, Vol, I. p. 448.) — (6) We shall close this note, with the definition of that luminous and truly philosophic divine, Dr. Mosheim, whose Elementa theologiae dogmaticae is one of the most scientifically systematic and lucid works which Europe has produced on the subject of dogmatics : " Docet enim Revelatio, in Deo tametsi simpliciter unus sit, esse tamen partitionem quendam, quae tamen ternarium numerum non excedat, et realiter in essentia divina dis- tingui debere Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum. Theologi hoc dogma his verbis enuntiare solent : In una essentia divina tres sunt personae consubstantia- les, Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus. — Propositib haec, tametsi generatim ca- piatur et intelligatur. haud tamen demonstrari, sed solo testimoniodivino firmari potest, neque omni ex parte capitur. et intelligitur." Vol. I. p. 307, 308, ed. 3d. See also the discriminating remarks of Morus on this subject. Epitome TheoL Christianae, p. 59—71 , ed. 4th, 1799. S.] 300 THETRINITT. [BR, 11. distinction between him and tlie Father and the Son, yet he is united in the closest manner with both, (2) and is one and the same God with them, to whom the subjects of baptism addressed them selves (1 Pet. 3: 21,) and to whom they pay adoration. Thereare other passages in which the Holy Spirit is either distinguished from the Father and the Son,(3) or represented as one with God. (4) And the same omniscience is specifically ascribed to him, (5) which is attributed to the Father and the Son. (6) Illustration 1. 2 Cor. 13: 13, rj #«?«£ rod xvgiov 'Irjoov Xgtatov xal rj dyan-tj -., roti {rtov, xal rj xotvuvla tov nvtvpatog dylov the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12: 4 — 6, to avid nvtvpa — d avtdg xvgtog — d aitdg {riog the same Spirit — the same Lord — the same God. 1 Pet. 1: 2. comp. Jude 20, 21. On the text 1 John 5: 7. See Tubing. Gehlehrte Anzeigen ;T Griesbach's Remarks on Hezel's Vindication of 1 John 5: 7, Giessen, 1794, (contained also in Hezel's " Schrift- forscher ;"2) Griesbach's Novum Testamentum,3 appendix Diatribe in locum 1 John 5: 7, 8. Mori Praelect. exeg. in tres Johannis epistolas.4 III. 2. John 15: 26, d nagdxXrjtog, dv iyoi nipxpto naga zov natgog the Paraclete (or Monitor) whom I will send from the Fath er. Matt. 10: 20, to nvtvpa tov nuzgog the Spirit of the Father. Rom. 8: 11. comp. 6: 4. Rom. 8: 9 etc. Gal. 4: 6, i^aniazttXtv d &tog zd nvtvpa zov vlov avzov God sent forth the Spirit of his Son. III. 3. John 14: 16, dXXov nagdxXt]zov Stooti vp7v sc. o nutrjg the Father will give you another Monitor. 15: 26. 16: 13 — 15. — On the personality of the Holy Spirit, the reader may consult Schmidt's " Christliche Religionslehre ;"5 Schott's Epitome Theol. Christ. Dogm. (p. 182.;) and his Preacher's Journal for the pro motion of piety.6 III. 4. 1 Cor. 2: 11. In this passage, the relation of the Spirit of God to God, is represented as analogous to the relation subsisting between the spirit of man and man. Compare 1 Cor. 3: 16. and 6: 19, (comp. 3: 17, to adipa vptov vadg tov iv vp7v dyiov nvtvpatog iati — vaog tuv &tov iait vpdg your body is the temple of the Holy 1 No 72, for 1785. 2 Vol. II. P. III. 3 Vol. II. 2ed. Halle, 1806. 4 p. 68—77. 5 p. 105, Giessen, 1808.. 6 Vol. II. P. I, Leipsic, 1811. No. 3. p. 110. § 46.] distinction in the godhead. 301 Spirit in you — ye are the temple of God.) Compare also 2 Cor. 6: 16. In Acts 5: 3, 4, the phrases xptvaaoftut zd nvtvpa dyiov and Wtvoao&ai ztd -&tt) are synonymous. III. 5. Another divine attribute, namely unlimited power, is at tributed to the Spirit in 1 Cor. 12: 8, 9, 11, ndvza zavia ivegyti td nvtvpa, Statgovv ixdaioj xa&tdg fiovXtrai all these are wrought by the Spirit, apportioning to each one as he will. III. 6. 1 Cor» 2: 10, to nvtvpa ndvta igtvva, xal ta fia&rj tov ¦8-tov the Spirit discerns all things, even the secret purposes of God. The whole passage from v. 9 — 13, as Morus says, attributes to the Spirit, " Scire consilia Dei, ei soli nota, aliis omnibus utique ignota1 [to know these counsels of God, which are known only to God and are unknown to all ethers."] In John 16: 13 — 15, the same knowledge is ascribed to the Spirit, as to the Father and Son, even a knowledge of future things [toiv igxopivtov]. SECTION XLVI. The nature of the distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spir it, can neither be explained nor expressed by words.2 Accordingly, we represent to ourselves these three distinct (per sons,) Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as one God ; and worship them as such. But at the same time we must confess, that, just as many other things, especially such as relate to the Godhead, transcend the 1 Morus, Epitome Theologlae Christ, p. 66. note 1. [2 On the words persona, vrroazaoig, itgiataitoV) oioia, opoovaiog, etc. as ap plied to the Divine Being, some interesting discussion may be found in Pro fessor Stuart's Letters to Wm. E. Channing (p. 22 — 30, ed. 3d ;) in Baumgarten's Glaubenslehre (Vol. I. p. 429— 434 ;) and Semler's Einleitung (Vol. I. 197, 229. 111.314 — 316.) Much was said, about the time of the Reformation, concerning the tendency of these terms to lead to tri theism j and among the advocates for their expulsion from theological disquisition, might lie mentioned a number of tlie first divines of the age, not excepting Hunnius and even Luther himself. — Yet, to prevent the charge of Arianism or Socinianism, which he knew his ene mies would eagerly seize the least pretext to prefer against them, Luther yielded to Melanclhon's wishes, and in the Augsburg Confession, the doctrine of the Trinity is couched in the old scholastic terms. On this subject, the sentiments of the ablest divines of the present day have been thus expressed by the Rev. Dr. Miller : " We found it in use ; and not knowing a better term forthe pur pose intended, we have cheerfuilyadopted and continue to use it still. We by no means understand it, however, in a gross or carnal sense." S ] 302 THE trinity. [bk. ii. powers of our comprehension ; so also are we unable to compre hend the nature and mode of the distinction which subsists between the Son, who became man, and the Father, by whom he is "well beloved ;" or the nature and mode of the distinction between the Holy Spirit on the one hand, and the Father and Son, from whom the Spirit was sent and proceeded forth to the apostles, on the other (John 15: 26 ;) and that therefore we are unable fully to express this distinction by any word or phrase. (1) It is this inability to ¦comprehend the precise nature of the distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which renders it impossible for us to explain how this distinction coincides with the unity of God, a doctrine to which we inflexibly adhere : [but on the other hand, this same ina bility also renders it equally impossible for any one to prove, that the unity of God is inconsistent with this distinction.] (2) Illustration 1. On the incomprehensibility of the distinction in the persons of the Trinity, the reader may consult the work (of Dr. Storr) on the Object of the Gospel and epistles of John ;* Griesbach's Introduc tion to the study of popular Dogmatics (§ 62 — 64) ; Schlegel's "Doctrine of the Trinity in God, again considered ;"2 Augustine, de Trinitate ;3 [Professor Stuart, On the divinity of Christ ;4 and Dr. Miller's Letters on Unitarianism].5 The doctrine of the Trinity, in the ecclesiastical terminology of dogmatics, is expressed in the following terms : (1) "In una indi- visibili Essentia [ovola], subsitunt tres Personae consubstantiales [coessentiales dpoovatoi,] Pater, Filius, et Spiritus • Sanctus.— (2) Tres in Divinitate Personae vere et realiter differunt." [On the important and difficult subject of this Illustration, the translator cannot deny himself the pleasure of inserting some of the remarks of Professor Stuart. S.] " What then, you doubtless will ask, is that distinction in the Godhead, which the word person is meant to designate ? I answer without hesitation, that I do not know. The fact that a distinction exists, is what we aver ; the definition of that distinction, is what I shall by no means attempt. By what shall I, or can I define it ? l p. 470. (see above § 44. Illust. 5.) 3 pt. H. sect II. p. 89. 9 Lib. V. cap. 9. Opp. Basil, 1543, T. III. p. 321. * Letters to Mr. Channing, on the divinity of Christ, p. 35—38, 3d ed. 5 See Letters on Unitarianism, etc. by Dr. Miller, Professor in the Theological seminary, Princeton, p. 70— 88. <§> 46.] DISTINCTION IN THE GODHEAD. 303 What simile drawn from created objects, which are necessarily derived and dependent, can illustrate the mode of existence in that Being, who is underived, independent, unchangeable, infinite; eter nal ? I confess myself unable to advance a single step here in ex plaining what the distinction is. I receive the fact that it exists, simply because I believe that the Scriptures reveal the fact. And if the Scriptures do reveal the fact, that there are three .persons in the Godhead, (in the sense explained ;) that there is a distinction which affords ground for the appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; which lays the foundation for the application of the person al pronouns, I, thou, he; which renders it proper, to speak of send ing and being sent ; of Christ being with God, being in his bdsom, and other things of the like nature ; and yet, that the divine nature belongs to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; then it is, like every other fact revealed, to be received simply on the credit of divine revelation. " Is there any more difficulty in understanding the fact, that there is a distinction in the Godhead, than there is in understanding that God possesses an underived existence ? With what shall we com pare such existence ? All other beings are derived ; and, of course there is no object in the universe with whose existence it can be compared. To define it then, is beyond our reach. We can ap proximate towards a conception of it, merely by negatives. We deny that the divine existence has any author or cause ; and when we have done this, we have not defined it, but simply said that a certain thing does not belong to it. Here we must rest. The boundaries of human knowledge can never be extended beyond this. " The distinction in the Godhead, which I have now mentioned, I ought to say here, we do not, and cannot consider as a mere sub ject of speculation, which has little or no concern with ardent piety, or the best hopes of the Christian. We believe that some of the most interesting and endearing exhibitions of the divine character, are founded upon it and connected with it ; and that corresponding duties are urged upon us, and peculiar hopes excited, and consola tions administered by it. " In regard to this distinction, we say, It is not a mere distinction of attributes, of relation to us, of modes of action, or of relation between attributes and substance or essence, so far as they are known to us. , We believe the Scriptures justify us in these nega tions. But here we leave the subject. We undertake, (at least, the Trinitarians of our country, with whom I am acquainted, under take,) not at all to describe affirmatively the distinction in the God head. When you will give me an affirmative descriptipn of unde rived existence, I may safely engage to furnish you with one of 304 THE TRINITY. [BK. II, person in the Trinity. You do not reject the belief of self existence, merely because you cannot affirmatively define it; neither do we of a distinction in the God-head, because we cannot affirmatively define it. " I may ask, moreover, What is the eternity o{ God ? You answer by telling me, that there never was a time, when he did not exist, and never can be one, when he will not exist. True ; but then, what was time, before the planetary system, which measures it, had an existence ? And what will time be, when these heavens and this earth shall be blotted out ? Besides, passing over this difficulty about time, you have only given a negative description of God's eternity : you deny certain things of him, and then aver that he is eternal. Yet because you cannot affirmatively describe eternity, you would not refuse to believe that God is eternal. Why then should I reject the belief of a distinction in the Godhead, because I cannot affirmatively define it ? " I do not admit therefore, that we are exposed justly to be taxed with mysticism, and absurdity, when we aver that there is a distinction in the Godhead, which we are utterly unable to define. I am aware, indeed, that a writer some time since composed" and published, in a periodical work then edited at Cambridge, a piece in which he laboured, with no small degree of acuteness, to show that no man can believe a proposition, the terms ofwhich are unin telligible, or which he does not understand. His object in doing this, appears to have been, to fix upon a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, the charge of absurdity. But it seems to. me, the whole argument of that piece is founded on a confusion of two things, which are in themselves very diverse ; viz. terms which are unin telligible, and things which are undefinable. You believe in the fact, that the divine existence is without cause ; you understand the fact that God exists uncaused, but you cannot define underived existence. I believe, on the authority of the Scriptures, that there is a real distinction in the Godhead ; but I cannot define it. Still, the proposition that there is a real distinction, is just as intelligible, as the one that God is self existent. A multitude of propositions, respecting diverse subjects, resemble these. We affirm, that gravi tation brings a body thrown into the air, down to the earth. The fact is perfectly intelligible. The terms are perfectly understood, so far as they are the means of describing this fact. But then, what is gravitation ? An affirmative definition cannot be given, which is not a mere exchange of synonymes. Nor can any comparison de fine it ; for to what shall we liken it ?'n 1 Stuart's Letters to Wm. E. Channing, p. 35—38, 3d ed. See also Storr's Sonn-und Festtags-Predigten, Vol. I. No. 35, Tab. 1806. §46.] DISTINCTION IN THE GODHEAD. 305 III. 2. This distinction cannot be proved inconsistent with the di- r vine unity. The very same cause, which renders it impracticable for us to prove the harmony between this distinction and the divine unity, also renders it impossible to prove, that the assertion of a threefold distinction in the one divine Being,, involves a contradiction. — " Whenever we find a real contradiction between this distinction and the unity of the divine Being, it only follows, that in every such instance, we have an erroneous idea of the internal' distinction in the Godhead, or it may be, an incorrect idea of the one divine Being himself; and from this erroneous idea of purs, the inconsis tency wholly results."1 Flatt, in his work de Deitate Christi,2 re duces this doctrine to the Algebraic universal proposition, which ad mits of no dispute : " Subjecta A et B (et D) ita ad se invicem referuntur, ut commune quidem idem numero C habeant, sed charactere quodam X inter se differant [The relation of the subjects A, B, (and D) to each other is such, that they are numerically the same, in regard to a certain something termed C; but they differ from one another, in a certain property called X.] " As for the doctrine of the Trinity, the impossibility of giving a positive definition of the distinction between Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, is no sufficient reason for denying the distinction itself, of which the bible assures us. For, reason when left to herself sets before us objects, concerning which we indeed know that they exist [to ot i] ; but concerning whose nature, we have no positive know ledge. We can only distinguish between them and some false rep resentations, or determine what they are not ; but of their intrinsic nature, how they are .[to n dig], we have not the slightest knowl edge."3 1 See the work of Dr. Storr, on the Object of the Gospel and epistles of John, p 475 etc. 2 § XIV. 3 Dissert, on " Kant's Philosophiscbe Religionslehre," p. 7. On the idea of the Trinity advanced in Daub's Theologumenis, Heidelberg, 1805, the reader may consult Gabler's Journal for select theological literature, Vol. V. p. 523 etc 531 etc. 39 APPENDIX TO BOOK II. BY THE TRANSLATOR. ON THE RELATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY TO REASON. On the important subject of the relation of the doctrine of the Trinity to reason, the translator begs leave to subjoin a few remarks. All that can be well known on this subject from reason, may per haps, when reduced to its elementary principles, be embraced in the following propositions ; which, it is also humbly conceived, contain satisfactory solutions of the difficulties connected with this view of the subject. Prop. 1 . A divine revelation cannot contain any thing which is contrary to the plain and indisputable dictates of reason. By " plain indisputable dictates of reason," we mean those pror positions in.- all the various departments of truth — mathematical, moral, etc., the evidence of which is such, that when fairly present ed to our view, the constitution of our mind compels us to believe them. Such are all the , self-evident truths, (sometimes called in tuitive truths, or first truths, or constitutional judgments,) and all truths derived from them, the evidence of which is so strong that we are compelled to yield our assent. Such are the derived moral truths embraced in natural religion, that God is extremely powerful and intelligent (but not that he is omnipotent or omniscient.) Now, as these propositions are the natural and legitimate product of the structure of our mental nature, they must be regarded as the in structions of the Creator, from whom our peculiar mental constitu tion is derived. Hence., if -they were contradicted by his instructions in revelation, the Creator would contradict in revelation what he teaches in nature, that is, would contradict himself ; which is absurd: therefore n divine revelation cannot contain any thins: which is con trary to the plain indisputable dictates of reason. In connexion with this principle, there is no dispute, unless it be alleged that we teach the existence of three. Gods, and that the unity of God is a APP.] THE TRINITY, 307 plain, incontrovertible dictate of reason, which would be contradicted by tritheism'. To this we reply, First : Even if we did teach the existence of three Gods, there would be no dispute relative to this principle ; for,, the unity of God, can by no means be made indis putably evident from reason. Unity of design may be rendered in a very high degree evident, but unity of person (in the popular sense) cannot.' But, Secondly :, It is not the case, that Trinitarians believe in three Gods, as may be seen by a reference to their res pective creeds,; in all of which the belief in one God is as explicitly stated as it . possibly could be. If it be still alleged, that though Trinitarians do not profess tritheism, yet their doctrine inevitably leads to the belief of three gods ; then this objection is answered under the following propositions. Prop. 2. A divine revelation cannot contain any proposition which demonstrably involves self-contradiction. It will be admitted that truth is always harmonious, and that no two truths of any kind are contradictory, i. e. subversive, of each other ; neither . are the relations of truth. A contradictory propo sition is that, one idea of which- is manifestly subversive of the other, and the ideas of .which, the constitution of our minds compels us to believe cannot both be true : such, a proposition is this, " a triangle is a square." But the creator has so formed us, that of two propo sitions which are contradictory, if .the first be clearly proved to be true, we are compelled by the constitution of -our mental nature to believe the second false. For, as they are subversive of each other, if we suppose the second ^lso true, it would destroy the first; so that the first would have to be (true) and not to be (true) at the same time ; which is contrary to an intuitive or self-evident truth. Therefore, as God is the author ofbur mental nature, it is God who compels us to disbelieve one of two contradictory propositions ; and hence, if his revelation contained any such propositions, he would himself compel us to disbelieve part of his own revelation. But God's object in giving a revelation is, that it should be believed ; therefore he would not give a revelation and insert propositions in it which he compels us to disbelieve, that is, contradictory propositions : therefore a revelation coming from God, cannot, contain > propo sitions which demonstrably involve self-contradiction. In reference to this proposition, it has been alleged by some, that the doctrine of the Trinity involves such a contradiction. They reason thus: The ideaof one and the idea of three are contradictory and subversive of one another, so that the same thing cannot be one and three at the same time., But Trinitarians affirm that God is one and three at the same time ; therefore they affirm what cannot be true, i. e. a con tradictory proposition. But the major proposition is stated in a loose 308 THE TRINITY. [BK. H. and indefinite manner, and is not true in every instance-; for a tri angle is one and three at the same time, when considered as one among many figures, and in reference to its sides. In order to be true, that is, admissible, the major proposition must run thus: ".It is impossible for the same thing to be 1 and 3 in the same respect at the same time." To this we assent ; but in this form, the doc trine of the Trinity is by no means embraced under it ; for it need not be told to the intelligent reader, that Trinitarians unanimously deny that God is one and three in fhe same respect. They ex pressly teach, that God is one in one respect, and three in another respect. The first respect they denominate by the term essence, and the second by the term persons. Therefore, as the Trinitariau proposition is not embraced in the major, the conclusion of course is not applicable to it. But it has been objected, that some of the phraseology of Trini tarians, expressive of the reciprocal relation between the persons of the Godhead, involves contradiction. Those who advance the ob jection, reason thus : The one God is said to be threefold in his per sons ; but each person is the one God ; therefore each person is threefold. But the major -is not clearly stated. The idea intend ed is this, " God who is one (i. e. God in the respect in which uni ty is affirmed of him, namely, in essence) is three in person (i. e. in another respect, called person ;) ,but each person (i. e. God, in each of the respects called persons) is the one God (i. e. is God, in the respect in which unity is affirmed of him, namely, in essence :) But this minor is not true ; therefore the conclusion is a non se- quitur." In order to cover the conclusion, the syllogism must stand thus : " God in (essence) the sense in which he is one, is also three (in the same sense, essence ;)' but each of these three (persons) is God in the sense in which he is one (in essence ;) therefore each of these three (persons) is three in the sense (in essence) in which God is one." But it need scarce be mentioned that we deny the major and minor, as strenuously as any other persons can : for we deny that he is one and thre^e in the same sense. If it be alleged, that explanations of the distinction in the Supreme Being have sometimes been attempted, and from these and the language of Trinitarians in general, it is evident that they understand the terms essence and person^ in a manner which necessarily involves self- contradiction ; it must be admitted, that this has unfortunately sometimes been the case. But this will not be surprising when we recollect the inexplicability of the divipe nature, and the high de gree of mental discipline which is requisite, before men can clearly discern the proper limits of the human understanding. Nor are the" divines of the present day responsible for any phraseology but their APP.] DOCTRINE OF TRINITY RATIOSAL. 309 own ; and we believe ,they uniformly disavow the terms and ideas objected to. They believe that God is one in one respect, and three in another respect. To the respect in which he is one, they give the name essence; the other respect, in which he is three, they designate by the term person. But in so doing they do not intend to convey any positive ideas of the several respects to which they are applied. They are to be considered as equivalent to the Alge braic letters X and Y, which stand for unknown quantities or properties ; as if it had been said, " in X respect God is one, and in Y respect he is three :" and thus the propositions are no more contradictory than if we were to say, " a triangle in X respect (i. e. considered as a figure) is one-, and in Y respect (in reference to its sides) it is three ;" or, that " man in X respect (in reference to his soul and body) is two fold, and in Y respect (considered as an indi vidual of our race) is one." We do not forget that the triunity of the triangle results from its material properties, inasmuch as, like all matter, it consists of parts ; and that God is without parts [ens simplicissimum :]but we do not adduce^ these examples to prove from analogy either the truth or the possibility of the Trinitarian doctrine ; its truth must rest on divine record, and if that is established its pos sibility' necessarily follows. We only state these as several uncon nected propositions; but similarly constructed and of course equally void of contradiction. Moreover, as we do not define the distinction in the Deity at all, it cannot be urged that we define it to be such as depends on parts; hence, the absence of parts in God, cannot be alleged as an argument against the distinction which is negatively proposed. For, it is impossible that there should be contra"diction between terms the ideas of which are all strictly negative, and do not imply, by inference either more or less remote, any idea of a positive nature. Prop. 3. A divine revelation might naturally be expected to teach truths untaught by reason. That, after all our advances in knowledge, there, always have been and still are many truths physical and moral, connected with our world, which are unknown to us, will be admitted. Hence, in giving us a revelation, it was at least possible for God to teach us truths unknown to reason. But that if he gave ,a revelation, he ac tually would teach such truths (either to enforce truths previously known, or unconnected with them,) is evident from the nature of the case. If God gives a revelation, such a revelation must have been necessary, or not. If it was not necessary, then God gave a revelation unnecessarily. But God does nothing unnecessarily ; therefore, if he gave a revelation* it was necessary. Now, the reve- ' 310 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. lation which it was necessary for God to give, must either contain some truths or relations of truths unknown to us before, or not. But if it contains none but such as we knew before, it was unnecessary for God to give it. But it was -necessary, or he would not have given it ; therefore a revelation from God might naturally be ex pected to teach truths unknown to us before, truths untanght. by reason. Such are the sanctions of his law, the doctrines concerning angels, the resurrection of the body, and the Trinity. Prop. 4. We have no reason td expect, that our limited capacities should be able to comprehend, fully the. modes and circumstances and relations of those truths which reason could not teach, and which are known only by revelation, any more than of those truths known without revelation ; but it is natural to expect that the contrary would be the case. It is evident that the adorable Author of our being has fixed with the utmost precision, the limits of the human understanding. Our minds are so constructed, that whatever is necessary for the practical purposes of life, we can know, and know with certainty. But in the Whole store of our knowledge, whatever be its nature, or what ever the subject to which it relates, there is not a single particular to which, in some of its circumstances or relations, there is not some mystery, something inexplicable attached. The fact of the attrac tion of gravitation we know ; and it is upon the certainty, and uni formity of this fact, that all its boundless utility in the mechanical arts, as well as in the explanation of the phenomena of physical na ture, depends. But where is the mechanic, or where the philoso pher, who can explain the cause, or the mode of operation of this wonderful principle ? The fact of the tendency of the magnetic needle to the pole, is known ; and relying on its certainty, and on the uniformity of the other laws of nature, the, mariner confides his all to the bark, which gravitation keeps upon the surface of the wa ter, and spreading his canvass to the winds of heaven, steers with security his adventurous course through every clime. Yet who can explain the cause of this Wonderful phenomenon, or the mode of its operation? But let it not be supposed that the nature and relations of those general and important- facts, are peculiarly mysterious. — Mystery equally profound and equally great, is no less a concomi tant 'of every object around us, even of such as appear the most trifling or the best understood. Let the pen with which I am Writing demonstrate this truth. Who can tell how (in obedience to the divine will) it "grew tp its slender form ? or what philosopher can explain the nature of that something, (called by men cohesive attraction,) by which its particles are held together ? In short, in APP.] DOCTRINE OF TRINITY RATIONAL. 311 our present state we are a mystery to ourselves ; . and every object around us presents abundant evidence that the Creator has definitely fixed the limits of our knowledge, and told us, Hitherto shall thou come, and here shall the proud range of thine intellect be stayed. Therefore It will be admitted, that either the intrinsic nature, or the mode of subsistence, or some of the relations or circumstances of every thing or truth connected with the present world; is incomprehensible to us. And it will be admitted, that the incomprehensibility of those modes and circumstances of truths which are incomprehensible to us, arises either from their intrinsic nature, or from the limited character of our faculties ; and that it is probably impossible for God himself to enable us to understand some of them without first enlarging our faculties. And it will be admitted, that we know less of the future world than of the present, and that the little knowledge which we have concerning it, is, in its relations more enveloped in mystery. Hence it follows, «. fortiori, that if it is impossible for our present limited capacities to comprehend the modes and circumstances of the truths of the present world, which are less mysterious ; much less can they comprehend those of the truths relating to the future world, which are more mysterious. Again: The same relation between a certain truth which was unknown and other truths and principles which were known and understood, which led the mind to the discovery of the unknown truth, also implies some similarity or analogy or connexion with the truth which was known and understood ; by virtue of which the truth discovered is also at least in some degree intelligible. And the same relation between the faculties of the human mind and an unknown truth, by virtue of which there was, a peculiar adaptation in the mind for the discovery of that truth, rather than that of others which it never could discover, and for a knowledge of which we are indebted to revelation alone, also .implies a peculiar adaptation in the mind to understand the truth discovered. Thus the fact that the illustrious Kepler was able to comprehend those principles, a knowledge of which led him to the discovery that the orbits of the planets are not spherical but elliptic, also implied his ability to com prehend the properties and relations of an ellipsis ; and his compre hension of these and of the related truths, conducted him to the additional discovery that the planets, in their revolutions, describe equal areas in equal times.. The acquaintance of the great Sir Isaac Newton with the revolutions pf the heavenly bodies, and those enlarged views of the solar system as one connected whole, which 312 THE TRINITY. [BE. II. led him to the thought that the same principle which brought the apple td the ground, might (as it reached without any sensible diminution to the summit of the highest mountains) as well extend to the moon and other planets, implied in him an ability to compre hend- the effects of this principle when once the thought had been started. Similar to this is the case of those truths, relative to the existence and nature of God, which reason teaches. Thus, it is an undisputed principle, that the framer of a machine, in the structure of which there are evidently design and adaptation to an end, must be an intelligent being. And perceiving the manifest design and adaptation in the construction of the universe, men may justly infer the intelligence of the Author of it.- Now, the relation between the doctrine that God is an intelligent Being and the, principle that every machine manifesting design and adaptation must have an in telligent being for its author, implies' some analogy, or similarity or connexion between them, from which it results that as the principle is intelligible, the doctrine which flows from it will be so also, at least in some degree ; and that the same adaptation of the human faculties and knowledge of related truths which led to the discovery of the doctrine, or which enables us to perceive evidences of its truth, also implies, at least in some degree, the ability to compre hend the truth discovered. From these considerations it necessarily follows, that we have reason to believe that those truths which are contained "in a divine revelation and are also taught by reason, are in their nature less incomprehensibleand less involved in mysterious relations, than those between which and the knowledge obtained by our natural faculties, there is no such analogy or connexion as could lead to their discovery, or could afford evidence of their truth after they are revealed. Hence, it follows that among the truths con tained in a divine revelation, the mode and relation of those which were taught by revelation alone [articuli puri] will probably be more mysterious than of those, of which the light of nature affords us some knowledge. And hence it follows, in reference to the Deity, that as the mode and many of the relations of those truths relative to the nature of the divine Being which are taught by reason, are absolutely incomprehensible, it may naturally be expected that if any additional truths are revealed to us on this subject, their mode and relations would be still more mysterious ; inasmuch as they would have no analogy or similarity to the knowledge which we possess. Finally ; in reference to those truths relative to the divine Being (such as omniscience, knowledge of future contingencies and the like) which are taught by reason, we find those relations of them which were incomprehensible by the light of reason, just as incom- APP.] DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY RATIONAL. 313 prehensible after the truth? to which they refer have been also taught, by revelation, as they were before. But if it were the in tention of God, that we should fully comprehend all the relations of the truths contained in his revelation, he would at least have perfected our knowledge of the relations of those truths which even reason had taught us to understand. But this he has not done. — Therefore it is not his intention, and we have no ground to expect, that our limited capacities should be able to comprehend the modes and circumstances and relations of those truths which reason eould not teach, and which are known only by a revelation, any more than of those truths known without revelation ;, but on the contrary, it is natural to expect, that their relations would be still more en veloped in mystery. Prop. 5. We can believe, and it is our duty to believej those truths of revelation which are untaught by reason, as far as they are revealed, i. e. made comprehensible, but no farther ; for this is impossible, and the Scriptures do not require it. It will be admitted, that almost every thing in which we believe (taking, the word in its popular latitude) is in some respect or other inexplicable. We believe that we exist (without requiring the famous argument of Des Cartes to convince us of the fact ;) yet there are a thousand things relative to the mqde of our existence which we cannot understand. We believe the existence of all the external objects Df which we obtain a knowledge through thie medi um of our senses ; yet relative to every one, it were easy to pro pose some interrogatory to which no man could give a satisfactory reply. We believe in all those relations of visible objects and of abstract truths, the evidence of which appears to the human mind satisfactory ; yet what reflecting mind does not know, that mystery envelopes all those particulars of our faith ? The chymist believes in all those beautiful affinities of his science, the existence of which experience has taught him ; and the lover of natural philosophy, in general believes in all those properties of matter and laws of the material world, of which observation or credible testimony assures him ; but would he be entitled to the name of a philosopher, who (with our present scanty knowledge) should pretend that he, fully comprehended the mode of operation and the relations of any one of these principles or laws ? We believe that God is uncreated ; but how any being could exist without having at sometime or other begun to exist, who can comprehend ? Some of the ancient philoso phers who received not the revelation, have inculcated the omnis cience of God, in very pleasing and explicit terms. Seneca the moralist, in admonishing his fellow men riot to believe that they had 40 314 THE TRINITY. [BK. 11, escaped punishment, because their crimes were concealed from the view of mortals, remarks, " nam ille in cujus conspectu vivimusscit omnia, he in whose presence we live (i. e, God) knows all things." The same proposition is believed, alike by Deist,, by Unitarian,. and by the disciple of that glorious Redeemer to whom his apostle said, " Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee." — But is riot the mode of the divine omniscience equally incompre hensible to all ? Since, then, it is a fact that all men positively do believe a thousand propositions, when tbey cannot comprehend the mode and relations of the truths asserted in them ; it necessarily follows that we can do it : which was the first point to be proved. Again : as it will be admitted that we are under obligation to be lieve the whole of a revelation which has been proved divine, it fol lows that it is our duty to believe every part ; and consequently those parts also which contain truths or propositions, the mode of which or many of the relations of which are incomprehensible to us; and this was the second point. Finally : to say that we believe in a proposition, when we have no idea of the truth intended to be affirmed in it, is an absurdity ; the thing is impossible, and cannot be a duty. By belief in a pro position, we mean the judgment of the mind, that the idea affirmed by the terms of the proposition is true. Hence, to say that we be lieve in a proposition which we do not understand, is to say that we judge some particular idea to be true, but we do not know what idea. For we believe, either from evidence presented to our minds, or upon the testimony of one in whom we confide. We cannot believe in an unintelligible proposition, from its own evidence ; for the evidence of the truth. of an idea must be found in its relations to other truths or principles which-are more evident; but if we do not even know ^diat the idea in question is, much less can we know its' relations. Hence _ it is impossible to believe in an unintelligible proposition, from its own evidence ; for evidence unknown to the mind can have no influence in producing belief of any kind! Nor is it possible to believe in an unintelligible proposition, on the testi mony of any being whatever. For it is impossible, by the laws of our mental nature, to judge that an idea is true or not, unless we know what the idea is. If an unintelligible, proposition were con tained in a divine revelation, we might express the general judg ment, that, as it is of divine origin, it.contains a truth which it would convey to a being that could understand it, whatever that might be, for God cannot lie. But we could not believe that any particular idea is true, on the authority of such a proposition, until we knew that it is contained in it. Hence it is evident that a belief in an unintelligible proposition, is a Contradiction in terms and impossible APP.] DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY RATIONAL. 315 in the nature of things. ^ And as God will not require what he has made it impossible for us to perform, and as he so formed the hu man mind; that we cannot believe what we cannot understand ; therefore it is not our duty to believe any unintelligible proposition : which was the last point to be proved. In reference to this proposition, it has been alleged that Trinitari ans acknowledge their inability to * comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet profess to believe it. This objection also arises from want of precision, which may be chargeable perhaps as well to some of the orthodox as to their opponents. But it is easily solved, the writer thinks, by an application of the preceding remarks. The point at issue is not whether the few general ideas which the scrip tures reveal, relative to the distinction in the Deity, are most closely connected with mystery, whether they sustain relations which rea son cannot discover and which God has not revealed ; for this is granted, and it has been proved, in the first point of this proposition, that this is no bar to our believing those truths which are revealed. But the question is, are those propositions relative to this subject, which Trinitarians profess to believe, unintelligible ? Those who differ from the Trinitarians, seem tp confound those views of this doctrine which are revealed in Scripture and are intelligible, with the relations of those views or truths andtheirniode of subsistence, concerning which the holy volume is silent, and which are unin telligible. : The former the Trinitarian understands and believes ; it is the latter which he cannot comprehend, and these form no article of his creed, for they are not revealed. It has been evinced under the second proposition, that the terms used by Trinitarians to con vey the ideas they find in ihe Scriptures on this subject, are abso lutely void of all contradiction. A fewremarks only need be added, to show that they are intelligible. Let it be remembered, then; that belief (in its popular latitude) in a proposition, is the judgment of the mind that the particular idea predicated of the subject does belong to it. If- that idea be a generic one, the belief does not re gard its species, but only the generic idea which forms the predicate of the proposition. If the idea predicated be specific, the judgment of the mind of course relates to the specific idea and to no other. — Thus when any person- believes the proposition " God is omni present," he does not believe that he is omnipresent in this or that particular mode. And when the Trinitarian believes there' is a distinction in the Godhead, he does not believe that it exists in this or that particular mode. Thus also in respect to the proposition " God is three in one respect, and one in another respect," which the Trinitarian believes taught in Scripture, the terms are generic and abstract, they define nothing relative to the specific nature of 316 THE TRINITY. [bk. II. the things indicated by them ; and our belief of these propositions can of course not be more specific, as it would be a belief of another proposition. And surely no one will deny that we have a distinct idea and a full understanding of the general abstract term unity, (it is superfluous to add the word numerical, for, strictly speaking, there can be no other unity,) and of the general terms respect and reference, and of the general abstract term three. Consequently, we can fuUy understand these propositions ; and our belief in them amounts to this, that we believe them to be justly predicated of the divine Being : and hence of course they must be intelligible. It were an easy matter, by admitting such confusion and want of precision, as are sometimes manifested in treating of the Trinity, to involve some of those doctrines relative to God which are univer sally believed, in equal if not greater contradiction. To the Deist we might then propose such reasoning as this : " You admit that God is here present in this house, not a part of God, but every thing of which God consists. But if every thing of which God consists is now in this house, it cannot be out of it ; for it is im possible for the whole of the same thing to be at two different places at the same time, or it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time. Therefore, if every thing of which God consists, be now in this house, it cannot be out of it, i. e. it cannot be any, where else, much less every where else, at the same time." But to this we should jointly reply, that our belief does not include the specific nature and mode of the divine omnipresence ; and as the objection rests on the supposition that it must be like the presence of men etc. which is gratuitous, it falls to the ground. Yet precisely of this nature are some of the reasonings with which the Orthodox are sometimes pressed, and there is not even an equal ground for it. To be placed on a perfect equality, the proposition must stand thus : " God is present in this house in one respect, and at the same instant present in every other part of the universe in another respect." In this form it would not wear so much the as pect of contradiction, as in the form in which it is believed by all, Trinitarians and others ; and in this unobjectionable form, it is exactly analogous to the Trinitarian proposition, " God is one in one respect, and at the same time three in another respect." But even if the Trinitarian proposition were stated thus, " God is one and three in_ the same respect at the same time," it would not be any more objectionable than the proposition, '< the same one God (not a part of him) is now here present, and at the same time, in the same sense, present in every other place in the universe." For the ideas one and three are no more subversive of one another, than the ideas of the proposition, " it is possible for the whole of the same thing to APP.] DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY RATIONAL. 317 be at two or a million different and remote places at the same time." If it be replied, that spirits have no relation to space ; this is a gra tuitous assumption, and it is impossible for us to conceive of a spirit except as existing in some place or other. And if this principle may be assumed, we may with equal propriety assume another, that spirits have no relation to number ; although we cannot conceive of them except as one or more. And then, as God is a spirit, (the mode of his subsistence) the distinction in him has no relation to number ; and if no argument can be drawn from space against bis omnipresence, then also none can be derived from number against the (personal) distinction in God. For there is no more contradic tion between spirit and number, than between spirit and space ; and it is equally impossible, with our present constitution of mind, to think of spirits excepting as connected with space and number.- — From these considerations,, we should learn the importance of pre cision, when speaking or thinking on the subject of the divine na ture ;¦ we should learn humility, from the manifest imbecility of the human mind ; and should be wrapped up in adoration of that God whom none by searching Gan find out to perfection. Prop. 6. Doctrines which are above reason, could never be proved contrary to reason, even on the supposition that they were so. It is a position which is admitted by logicians, and cannot be de nied by any person habituated to close thought, that before we can establish the falsity or absurdity of a proposition, we must under stand not only the terms in which it is couched, but also those in ternal modes and relations of the subject and predicate, on which the supposed absurdity depends. Thus, if we say, " a circle is a square," we immediately, perceive the impossibility of its truth, be cause we are extremely familiar with those circumstances and rela tions (not all) of these figures on which the absurdity depends. But should we inquire of a person totally unacquainted with the prin ciples of hydrostatics and ignorant of the fact in question, which of the two propositions is absurd, "that water will rise thirty two feet in a tube emptied of air, the one end being closed and the -other open and inserted into a tub of water ; or, that it will not ;" he would be at loss to know which is, the true proposition, much more to ,prove either absurd or contrary to reason. It were easy to illustrate the truth of this proposition by copious exemplification. — Let a few instances suffice. Should we say to a person unacquain ted with optics, that the mind does not derive its perceptions of ex ternal objects of vision immediately from the objects themselves, but from the image of them formed on the retina of the eye, by the rays of light passing from the object through the pupil, and that the 318 THE TRINITY. [BK. II. image is inverted-; he, would be equally unable to prove it either accordant with reason or contrary to it. Or should we say to one ignorant of acoustics, that sound, for example in the explosion of a musket, is not near the musket, but in the mind of him that hears it ; or that those unpleasant perceptions which are called discords in music, are occasioned by the irregular and confused vibrations of the air, striking the tympanum or drum of the ear ; he could neither prove the assertion true nor false, much less absurd. In the same manner, were 1 to assert that the modus operandi of the mag netic attraction would, if known, fully explain the intrinsic nature and mode of operation of the attraction of gravitation ; it would be as impossible for any man to prove the proposition false, as for me to prove it true. But, should God reveal that proposition to us, it would not appear contradictory to us, nor could we prove it so : and the reason is, because we are ignorant of the intrinsic nature and mode of operation of both, on which its contradiction would depend. From all this it is evident, that before we can prove a proposition false or absurd, we must be able to understand not only the terms of the proposition, (for these are understood in all the above examples,) but also those relations and the intrinsic nature of the subject and predicate on wliich the supposed absurdity would depend. And consequently, as these are wholly unknown in the Trinitarian propositions, those propositions can never be proved contrary to reason, even if they were so. Prop. 7. But we know, that doctrines of a divine revelation the mode and relations of which are totally incomprehensible, i. e. those commonly said to be above reason, cannot possibly be contrary to reason. It will be admitted, that God is not man that he should lie. Hence when a revelation has been proved to be of divine origin, we know that all the doctrines taught in it are true ; and consequently, those also the mode and relations of which are totally incomprehen sible. And it.will be granted, that all the comprehensible relations of re vealed doctrines, are perfectly accordant with those principles and propositions which the constitution of our mental nature compels us to believe, and which we. call truths, i. e. accordant with our reason. Hence, as no evidence to the contrary can be produced, we are au thorized to believe, that the intrinsic nature and those relations of a revealed truth, which are incomprehensible to us, that is, those which are said to be above reason, must also be accordant with the legitimate dictates of our mental constitution, i. e. with our reason. Moreover, it will be admitted that truth must ever be consistent APP.] DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY RATIONAL. 319 with itself. Hence, if sorrie of the relations of a divine truth were contrary to our reason, all the relations of that truth must be so ; and vice versa, if some of the relations of a divine truth accord with our reason, the other relations of that truth must also do so. But it must be admitted, that the comprehensible relations of those reveal ed truths, the mode and some of the relations of which are incom prehensible, accord perfectly with the dictates of our reason ; hence it follows that the others must necessarily do so also, or they would contradict themselves. Finally : this proposition may also be proved by a reductio ad absurdum. It is admitted that the dictates of reason are those pro positions which the mental constitution of all men compels them to believe, that we are compelled to regard these as truths and their opposite as falsehoods. Now, if we suppose that some of the unre- vealed relations of a divine truth are contrary to these propositions, it follows that we are compiled by our mental nature to believe them falsehoods ; or if we suppose that those relations of the truth in question which are contrary to our reason, are true, it follows, that the others which accord with our mental structure, are false, and consequently that God so formed our mental nature that we are compelled to believe a lie ; which is absurd : therefore, we know that those relations of a revealed truth which are incomprehensible to reason, cannot be contrary to reason. BOOK III. OF CREATED RATIONAL BEINGS. PART I. OF THE ANGELS. § 47. Connexion between the subject of this chapter and the doctrine of Creation and Providence. As the doctrine of the creation and providence of God in general, has been discussed in the preceding chapter ; the consideration of the origin and divine government of- the human family would now naturally succeed, as a specific part of that doctrine. But, as among the rational creatures of the universe, for whose sake God created and governs the world, there are some of a rank superior to that of man (<$> 48,) creatures who sustain certain relations to the human family, of whose instrumentality God avails himself in his providential guidance of the destinies of men, and with, whom we expect in a future world to be brought into closer connexion ; it is proper that the consideration of these should previously engage our attention. SECTION XLV-III. The existence and attributes of angels. From the volume of inspiration we learn, that in addition to man there exists(l) in the universe a vast multitude(2) of other rational creatures. These beings are elevated above the human family in 322 OF ANGELS. [BK. III. point of intelligence, of power,(3) of moral excellence,(4) and of happiness.(5) And the superiority(6) which they possess, is de rived partly from the powers which were originally bestowed on them by the Creator, and partly from the high degree of improvement which a conscientious and long continued use of their faculties has enabled them to attain. Illustrations. I. The existence of angels is taught in Matt. 22: 30, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God. The force of this passage cannot be eluded by taking refuge in the hypothesis which was refuted in the previous volume (§ 13,) that Christ mingled with his instructions the errone ous opinions of those to whom they were addressed. For he was speaking with Sadducees, who, according to Acts 23: 8, did not be lieve in the existence of angels. It is evident, on the contrary, that he rectifies their disbelief ofangels, with the same sincerity which he manifested (v. 29) in purifying their notions relative to the state of the dead and the occupations in which they are engaged. II. That they are very numerous, is evident from Matt: 26: 53, more than twelve legions of angels ; and Luke 2: 13, multitude of the teeavenly host or angels ; and Heb. 12: 22, 23, myriads of an gels. It is probable from the nature of the case, that among so great a multitude of angels there would be different grades or classes ; and the expression dpxdyyeXog (archangel or chief-angel) contains an explicit allusion to such a diversity. 1 Thess. 4: 16. Jude 9. III. That angels possess superhuman intelligence, is implied in the passage, " But of that day and hour knoweth no man, not even the angels in heaven."1 Great power is ascribed to them, "pit dyyiXoiv Svvdpttug avtov with his mighty angels."2 In the Disserta tion on several passages of the minor epistles of Paul,3 it is main tained that these latter words cannot be translated " angelic host" with Koppe and Schleusner; making Svvapig [power] equivalent to ctgand [host or soldiery] and MS, [host ;] for in that case the word Svvaptuig must necessarily be 'before dyyiXtov. The pronoun avtov [his] belongs to dyyiXuv [angels,] and not to Swdpttog [pow er;] as in Heb. 1: 3, in the words to) gijpixti tijg Svvdpetag avtov by his powerful word. This point is illustrated from the usage of She Hebrew, in the Observv. ad anal, et syntax. Ebraicam, p. 234. Ps. 103: 20, rb •<-£* V5tt$a rprr isia bless Jehovah, ye his angels, powerful in strength ; 'compare 2 'Pet. 2: 11, dyytXot iaiii 1 Mark 13: 32. 2 2 Thess. 1:7. 3 Note 120. § 48.] EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES OF ANGELS. 323 xal Svvdpti ptl&vtg Svttg angels who are greater in power and might. IV. Their moral perfection. — " The holy angels j"1 and " elect angels."2 V. Their felicity. — The blessed in the future world are said to be iadyytXoi xal viol tov &tov i. e. they are like unto the angels and are sons of God.3 And in Heb. 12: 23, Paul says, ixxXrjolu ngtototoxcov, dnoyeygappivmv iv ovguvo7g the congregation of the first born who are recorded in heaven.4 VI. Their superiority to men is a necessary consequence of the close and immediate connexion which they sustain to God. " The angels always behold the face of my Father."5 SECTION XLIX. Angels are employed by God, as the ministers of his will. It is evident, even from the name(l) by which these spirits are designated in Scripture, that God employs their agency in the dis pensations of his providence.(2) And it is further evident from cer tain actions which are ascribed wholly to them, (3) and from the Scriptural narratives of other events in the accomplishment of which they acted a visible part,(4) that their agency is employed princi pally in the guidance of the destinies of man. (5) In those cases, also, in which their agency is concealed . from our view, we ought still to admit the possibility of its existence ;(6) because Scripture teaches us the general truth, that God sends them forth " to minister unto them who shall be heirs of salvation-"(7) This fact is suffi cient to afford u? consolation, and to determine the reciprocal duties to which we are obligated ; neither is It necessary that we should be able to ascertain which are the individual blessings that flow to us through this channel. It is enough for us to know that God is not confined to the ordinary course of nature, but can also bestow his blessings to us in other ways. And it is important that we should view the ministry of angels, as one of the means which God 1 Luke 9: 26. 2 1 Tim. 5: 21. 3 Luke 20: 36\ 4 See Storr's Comment, in loc. notes t and v- s Matt. 18: 10. 324 OF ANGELS. [BE. III. can employ for the promotion of our welfare. (8) But let it be remembered that the angels when employed for our welfare, do not act independently, but as the instruments of God and by divine command. (9) Not unto them, therefore, are our confidence' and adoration due; but only unto him(10) whom the, angels reverently serve (Ps. 103: 20,) even whilst they, are benefitting us, and to whom we are indebted for every blessing which we receive, wheth er it is communicated to us through the ministry of angels, or in any other mann er. Illustrations. 1. The name angel — In Ps. 104: 4, the terms DTj-TOH and D-ONra, dyytXoi and Xettovgyot. [angeh and ministers,] correspond to each other; and accordingly, in Heb. 1: 14 angels are called nvtvputa Xttzovgyixd ministering spirits. II. Their agency. — Ps. 103: 20, i'-D-i riW TOCjbtt his angels who do his commandment. Ps. 104: 4, vn-roa nirvn' ¦pSNba Mips Drib i»N he employs his angels like winds and his ministers like flaming fire. It is evident from grammatical considerations, that, in the latter of these passages, angels are meant. In the Commen tary on the Hebrews,1 these words are rendered thus : " He em ploys his angels like winds, and his ministers like lightning." But if the idea of the passage were intended to be this, " He employs the winds as his messengers," the word rnrm [winds] must have been before "PSNba [his angels ;] just as in the third verse fas precedes, in the sentence ianin t^as fitett he uses the clouds as his chariot. Moreover, it ought to be irnten instead of vnnaJa , in the hemistich " he makes the flaming fire his minister or servant!" With this interpretation the context fully accords. For it was not the object of the writer of this psalm, to give a general description of the visible works of creation, and to begin with a representation of heaven. On the contrary, this psalm rather contains a delinea tion of the providence of God in special relation to this earth, be ginning with the 5th verse.5 To this description is prefixed a short song of praise in celebration of the greatness and glory3 of our Lord and Benefactor ; just as in the 103d Psalm, an ode in commemora tion of the greatness4 of God is appended to the description of the divine goodness.5 But the mention of the angels is quite as appro priate in the celebration of the greatness of God, as are, the contents of the -2d and 3d verses (compare Is. 40: 22. Ps. 68: 34.) Thus also are the angels mentioned in the descriptions of the divine great ness, in Ps. 103: 2Q. 1 K. 22: 29. Dan. 7: 10. 1 Chap. 1: 7, Note y. <§> 49.] AGENCY OF ANGELS. 325 III. Their agency continued. — " Lazarus was borne by angels to Abraham's bosom."1 In the " Dissertation concerning the para bles of Christ," it is remarked that this supplement, which relates to the truth that angels attend the righteous, cannot be regarded as a necessary part of the external dress of the parable, inasmuch as it would be vvhollysuperfluous, if it were not intended to convey some truth. In Matt. 13: 41, 49, the separation of the wicked from the righteous, is ascribed to the angels ; and in like manner the collec tion of the elect, in ch. 24: 31. IV. Angelic agency continued. — An angel conducted the apostles out of prison. Acts 5: 19, 20. An angel delivered Peter from prison. Acts 12: 7 etc. An angel informed the apostle Paul, that he and his companions should not be lost in their voyage to Rome. Acts 27: 23 etc. An angel advised the pious Cornelius to send for Peter. Acts 10: 3 etc. " An angel appeared to Zacbarias, the priest. Luke I: IT etc. 1 The angel Gabriel was sent to Mary. Luke 2: 9 etc' Angels appeared at the birth of Jesus. Luke 2: 9 etc. V. Angelic agency continued. — Just as activity is necessary to spiritual beings and the exercise-of it promotes their happiness ; just as exercise in the discharge of their duty is a means to promote the intellectual and moral improvement of rational creatures ; so also do the angels derive various advantages from being employed as ' instruments in the hand of God, and especially from their agency in the guidance of the destinies of men. Ephes. 3: 10. 1 Pet. 1: 12. Luke 15: 10. The importance of this remark in enablino- us to appreciate the practical moment of the doctrine concernino- anoels is proved in the " Dissertation on the object of Christ's death ;" where it is shown, that the plan of redemption of the world by Christ, was a powerful means to strengthen in the inhabitants of the world of spirits, their conviction of the dependance on God, and grateful sense of the blessings for which they were indebted to him. It is also remarked in the same work,2 that the influence which the plan of redemption exerts on the good and bad angels, may pos sibly be the cause why the doctrine of angels, which is so seldom touched on in the Old Testament, is taught much more amply in the New. VI. Morns in his Theolog. Christ.3 maintains, that it is perfect ly consonant with the character of God to employ the instrumentality of angels in the government of the world. VII. The ministry of angels.— Matt. 18: 10. Ps. 34: 8. 91: 11, 12, compare Heb. 1: 14.4 Ministering spirits, sent for the ser- i Luke 16: 22, 2 p. 632. 3 pt.' II. § 2—4. §~5\ 326 OF ANGELS. [BK. III. vice of those who shall inherit salvation. Agreeably to Heb. 12: 23, also, Christians, who are sons of God, stand in, connexion with the celestial family of God's elder sons, that is with angels.1 VIII. Importance of this doctrine.— See <§> 35. II. 4. The observations which have been made in § 49. II. 3 — 6, afford a satisfactory reply to the objection urged against the utility of the doctrine of good angels, in Henke's Magazine for religious philoso phy.2 His words are " Every pretended advantage which is said to be derivable from a lively impression of the presence and agency of angels, must be detrimental to the far more exalted idea of an omnipresent, universal Spirit. And if angels were beings of whom we could form an idea more easily than we can of an infinitely per fect Spirit ; we should have been made better acquainted with their nature, their employment, and more particularly with their partici pation or cooperation in the incidents of our lives." IX. Angels are only instruments in the hands of God. — Ps. 103: 20, ye his angels who execute his commands. 104: 4. Heb. 1: 13, 14, the angels are not appointed to sit upon the throne of God, but to await the commands of God which proceed from his throne. X. Angels not to be worshipped. — Rev. 19: 10. 22: 9. In both these cases, the angel before whom John prostrated himself, said to him bpa pr;- ngoonvvqaov tot &to), i. e. do it not ; worship God. In the New Apology for the Revelation, it is moreover re marked,3 that in neither of these cases is actual worship intended ; for John knew the being before whom he prostrated himself, to be an angel, and only intended in a reverent manner to acknowledge his gratitude ; but the angel replied " not unto me, but unto God give thanks." Paul also forbids the worship of angels, ftgnaxtiav ziov dyytXtov.5 SECTION L. Of the wicked angels. A part of the angels,(l) being led on(2) by one of their number called Devil or Satan, (3) sinned against God. (4) By this disobe dience they lost their original innocence, forfeited their former l Comm. on Heb. note t. in loc. 2 Vol. I. No. 3. p. 447. " Examination of the doctrine concerning angels." 3 p. 388. ¦* 17: 1.21: 9. 5 Col. 2: 18. 19. $ 50.] OF THE WICKED ANGELS. 327 happiness, (5) and drew down everlasting punishment upon them selves. (6) They are now suffering a portion of this punishment. — For the endurance of the remainder they are " reserved in chains of darkness."(7) Illustrations. I. As the wicked angels still belong to the class of angels, they retain this name even after their fall. Matt. 25: 41. 2 Pet. 2:4. Jude v. 6. II. They are called his [the devil's] angels, ayytXoi avtov,1 be cause they suffered Satan to alienate them from God, and as they still continue in his interest. Thus also were the good angels who were engaged for the angel Michael, termed " his angels,"2 dyyeXoi ATTOT. III. In Matt. 25: 48, we find the name StdfioXog devil, and in Rev. 9: 7, Std^aXog xal aazavag devil and Satan. There is but one who bears this name ; for by the words " Satan casteth out Satan,"3 is not meant that there are two Satans ; but the latter Word Satan [aazavdv] is equivalent to iavzdv himself; and in Mark 3: 26 and Luke 11: 18, the word himself is actually used. IV. I John 3: 8, the devil sinned from the beginning. 2 Pet. 1: 4, angels that sinned. V. John 8: 44, iv dXri&dq ovx iaznxt (the devil) abode not in the truth. He and his angels were, prior to their fall, celestial spirits, nvtvpazixd iv zo7g inovgavloig Eph. 6: 12. In the Dissertation de sensu vocis nXngoipa, these words are rendered thus, " qui coelestes fuerunt." They were then pure and happy spirits, as the other spirits still are ; for concerning these it is said, in Eph. 3: 10. Matt. 18: 10. 22: 30, that they are iv to7g inovgavloig, iv tdig dvgavo7g, iv dvgavq), in the heavens etc. And in Jude v. 6, we read that they maintained not their former state or power or dominion, ayytXoi prj zrjgrjoavztg zrjv iaviaiv dgxvv- In the same sense is dgyij used by the LXX, in Gen. 40: 13, 20, 21. 4: 13-. VI. Everlasting fire, everlasting misery, Matt. 25:41,46. comp. $ 58. The punishment Which is denounced upon the ser pent, in Gen. 4: 14, is eternal,4 ^r>»h "To? b-3 i. e. all the days of thy life. Jude v. 6, Stapdig a'iSioig vnd £oq>ov tttrjgrjxev dyyiXovg he reserved the angels -in everlasting chains, in darkness. VII. The future punishment of the wicked angels. — -2 Pet. 2: I Matt. 25: 41. 2 Rev. 12: 7. 3 Matt. 12: 26. Mark 3: 23: -» Opusc. acad. Vol. II. p. 431. 328 OF ANGELS. [BK. III. 4. Jude v. 6, tig xglaiv (ptydXyg rjpigag) tvgovptvoi reserved to the judgment of the great day. James 2: 19, td Saipovia qgiaaovai the evil spirits [devils] tremble. Rev. 20: 10, {luoavio&rjaovtai tig tovg aidivag ttov aitdvtov they shall be tormented through all eternity. SECTION LI. The relation in which Satan stands to the human family. Satan seduced our first parents to sin,(l) and still continues to harbour a hostile disposition to the human family. (2) This dispo sition urges him, together with his angels,(3) to exert himself for the promotion(4) of sin and misery among men. (5) He regards the welfare of men as disgraceful to himself and inimical to the pur poses which he has in view, and beholds it with feelings of dissatis faction and pain. (6) Illustrations. I. John 8: 44, av&gomoxtovog rjv an apyv? — qtvatng xat o itazrjg avtov (yjtiiSovg,) he was a murderer (a, homicide) from the beginning — a liar and the father of lies. That these words are an allusion to the history of the fall (Gen. 3,) is proved in the Com mentatio de Protevangelio. For the declaration of Jesus that the devil is a murderer, is not applicable to any incident excepting the history of the fall recorded in Gen. 3, and this may be believed with the greatest certainty, as we may infer from the passage,1 in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, " q&dvto StafioXov ddvatog tigijX&tv tig tov xoapov, 1 1 rough the envy of the devil, death enter ed the world," that according to the prevalent opinion of the Jews, the devil was regarded as the cause of the mortality of man. II. Satan is hostile to the interests of man. Matt. 13: 39. 2 Cor. 2: 11. Eph. 6: 11. Rev. 12: 10. III. We have to contend with the wicked spirits. Eph. 6: 12. IV. Pernicious influence of the devil— Luke 22: 31. John 13: 2, 27. Acts 5: 3. Ephes. 2: 2, the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience. Eph. 6: 11—13, the wiles or stratagems of the devil. Thus, in Matt. 4: 3, the devil is called 6 nttgd&v i. e. 1 Chap. 2: 23. § 51.] DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS. 329 he who is in the habit of seducing to sin. Acts 26: 18, intatgiwai and tijg i'£ovolag tov 2atavd inl tdv&t'ov to turn from the power of Satan unto God ; and Heb. 2: 14, tov td xgdtog t'xovta zov &avd- tov, tovtiait tov Std§oXov him who has the power of death, that is the devil, i. q. "the devil who wishes to plunge men into sin, and by sin into death, or the punishments inflicted by God after death." Rev. 12: 9. 20: 3, 8, Satan who leadeth astray the whole world. V. While Satan is laboring to promote iniquity among men, his object is none other than to make them partakers of that misery and punishment which he himself is doomed to endure. See Matt. 25:41. 13: 38 etc. " sons of the wicked one," in opposition to "sons of the kingdom." Compare v. 42; and Rev. 20: 10, 15. Comment, de Pretevangelio, in Opuscul. acad. Vol. II. p. 429 etc. VI. Demoniacal possessions — their reality. John 16; 11, dg- Xoiv too xoapov tovtov xixpnat the prince of this world is judged. John 12: 31, vvv—ix@Xrj{tr]atzaib§w and now he shall be cast out i. e. " now mankind shall be delivered from the tyranical power of the devil."1 Col. 2: 15. Gen. 3: 15. Heb. 2: 14.a Jesus said to the Pharisees, " If I, by divine power, expel de mons, it is evident from this proof of my superior power over Satan, that the kingdom of God has come, or that the powerful descendant of David has appeared, by whom the long promised victory over Satan is to be achieved."3 And in order to give to the devil'shos- tility to man aii ocular perceptibility, and to place in axlear light the salutary influence of Jesus, in defeating the baneful purposes of this ancient enemy of the human family; it pleased God, in the time of Christ and the apostles, to grant to Satan and his angels the power to possess certain individuals, i. e. to torment them with dis eases. Thus the sickness of the blind and deaf man, in Matt. 12: 22 — 28, who is called Saipovi^dptvog possessed of the .devil, is by our Saviour himself (v. 26) attributed to Saiavug or Bit X£i@qvX, dpxtov Saipovimv Satan or Beelzebub, the prince of demons. And, in reference to the woman who had been sick eighteen years, JeSus said, " Satan' bound her;" and in v. 11, it is said " nvtvpa do&e- vitag i'xovaa having a spirit of disease. Jesus declared the subju gation of the demons by the 70 disciples, to be a humiliation of Sa tan;4 and those who were possessed (Acts 10: 38) and whom Je sus healed, are called xazaSvvaattvopi vot vnd tov SiafioXov who were held under the dominion of the 'devil. That such power was given also- to the angels of Satan, is taught in the passage oqtig xal 1 Dissert. III. in libros historicos N. T., p. 58—61. 2 Comment, in Protevangelium, p. 20. Opusc. acad. Vol. II. p. 433. 3 Comment, de Prolevangelio, p. 21. Opusc. acad: Vol. II. p. 434. 1 Luke 19: 17, 18. 42 330 OF ANGELS. [BK. III. axognioi — nuaa rj Svvaptg tov ix&gov1 serpents and scorpions and every power of the enemy. That the influence of the devils was exerted in the form of diseases, we learn from the passages, Acts 10: 38, iojptvog tovg xataSwaattvopivovg vnd tov SiaHoXov healing those who were under the dominion of the devil ; and 5: 16, vxiavptvoi vnd nvtopatwv dxatfapttov i&tgantvovto those who were distressed by unclean spirits were healed. The phrases also in which the devils are spoken of as " being in" or " going out" " or being driven out," must be regarded as figurative expressions, the first of which is used to denote the influence of the demon on the individual, and the last two to denote the cessation or removal of this influence.2 But Christ had the power, to destroy* this visible influence of the devil, in a visible manner. The same power he granted to his disciples : Matt. 10: 1, and Jesus gave to his twelve disciples authority over unclean spirits, to cast themout. Luke 10: 17, the devils are subject to us in thy name. Mark 16: 17, in thy name they shall cast out devils. And even to those also who were not his followers such power was givqn : " by whom do your sons expel demons (said Jesus to the Pharisees,) ol viol vpdiv, sc. reui' 0agiaaio)v, iv zivi ixfiaXXovai td Saipovia;" Matt. 12: 27. Mark 9: 38, 39. (See <§> 8. Illust. 3.) Some of the narratives of the influence of demons, are of such a nature, that no reasonable exposition can well be given of them, without admitting the reality of demoniacal agency. Such for ex ample, is the account of the expulsion of the devils from the two possessed men in the country of the Gergesenes (Matt. 8: 28 etc. also Mark 5: I — 4. Luke 8: 26 — 37). 3 Jesus could not have ad dressed those demons and granted them permission to enter into the swine, if he had not really regarded demons as the cause of the dis ease of these individuals. Otherwise, he would have confirmed an error of his cotemporaries, not only with words, but actually by the performance of a miracle. We must carefully distinguish between the expressions "curing a demoniac or one possessed of a devil [Saipovi^dpt vog,"] and " expelling demons or commanding them to depart, ixfldXXiiv Salpovag, intttpqv v. nagayytXuv igtX&dv." It might indeed be conceded that, according to. the usage of the lan guage, the expression demoniac signified a person affected by a par ticular natural disease ; and that the writers of the New Testament used it in its common acceptation, although that acceptation of the word originated in an erroneous opinion ; just as the word lunatic (atlqviad£pivog Matt. 4: 24) could with propriety be applied to a 1 Luke 10: 19. See Dissert.de sensu histor. p. 37. Opusc. acad. Vol. 1. p. 47. 2 See Dissert, on the atonement, p. 538. 3 Vide Dissert, de sensu historico N. Test. Opusc. acad. Vol. I. p. 53—55. §51.] DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS. 331 certain species of diseased persons, because, though it originated in error, it had by usage, become the custpmary name of persons affected by a certain disease ; and yet it would by no means follow, that the person who thus uses the word in its ordinary acceptation, must have entertained the erroneous opinion that the subjects of lunacy were under the particular influence of the moon. Thus when the astronomer uses the erroneous phraseology " the sun rises, or the sun goes down," no one would think of charging him with holding that vulgar opinion. But if we suppose that when Jesus addressed the demons, and when he commanded them to. depart, he at the same time believed the disease to be entirely natural, and to have no connexion with demoniacal influence ; we could not be lieve that Jesus merely used a customary peeuliar expression which usage had made proper ; but we must believe that he actually con firmed an erroneous opinion by the language which he used. In reference to the possession above mentioned (Matt. 8: 28,) Hess remarks,1 " The fact that these demoniacs had, agreeably to the narrative itself, actually been delivered from their affection (ol Si tlstX&ovtig v. 32) before any thing happened to the herd of swine, proves that it was not the possessed persons who threw themselves among the swine in a fit of madness, but that it was the devils who had been expelled from these persons." And it is evident from the history of this event, that its object was to expose to view, in reference to the defence of himself which Jesus was compelled to make against the most horrible slanders (Matt. 12: 24,) the number [Xtyttov legion, Luke 8: 39] and malignity of these demons, and their actual though involuntary subjection to Jesus (Luke 8: 31 ;) and the utmost publicity was given to this matter by the incident of the swine.3 Relative to the cures of the demoniacs in general, which are related in the New Testament, Hess makes the following remark :3 It cannot be denied that the sacred historians did actually mean vexatious spirits, who grievously oppressed the bodies and minds of men ; agreeably to their intention, therefore, the numerous examples of the cures of demoniacs acquire a peculiar importance, inasmuch as Jesus appears, not only as their deliverer from bodily evil, but as the conqueror of hostile powers from the invisible world." Paulus, in his commentary on the New Testament,4 has maintain ed that the cures of the demoniacs were nothing else than the cures of diseases of the mind, which were effected by the opinion in the deranged persons, that the demons which 'possessed them could not exist near that man of God, the Messiah ; and therefore that they l Uber die Lehren, Thaten und Schicksale unseres Herrn, S. 258. 2„On the Object of the Gospel and Epistles of John, p. 322. 3 Sup. cit. 259. 4 Vol. II, III. 332 OF AMGELS. [BK. III. must necessarily flee at his approach. In reply to this, a writer in the Tiib. gel. Anz.1 justly remarks, " It is altogether incredible that, in so short a time, and in the population of one small country, a mere opinion should of itself, in so many instances, have effected a permanent cure of mental derangement, a disease generally result ing from some radical disorganization of the body ; or that in so many cases it should happen, that just at the precise time when Jesus approached such unfortunate beings, the bodily causes of their derangemenfshould in every instance have spontaneously vanished, and their minds have been restored, by mere chance." The physical influence of wicked angels is, moreover, corrobora ted by those declarations of Christ himself; which were uttered on occasions when he might have expressed his opinion without res ervation, as he was not addressing the multitude, but speaking to his confidential disciples,2 and on those occasions when there was peculiar reason for his contradicting the popular opinion, if he had entertained a different one himself. Thus, when the Pharisees charged him with casting out demons by the aid of the devil, their prince, it would have been peculiarly necessary for him to contra dict the doctrine of demons, if he had not believed it himself.3 But surely it is far from being philosophical, to give a forced, unnatural exposition of such plain passages as those referred to in the Gospels, relative to demoniacs, merely because the subject borders on some obscurity, and because we do not know the manner in which the in fluence of wicked angels on men is exerted.4 And as to the narra tive contained in Acts 16: 16 — 18, it is not necessary, as Michaelis5 and Eckermann6 have contended, to believe that Paul and Luke accommodated themselves to a false opinion. For we are under no necessity of adopting their translation of the phrase nvtvva IIT- 0RNO2, spirit of Apollo, as Paul and Luke both regarded Apollo as a mere empty fictitious name.7 But the usage of the language will warrant us in considering nv&tovog as equivalent to iyyaatgt- pii&ov h e. spirit of a ventriloquist. This sense of the word nvdmv is fully established by Wetstein and Schleusner ; and both quote the following passage from Plutarch de Defectu Oraculorum L. II, tyyaatgtpv&ovg EvgvxXiag naXai, wvl IIvQwvag npogayoptvopivovg i. e. ventriloquists were formerly denominated Euryclitae,. but now 1 for 1801, p. 279. 2 Matt. 17. 19, 21. Lnko 10: 17, 21. 3 Matt. 12: 28. 29. Dissert, de sensu histor. Not. 63. and Hess viber die Lehren und Thaten unseres.Hernn, S. 257—264. 4 See Dissert, on (he death of Jesus, p. 539. 5 Dogmatik, S. 353 etc. and Notes on the New Test. Pt. If. p. 375. 6 Compend. Theolog. christianac, p. 89. 7 1 Cor. 8: 4. 10: 19, ovdev ei'SaiXov iv xoapH) an idol is nothing in the world. $ 51.] , DEMONIACAL POSSESSIONS. 333 they are called diviners or fortunetellers, literally, Pythons. The damsel had actually been sick, and by her disease had become a ventriloquist. For if she' had merely been playing a game of deception, which she had been able to perform without any pe culiarity of bodily conformation, Paul's commanding that spirit to come out of her (v. 18,) could not have deprived her of the power of continuing her practice. Accordingly, Michaelis admits that her disease enabled her to practise this deception.1 But the cause of the. disease by which the damsel had become a ventriloquist, may have been the same as the cause of other diseases which Christ cured, that is, it may have resulted from the influence of a (nvtvpa) wicked angel. . Tlvtvpa nii&oivog, therefore, signifies an evil spirit who produced ventriloquism, just as in Luke 13: 11, nvtvpa aadt- vtiag means an evil spirit which produced disease. Nor can it be objected to in this interpretation, that in the first case the genitive nv&tovog is a concrete, whilst in the latter case the genitive da&tvtiag is an abstract word. For the metonymy by which the effect is placed instead of the cause, occurs in concrete words as well as in such as are abstract ; and nvtvpa nii-d-tovog is a genitive in appo sition, and is equivalent to nvtvpa quod est nv&otv.1 Thus in Luke 11: 14. Mark 9: 25, 17, a dumb, speechless spirit (nvtvpa xmq>dv, dXaXov) signifies nothing else than a spirit which had made the per son who was possessed (Saipovi£dutvog Matt. 12: 22) by him, dumb : and so also " a spirit which was a ventriloquist (nv&wv,") may just as well signify " a spirit that made a person a ventriloquist." Finally, the objection against the actual influence of evil spirits on the bodies of certain individuals, which Eichhorn2 would derive from the silence of St. John on the subject, possesses no force. For we have no reason to believe that the cause of his silence was a disbelief of demoniacal influence. On the other hand, that1 his opinion was directly the reverse, we know with certainty, from the passages of his works which were quoted in '$$ 50, 51, 52. The true cause of this silence appears to lie in the general scope of his Gospel ; inasmuch as he did not intend to furnish a complete his tory of, the actions of Jesus~(as we have proved in the work on the Object of John's Gospel § 1,) but presupposed the greater part of his miracles as known to his readers from their acquaintance with the other Gospels, and among the rest also the cures of those pos sessed with devils ; see $ 12. Il- 4. St. John's plan was to select only a few particular miracles from the whole number of cures, which he himself states (6: 2) to have been very great. In ac cordance with his plan, therefore, he has given us only three ; viz. 1 See his Notes on v. 16, 17. S Oliservv. p. 104. Btblioth. of Bibl. Lit. Vol. 4. p. 333, etc. 334 OF ANGELS. [BK. III. . the cure of the courtier's son who lay sick, at. a distance from him ; the cure of the man at Bethesda, who had been sick eight and thirty years ; and the cure of the man born blind. Certainly, then, it is not remarkable, that among so few examples, there should not have been the cure of a disease which had been produced by an evil spirit. SECTION LII. The pernicious influence of wicked angels can.be withstood, audit is our duty to resist it. Still the utmost exertions of wicked angels, can accomplish no more than to gain them an influence over those(l) whose disposi tions had previously accorded with that of Satan, (2) that is, over those who had been lovers of sin. (3) The more watchful We are in avoiding sin, the more secure shall we be against the evil influ ence of wicked angels. And, the same means which are appointed to enable us to resist the general influence of sin where no Satanic agency exists, will fortify(4) us against the influence of evil spirits, if it should be added to the other temptations to sin. Hence, as Satan can have access to the human heart only through the fault of the individual himself, who exposes himself to his influence and gives him opportunity to plunge him deeper into sin,(5) it follows, that we cannot justify ourselves for the commission of those sins, by attempting to cast the blame upon Satan. For neither the devil nor any external temptation can have any influence upon us, ex cepting by our own fault. To this source indeed all our sins must ultimately be referred. They can never accomplish any thing, excepting when we neglect to resist the inward temptations (James 1: 14) by the use of those means which must be resorted to in every temptation, whether or not the influence of wicked angels is added to the other allurements to transgression. It cannot indeed, in individual cases, be determined with certainty whether- Satanic in fluence has been exerted or not ;(6) and yet its certainty is pre supposed by those who seek extenuation of their crimes by at- § 52.] "resist the devil." 335 tributing them to the agency of evil spirits ; a refuge altogether vain, even if that certainty were established. But although we are not able in individual cases, to assert the certain existence of such influ ence ; we must not forget the general truth that such agency is actually exerted ;(7) in order that we may have reference in our conduct to these enemies of our real(8) welfare, who rejoice in our misery, and by whose power and subtlety (9) the Unwary are often led on to greater lengths in sin(IO) than they of themselves(ll) would go ; that thus we may be the more Watchful(12) in avoiding those sins by which . Satan and his angels gain access to our hearts, and be the more diligent in the use of those means(13) which shall best fortify us against the sediictions of the devil. And how much more salutary would be the practical influence, which the inculca tion of this doctrine of Scripture(14) would exert, to stimulate men to virtue and deter them from the paths of vice, than that which would result, from an entire rejection of belief in the agency of wick ed spirits, whether the doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture, or is a supplement annexed to it by the superstition of men ! But this in temperate zeal, which wages war al'ike against truth and error, has other consequences of the most pernicious nature. It awakens in the minds of common people suspicions against the validity of those arguments which are accordant with Scripture, and reason, and which are employed to reclaim them from those erroneous opinions which they often intermingle with the truth, and thus confirms them still more in their superstitions. Illustrations. I. 1 John 5: 18, he that is born of God taketh care of himself, and the Wicked one toucheth him not. II. John 8: 44, ye wish to do the lusts of your father the devil. III. 1 John 3: 8, he thas doeth sin is of the devil. IV. " Truth," " righteousness," " faith" " the word of God," " prayer," are the means specified in the following passages to resist the influence of the devil and his angels, azrjvat ngog tag pt&oSitag zov SiapdXov- — dvtiatijvai avtto — oft't'oai id §iXrj ioi/ novnpov, to stand against the wiles of the devil — to withstand him — to quench the darts of the wicked one. Ephes. 6: 14 — 18. 1 Pet. 5: 8, 9. James 5: 7. 336 OF ANGELS. [bK. III. V. 1 Cor. 7: 5, that Satan tempt you, not through your incon tinence. VI. The reader may consult the sermon on the inexcusability of men if they are not saved (p. 11 etc.,) by the author of this work. VII. A knowledge of the existence of demons and of the schemes which they are prosecuting, enables us to acquire more comprehensive views of the origin and progress of human misery, and casts new light on the influence of the merits of Christ and our obligation to him. . " The Value of the atonement of Christ must assume a still higher importance and appear in a more interesting light, when we reflect that his death defeated the grand scheme of Satan to draw us into the wretched state and society of the wicked angels, and that, on the other hand, a right was thereby purchased for our admission into the blessed kingdom of God."1 VIII. Eph. 6.' 16. 1 Pet. 5: 8, your adversary, the devil, goeth about, like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. IX. The power of evil spirits is designated by the expressions dgyal, i£ovalai, xoapoxgarogtg zov axotovg, principalities, powers, rulers of darkness ; and their subtlety is called " wiles or stratagems of the devil." Eph. 6: 11, 12. X. Eph. 6: 13, iv zrj rjpigq ty novrjgq in the evil day. XI. This doctrine should prompt us to spiritual watchfulness. — We know that the seductive influence of wicked men and the unhappy concurrence of outward circumstances, as little dependent on us as are the temptations of evil spirits, have usually a great in fluence on the magnitude of our crimes and the -lamentable effects ¦attending them, if we neglect to resist the beginnings of evil, and to arm ourselves against them by the influence of piety. It is there fore the more natural to suppose, that the danger of falling a prey to the influence of evil spirits should be added to the other dangers of sin, in order that it might serve to warn those who abandon them selves to the influence of sin, or who are at least indifferent on the subject, against so perilous a course of conduct. XII. 1 Pet. 5: 8, vrnpazt, ygrjyogijaazt be sober, be watchful. XIII. Eph. 6: 11, ivSvoda&t zrjv navonXiav zov &tov put on the armour of God. By the views which have been thus far discussed in this (52) section, the objections are refuted which have been urged against the moral tendency of the doctrine of the influence of evil Spirits. Staiidlin, in his history of the Ethical system pf Jesus, has thus ex pressed these objections : " The allurements to sin and the diffi- 1 Comment, de Protevangelio, p. 22. Opusc. acad. Vol. II. p. 435. § 52.] INFLUENCE OF EVIL SPIRITS. 337 culty of a virtuous life are of themselves sufficiently great and pow erful. But if, in addition to this, we regard them as the schemes of an invisible enemy to human virtue and human happiness, pos sessed of the most formidable power, deceitfulness, and cunning ; how easily may the mind of man be terrified with apprehensions and filled with despondency, how easily might his noblest moral powers be paralyzed, and his cheerful obedience to the obligations of duty be converted into a timorous effort to escape the wiles of Satan, — into a constant fear and trembling before him ? Or would not persons of different temperament and character, cast all the blame of their crimes on Satan ? About the circumstance that Satan cannot prevail over him. unless he himself previously paves the way for him, he will care but little ; for he would, at any rate, never be able to determine how far his own guilt extended, and where that of Satan began." XIV. The doctrine of the influence of evil spirits, is most abundantly taught by Christ and his apostles. — No reason can be assigned why Jesus should have hesitated publicly to reject the. doctrine concerning evil spirits, if he believed it false. The Sad ducees, we know (Acts 23: 8), thought themselves at liberty to re ject it; and Jesus did not hesitate to join them in their opposition to the traditions, and openly to reject them without caring about the offence wliich he would give, although these traditions were far more holy in the eyes of the Jews than the doctrine of evil spirits, Matt. 15: 12 — 14. Had his object been to avoid giving offence, it would not even have been necessary for him to confirm the doctrine ; he could have passed it over in entire silence. But he appears in tentionally to have sought occasion, to mention the devil, without having been uyged to it, and without having any occasion for it, in a conversation (John ch. 8,) in which, instead of avoiding, he increas ed the offence occasioned by the mention of the devil. John 8: 48 — 52. He mentioned him with the utmost confidence, precisely at the time wheil he professed his claim to implicit credibility (38, 40, 42,45 — 47) and when he uttered his most solemn abhorrence ol falsehood of every kind(44). But it was not only before the pdpu- lace that he taught this doctrine, but when alone with bis disciples he inculcated the same truth.1 Let the reader consult the following passages, in which he is conversing with his disciples alone about Satan and his angels. Matt. 13: 36, 38. 25: 41. 24: 3. Mark 4: 10, 15. Luke 22: 31. Nay, agreeably to John 16: 7, 8, 11, he classed this among the principal doctrines which the Holy Spirit through his instrumentality would publish to the world. " In this passage J § 51. III. 6. 43 338 OF ANGELS* [BK. III. Jesus is not addressing the illiterate populace, but he is speaking to his own apostles. Nor is he conversing of unimportant opinions which might yet be tolerated for sometime, but of the future preach ing of these teachers of the world. Nor is he speaking of certain modifications which the discourses of the apostles might assume from their own infirmities, or of the erroneous ideas of some of their hear ers, but of the contents of their Gospel, as derived from the Spirit of God (v. 7,) who should teach the truth.(v. 13,) regardless- of the circumstance whether it accorded with their former ideas or contra dicted them."1 Thus St: Paul also, who had dared to overturn the magical system of the Ephesians,2 regarded the doctrine of evil spirits as not at all inconsistent with the dignity of that very Chris tianity which had discarded superstition. And he did not hesitate to interweave this doctrine with his Epistle to the Ephesians3 them selves, although he in this same Epistle inveighs against the super stition of the Essenes with which the Ephesians were in danger of being tinctured. Had not Paul believed the doctrine of wicked angels, the Epistle to the Ephesians would surely have been the last place in which he would have spoken so impressively and cir cumstantially concerning the temptations of wicked angels ; as he in this very Epistle, was contending against the Essenes, who had manifested a veneration for good angels and a terror of wicked ones altogether extreme." The circumstance that Peter, in the passage 1 Pet. 5: 8, may probably have had the words of Christ (Luke 22: 31, etc.) in his view, renders it still more probable that by dvziSixog [adversary,] he meant SidfioXog or Hazavdg [the devil or Satan.] Luke 22: 31. . XV. " It is proper to make some remarks on this subject, in or der that those passages of Scripture which relate to it, may not be misunderstood. But should any one reject the whole doctrine, the manifest violence which would thus be offered to so many passages of Scripture, would rouse the minds of the hearers and convince them that an attempt was' made to wrest from them doctrines evi dently taught in the word of God. They would therefore retain even their erroneous additions to the truth, which by a proper use of Scripture they might be induced to reject ; because they saw that an attempt was made to contradict them, where truth was manifest ly on their side."4 1 Tub. gel. Anzeig. 1790. p. 141 ; and Hess Ober die Lehren, Thate,n und Schicksale unseres Herrn, S. 173 f. 255 f. 2 Acts 19: 19. . 3 ch. 2:2. 6:11. 4 Tubingen gelehrt. Anreigen, far 1790, S.143. BOOK III. OF CREATED RATIONAL BEINGS. *:.% — PART II.— OF MAN. r SECTION I. OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN, THE FALL AND ITS CONSE QUENCES. •§1 53. Primitive state of man. Experience teaches us that all human bodies are subject to mor tality, and that we have no sooner arrived at a sense of duty,(l) than we violate(2) its obligations, i. e. we sin, (3) in various ways. But the Scriptures inform us that this twofold evil of the human family did not exist originally, but is an incidental evil. (4) Those first individuals, whom God intended to be the progenitors of the whole human family,(5) viz.(6) that one individual man(7) and the woman who was subsequehtly(8) produced by the agency of God, were, like every thing else, created, good and perfect. (9) Agreea bly to the object of the Creator, the peculiar superiority of man, consisted in his similarity to God. (10) And this superiority, as far as(ll) it was to be evinced by the dignity, the power, and the do minion of man over other terrestrial creatures,(12) resulted from his rational and moral nature. (13) But a being possessing a moral na ture in perfect maturity, as was immediately the case with our first 340 OF MAN. [BK. III. parents, (14) could not possess that degree of moral perfection with which our first parents are said (Gen. 1: 31) tohave been endowed, without also being morally good and free from sin. Hence the likeness of our first parents to God, consisted principally in the cir- cumstance(15) that they were pure from sin, and by virtue of their natural faculties, (16) were able to avoid sin and fulfil the obligations of duty Gen. 3: 2, 3. Had they preserved this moral purity, they would not have been subjected to the necessity of dying,(17) an evil introduced into the world by the guilt(18) of man. (19) For God had given them means for the perpetual preservation of their lives* and in the possession of these they would have ever remained, if they had not sinned against their heavenly Father. (20) Illustrations. I. Rom. 7: 8, 9, iX&ovatjg ivtoXijg rj dpagttadvi^natv when the commandment came, sin revived. II. Rom. 3: 9 — 20, 22, 23, ndvttg rjpagzov xal vozrigovvzai z-ijg Sd£t]g zov &tov all have sinned and come sbort of the glory of God. Gen. 8: 21, the thoughts of the heart of man are evil, from his youth. III. 1 John 3: 4, rj dpagzia iailv rj dvopia sin is the transgression of the law. IV. Rom. 5: 12 etc. Siivog dvd-goinov rj dpagtla tig zov xoapov tigrjX&e, xal Stot trjg dpagziag d tfdvatog by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin. V. Gen. 1: 28, God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Acts 17: 26, inohiot i'6 ivdg a'ipazog ndv i&vog avd-gtontov xatotxnv inl ndv zo npogwnov zijg yijg he hath made of one blood (descended,) all nations of men to dwell upon the whole face of the earth. VI. Gen. 1: 27. Matt. 19: 4— 6, he made them from the be ginning, male and female. VII. Gen. 2: 7, comp. v. 18 etc. 3: 6 etc. Bruns, in an In vestigation of the most ancient sayings concerning the origin pf the human family, has attempted to prove from Gen. I: 26 etc" 5: 1 — 3, that God originally formed several persons of each sex. Yet he admits that it is impossible to find evidence of more than two indi viduals, namely, one male and one female, in the 2d and 3d chap ters, without doing violence, to ilanguage. But the passages in the 1st and 5th chapters, are perfectly consistent with those in the 2d and 3d, if they are not wrested from their natural meaning. I ad mit indeed, that in botfr cases MKis an appellative noun [man] and $ 53.] PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN. 341 not a proper name [Adam,] which is , the circumstance to which Bruns appeals ; but it by no means follows, that in either of these passages (1: 27. 5: 2,) the translation must be given thus : " God created them," viz. men, who, agreeably to what preceded, were like him [tntfor man, comp. ch. 6: 1,] men and women; but it may be given thus : " When God created human beings in his own image, he created a man and a woman, and blessed them (namely, the man and the woman) and called them men [human beings,] when they were created," Thus, in the expression inoiriatv avzov'g (Matt. 19: 4,) avtoiig is a pleonasm which, we may remark, is found in all cases in which the noun to which avzog refers, is not in its proper place. The same pleonasm is found in Matt. 21: 41, xaxovg avzovg. Other examples taken from profane writers,' are given by Kypke (on Acts 19: 38,) Eisner (on Rev. 2: 7,) and Schleusner. Justi, in a work the object of which is to refute the hypothesis of Bruns, grounds his argument, in part, on the fact, that in Gen. ch. 1 and 5, the very same word (tHK) is used to designate the person spoken of, which is used in ch. 2 and 3, and that consequently they must be the same ; and partly, on the cir cumstance that the writer of the book of Genesis, as he mentions nothing about the gender of the other animals whose creation he narrates (ch. 1: 20 — 25,) would not have specifically mentioned the creation of the man and the woman, if he had not intended to attract particular attention to the remarkable circumstance, that God determined that the earth should be peopled from a single couple. Moreover, we are expressly told in the New Testament, that one man, together with the woman who was dependent on him, was the progenitor of the whole human family, — 'that man (Rom. 5: 12 — 15,) who on account of his priority to Eve in point of existence (1 Tim. 2: 13,) is called the first man; and who, on account of his superiority to his helper (1 Cor. 11: 9,) received the general name man [gin Gen. 5: 2] in a peculiar sense [jcar' ij-oxrjv.1] This truth is presupposed in the discussion of the important doctrine of the redemption of the human family. (§ 59,) Vlll. Gen. 2: 18 etc. 1 Tim. 2: 13, Adam was formed first, and afterwards Eve. By creating the woman after the man had been formed, and in the presence of man, God wished to give to Adam an ocular illustration of his own formation, and thus, by this second creation, to give him a vivid idea of his own Creator, as of a powerful and benevolent Being who carefully provided for his necessities and prosperity (Gen. 2: 18, 20.) And by selecting that particular method of forming woman (Gen. 2: 21,) God, by whose 1 Gen.2:7,Ons$i.5:3. Rom. 5: 14. 1 Cor. 15; 22, 45. 1 Tim. 2:13. In all these passages c*ittis a proper noun. 342 OF MAN. [BK. HI. omnipotence she also was produced,1 intended to give to his newly created children a lively sense ef their reciprocal duties. Gen. 2- 24. Matt. 19: 5, 6. Ephes. 5: 28—33. 1 Tim. 2: 12, 13. 1 Cor. 11: 8, 9 ; comp. v. 7, 3.. and Ephes. 5: 22, 23. Other means also were made use of by God, to furnish his newly formed creatures with materials for the improvement of their under standing and heart. -Gen. 2: 15 — 17, 19, 20. Note. Doederlein remarks, that the literal explanation of this history of the origin of the woman, is confirmed by Paul in 1 Cor. 11: 8. IX. Gen. 1: 31, God saw that every thing which he had made was very good ["iiW ain.] X. Gen. 1: 26, tnc$ nTBys-flnia*!? WSjbsa let us make man- in our own image, after our likeness, comp. ch. 5: 1. XI. The Scriptures designate those as being like unto God, who excel others in dignity. In 1 Cor. 11: 7, the man, as head of the woman, is called tixtdv &tov the image of God. In Psalm 82: 6, the regents of the people are called gods [Q^nb^.] and sons of God [¦ji"1!:* ''pa;] and in Heb. 1: 6, Christ as the most exalted of kings is termed ngutdtoxog first begotten. XII. Gen. 1: 26—28. James 3: 9, 7. See, in Reinhardt's Dog matik (p. 262), a refutation of the opinion, that the image of God consisted merely in holding the dominion of the earth. XIII. Acts 17: 29, we [men] being like unto God must not think that the godhead is like unto silver or gold or stone or a life less work of human art. § 25. XIV. Gen. 2: 15—20. XV. Moral excellence is also expressly stated as a mark of similarity to God. Col. 3: 10, the new man, who is renewed ac cording to the image of him whocreated him. Compare Eph. 4: 24, the new man created according to God in righteousness and true holiness. 1 Pet. 1: 15, 16. Matt. 5: 48. XVI. The possibility of sinning, which was evinced in our first parents by their unhappy conduct, by no means implies that they were urged to transgression by a necessity of their nature, and that it was impossible for them to remain faithful. For it is evident from the history of the wicked angels, that they had the power to sin ; and yet other beings of the same rank, viz. the good angels, were able to remain faithful. XVII. The bodies of men might have attained a higher state of perfection, might have become nvtvpatixd spiritual bodies (1 Cor. 15: 45, etc.), might have been transformed [dXXaaata&ai]. Eich horn, in his Repert. for Biblical and Oriental literature, remarks, ! Gen. 1: 27. 5: 2. Matt. 19: 4, he made male and female. § 54.] PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN. 343 " The fruit of the tree of life contained some salutary properties, which would have preserved men from death, if they had not poisoned themselves. Still, man. could not have lived for ever, so as never to have changed this tabernacle ; the structure of his physical conformation is not adapted to it. But that he might have enjoyed a life which should not have been terminated by death, but by an ennobling transition into another state of existence, is perfect ly credible," vol. 4. p. 200. See Reinhardt's Dog. § 70. No. 3. p. 252. XVIII. 1 Cor. 15: 21,22, Si dv>onov 6 ftdvatog—iv tdiASdp dno&vtiaxovai death came by man — in Adam they die. XIX. Gen. 2: 17. 3: 17, 19. Rom. 5: 12,. 14 etc. XX. Gen. 3: 22, " the man shall not eat of the tree of life, that he may live for ever [Dbisb "TVi."] SECTION LIV. The fall of our first parents. But the privilege of perpetuity of life, was withdrawn frorii our first parents, (1) when Eve, through the instigation of a serpent,(2) who ate of the forbidden fruit, (3) was at length, herself prompted to mistrust God (4) and disregard his prohibition ; and when Adam, through her influence, was induced to commit the same sin. Illustrations. I. Gen. 3: ,19, 22 etc. 2Ti:n "ls*~bN to dust thou shalt return. II. Explanation of the history of the Fall. — In the Comment. de Protevangelio, the following explanation is given of the history of the fall : "The natural serpent ate of the forbidden fruit ; and Eve observed it. The devil accordingly took occasion to connect with this circumstance a conversation with Eve, in order to induce her to transgress the command of God. Eve believed it was the natural serpent that spake to her, and supposed that the eating of that fruit had conferred on the serpent the power of rational con versation, which she had hitherto not observed in any of the animals around her, not even in the serpent itself which she had known be fore"^. 13.) According to this view the first verse of ch. 3, would be translated thus : " The natural serpent became (as it seemed to Eve) more subtle than any other animal." [rTjiBri-n^ft l?3fl-] As, 344 OF MAN. [BK. III. agreeably to this explanation, Satan had abused the serpent's eating of the fruit, in order to carry on a concealed conversation with Eve, he was accordingly treated as a serpent when the punishment was announced. The sense of the 14th verse would then be this: " Thou shalt suffer a punishment, such as no irrational animal is capable of suffering ; reproach and terror shall be thy everlasting portion, (upon thy belly shalt thou go and on the dust shalt thou feed."1) This interpretation of the history, has been misunderstood by Gabler.2 He supposes that it entirely denies the presence of a natural' serpent, and that the devil is meant by the serpent in v. 1. But this explanation admits, that in v. 1, a natural serpent is meant, and that Eve thought this serpent spoke to her, whilst it was Satan who, though invisible to her, carried on a concealed conversation with her at the time she saw the serpent. Thus also in another place, Gabler3 unjustly lays it to the charge of this interpretation, that the 14th verse is applied simultaneously to Satan and the nat ural serpent ; whereas it only requires that the punishment of the devil be regarded as announced to him in figurative language, de rived from the nature of the serpent. Nor is cunning altogether denied to the serpent, but only the ability to conduct a rational con versation, which is indeed a faculty evidently belonging to no irrational animal. It is evident that the conversation between Eve and the serpent, could not have consisted merely of thoughts and suspicions in the mind of Eve, as has been contended by some. This is clear from the following reasons. — I. Eve could not well have been led to believe that the serpent had derived so much wisdom from eating the forbidden fruit, if the serpent had not seemed to her to speak, and had only given some mute inducement to transgress the divine command. — 2. It is inconsistent with the simplicity of the narrative, to doubt that such occasion for disbelief was given, and to represent the conversation with the serpent as being merely ideas in the mind of Eve, excited by Satan. That it cannot be regarded as an iEsopic fable, nor as a poetic fiction, when the serpent is introduced as speaking with Eve, is evident (says -Hess) as well from the fact that what precedes and succeeds is historical, as from the circumstance that the design of of the writer appears to have been to give a sensible representation of a peculiar and highly important event. The principal explanations of this history which are collected in Eichhorn's Urgeschichte, edited by Gabler, are the following : 1 Opusc. acad. Vol. II. p. 420. 2 Eichhorn's Urgeschichte, B. II. Th. 1. S. 271. • ' •3 Sup. cit. p. 177, where more accurate views of this interpretation are given. § 55.] OF THE FALL OF MAN. 345 , 1 . That which regards it as really historical, and receives the whole, or some parts of it, as historically true. 2. That which views it as a historical mythus or fable ; i. e. as a fictitious narrative founded on some historical fact. 3. That which makes it a history derived from the hieroglyphic figures. 4. Others regard it as an allegory, or a philosophical fable, either founded on some fact, pr not, the object of which is to repre sent either the origin of sin through the predominance of sense over reason, or the loss of the golden age, or the transition of men from instinct to the use of rational liberty, or the pernicious effects of a longing after a higher condition, or perhaps -several of these ideas at the same time. III. Gen. 2: 17.3:3, 11. IV. Although Eve appears to have attributed the seductive con versation, to the natural serpent and not to the devil, still she might have resisted the1 influence of an unknown seducer, as well as if he had been known. And such resistance she did for a while, actually make (ch. 3: 2, 3.) But it was not even by an unknown enemy that Adam was tempted (1 Tim 2: 14.;) but he yielded to the in fluence of his wife, and ate of the forbidden fruit. Gen. 3: 6, 12, 17. SECTION LV. Other effects of the fall on our first parents and their posterity. But these were not the only consequences of the disobedience of our first parents. For this single(l) transgression produced a dis order [dzu'£la](2,) and this gave rise to a sinful disposition of their whole nature, which became itself a foundation of other transgres sions. (3) Moreover, this sinful disposition [rj dpagtla Rom. 5: i2] was propagated by this one(4) individual, Adam, (to whom also it is peculiarly attributed,) over the whole (5) human family ; and through the instrumentality of this sinful disposition [Sid zrjg dpug- zlag~\ death has been entailed on the whole race of man. It was in this way [o'dztog or Sid zrjg dpapzlag] that death, which would not have befallen man in a state of innocence, was extended to the whole human family ; because, on account of [*V o) — ] the sinful propensity which is common to all, all are treated as sinful creatures, 44 346 OF MAN. [BK. III. and subjected to the penalty of the violated Iaw.(6) All who are subjected to mortality, have this sinful disposition, on account of which man is treated as a sinful creature, and subjected to death. (7) But many persons die before they could have imitated the examples of others, or have acquired the habit of sinning. Consequently, that sinful disposition from which our mortality results,(8) must ex ist prior to such imitation or habit ; and hence, although it gradu ally acquires more strength through the imitation of the wicked ex amples of others, and is confirmed by habits of transgression,, still the disposition itself must be seated more deeply in our nature, and is even brought with us into the world. (9) As the constitution of human nature is such that parents beget children in their own like ness^ 10) it. was natural,(ll) that after those perfect dispositions and faculties with which man was created had been disordered by sin, the descendants of Adam would be born, not with perfect, but with disordered dispositions and faculties. (12) It was accordant With the laws of nature, that man being possessed of a sinful dispo sition [odp%,] should beget children in like manner inclined to evil. (John 3: 6.) Hence, (13) the man Jesus, who was to be free from all imperfection, (14) was not born(15)in the ordinary way, i. e. was not begotten by a human father.(l6) Illustrations. I. Rom. 5: 16, to xgipa *£ ivdg, sc. naganttdpatog. Compare v. 15, td) tov ivog nagantoipati the punishment of one offence — was unto condemnation. It is evident from this passage that sin and death cannot be derived from an original irn perfection of human na ture which was entailed by Adam on his posterity ; for sin and death are here declared to be the consequence of one sin, namely that of Adam.1 II. Gen. 3: 7, 11. In the work on the object of the death of Christ (p. 649,) the author has defended the hypothesis that the eating of the forbidden fruit, did itself produce this disorder [dza^tav,] which consisted, in general, in a proneness to gratify the inordinate, impetuous propensities.2 , l See the work on the Object of the death of Christ, p. 635. 3 De Maree's Vindication of God in the permission of evil, pt. I. p. 281 Heil- mann sCompend Theol. Dogm, § 168,164. Jacobi's Essayson the wise pur poses of God, Pt. IV. p. 17. § 55.] OF THE FALL OF MAN. 347 , III. In the work on the object of the death of Christ, (p. 641 ¦—645) it is proved that rj dpagtia [sin] is used, in Rom. 5: 12, by metonymy;, to designate the cause of sin, or the source of individual transgressions. IV. Rom. 5: 1 2, Si tvog av&goinov, sc. 'ASdp by the sin of one man, i. e. Adam, comp. 1 Cor. 15: 21, Si dv&gdmov [sc. 'ASdp v. 22] 0 ddvatog by man i. e. by Adam, death came. V. In Rom. 5: 12 we find tig tov xoapov into the world ; and instead of this phrase, in v. 18 is used the phrase tig ndvtag dv- Q-goinovg to all men. VI. Rom. 5:. 12, iq' o) ndvttg rjpagtov because all have sinned. In the .dissertation on the Object of the death of Jesus (p. 640), these words are thus explained : "because all are regarded and treated as persons who have sinned." The same idea is expressed by the words rjpagtnxo)g i'aopai " I will be regarded and treated as the transgressor," in Gen. 44: 32 ; and in Job 9: 29, by the word »\rj~!^, and darj^rjg dpi by the LXX. This explanation of the word rjpagtov as signifying " were regarded and treated as sinners," viz. by imputation, accords perfectly with the phrase tig ndvtag dv&gw- novg dg xaidxgipa upon all men unto condemnation (v. 18), by which the same idea is meant to be expressed, and with the words apagttoXol xaztozadrjoav ol noXXoi marly were constituted sinners, i. e. by imputation (v. 19).1 For xazt ozd&rjoav is equivalent to iyivovto—yLvtad-ai — -esse, fieri — existimari, to be regarded or con sidered.8 VII. Rom. 5: 12, Sia tijg dpagtlag o ¦Oayatog — ovtoig d &dva- tog — SirjX&tv, iq' d) ndvttg rjpagtov death by sin — thus death (came upon all) — rbecause all sinned, i. e. were regarded as sinners. " Death is the consequence of depravity. This depravity is there fore as extensive among men as death is." (p. 640.) VIII. Little children also are depraved, — " Since Paul des cribes death as purely the consequence of depravity and nothing else ; it follows that, as little children die they must also be depra ved ; although this depravity is observable only when they become acquainted with laws, and with objects for which they have a natu ral desire. Hence, it is evident that the depravity of men is not the result of bad example or of education, nor. of the premature growth of our sensual propensities before, the maturity of reason." (p. 645.) IX. Innate depravity. — Psalm 51: 7, with a sinful nature ftl^] I was born,, yea, even in my mother's womb I was possessed of it. In the work on the death of Christ (p. 645), this interpretation is 1 Sup. cit p. 636 etc. Note ** 2 Observv. p. 14. 348 OF MAN. [BK. 111. vindicated against another which makes David merely mean, that he was an old, -hardened sinner. And in the Dissertations on the historical books of the New Test, we have remarked, in comment ing on John 9: 34, that the words iv dpagtlatg av iytvvrj&rjg dXog, may well be taken in their proper sense : " you were born in a sin ful state (as this bodily deformity, your blindness, proves)." Kant has asserted, that among all the representations of the prop agation of moral evil, that is the most objectional by which it is re garded as being inherited from our first parents : for, says he, in ref erence to moral evil, we can say, " quae non fecimus ipsi, vix ea nostra puto," i. e. what we have hot done ourselves', can scarcely be regarded as our own. In reply to this^ we remark,1 Just as a particular natural or innate disposition or temperament, renders it more difficult for some men to fulfil the law, than others ; so also it is by no means impossible that an undue propensity for the objects of sense (§ 56) may have been inherited from Adam by all his posterity, which renders it, if not impossible, yet very difficult for them to fulfil the law. This innate disposition,*vhich is involuntary in us, and which renders it difficult for us to obey the law, is not (as Kant's objection presupposes) imputed to us as sin ; but the guilt with which we are charged lies in this, that we do not sur mount the difficulties which arise from it (§56.) X. 1 Cor. 15: 48, as the earthly, such are the earthly. Gen. 5: 3, Adam begat children in his own likeness [irna'ia 'iaVss ] XI. The propagation of this depravity is the natural result of a law of our nature, which is in itself salutary (Gen. 1: 28.) And the unhappy effects of this law, on the descendants of Adam, can no more be charged on the Author of nature, than that misery can, which, in the course of the operation of these laws, is entailed on the innocent children of such parents as have by their wicked life con tracted a hereditary disease. XII. In no other way than by the natural inheritance of the sinful propensities of parents, by the children, could the necessity of dying have been extended to all men on account of the individual act of transgression by Adam (Rom. 5: 15 — 17.) For it was from this one sin, that the sinful disposition of Adam proceeded ; and through him this disposition, which involves the necessity of death, was propagated over the whole human .family. This is the only in terpretation which accords with the declaration of Paul (Rom. 5: 12 — 19,) that dpagtla [depravity,] and through dpagzla, death, were entailed on the whole human family. Moreover, the doctrine of the propagation of depravity by natural generation from Adam, is closely connected with the important doctrine of the gracious 1 Kantii Phil. Annot. p. 8. $ 55.] OF THE FALL OF MAN. 349 provision of God for the redemption of the human family, and in various points of view, tends to throw much light upon this subject.1 Jost is disposed almost totally to reject the connexion between the propositions Si ivdg dvOgtonov rj dpagrla, xal Sid zrjg dpagztag d ddvuzog, i. e. the connexion between the mortality of mankind and the first sin of Adam, through the instrumentality of universal dpugzla, " sin or depravity," which Paul maintains. He supposes that the object of the apostle in this passage was, to meet the ob jection which might possibly be urged, that if mankind had actually been reconciled to God through Christ, they would necessarily be delivered from death, it- being a punishment of sin ; and to prove that death cannot properly be regarded as a punishment, at least not in every - instance ; and that men might certainly be mortal without being deserving of punishment. The prominent idea which he supposes to be contained in the 12th and subsequent verses, he expresses thus : "Adam sinned — the punishment of his sin was death, and this became, in some sense, a general punishment which was inflicted on all men, and which could not well be dispensed with, because God had found it necessary to connect it With Adam's sin." XIII. See the work on the Object of the death of Christ, p*. 653 etc. Note t. and De Maree sup. cit. p. 324—329. XIV. 2 Cor.- 5: 21, he that knew not sin. 1 John 3: 5, the^e is no sin in him. 1 Pet. 3: 18, Christ suffered the just for the un just. Here Christ, as the pnly just person, is distinguished from those for whom he suffered, i.e. from all mankind (<§> 66,) they being in comparison with him declared not as just, but unjust. 1 Pet. 1:19, dpvov dpoipov xal donlXov Xgiatov Christ, the lamb, without blemish and without spot. Heb. 7:26, oaiog, dxaxog, aplavzog, xtx 3. XVII. Rom. 7: 15, for I know not what I do— -for that which I would, I do not, but that which I hate, I do. XVIII. Rom. 6: 14. «• *> «*' «• i« $57.] INNATE DEPRAVITV. 353 XIX. Gal. 5: 17. Rom. 6: 12, the flesh lusteth against the spirit. XX. Rom. 8: 13, mortify the deeds of the body, by the spirit, 6: 12 etc. XXI. Phil. 3: 12, 13, ovx dti rjSw ttztXtlmpail am not already perfect. XXII. Gal. 6: 1 — 5, d Soxt7 tig (jrooV nvtvpattxdiv) ttvai tl, prjSiv div, iavtdv qgtvanaza if any one (of the spiritual) thinketh he is something, and is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 1 John 1: 7 etc. 2: 1, 12. See on these passages, the work on the Object of the Gospel and Epistles of John, where the passages 1 John 3: 6, 8 etc. 5: 18, which appear to contradict the others, are explained. Prov. 20: 9, who can say, I am clean from sin ? Eccles. 7: 20, thus is there not a just man on earth that doeth (exclusively) good and sinneth not. In 1 John 1: 7 etc. 2: 1, the expressions dpagzdvtiv and dpapzla (to sin, and sin) refer to individual acts of transgression ; but in 1 John 3: 6, 9. 5: 18. 3: 8, apagtiav notdv, dpagtdveiv (to do acts of sin, to sin) signify a disorderly habit of life. The latter passages probably refer to the Gnostic morality of the Cerinthians, who be lieved that the soul would not have to account for the acts of li centiousness and prostitution committed by the body.1 SECTION LV IE , Effect of natural depravity on our state in the future world. The fact that all mankind are indiscriminately subject, fo mortali ty as well as Adam was (<$> 54,) proves, that though mankind are not themselves to be blamed for being born with a depraved nature, 'they are nevertheless regarded as creatures possessed of a sinful na ture (and such in truth they are,) and are subject to a participation in the punishment which was inflicted on Adam.(l) For, the reason why all men must die, is, because all are treated as sinful creatures (fjpagtov Rom. 5: 12. $ 55i 111. 6). Now it is evident, even from [1 According to this view of the subject, which is ably supported in Storr's work, these disputed passages are divested of all difficulty, and may be transla ted thus : Whosoever abideth in him, liveth not in sin ^whosoever liveth in sin, hath not seen him neither known him (1 John 3:, 6.) Whosoever is born of God doth not live in sin ; for his seed (see 1 Pet. 1: 23) rcmaineth in him ; and he cannot live in sin because he is born of God (1 John 3: 9.) We know that whosoever is born of God, liveth not in sin etc. ch. 5: 18. S.] 45 354 of man. [bk. ur. the diversity between the body and soul of man, that the death of the body does not necessarily involve the death of the soul (Matt. 10: 28). On the contrary, the constitution of our moral nature ex cites in us the expectation (Rom. 2: 15 etc. $ 17, 18, 24), that our soul will survive the dissolution of the body. Moreover it is inconsistent with the holiness and justice of God (2), to suppose that it should be impossible for those who had been labouring in this world to improve in moral excellence, and who had really made some small advances in holiness, to make still father progress in the work of sanctification ; that those who laboured daily to subdue their inclination to sin, should eventually be blotted out of existence ; and that all human happiness should be confined within the limits of the present life, in which the prosperity of the virtuous is often surpassed by that of the wicked. But this necessary belief in the future existence of the human soul, gives rise to the apprehension, that just as the body is subjected to mortality on account of innate depravity(3), so also the soul, which survives the dissolution of the body, may likewise be treated as the soul of a sinful creature. Nay, it is undoubtedly true, that those who abuse the gracious influence of God, which was given to aid them in the pursuit of holiness, and perseveringly obey the unlawful propensities of their depraved na ture, will, on account of their depravity(4), be exposed to the pen alty of the divine law. (5) But even those who have actually re pented and reformed, and who may justly entertain pleasing antici pations of the salutary effects of their reformation, can still not ex pect a future happiness of their spirit, unmingled with pain, as well on aceount of their sinful conduct previously to their change, as of the indolence in their conflict with the sinful propensities of their nature of which they have since then been guilty, unless a pardon of their sins is provided for them. (6) And even the souls of those who, on account of their innate depravity (<§> 55,) die in their in fancy, although they are themselves innocent, still participate' in some degree in the punishment inflicted on Adam, inasmuch as they are justly regarded unworthy to be fellow-members of the society of angels and the just made perfect in the kingdom of heaven, and partakers of the blessedness(7) which they enjoy. $ 57.] INNATE DEPRAVITY. 355 Illustrations. I. Meaning of the word punishment as applied to this subject. Rom. 5: 18, eig xatdxgipa to condemnation. The meaning of the word punishment, when applied to the sin of Adam as imputed to his posterity, is thus defined in the work on the Object of the death of Christ (p. 585, 657 :) " Punishment does not in this instance signify sufferings which we have ourselves deserved, but sufferings which are entailed upon us in consequence of a judicial sentence on account of sin." " It is the consequence of punishment, and it is also itself punishment in this respect, that the judge foresaw this consequence and nevertheless decreed the punishment,"1 II. Matt. 5: 6, blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled. Rom. 2: 6 — 10. 2 Thess. 1: 4 etc. The first of these passages contains an important evidence for the immortality of the soul ; for Christ intimates, that the most noble exertions after moral purity would be unhappy exertions in deed, if their object could not be attained, yea if the possibility of attaining it might not be supposed to be secured by God, who im planted in our breasts this holy desire. In the work De vita beatS,2 we have made the following remarks : " The constitution of our moral nature points us to a future existence of the soul ; nor can we believe that God, who is the Instructor, the Father of our spirits, would suffer all the pleasing fruits of his paternal instruction to be buried at once in annihilation — and nothing but a belief in a moral government of the world and in the declarations of Holy Writ, can secure us against doubts, in a matter which we can never learn from the testimony of our senses." The evidence derived from Matt. 5: 6, resembles the postulate which Kant adopted relative to the im mortality of the soul : " Reason requires that we regard the perfect conformity of the will to the moral law, i. e. holiness, as possible^ but this can possibly be attained only by a process of improvement which extends into infinity, and this is possible only on the assump tion of an existence which is likewise infinite, i. e. only on the? assumption of an immortality." III. Rom. 5: 12. 8: 10, to otapa vtxgdv Si apagtiav the body is dead on account of sin. IV, (V.) Natural depravity a cause of our punishment. — Eph. 2: 3, qvatiiixva dgyijg by nature children of wrath. Le Clerc has proved,3 that qvatg [nature] signifies natural faculties and dis<- 1 Reinhardt's Dogmatik, S. 653. 2 Dissert, de Vita beata, p. 3 sq. Opusc. acad. Vol. II. p. 75.ff. 3 Ars. crit. sect. I. i>. 7. § 7. Vol. I. p. 210. 356 of man [bk. nr. positions. The apostle, in the passage before us, is not speaking exclusively of the Jews, but, as Koppe1 has justly remarked, Jhe embraces in the two expressions rjpdg — xal ol Xomoi we — and oth ers, or the rest, the Jews and al! other nations. He must, there fore, here refer to a natural state which is common alike to all men. Nature [qwnts] is here equivalent to flesh [oapl]2 in the beginning of the verse (§ 56. III. 1) ; the apostle is therefore speaking of a depraved natural condition, in which the Jews, on account of their wicked lusts, had sinned, as well as the other nations, inasmuch as they had gratified the sinful lusts of their hearts,3 and had abandon ed themselves to the depraved propensities of their nature so that their hearts had become fleshly [aagxixdg Rom. 7: 14], and they fulfilled the will of the flesh [dtXripaza]* in their life and conduct. Now the Ephesians had indeed rendered themselves culpable and obnoxious to punishment (" children of wrath"), by voluntarily yielding to these sinful propensities [to7g im&vplatg zrjg oagxog] and planning their purposes and actions in obedience to them [inoiovv zd {rtXrjpazu zrjg aagxdg xal ztov Siavottov.] But the fact, that their voluntary obedience to the dictates of. their sinful nature, and their living in accordance with them, exposed them to the punishment of the divine law, shows that they became subjects of the divine wrath through their depraved nature and the lusts of it.5 Now, although we must first consent to the sinful dispositions of our na ture, before we can be culpable, although the guilt with which the punishment [death] is connected, is only a consequence of our own consent (James 1: 15,); still we may with propriety say that the sinful propensity, which invites us to voluntary obedience, and which, though through our own fault, actually succeeds in every case in which we do not avail ourselves of the divine assistance' to resist it, is the source of the evil which results from obedience to its dictates. It may, therefore, be said of the natural depravity of our nature, not that it is the exclusive cause, but, in general, that it is ' Excurs. II. in Epist. ad. Ephes. p. 394, ed. I. 2 iv inidvptaig zijg oagxr/g—iv i. e. secundum, comp. 4- 17 Heb 10- 10 and other passages, thus the Heb a Gen. 1: 26.,!is»l,sa ,see Schleusner's Lex. art. iv No. 26. 3 h rcagaitToJpatsiv aveatgdtpVt,av—iv o« v. 3, refers to ¦nagamtiudtiiv.l; just as iv aig v. 2, does to afiagziaig v. 1. See Comment, on Heb. 9: 10, Note c. 4 ta -d-sXjjpara zijg aagxdg xal zuiv SiavoioJv i. e. zarv oagxixo'v Siavouuv.— This is a hendiadys of which various other examples are given in the Dissert, de sensu vocis nXr/guipa, no. 60. In the LXX, Sidvoiai answers to a^ (-^)Num. 15: 39. Jtdvoiai xal Ueber den Zvreck Johannis, S. 18. § 62.] PERFECTION OF THE BLESSED. 379 fices ; and consequently, that our holy zeal will be constant.1 For if a relapse of the blessed were to be feared, their contest could not be said to terminate with this life ; nor could their conduct in the present life be the measure of their future reward. IX. Matt. 5: 6, xopraattrjaovtai (olSiydivtig Sixaioavvt]v.) X. Luke 16: 26. 13: 27. Matt. 13: 30, 40—43, 48. 25: 32. (compare §58. III. 9.) 22: 11 — 1,3, where the guest without a wedding garment, was commanded to be cast out. 1 Pet. 1: 4, an undefiled inheritance. 2 Pet. 3: 11 — 13, a new heaven and a new earth in which dwells righteousness. Rev. 22: 14, 15. XI. Luke 19: 22 etc. Lazarus with Abraham, in the abode of the blessed. 13: 18, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob', and all;the prophets, in the kingdom of God. Matt. 8: 11. 2 Thess. 2: 1, our assembling with him (Christ.) 1 Thess. 4: 17. (see III. 2.) 5: 10, that we should live together with him — " that we all, as well the dead as those now living, might live in felicity together with him."2 1 Cor. 15: 29, " how unreasonable would it be to deceive ourselves, with the expectation of an eternal and blessed existence with Jesus and our friends imip vtxpoiv, if there were no existence beyond the grave."3 Rev. 7: 9, until the number of their fellow-servants and brethren should be fulfilled. Heb. 12: 23, ye are come to the spirits of the just made perfect. XII. Luke 20: 36, lodyytXol tlai they are like unto the angels. Col. 1: 20, " by the death of Christ, God wished to unite the in habitants of earth and heaven [td inl tqg yrjg xal td iv to7g ovgavdtg] together, and subject them alLtothe government of Christ." Heb. 9: 23, " It was necessary that we should be qualified by the blood of Christ, to enter into the holy place in heaven, or to attain the society of the perfect spirits in heaven." Heb. 12: 23, " ye are come to the general, assembly of the most ancient inhabitants of heaven, I mean, to the many thousands of angels." Rev. 7: 11, all the angels (just like the blessed dea"d) stood around1 tiie throne of God." Thus also will wicked men be condemned to the society of wicked spirits. (§51. 111.4.) The passage Zech. 3: 7, also, might be adduced in proof of the union of good men and angels, if the exegesis of the passage were not doubtful.4 XIII. See the Dissert, de Vita Beata, § 6, 7.' XIV. In Luke J6: 10, these possessions or blessings are called noXi and to dXr/&ivdv, in opposition to earthly goods, winch are comparatively iXuxtatov etc. 1 Opuscul. Vol.11, p. 116. etc. 2 Dissert, in Epist. Pauli minores(p. 30, 31. ' De notione regni coelestis, Note, 72. ¦» Hess' History of the Israelites, Pt. II. p. 309 ; and Staudlin's Illustration* of the Prophets, p. 312. 380 OF MAN. [BK. III. XV. Luke 16: 11, 12. Matt. 25: 21, 23, 1 will place thee over many things. Luke 19: 17, be thou ruler over ten cities. V. 19, be thou over five cities. XVI. 1 Cor. 13: 8, love never faileth. XVII. Luke 16: 10—12, niazdg faithful. Luke 19: 7—19, matdg iytvov thou hast been faithful. Matt. 25: 21, 23, SovXt man thou faithful servant. XVIII. 1 Cor. 13, 10 — 12, when that which is perfect is come, then that which is imperfect, " in part," shall be done away— then we shall see face to face. Ephes. 4: 13, "until we all attain to a conviction concerning Jesus Christ, to a knowledge of the Son of God, until we attain the maturity of manhood ; i. e. until we be come a perfect church of Christ, which shall embrace among her children, none who shall again become wavering in their knowledge of Christ."1 SECTION LXIII. Different grades of future happiness. This everlasting(l) happiness is bestowed on men in different de- grees.(2) And the degree of happiness conferred on each individ ual, will depend on his conduct during his whole life, and on the circumstances in which he was placed ;(3) — on his natural temper-'"^ ament, his talents and means of doing good,(4) but particularly on the degree of his fidelity(5) in the use of all his powers and means to promote his growth in moral excellence. Illustrations. I. Luke 16: 9, provide for yourselves friends with the unsatis fying mammon [give to the pious poor some of that unsatisfying , wealth, which is often unrighteously possessed,] that when ye de part (from this world and arrive in the world to come,) they may receive you into everlasting habitations, aitovai axtjvai, [they may, such of them as have reached the place of departed spirits before you, return your kindness by welcoming you into the abodes of the blessed.] v. 12, to vpittgov. 12: 23, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not. 1 Thess. 4: 17, we shall be ever with the Lord. 2 1 Dissert, de sensu vocis nXygojpa, p. 15. Opusc. Acad. Vol. I. p. 159. § 63.] DIFFERENT DEGREES OF HAPPINESS. 381 Cor. 4: 17, an eternal, weight of glory. 18, the things that are not seen, are eternal. Rom. 2: 7, eternal life. 1 Tim. 1: 10, life and immortality [incorruption, dq&agala.] 1 Pet. 1: 4, an inheritance that is incorruptible. 1 John 2: 17, he that doth the will of God, abideth forever. Luke 1: 33. comp. Rev. 3:21. (§ 64.) Heb. 7: 25, Christ liveth forever, to make intercession for them that come unto God through him. Heb. 10: 36, an. enduring substance in the heavens. 12: 28, an unmoveahle kingdom. Hence, the bodies which are to partake of this unchanging happiness, cannot be mor tal — "flesh and blood," " corruption" (1 Cor. 15: 50,) but they will be made immortal. 1 Cor. 15: 51—54,42. (see § 61.) II. 1 Cor. 3: 8, each one shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour. Matt. 25: 40, 45, toiv iXaxlottov the least. 1 Tim. 3: 13, fia&pdv iavtoig xaXdv ntpmoiovviai they provide for themselves a good grade (or station) of honour. See Matt. 5: 19, he shall be considered, xXrj&ijotzai, great in the kingdom of heaven. III. 2 Cor. 5: 10, that each one may receive the things done in the body. 2 Tim. 4: 7, 8. comp. v. 6. In terminating our life, we finish our course in a manner which entitles us to a prize more or less honourable. Gal. 5: 10. Matt. 25: 35. 2 Tim. 1: 16— 18. Notwithstanding the progress which may be made, during the time between death and the general resurrection ; we may still say with propriety, that the degree of happiness which shall be bestow ed on men at the day of judgment, is dependant on their conduct in life, because even that progress which they shall make, will itself be proportionate to their situation at death. IV. There is some distinction in gifts and rewards. — Matt. 25: 28. comp. with V. 15: 17, ixdaitotSmxtxazdzrjv iSlav Svvaptv "he confided to each one a sum proportionate to the measure of his qualifications, to the one a larger, to the other a smaller sum, to trade with ; and that servant who- was most highly gifted, had ah advantage over the other servant, though he also Was faithful (comp. v. 23, 21.) He was able to accomplish more (v. 16, 20. comp. with v. 17, 22,) and was fitted for receiving a much greater trust for the future (v. 28.) Rom. 2: 10, Sdt-a navzl zd) ipyagoptvip zd dya&dv, 'JovSalto tt npditov glory to every one that doeth good, but to the Jew first. — Superior abilities and, privileges can certainly advance a man farther in goodness, and thus raise him to a higher degree pf happiness', than is attained by others. But the superior advantages of the for mer, will in no wise be detrimental to the happiness of the latter. V. In Luke ch; 19, of the two servants of equal means, that one who did most, was preferred to the other (v. 18) on account of his superior fidelity, (v. 17, 24, 26, 19.) 2 Cor. 9: 6, he that 382 OF MAN. [BK. III. soweth sparingly, shall reap sparingly ; he that soweth richly, shall reap richly. 2 Pet. 1: 11, nXovalmg. The following illustration of the position, that though salvation is the pure gift of grace, in all instances, yet different persons may partake of it in different de grees, is found in the work on the Object of the death of Christ : " When a number of criminals are pardoned and restored to the privileges of citizens, they all have alike access to all the blessings of citizenship, and yet some of them may avail themselves of these privileges, more than others, by their peculiar talents and exertions," (p. 380.) SECTION LXIV. Participation of the righteous in the blessedness of Christ. The future blessedness of the righteous, may be summarily des cribed by saying, that(l) they shall partake in a high, though not unlimited degree,(2) of the happiness of Jesus himself.(3) Illustrations. I. Among the many brethren of Christ, even the least of them. shall be conformed unto the image of the Son of God — shall be co heirs with him. Matt. 25: 40. Rom. 8: 29, ovppogqoi zrjg tixdvog tov vlov (tov &tov.) v. 17, avyxXripovopot avtov (Xptaiov.) II. The most intimate union with Christ is a privilege, by which the pious of the human family are distinguished even from angels. See the work on the Object of the death of Christ, p. 584. III. John 17: 20 — 22, the glory which thou gavest me, Igave to them (that believe.) Matt. 25: 21, 23, enter into the joy [mar riage feast] of thy Lord. comp. 22: 2. Rom. 8: 17. (111.1.) 2 Tim. 2: lO — 12, we shall live with him — we shall reign with him (Christ.) (§ 62.111. 11.) 2 Thess. 2: 14. 1 Cor. 1:9, the fellowship of Jesus Christ. 1 John 3: 2. 1 Cor. 15: 49. Phil. 3: 21, we shall be fashioned like unto the body of his glory i. e. his glorious body. Heb. 3: 14, pitoxot ytydvaptv tov Xgtaiou " through Jesus all things are subjected also to his brethren as his coheirs by virtue of their union with him, in as far as they are capa ble of such participation."1 Rev. 3: 21, 1 will give to him, to sit with me on my throne. 1 Zweck des Todes Jesu, p. 584. § 65.] CHRIST THE CAUSE OF OUR SALVATION. 383 SECTION LXV. Christ is the exclusive cause of our salvation. The reasons why the future felicity of the Christian consists in a participation of the blessedness of Jesus, is, because God has de creed that men should obtain salvation through Christ and for his sake.(l) The man Jesus is particularly appointed fobe the Guide of men to salvation ; he is the proper and immediate cause qf .their salvation(2)— not only because he, (3) or God through him, (4) will actually bestow salvation on his people, nor merely because Jesus Christ receives the spirits of the blessed dead into the kingdom of heaven, (5) and restores their bodies to life, (6) and as judge of the family of man, apportions to each one his lot;(7) but because he has purchased the right(8) to make us partakers of his blessedness. For, just as the first man, by his transgression, lost the advantages which he had possessed, and involved himself and his posterity in misery (§ 54 — 57) ; so,(9) on the contrary, did Christ Jesus, by his obedience, purchase the right (§ 87 — 92) to use his exalted privileges in bestowing salvation on men. (10) But this subject will be more fully discussed in the fourth Book, which treats of the Redeemer of the human family. Illustrations. 1. That salvation is bestowed only through Christ, and on the exclusive ground of his merits, is evident from the following nu merous passages. 2 Tim. 1: 9, who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not on account of our works, but on account of his own purposes and the grace which was granted us in Christ Je sus, before the world began. Eph. 1:3— 5, who hath blessed us through Christ, having predestinated us to sonship, through Jesus Christ. Eph. 2: 7, the riches of his grace in. Christ Jesus. John 14: 6, I am the way (to the Father) and the life. 6: 57, he that eateth me, shall live through me. 1 John 4: 9, that we might live through him (the Son of God). 5: 11, and this testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. John 1: 12, but to as many as received him gave he power to become the sons of God, namely, to them that believe in his (Christ's) 384 OF MAN. [BK. HI. name. Gal. 4: 7, heirs of God through Christ. Rom. 6: 23, the gracious gift, xaptopa, of God, is eternal life, through Christ Jesus. 1 Thess. 5: 9, 10, God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to ob tain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 5: 10, God hath called us to his eternal glory through Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 1: 4. 2 Tim. 2: 10. Acts 4: 11, 12, ovx iati iv aXXto ovStvl rj ato- trjpia (rj iv X. I.) bvtt yag ovopa iati i'ttpov iv ai Sdam&rjvai rjpag neither is there salvation in any other ; for there is~no other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we could be saved. In this last passage, awir/pla does not signify the cure of diseases, as Teller and Michaelis, in reference to v. 10, have translated, it, but its meaning is salvation.1 Peter had, on another occasion (3: 12), referred the populace to the cure of the lame man, wrought by Christ (v. 6), as an evidence of the dignity and glory of his person, and as a reason why they should believe in him as their Saviour (v. 21). And here he gives the same explanation before the Sanhe drim. The two synonymous clauses bf v. 12, give a stronger ex pression to the same truth, which is contained alike in both. From the individual fact that the cure of the lame man was owing to his faith in Jesus, is inferred the general proposition, that the hopes of men in general centre in Christ. Ev av&gomaig, is here used for the simple dative dv&panoig. II. Acts 5: 31, dgytiybg xal awtng, i. e. dgynyog trjg amtrjglag. The Prince and Saviour, i. e. Prince of salvation. John 11: 25, the resurrection and the life. Col. 3: 4, Christ our life. 1: 27, the hope of glory. 1 Tim. 1: 1, our hope. Heb. 2: 10, the Cap tain or Prince of salvation. 5: 9, the cause of eternal salvation. III. John 10: 28, I give them eternal life. 11: 25. IV. John 17: 2, as thouhast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 1 Cor. 15: 57, thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 4: 14, knowing that he who raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also through Jesus. 1 Thess. 4: 14. (see § 62. 111. 2.) John 5: 22, 27, the Father gave all judgment to the Son. Acts 17: 31, he (God) will judge by that man whom he hath appointed. Rom. 2: 16, God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. 1 Tiro. 6: 14, until the appear ance of Jesus Christ, whom [God shall show]. V. Jesus Christ will perfect the happiness of the- blessed. — 2 Tim. 4: 18, The Lord shall preserve me unto his heavenly king dom, comp. v. 8. 1. John 11: 26, 25. Luke 23: 42. Acts 7: 59, Lord Jesus ! receive my spirit. The souls of those who died be- : 7 : • , , , — __ 1 Dissert. De sensu historico, p. 13. Opusc. Acad. Vol. I, p. 17. Diss. I. in Libros N. T. hist. p. 91, 89. § 65.] CHRIST THE CAUSE OF OUR SALVATION. 385 fore the time of Christ and obtained salvation, were saved for Christ's sake. Gen. 5:24. Heb. 11:5. (§ 69. 111. 1). Luke 20:37, where the salvation of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, is spoken of.; 16: 23. John 8: 56, 52. (§ 66.) But their salvation has re ceived an accession, since the man Jesus is in heaven (§97). Arid the saints who died before Christ, will receive from him who is the first that ever rose from the dead, their bodies which were subject ed to death on account of Adam's sin. 1 Cor. 15: 20, 23. Col. 1: 18. Acts 26: 23. These'bodies shall be in a renovated form ; and thus the ancient saints shall receive their full measure of blessed ness. From Christ, the salvation of all men shall receive its con summation,1 even ofthose who arose shortly after him.a Salvation shall be perfected by him, at the time of the general resurrection and judgment.3 Until all the citizens of the future world have been born, it is impossible that the present state of the human family, and of the things of this world, aloiv ovtog Luke 20: 34, should terminate, or that the expected new order of things (§ 61) should begin, in which being born and dying shall no more be found (v. 35). But when the new order of things begins, the salvation of men shall receive its completion, not only by their receiving their bodies (v. 35), but also by being reinstated in the possession of their original residence (§ 61. 111. 16 — 23) in a renovated form adapted to their life of future happiness. And as this visible world cannot be renovated, until all the citizens of the future world are born (2 Pet. 3: 13), and until the reformation of those who are to be sanctified, shall have actually taken place (v. 9) ; the consum mation of the happiness of the blessed dead which arises from being located in the new world, must necessarily be deferred,4 until the time of the last generation of the human family (§ 61. 111. 13), un til the majestic appearance of the Judge who shall assign to the risen dead and to those then living, their residence in the new-created world, and give to each such a station as his conduct in this life may justify. 2 Cor. 5: 10. 2 Tim. 4: 6— 8. Matt. 25:34. It is for this reason, that this " last time" and the advent of the Lord which shall follow, are so frequently represented as the final object: and end of their most important expectations. See John 6: 39. 14: 3. 1 Pet. 1: 5—9. 1 Cor. 1: 7. Phil. 1: 6—10. 3: 11, 20, i 2 Tim. 4:8. Heb. 11: 39, 40. 2 Malt. 27: 53. Hess' Biography of Jesus, Vol. II. p. 312, 363. 3 In John 5: 21, 22, Christ combines ttaoTtoi&v and xgtvtiv. v. 27, 29. — xgt'oti and the avdaraoie will be at the same time. — v. 28, 29, the resurrection and judgment will be on the last day. John 12: 48. 6: 39, 40. 2" Thess. 1: 7—12. 2: 1. comp. 1 Thess. 4: 15, 7. 2: 1. 1 John 4: 15. 1 Cor. 15: 23. Rev. 20: 11. * Heb. 11: 40, that they might not be perfected without us. See comment on Heb. Note/, in loe. 49 386 OF MAN. [BK. III. 21. 1 Thess. 1: 10, to wait for the Son of God from heaven. 2: 19. 3: 13. 5: 10, 4, 23. 1 Tim. 6: 14. 2 Tim. 1: 18. 4: 8. Tit. 2: 13. Col. 3: 4. 1 John 3: 2. 4: 17. Heb. 9: 28. 10: 25, 37. 12: 26, " yet once more I will shake not the earth only, but also heaven ; and transform heaven and earth into a state in which they shall be immutable." ' 2 Pet. 1: 16. 3: 4 — 14, the power and com ing of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the apostle Paul animates the Christians by the prospect of happiness after the resurrection, he by no means denies that they will be happy immediately after death ; as is evident from those passages in which he speaks of their bles sedness between death and judgment. 2 Cor. 4: 14. 5: 6, 9, IO.1 VI. John 5: 28. 6: 39—54. Phil. 3: 20. • VII. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works — he is the Judge of the living and the dead, appointed by God — he (God) will judge the world in righteousness, by that Man whom he has appointed — we must all appear before the judg ment seat of Christ — I charge thee, by the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead at his appearing, and his king dom. Matt. 16: 27. 25: 31. Acts 10: 42. 17: 31. 2Cor. 5: 10. 2 Tim. 14: 1. John 5: 22—27. Rom. 14: 10. 1 Cor. 4: 5. 2 Thess. 1: 7. God will conduct the judgment of mankind, through Jesus, because he is a man [John 5: 27, on vldg dv&goinov iati. comp. Acts 17: 31, dvtjg.] In this passage of John, the phrase " Son of man" is used without the article, and therefore does not, as it would with it, mean a particular and distinguished man, the Messiah, but signifies indefinitely, a man ; as in Heb. 2: 6. Mark 3: 28. The phrase d vldg dv&gdmov, with the article, designates the man, xat t£oxr]v, in the superlative sense.2 There is a certain day appointed for the awful scene of judgment. " He hath appoint ed a day3 — judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come4 — in the day of wrath5 — then."6 This day is indeed unknown to us. " It cometh as a thief in the night."7 It is the day which is also the end of the present state of the world,8 " the last day." On this solemn day, the whole human race ixdazto9 shall be judg ed. Nor shall there be any exception ; but all who have ever liv- 1 Dissert, de Vita Beata, Note 28. 2 See Rev. 3: 17, o TaXatizojgog xal 6 hXstivog, by which is meant, the Son of man whose history is mentioned in Dan 7:13. See Dissert, in Libros N. T. historicos, p. 33. Schleusner's Lex. art. av&gomog no. 3. Schmidt's Dissert, in Henke's Mag. Pt. II. p. 3. No. XVIII. 3 Acts 17: 31. 4 1 Cor. 4:5. 5 R„m. 2: 5. 6 Matth. 16: 27. 7 Matth. 24: 36. 1 Thess,. 5: 2. 2 Pet. 3: 10, ' 8 Mattb. 13: 40, 49. John 12: 48. Rev. 20 \\. 2 Pet. 3: 7. 9 Matth. 16: 27. 25: 32. Rom. 2: 6, 16. 2 Cor. 5: 10. Jude 15. § 65.] CHRIST THE CAUSE QF OUR SALVATION. 387 ed1 upon the earth,2 or shall then be yet living,3 shall be included in the process, which shall take place in the presence of the an gels.4 At this judgment Jesus, who is now invisible on earth (Col. 3: 3), will not only evince his presence by particular instances of his agency ; but the man5 Jesus will himself be visible, just as he was formerly visible and present on this earth, " the Lord shall de scend from heaven."6 " qavrjaezai zd arjpdov tov vlov tov av- dgoinov iv to) ovgavd) the Son of man, this wonder, will appear vis ible in heaven."7 The object of this solemn appearance of Jesus, is to display to the world his greatness and his glory. Acts 1: 11, " He will come in the same manner as ye saw him ascend to heav en."8 Then the wicked who shall then be still living (1 Thess. 5: 3), and have, therefore never seen his invisible glory ; and those who shall have died, but had not been admitted to the presence of the Redeemer, and who through ages of futurity shall he banished from his blessed society (Matth. 25: 41) shall have at least an op portunity of seeing the glories9 of the Redeemer, and of being convinced of the dignity of his person by the view of his glory and that of those on whom he bestows his salvation. 2 Thess. 1: 10, when he shall come to be glorified among his saints and to be ad mired by all them that believe. 1 Thess. 3: 13. Heb. 11: 39. Col. 3: 4. And now, at least, they shall be compelled to acknowl edge and adore their Lord through whose merits (even though they had not heard of him) they might have been saved, or whose doc trine they rejected when preached to them, and whose person they refused to adore. 2 Thess. 1: 10, "at that time my declarations concerning your salvation will be confirmed in such a manner that no one can doubt them." Phil. 2: 10, 11, that at the name of Je sus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and those in earth, and those under the earth. Matth. 26: 64, " ye shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven," in allusion to his second 1 Acts 17: 31. 3 John 5: 28, all who are in the graves. Rev. 20: 12, 13. 3 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2 Cor. 5: 9. Acts 10: 42., 1 Pet. 4: 5. * Matth. 25: 31. 13: 41, 49. 16: 27. 2 Thess. 1: 7. Jude 14. 5 John 5: 27. Acts 17: 31. ' , CI Thess. 4: 16. 7 This interpretation is defended (in Dissert. I. in Lib. N.T. histor. p. 37.) on t!ie following grounds : a) In the parallel passages, Luke 21: 27. Mark 13: 16, we find, instead of " the sign of the Son of man" merely the Son of man;" and Matthew himself explains these words thus: "they shall see the Son of man." — b)Christ is called a miracle or wonder, orjptiov, in other passages also. Luke 11: 30, 29, 14 — 16, after many other wonders, orjpeia (Luke 21: 25) which shall be seen in the heaven (Matth. 24: 29), Christ himself, the greatest of all wonders, shall also appear." If oijpBiov were intended to mean miracles wrought by Christ, it would be orjptXa. The genitive in this case is genitive of apposition ; as is oTjpuov laoeojg in Acts 4: 22 ; and 1 Pet. 3; 4, o xgvmog rijf xagSiag av&gaimg" instead of xgimzog avftgomog, rj xagSia. 8 Heb. 9: 28. 9 Matt. 25: 31. Luke 9: 26. 2 Thess. 1: 7. 388 or man, [bk. in. coming. In this solemn manner, shall this honour which God has appointed him, be shown to Jesus and redound to the glory of God; Phil. 2: 9. John 5: 23. Heb. 2: 9, " the present power and do minion of Jesus, asures us of the future subjection of all things to him." In this solemn manner, will it then be demonstrated, that no individual was lost on ttccount of his natural depravity in which God suffered him to be born ; but that God in his mercy had pro vided a Redeemer for the fallen race of man, whose dignity and all sufficiency can then no longer be doubted, in view of the splendour of his appearance and the host of blessed spirits who are indebted to him for their salvation (2 Thess. 1: 10, 12. Col. 3: 4). And in this awful manner, will it be demonstrated that the wicked are the cause of their own condemnation, and owe their misery not to God but to themselves. But not only on Jesus and on God, will this scene reflect honour. It will be honourable in the highest degree1 to the saints ; for they shall be pronounced the beloved of Christ and of his father,3 in the presence of the angels3 and of the whole human family ; and shall actually receive all those blessings, the expectation of which exposed them to ridicule and contempt. 2 Thess. 1: 10. 1 Pet. 1: 9. , Christ's second coming is to be literally understood. — Those who deny that Christ will come visibly, to judge the world, do not all evade the natural meaning of the texts in question, in the same way.— I. Some assert, that "Jesus did not mean a visible advent. All his declarations, such as Matt. 25: 31, must be understood as meaning an invisible coming to promote his kingdom, or the triumph of Christianity over Judaism ; they are wholly figurative."4 In reference to a future retribution, they contend that " his doctrine is merely this : Our lot in the future life, depends on our obe dience or disobedience to the commands which Jesus gave us in the present life ; and a future life may be expected in which the pious followers of Jesus shall be eternally happy. This, however, was not the belief of the disciples of Jesus. They adhered to the com mon Jewish opinion of a visible advent of the Messiah. In refuta tion of these views, the reader may consult the Tiib. gel. Anzeig.5 Henke's Magazine,6 and Paulus' Commentary.7 The following are r \ 1,Plt'11:T7u5:o4-o2^im- 4: 8,V Rom' 2: 7- 10- 1 Cor- 4: 5- 2 Thess. 1: 12. Col. 3: 4. 1 John 3: 2. Opuscul. Vol. II. p. 102. a Matt. 40: 34. 3 Hike 12: 8. Rev. 3: 5. 20: 12, 15. 4 Eckermann's Theol. Beitrage, B. 2. St. 2. S. 209, 218. Ammon, on the Declarations of Jesus concerning his coming to judgment. New Theolog. Journal, Vol. 3. No. 3, p. 185. ' 5 For 1793. No. 58, p. 461. « Vol. II. No. 2, p. 393. Vol. V. No. 3, p. 53S. 7 Pt, tit. p. 380, 484. $ 65.] CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF OUR SALVATION. 389 the principal arguments against the figurative interpretation of the declarations of Jesus concerning his advent. — 1. 'lhe declarations of Jesus expressly assert a visible advent, and in the strongest terms. 1 — "2. His hearers could not well have understood him as meaning any thing else than a visible appearance. — 3. These declarations (such as Matt. 25: 31) were addressed to his disciples, and if they are to be interpreted figuratively, he ought certainly to have given them some intimation of it. — II. " The declarations of Jesus rela tive to his second coming cannot, indeed, without violence, be inter preted in a figurative manner ; but Jesus accommodated himself to the ideas of the Messiah, entertained by his contemporaries, only correcting them in some respects." This opinion is maintained by the author of a Historico-critical Dissertation on the- declarations of Jesus concerning the Messiah's kingdom. It is refuted in § 13, 111. 2. — III. " Jesus himself was somewhat attached to the erroneous ideas of his contemporaries, relative to the nature of the Messiah's kingdom ; and in his declarations concerning his second coming and the circumstances connected with it, he was indeed sincere, and uttered the sentiments of his heart; but in these matters he cannot be our guide." This opinion is refuted by the evidences of the un limited authority of Jesus which are considered in $$ 6 — 8. VIII. Eph. 1: 6, 7, he hath made us accepted, [ixagltmatv be stowed his grace upon us] through the beloved (Christ,) by whom we have redemption, through his(Christ's)blood. Rom. 3: 24. 5: 1 , 2. IX. 1 Cor. 15: 21. Rom. 5: 1, 11—19, 21. Compare $ 59. X. 1 Cor. 15: 48> etc, as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall bear the image of the heavenly also. SECTION LXVI. The salvation purchased by Christ, is intended for all men. The purpose of God, not to consign men to punishment,(l) but to bestow salvation on theth through Christ, is just as universal as is that mortality which is derived from Adam (Rom. 5: 12 — 19.) Accordingly, God intended salvation through Christ,, deliverance from the innate depravity of our nature and the evils connected with it (such as the terrors of death, § 60 — 64,) not only for a few indi viduals or nations, but for the entire mass of mankind,(2) not ex cepting even those who had died before the advent of Christ.(3) 390 OF MAN. [BK. III. Illustrations. I. 1 Thess. 5: 9, God hath not appointed us to wrath, but. to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. " II. Cihrist tasted death for every man ; the atonement is gener al.— In the passages, Matt. 26: 28. 20: 28. Heb. 9: 28. Rom. 5: 15 — the word noXXol many, does not presuppose another part of the human family to whom the declaration contained in those pas sages, cannot be applied. But the object of this word, is, to re move a limitation of the declaration to a {ew, or to any particular people ; such as was the limitation of the Old Covenant to a single nation, in opposition to the New. Math. 26: 28. Heb. 9: 15, 18. 8: 6. That this is here the signification of the word many, is evi dent from other prssages, in which "all" is used instead ofit (Rom. 5: 15, 19); as is the case in v. 18, fig ndvtag dv>dnovg tig Sixaita- aiv £uirjg (even so, by the righteousness of one, came) unto all men justification of life. 1 Tim. 2: 1 — 6, who (God our Saviour) will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 4: 10, for therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, be cause we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men and especially of them that believe. Tit. 2: 11, for the grace of God that bringeth salvation (i. e. the saving grace of God) hath appear ed unto all men. 2 Cor. 5: 15, and that he (Christ) died for all. v. 19, God, through Christ, reconciled the world unto himself. 1 John 2: 2, and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world. John 6: 51, I am the living bread, which came down from heaven ; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever ; and the bread which I shall give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 3: 16, for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that every one who believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. 1: 29, the next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Be hold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. — Heb. 2: 9, but we see Jesus, who was, for a little while, put lower than the angels, who for the suffering of death, was crowned with glory and honour, that according to the gracious purpose of Godj he might taste death for alUmen. III. The atonement was made for those also who died before the death of Christ. — This is evident from the universality of the atonement, which is equal to the universality of death and all the miseries entailed on us by Adam. Rom. 5: 18, 19. comp. v. 12— 14. Hence it is certain, that by " the sins that are past" (Rom. 3: 25,) and " the transgressions under the first Covenant (Heb. 9: 15,) are meant, not only the sins of persons then living, but in $ 66.] SALVATION PURCHASED FOR ALL. 391 general the sins of those who had lived before that time.1 The same doctrine is taught also in Heb. 9: 25, 26, " Christ was not under the necessity of offering himself frequently since the begin ning of the world, or of bringing a particular offering for every age ; but now, once for all, he hath appeared at the end of the world, to offer himself a sacrifice, that the punishment of sin might be remov ed." God, in his goodness and mercy, bestowed pardon and sal vation on those righteous also, who died before the time of Christ's sufferings ; but their judicial or legal liberation from the punishment of sin, and their legal admission to the eternal inheritance, they did not receive until after the death of Jesus.2 To this subject refers also the passage 1 Pet. 3: 18 — 20,3 in reference to which we re- 1 See the work on the Object of the death of Christ, p. 562 — 567. 2 Tho work on the Object of the death of Jesus, p. 562 — 567. [3 Of this very difficult passage, we shall give the views of several eminent critics, and leave the reader to make his own choice. Tho first is that of the learned and pious Hebrew scholar, Schoettgen, who, regarding the phrase nogcv&ilg ixijgvt-iv as a Hebraism (similar to ^i^n Vi"Ol— by the LXX, 2 Sam. 5: lo, xal Sisnogcveto AafilS itogivop&vog xal psyaXv'voptvog ,-) iivai'para as meaning men in general ; qivXaxf/ as referring to civil oppression and servitude to Satan; and placing a. period alter djrsi&tjoaoi ; and reading ozi, with the Ge neva edition, Erasmus, and others ; gives the following sense : " For, it is better if such be tho wiil of Godjthat ye suffer for well doing than for evil doing. For Christ also once suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in his human nature, but made alive in his divine, in which he continued (by his apostles) to preach unto the enslaved and unbe lieving minds of men. For, once before, in the times of Noah, God waited with longsuffering, for^he repentance of men, while the ark was building, in which (as they did not repent) only a few, namely, eight souls, were saved from the water. But, now there is a different kind of flood, namely, baptism, (which does not destroy us, but) which saves us (and which is not the putting, away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the res urrection of Jesus Christ."— Another version is this : " For it is better, if it be the will of God, that ye suffer for well doing than for evil doing ; for Christ also once suffered for'our sins, the just for the unjust, thathe might bring uS to God, being put to death in tho flesh (i. e. his human nature,) but raised (in spirit, with a spiritual body.) in glory, in which he went and proclaimed (his death and glorious resurrection) to those ransomed spirits in the days of Noah, who were at first incredulous for a while, whilst the longsuffering of the Lord delayed (the punishment,) during the time the ark Was building, (but who afterward, when they saw the waters rising, repented before they were drowned,) in which, few, that "is, eight persons were saved from the water. In like manner, now also it (water) saves us in baptism, which resembles it (the flood.) and is not the mere washing away of the filth of the flesh, but access to God with a good con science through the resurrection, of Christ." This is, in substance, the interpre tation of Dr. Storr; and for the grounds on which it rests, the reader is referred to his invaluable work on the Object of the atonement. But both these versions deviate considerably from the common acceptation of some of the words in the original. A version which should be better supported by usage and accord equally well with the context, would be preferable. Such the following appears to be : " For it is better) if such be the will of G°d, that ye suffer for well doing than for evil doing ; for Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in' the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went to make proclamation to the spirits in the 392 OF MAN. [BK. III. mark, that Jesus would not have gone to announce the joyful news (4: 6, tvr/yyfXia{ft]) of his death and glorious resurrection, to those ransomed (iv qvXaxtj) spirits (who repented after the deluge had be gun, before they were drowned,) if they were not interested in these events, if they had not belonged to those dSlxoig unjust (v. 18) for whom he died. SECTION LXVII. Though salvation is provided for all, some do not attain it. But it does not follow that all men actually attain this salvation (¦§ 58, 65.) For, though God, in mercy, made provision that the depravity and misery to which mankind were, without their fault subjected, should not of itself, prove a permanent injury to any in dividual ; nevertheless, his justice required, that, though the bles sings of salvation were provided without distinction for all, even for those(l) who through their own fault fail ultimately to attain them; (2) no one should actually obtain possession of them who had con tinued, until the hour of death, until the time of actual admission to the enjoyment of the heavenly blessings purchased by Christ, to be unfaithful in the use of those talents which, notwithstanding the universal weakness of men, were still entrusted to him.(3) Still, by virtue of the same love which prompted God to provide salva tion for all men, he wills that no one may be found guilty of un faithfulness. (4) Illustrations. I. That Christ died for those also who shall be lost, is taught in 1 Thess. 5: 9 etc. comp. 3: 5, where Paul presupposes it as possi ble that his exertions might prove fruitless. Matt. 18: 11 — 14, even so it is not the will of your heavenly Father, that one of these place of keeping, who were formerly incredulous, when the long suffering ofthe Lord waited, in the days of Noah, and while the ark was preparing, in which few, that is, eight persons, were saved by water ; by which now we also are sa ved, in the antitype, baptism, which is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but access to God, with a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. S.J $67.] SALVATION NOT ATTAINED BY ALL. 393 little ones should perish see v. 6. etc. Rom. 14: 15, but if thy brother be grieved on account of the meat, thou dost no longer walk according to love. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 1 Cor. 8: 11, and through thy knowledge the weak brother shall perish, for whom Christ died. 2 Pet. 2: 1, bat there were false prophets, also, among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who introduce destructive sects, and deny the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Pet. 1: 9. Luke 22: 19. Here Jesus does not ex clude the traitor (v. 21) who was lost (v. 22,) from the number of those for whom he offered his body and shed his blood. If the conditions of pardon and salvation are hot fulfilled by men, the uni versality of the pardon itself is not thereby destroyed. Thus, should the son of a king intercede for a body of criminals, and ob tain a pardon for them ; if the pardon is procured for them all, and offered to them all, on certain conditions to be performed by them, the pardon is universal, whether they all avail themselves of the benefits of it or not. II. The wicked are lost because they refuse to accept salvation. — Rom. 1: 18, the wrath of God is revealed, v. 19, because that which may be known of God [a knowledge of God] is manifest in them. v^20, that they may be without excuse. 9:32. 10:16, they have not all obeyed the glad tidings, v. 21 , all the day long have I extended my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people. Acts 13: 46, ye judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life. 2 Thess. 2: 10, they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (Comp. v. 12) Matt. 23: 37, O Jerusalem, Je rusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee,, how often would I have gathered thy children to gether, and ye would not. Luke 19: 44, thou knewest not the time of thy (probationary) visitation, iniaxonrjg. 7: 30, the Phari- ~) sees and lawyers, by not being baptized by him, frustrated the coun sel of God concerning themselves. Ill; Luke 16:10. 19:13,15,17,26. Matt. 25: 19, 21, 23, 26, 29. 1 Cor. 4: 2, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful. IV. Ezek. 18: 23, " should I take delight in the misery of the v/icked (says Jehovah,) and not much rather wish that he should turn from his ways and live ?" comp. v. 32. 33: 11. Luke 14: 21. Rom, 2: 4, the goodness of God leadeth you to repentance. 9: 22, ijvtyxtv iv noXXij puxpo&vpia axtvt] ogyrjg xatrjgtiOpiva iig anuXetav " God had borne those who had been already ripe for' punishment, with much longsuffering (in order that they might reform.") 1 Tim. 2: 4, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the 50 394 OF MAN. [BK. III. knowledge of the truth. 2 Pet. 3: 9, the Lord does not delay the promise (as some account it a delay,) but he is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, hut that all should come to repentance. SECTION LXVIII. Little children also are saved for Christ's sake. According to this purpose of the divine will those who die in in fancy, and to whom the title to heaven purchased by Christ, be longs no less than mortality (Rom. 5: 12, 18, 15), will undoubted ly obtain this salvation. (1) For, unlike the wicked (Luke 16: 10), they have not lost their right by disobedience. Nor will that natu ral depravity be laid to their charge, by which they were deprived alike of life and of opportunity to evince their faithfulness in the use of their talents in this life. (2) Illustrations. I. Mark 10: 14, 15, ttZv yag totovzmv (naiSltav) iatlv rj /?«<»- Xtlatod &eov for of such is the kingdom of God. Children must have been included in the word " such," because the proposition " the kingdom of God belongs to humble adults, to such as have as little pride and arrogance as children," would be no reason (ydg) why children should not be prevented. from coming to Jesus.— Children partake of the pardon and salvation purchased by Christ, as well as adults, only in a measure commensurate with their smal ler capacity. II. Depravity of Children.— Even the smallest child is not an undepraved creature of God. It is at least unworthy of being trans ferred into the society of the citizens of heaven. Its mortality is a part of the punishment of Adam's sin, in which all mankind partici pate. The remamderof this punishment is remitted. The child is, alter death, treated as though it were an undepraved creature of $ 69.] ATONEMENT EXTENDS TO CHILDREN. 395 God, as though it were not under the curse of the law. It is re ceived into the society of the holy angels.1 SECTION LXIX. Faithful obedience to the dictates of conscience is, in adults, the condition of participation in the salvation purchased by Christ. The condition, on which adults or those who have attained the use of reason, obtain the salvation purchased by Christ,(l) is faith- ful(2) obedience to the voice of conscience. (Rom. 2: 12 — 15.) Conscience urges them to reverence for an invisible Judge, whose being and attributes they can learn(3) from his visible works, with a clearness proportionate to the degree in which they cherish and obey her monitions. These are moreover, occasionally, in the providence of God, excited to the highest degree of sensibility by external circumstances, such as blessings(4) or misfortunes(5) of unusual magnitude. Illustrations. I. To these, for example, belongs Enoch. Heb. 11: 5, 'Evoi% pittzi&r/, zov pr] iSdv Qdvazov Enoch was taken away from the earth to enjoy eternal salvation," see $ 65.2 II. Heb. 11: 5, God took Enoch away, because he had long before been his faithful and beloved servant, ptpagtvgtjtai iurigta- tr/xivandi&id). The approbatory sentence relative to Enoch, that " he gained the approbation of God and served him inN ^V.nnn given him in v. 22, is repeated at the mention of his being taken away (Gen. ch. 5.) According to Heb. 11:6, Enoch also expect ed a future retribution. " Those also who lived before Christ, (or since that time,) and yet knew nothing of a Redeemer, will doubt less partake of that salvation purchased for every individual of the human family, if they have only cherished a faith in God as far as On tniS SUDje^v, hijo nicuiugi..! x^ibou. i.ui,iui. ui i^i. i.ixu, salvation of christian and pagan infants demonstrated ; Lib. III. cap. II. § XXIV. p. 591. S.] 2 See Storr's Commentary on the Heb. in loc. Notes m, and n. 396 OF MAN. [BK. III. their circumstances rendered it possible, and acted in obedience to the dictates of this faith. Nor will the fact that they knew nothing of this atonement prevent its application to them." III. Rom. 1: 19—21. Acts 14: 17. Ps. 19: 2—4. IV. Rom. 2: 3. Job 33: 18, 25. V. Luke 15: 14 — 17, (parable of the prodigal son,) compare Job 33: 19 etc. SECTION LXX. Provisions of God for the promulgation of saving truth among men. ¦ God, from the beginning, promoted the dissemination of saving truth by various special instructions and institutions.(l) After ward, for wise purposes, (2) he confined the immediate and most dis tinct revelations nf his will to the people of Israel(3) only. (4) But even this limited arrangement was frequently the means of diffusing religious knowledge among other nations. (5) Its principal object was, to promote the welfare of the whole human family, (6) and to pave the way(7) for the doctrines of Christianity, which were in tended indiscriminately for all nations. (8) Illustrations. I. See <§> 19. 111. 3. Reuss' Opusc. fasc. II. p. 115 etc; and Zacharias' Biblische Theologie, § 213. Pt. IV. p. 5 etc. II. Superstition and irreligion would, even among the descen dants of Abraham, soon have suppressed the knowledge of God and his promises, or at least prevented their dissemination. For they only, too often manifested their inclination to an imitation of the Heathen. But God, who wished his revelations to be preserved for therbenefit of posterity, prevented this, by giving them the Mo saic law, a peculiar government, which prevented their amalgama tion with other nations. III. On the subject of the knowledge possessed by the Israelites before the time of Christ, see the work On the object of the death of Christ, and the Commentary on Hebrews. In the former pas sage, it is shown how the attentive and virtuous Jew could be in structed, by the laws concerning sacrifices, which referred only to § 70.] GOSPEL INTENDED FOR ALL NATIONS. 397 his restoration to temporal advantages among his nation, to seek refuge in the undeserved mercy of God, in order to obtain peace of conscience in reference to his future destiny, or to excite in him the expectation of another, better, and more efficacious scheme of mer cy in the invisible world. IV. Ephes. 2: 14, " Jesus took away the law, which was a wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles," ptadtoixov. Col. 2: 14. V. See the works cited in 111. 1. Occasionally, some of the adjoining nations, also, were instructed by teachers sent specially to them, e. g. the inhabitants of Nineveh, by the prophet Jonah, Matt. 12: 41, compare Zacharias sup. cit. p. 30", 41. VI. Gen. 12: 3, and 22: 18, through you — through your de scendants — all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. See Hess, on the kingdom of God, sect. 21 ; On the people of Israel viewed in connexion with the human family ; Connexion between the pre paratory and the main institutions of God, Pt.,11. p. 5. VII. The Mosaic religion was preparatory to the Christian. — Gal. 3: 19 — 24, 6 vopog naiSayuydg rjpmv yiyovev tig Xgiazdv the law was our pedagogue tp lead us to Christ. 4: 1 — 3. The written mosaic law of God, placed the depravity of man in a clear er light, by expressly declaring the wickedness of immoral actions, and by preparing the Jews for a more grateful reception of the gra cious dispensation of Christ, inasmuch as they saw that the laws of Moses could not urge them to the fulfilment of their duties. VIII. The christian religion was intended for all nations. — Matt. 28: 19, go ye, therefore, make disciples of all nations, bap tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 24: 14, this Gospel of the kingdom, shall be preach ed in the whole world. Luke 24: 47, and that repentance and re mission of sins should be preached in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. John 10: 16, and other sheep 1 have which are not of this fold : them also I must bring — and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. Acts 17: 30, God now commandeth all men every where, to repent. 1 Tim. 2: 4, who (God) will have all men to come to a knowledge of the truth. Rom. 1: 5, from whom we have received grace and the apostleship for the dissemination of the faith among, all nations for his name see v. 14. 10: 18, their sound (of those preaching the glad tidings of peace) went through all the earth, v. 15. 9: 24. Eph. 1: 9 — 13, rjptv to us, Jews, vp7v to you, Gentiles. %: 3, he hath purposed — to gather together into one all things in Christ. 3: 6 — 9, that all might see. Col. 1: 5, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel, which is come unto you as it is in all the world. 1: 23, the Gospel, 398 OF MAN. [BK. III. which has been preached to the whole creation under heaven, v. 28, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. Mark 16: 15, go ye ipto all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. SECTION LXXI. Salvation may for Christ's sake, be extended to those also who are not acquainted with Revelation. The reasons why, before the time of Christ, (1) as well as since his resurrection, so many nations were not favoured with that reve lation^) which was given to the Jews and also to other nations af ter the ascension of the Redeemer, are as little known tb us, as the reasons of many other things(3) which are under the guidance of divine Providence (Rom. 11: 33) (4.) But this we know, that only from him shall much be required, to whom much has beea en trusted ;(5) and that to entertain a different opinion concerning the dealings of God, would be irreverent.(6) Hence we know that those who have enjoyed but few means and helps(7) to piety and virtue, though they will not, if disobedient, escape punishment(8) shall be " beaten with fewer stripes"(9) than those who had been favoured with more and better means of grace and incitements to piety, and who yet neglected them ; and on the contrary, that those who have been faithful in little, will hereafter partake(lO) of the greater blessings purchased for them also by the Saviour, in a de gree commensurate with the qualifications which they have here at tained. (11) Illustrations. I. Deut. 4: 7, where is there a great people, to whom the Lord gives such revelations of himself as to the people of Israel ? Ps. 147: 20, thus has he done to no other people — the other nations know not his laws. Acts 14: 16, in times past he suffered all the heathen to go their own way. II. Nature of the Gospel call. — Those who have not become acquainted with the revelation, are not among the xXvtol or called. For those who are " called," are those who, through the instrumen- $ 71.] SALVATION OFFERED TO ALL. 399 tality of some means of instruction appointed by God, are invited to salvation, and to a course of thinking and acting worthy of such a calling. 2 Thess. 2: 13, God hath, from the beginning chosen yon tosalvation — whereunto he called you by his own Gospel. 1 Thess. 2: 12, God who called you to glory in Christ Jesus. 1 Pet. 5: 10. 1 Tim. 6: 13, called to eternal life. Phil. 3: 14, I press toward the mark for the prize whereunto God from on high has called me in Christ Jesus. Eph. 4: 4, ye are called in one hope of your call ing. Eph, 4: 1. 1 Thess. 2: 12, that you would walk worthy of God, who called you unto his kingdom and glory. Luke 5: 32, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Nor does the reality of the call, depend upon the fact whether they ac cept or reject it. For many are denominated " the called, xtxXn- pt'vot (Luke 14: 16, 24, 18—20. Matt. 22: 3, 8), who rejected the call : and in other passages (1 Cor. 2: 24. comp. v. 13,) this appellation is given to those who accept the doctrines of Christian ity, in contradistinction from unbelieving Jews and Pagans. Some of the called embraced the doctrines of Christianity with sincerity, and applied them to the advancement of the salvation oftheir souls,1 thus becoming genuine members of the people of God, of that "peo ple who love their God, and may receive eternal salvation from him. Rom. 8: 28, 30, whom he called — he glorified. 1 Pet. 2: 9, t&vog dytov, Xadg eig ntginoir/aiv — tov xaXiaavtog vpag the holy nation, the people of his (God's) property [owned by God ] that ye should show forth the praises of him who called you.1 Comp. Rom. 11: 29. Is. 48: 12, where xXr/aig is applied to the reception of the Israelites as the people of God. And some of the " called," on the other hand, merely gives the christian doctrines an external recep tion, and are outwardly attached to the true people of God ; for we are expressly told, that many are called, but. that few only are chos en. III. God makes men to differ in many things. — But the dif ference among men is not confined to the circumstance, that some are called in the sense defined in the preceding Illustration, and others not. There is a diversity in many other external circum stances, circumstances which exert an important influence on the improvement of the human mind. Their talents' are different, their education is different, the society to which they have access is differ ent, and different also are the peculiar providential circumstances which occur in their lives. IV. Nevertheless, God is just, and wise, and. good. — It is cer tain, that in the divine government of the world, there is no partiality. Acts 10: 34, then Peter opened his mouth and Said, Of a truth I 1 Rom. 9: 23, 24. 2 Tim. 1: 9. 1 Cor. 1- 7—9. 400 OF MAN. [BK. III. perceive that God is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation, he that feareth him and doth what is right, is accepted of him. — Rom. 3: 29. 1 Tim. 2: 4—6. Col. 3: 11. And it is certain, not only that the omniscient and wise1 Governor of the world, who alone has a perfect knowledge of the situation of every individual and of mankind at large, chose the most suitable time for the ap pearance of Christ ; but also that he determines with inscrutable wisdom the particular periods in which the knowledge of the truth is diffused over the different nations of the earth in greater abun dance. Tit. 1: 3, he manifested his word in due times. 1 Tim. 2: 6, who gave himself to be a ransom for all ; to be published in due time. Gal. 4: 4, when the fulness of time was come, God sent his Son ott r'jX&e td nXrigoipa tov xgdyov when the time was fulfilled or had arrived, which was appointed of the Father (see v. 2.) comp. v. 2. Rom. 11:30— 34.2 V. Luke 12: 48, to whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required. That unbelief, dntazia which (according to John 3: 18, 36, Mark 16: 16,) subjects its possessor to the sentence of damnation, is not even possible with those who have never heard the Gospel. John 15: 22. Rom. 10: 14. And those passages themselves presuppose in the unbeliever an acquaintance with the Gospel. Comp. John 3: 19,32—34. Mark 16: 15. John 6: 40. 14: 21. 3 And in $ 74, it is proved that Rom. 8: 29 etc. does not exclude those who have not been called, from the hope of salvation. This remark, combined with Illustration X and §§ 69, 72, form a reply to the objection which has been urged to the christian religion : " that the ethical system of Jesus appears to de generate into a narrow particularism [sectarianism,] by teaching that we must first believe in Jesus himself, in order to become truly reformed and acceptable to God, and eternally happy." And it likewise affords an answer to the question " what are the prospects of those who have never had an opportunity to hear of Jesus. Are they incapable of any virtue truly acceptable to God ? And what is the situation of those who have indeed heard of Jesus, but have been unable, though sincere in their inquiries, to convince them selves of some of the doctrines which he taught, e. g. relative to his person ? Is faith in theoretical doctrines any thing of a meritorious nature ?" VI. Matt. 25: 24, thou wicked servant, thou kne west that I reap where I did not sow. VII. Internal divine influence. — It is not incredible (§ 37, 115) that the sensibility of conscience may also be awakened and render- ' Rom. 16: 27. comp. v. 25. 2 Oomp. Reuss' Opusc. Fasc. II, p. 151—160. 3 Object of the death of Jesus, p, 685. $ 71.] SALVATION OFFERED TO ALL. 401 ed more acute by the internal influence of the omnipresent God, upon the souls of those who are obedient to her first emotions ; as well as by the contemplation of the works of creation, and by the strong impression made upon them by some important occurrences in their lives (<§> 69.) And the feelings of gratitude to God,1 of reverence for him, of confidence in him, and of longing for him, can rise beyond the sphere of distinct knowledge : for the Spirit helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Rom. 8: 26. Nor is it at all unworthy the Redeemer of men (1 Tim: 2: 3,) to give additional knowledge by immediate communication to such conscientious (Acts 10: 35) individuals as have faithfully improved the knowledge possessed by them ; if such additional knowledge is necessary to the tranquillity of their minds and to their stability in the course of virtue and re ligion. Mark 4: 24, unto you that hear shall, more be given ; for he that hath, to him shall be given. An angel was sent to charge Cornelius to send for Peter Acts 10: 1 — 6. An angel directed Philip to go the way on which the Ethiopian eunuch met him (Acts 8: 26 etc. ;)2 and Naaman, the Syrian, became acquainted with the prophet Elisha, in a natural way, without the intervention of any thing miraculous.3 VIII. Rom. 2: 12, as many as sinned without the (written) law, shall also perish without the law. Comp. .<§> 17. 111. 1., IX. Luke 12: 47. Matt. 11.* 21—24. Compare <§, 58. 111. 6. X. Luke 16: 10. Rom. 2: 10, glory, honour and peace to every one that doeth good, to the Jew first and also to Greek. Comp. §§ 37, 115. Reussii opuscula sup. cit. p. 144 — 151. Hess' Bibliotheca of sacred history, p. 431. Roesler's System of doc trines held in the christian church during the first three centuries, <§> XLIII. XI. Rom. 2: 10. comp. § 63. III. 4. Mori. Epitome Theologiae Christianae, p. 128. " The Scriptures do indeed teach, that on those who become acquainted with Christianity, who embrace and practise it, God will bestow a very high degree of happiness ; but they inform us, also, that God will judge every man, with a just reference to his individual conduct and the knowledge which he possessed.4 l Acts 14: 17. Rom.l:21.2:4. 2 Reussii opusc. Theol: Fasc. II. p. 129, 139. Cless' Essay on the doctrinal! system of the New Test. p. 96. Acts 11 : 14. 3 2 Kings 5: 2 etc. Michaelis' Dog. p. 528. * Diss. II. in Apocal. quaedam loca, in cap. 21: 12. 51 402 OF MAN. [BK. III. SECTION LXXII. The salvation of those to whom a divine revelation was given, is suspended on their faithfulness in the use ofit. Those who enjoyed the favour of a divine Revelation, will be judged according to their fidelity in the use of this important aid.(l) For as a distinguished preference was given them(2) by the faith ful use of which they might have attained a higher grade of per fection, and thus also a higher degree of happiness (Rom. 2: 10 ;) there will be more required of them, and their unfaithfulness will entail on them a severer punishment. (3) Whoever, wilfully and without examination, rejects doctrines published to him by divine authority, or at least pays but little attention to them, is guilty of disobedience to the dictates of his conscience ($ 69,) and is there fore in point of faithfulness, inferior to the pagan who entertains a reverence for the Deity. (4) And as it is of the utmost importance to usy to whom the christian doctrines have been made known, that we make a proper use of them ; we shall, in the fifth Book, enter into the particulars of this subject. Illustrations. I. Rom. 2: 12, as many as have sinned under the law, shall be judged by the law. — John 12: 48, the doctrine, Xdyog whieh I have taught shall judge him in the last day. James 2: 12, so speak ye, and so do, as they who shall be judged by the law of liberty. — John 15: 22, 24. II. Although Cornelius had previously been " a devout man and one that feared God" (Acts 10: 2, 4, 35) his being made ac quainted with Christianity was nevertheless not unnecessary (Acts 11:14;) but the opportunity afforded him to become acquainted with it, was given as a reward of his piety (10: 4 etc. 31 etc. 34 etc.) It is represented as being an answer to his prayers (10: 4, 31,) as an evidence of the divine impartial approbation of him (v. 35,) and as a dispensation of divine providence to which he owed his salvation. Acts 11: 14, call for Simon Peter, who shall tell thee words by which thou and thy whole house shall be saved. III. Luke 12: 47. Matt. 10: 15. 11: 20—24. Comp. $ 58. 111. 6. § 73.] CONDITION OF SALVATION. 403 IV. Those to whom a divine revelation has been given, should ever remember that they owe certain duties to this revelation itself, as well as to that light of reason and conscience, which they have in common with the pagan world.1 SECTION LXXIII. Nevertheless the salvation of Christians cannot be merited by their obedience. But although the disobedient shall not be saved, and future bles sedness will be bestowed on the obedient in different degrees, pro portionate to their faithfulness in this life, and though it may thus far(I) be regarded as the reward of their faithfulness,(2 ;) still, for our salvation, as a whole, we are by no means indebted to our faith fulness.^) It is the gift of pure grace,(4) for which we are in debted to Christ(5) and to the divine mercy which provided for us a Saviour. (6) The future blessedness of children, who have not been capable of evincing faithfulness, can most certainly be derived from no other source than the free grace of God through Christ. — And upon the same foundatiop will every one rest his hopes, who compares impartially his own faithfulness with that future blessed ness which is provided for us. (7) For by salvation we do not mean any degree of happiness, howeyer small, which should be mingled with those forebodings naturally excited by our crimes ; but the remission of all our sins, combined with a freedom from all pain and the enjoyment of heavenly happiness. We speak not of a condition which differs but little from our present lot, but of such an exalted felicity, as men could not without the greatest presumption, expect on the ground of their own merits. (8) Who(9) that is but toler ably acquainted with himself, could presume, on account of the holiness and other moral excellences of his character, to lay claim to a union with the holy angels and with the holy Jesus ? Or who could presume to say that his character and conduct have been such that he could demand a glorious renovation of his soul and 1 Ueber den Zweck des Todes Jesu, p. 684. 404 OF MAN. [BK. III. body after death, and an admission into so glorious a residence as this earth will be after its transformation into " a new earth ?" § 61. Illustrations. 1. Salvation must ever be considered as the gift of the free grace and goodness of God. — When we inquire, who shall be par takers of it, and in what degree will it be bestowed on particular in dividuals ; we always presuppose that God has provided for sinful man, an undeserved happiness. The question, therefore, amounts only to this : On what conditions can we become partakers of this undeserved gift of God's grace ? It is certainly pure grace that af ter mankind had fallen so low, that, in consequence of their natural depravity, they either die in infancy before they are capable of fi delity in the discharge of their duties (§ 68), or if they attain the ordinary age of men, still never arrive at that degree of perfection which they would otherwise have attained ; God should still raise these fallen creatures to that elevation for which they were destined in their primitive State, and propose to their aim, a blessedness bearing no proportion to the ruined state of man. But although this des tination to so great a happiness is not dependent on the faithfulness of men, it is not inconsistent either with the law or with justice.1 For the degree of happiness which each individual rational being may attain, does riot depend merely on his fidelity, but on the pre vious free grace and goodness of the Creator, who has given to each one a particular measure of talents and means to aid him in his course of obedience; and who has appointed a kind of salva tion, adapted to these circumstances, the magnitude or the loss of which depends on the degree of their faithfulness or unfaithfulness. The only peculiarity in men, is that they were created anew by Christ and have again obtained so honourable a station in the world of spirits. We are said in Scripture to be created a new people through Christ Jesus and his death, in as far as we are indebted to Christ (Ephes. 1: 7) and his death, for our translation into the abodes of the bles sed spirits (2: 5 — 7,) or for our exalted destination to be members of the people of God. But men are also distinguished from the other spirits by these circumstances : they were not all created at the same time and placed in circumstances in which their will was altogether unrestrained; but one is begotten after another; this successive generation occasions the propagation of a depraved na ture and of the cpnsequences attendant on it. '*But to no class of 1 See Schmid's Moral Philosophy, p. 282, No. 2. § 73.] SALVATION PURELY BV GRACE. 405 sinful creatures was it so natural to expect that the righteousness of another should be imputed, as to man, whose situation was most en titled to commiseration, inasmuch as he had. been brought into it by the disobedience of another." Nevertheless the justice of God made provision that the disobedience of our first parents, by which their descendants were brought into so miserable a situation, should not be regarded as a trivial evil ; and that other disobedient persons might not make the grace of God an ostensible pretext to justify their levity. This end was effected by the plan of salvation which God established; namely, that the family of man, which had Jost its original perfections and advantages through the disobedience of one individual, should be restored in no other than a moral way (<§> 92 ;) i. e. by the obedience of an individual, who should also suffer the punishment of that apostasy which, by virtue of our nat ural connexion with our first parents, was entailed on us all, and thus liberate us from this punishment (§ 89 ;) and that now, since the human family is created anew, is restored to that state in which we sinful creatures, may hope to attain a felicity unmingled with pain, we are affected by precisely the same law, which governs spirits who have never fallen. And yet that the underived salva tion which God had through mere grace appointed for man, and which man had lost through the guilt of another, is refused at least to the disobedient, and is bestowed upon others according to the degrees of their faithfulness. §67. •On this subject the Reader may consult Rapp, On the moral spirings of action, especially those contained in Scripture ;l and Flatt's Remarks on the proportion between morality and happiness ; with a special reference to the christian, doctrine of the future hap piness of truly converted and reformed_ persons. In this latter work it is proved, that the unmerited happiness promised to Christians, is not inconsistent with an invariable proportion between morality and happiness.2 II. Our salvation is in Scripture sometimes also . represented as a reward. — Matt. 5: 12, rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward, ptaftds, in heaven. 16: 27, then he shall reward, dnodtdatt, every man according to his works. Luke 10: 28, and he (Jesus) said unto him (the lawyer,) Thou has answered right ;„ this do, and thou shalt live. 6: 35. comp. 10: 25. 2 Tim. 4: 7, 1 have fought the good fight etc. henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness^ 6 zfjg Sixaioavvrig aziqavog. Phil. 3: 14, 1 press toward the mark, for the prize whereunto God from on high hath called, through Christ Jesus. Col. 3: 24, knowing that of the Lordye shall receive the reward of the inheritance, for ye serve l Mailchart's Repertorium, B. II. S. 161. 2 Flatt's Mag. No. 2. Vol. 2. 406 OF MAN. [BK. III. the Lord Ctuist. Rom. 2: 6. 2 Cor. 5: 10. Eph. 6: 8. 1 Cor. 3: 8, every man shall receive his own reward according to his own la bour. 15: 58, therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, un7 moveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. Heb. 10:25. 2 John 8, be careful that we lose not those things which we have wrought ; but that we receive a full reward. III. Still salvation is not merited by our works. — Tit. 3: 5, but when the kindness and (philanthropy) benevolence of our Saviour, God, appeared, he saved us, not on account of works of righteous ness which we have done, but on account of his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Saviour. 2 Tim. 1: 9, who (God) hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not on account of our works, but on account of his own purpose and the grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Eph. 2: 8, for by grace ye are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God ; Rom. 4: 2^6. 3: 20 — 28. 9: 32, not of works. — Without works etc. — to him that worketh not etc. Gal. 2: 16, knowing that man is not justified by the deeds of the law. By works of the law, i'gya vdpov, is meant all that the whole Mosaic law prescribed : avtov (tov natgog) i'gyov, i. e. to i'gyov d i'Smxt poi d ndttjg " the work which the Father had imposed on me, or which the Father gave me to do." See John 17: 4. For we must not apply the new division of the Mosaic law into moral and ceremonial, to the discourse of the apostle. The ceremonial observances are of course excluded from the causes of salvation. But so also is the observance of the moral precepts of those Mosaic laws "(Rom. 2: 17 — 24,) the obligation of which was known before the Law was given to Moses (Rom. 4: 2 — 5, 9,) and which were obligatory on the heathen also (2: 14 — 20.) In short, when we speak of the ground or cause of our salvation, all human works and human merit of any kind, must be totally excluded ; for the cause of this salvation is to be sought entirely in the grace of God, not in what we have done, but in what he has done for us. — Rom. 3: 27, where then is boasting ? It is excluded. 4: 2 — 4. Eph. 2: 8, 9, that no man should boast. The important influence of the doctrine, that for salvation weare not indebted to our obedience, is discussed in the work on the Ob ject of the death of Christ, p. 381, 668. l This doctrine promotes an impartial conviction of our depraved state, which is calculated to urge us to reformation. It inspires us with gratitude and love to God, with courage, zeal, and a, willingness to advance still farther in 1 Zacharias' Biblical Theol. § 265. Pt. 4, p. 595. §i 73.] SALVATION REPRESENTED AS A REWARD. 407 holiness ; inasmuch as we have the confident hope of " so great salvation," which is not to be purchased by our own inconsiderable moral worth,, but is already provided for us by the grace of God. IV. Eph. 2: 5, 7, it is the gift of God. 2 Thess. 2: 16. Tit. 3: 7. Rom. 3: 24, being justified gratuitously by his grace. 11: 6. V. Rom. 3: 24, being justified gratuitously, by his grace, through the redemption by Christ Jesus. VI. 2 Tim. 1: 9. John 3: 16. 1 John 4: 9, in this was the love of God toward us manifested, because that God sent his Only be gotten Son into the world, that wa might live through him. Rom. 5: 8. Heb. 2: 9. $ 75. VII. The fundamental law of the divine government, is, " the man that fulfils the law, shall find salvation by it." Gal. 3: 12. — And according to this law, even the most holy individual of the sinful race of man, could cherish no expectation of the happiness enjoyed by angels, whose obedience in the faith, is untarnished by any criminal dispositions or actions. The utmost which he could expect, would be some low degree of happiness, mingled with pun ishment, and corresponding to the multitude of his, sins, and the magnitude of his imperfections,1 VIII. Eph. 2: 7, the exceeding riches of the grace of God. — Just as little as the repentance of the prodigal son, and the con fidence which he reposed in the paternal disposition of his father, gave him a right toclaim the displays of paternal favour which were made to him, just as little as he was by his own personal character strictly worthy of the reception given him by his father ^ so little do our repentance and refornlation give us a right to claim the reward which is destined for us, and which consists not only in an exemption from punishment, but also in the enjoyment of a state of glory in the world to come.2 IX. If we who have enjoyed all the means of grace, must con fess that we are unqualified for the society of the holy angels and of the Lord Jesus ; how much more must this be the case with those who have not been acquainted with divine revelation, and who have therefore been destitute of such means ! Their very imperfect re ligion does not correspond to the greatness of that salvation which shall be bestowed on them also, on the condition, indeed, of their obedience, but on account of the pure grace of God and Christ, and not for the sake of their imperfect righteousness. § 71. 1 On the Object of the death- of Christ, p. 672. 9 Ibid. p. 392. 408 OF MAN. [BK. III. SECTION LXXIV. God is not in any sense the cause of the ruin of those who are lost. That God, who from eternity (1 Pet. 1: 20) appointedChrist to be the Redeemer of the human family, undoubtedly foresaw the fall and misery of men, from which, in accordance with hjs eternal decree, he wished to deliver them. He also undoubtedly foresaw from eternity, what use each individual would make of the means of grace appointed for him, and which individuals would accept the offered salvation on the terms appointed by him (§ 67,) and which of them would reject it.(l) But the circumstance that God fore sees it, is not the cause(2) either of the unfaithfulness or the misery which he foresees. But he foresees it because it will actually take place, though it is contrary to his will, that it should (<§> 67 ;) and neither the one nor the other takes place because God foresaw it. Moreover, the object for which the law by which the disobedient are excluded from heaven was enacted, was not that those individ uals might be excluded from future happiness, but that they might attain salvation on the condition prescribed by" that law.(3) It is through their own fault, that they are lost, and not in consequence of any decree of God. (4) They will not be condemned because God decreed that they should not be saved on any condition ; but because they, through their own fault, did not perform that condi tion on which God resolved to save them. Illustrations. I. Foreknowledge and predestination. — Although God has not excluded any nation from the knowledge of Christianity, but in tended the christian doctrines for all without exception ($ 70 ;) they have, nevertheless, for wise purposes inscrutable to us, hither to remained Unknown to a portion of the human family. These reasons, however, were known to God from eternity. Hence, God knew, from eternity, which individuals would become acquainted with Christianity, and would embrace the Gospel, and also what particular persons would become acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity in consequence of their descent from christian parents. Of these, therefore, it is justly said, that God, from eternity, select- $ 74.] GOD WILLING TO SAVE ALL. 409 ed them for citizens of his kingdom, or for his people. Eph. 1: 4, according as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. Col. 1: 22, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight. Thus also, the Jewish people, in distinction from pa gan nations, was called " a holy people, an unreprovable seed." Book of the Wisdom of Solomon 10: 15, Xadg'daiog,antgpa dptpn- zov. 17:2, i'&vogdytov. 10:17. 18:1, 5, 9, datoi. 10:20. 18: 7, 20, Sixaioi just.1 But the church of Christ shall appear before her Lord, " holy and unblemished" in a much higher sense, than this in which it is. applied to the Jewish people.2 Thus, in the above sense, it may be said that God had long ago, even from eternity, ditidgxns? elected those persons, that they should obtain salvation through faith in the Gospel, iv nlatti dXrj&tlag, i. e. zov tvayytXiov ; and that he had called them by vir tue of his eternal purpose through the Gospel, or actually received them among his people. Eph. 1: 4, 11. 2 Tim. 1: 9. Rom. 8: 28. And certainly it is not an unimportant thought, that we are Christians according to the eternal purpose and plan of God. It is not by accident, but in consequence of the eternal plan of God, that we are Christians, xXrjzol called ; in other words, the offer of salva tion, made in the Gospel, is not brought to us by accident, so as to leave us in doubt whether it is specifically intended for us, but in consequence of the divine purpose formed in eternity. Long be fore the invitations of the Gospel were given to us, God foresaw that precisely we would become Christians or members of his peo ple. Rom. 8: 29, ngoiyvo) sc. ixXtxzovg. v. 28, ngoiyvto ixXtxzovg. Christians are, according to the predestination of God, chosen from the mass of mankind (ixXtxzol, comp-. John 15: 19) by the Holy Spirit, who has dedicated them to God by his instructions in the Gospel, -and by the gracious influences connected with it; in order that they might manifest their obedience to God, and consequently be sprinkled with the blood of the covenant, with the blood of Jesus Christ.4 And for those, concerning whom he foresaw that they would belong to his people, he appointed a glory like unto his Son's glory (Rom. 8: 29, ngooigiae avppdpqovg zrjg dxdvog tov vlov avtov,) and a participation in the happiness of his Son (v. 17 ;) in short, them he has actually predestined to that salvation to which the invitation is given in the Gospel. 2 Thess. 2: 13, 14. Comp. § 64. To those concerning whom he foresaw that they would be- l Comp. § 99. 111. 6. 2 Dissert, in Epist. Coloss. Note 42. 3 The expression an dgjrijg in general s\gn\f\es formerly. 1 John 2: 7, 24. Ps. 74: 2. LXX. Heb. bVtSki— also from eternity. 1 John 1: 1. 2: 13. Is. 43: 13. * On the Object of the death of Christ, p. 606, note. 52 410 of man. [bk. m. long to his people, he gave, in accordance with his gracious and benevolent purpose (iv dydnrj1 Eph. 1: 4,) the right to become children of God (v. 5,) and consequently possessors of the blessed ness of Christ (avyxXrigovdpoi Xgiazov Rom. 8: 17,)_to the glory of his grace (eig i'naivov trjgSd^-rjg trjg xdgitog avtov Eph. 1: 6.) As to the others, concerning whom God foresaw that they would not be among the xXrjtovg, the called or his people, the apostle here says nothing, either affirmatively or negatively ; but merely assures us that those who are called, are called in accordance with the saving purpose of God which had been long since formed. But God follows up the plans which he devised. Eph. 1:11. Accord ingly, just as he has been faithful to his purpose and has, in accor dance with it, given us the " call" to become Christians (Rom. 8: 30,) so also will he prosecute his plan still further, and leave noth ing undone, on his part, to accomplish that salvation which he has appointed for us (Rom. 8: 29. 2 Thess. 2: 13,) and to the accep tance of which he has invited us by the call to Christianity. Now, as this salvation is offered on condition of faith in the Gospel, God does every thing on his part, not only to excite (Rom. 8: 30) this faith, which is the condition of our justification (Sixaitoaig Rom. 3: 26, 28, 31,) but also to preserve and increase it (1 Pet. 1: 5. 2 Thess. 2: 16 ;) in order that he may be able actually to bestow this salvation on us, in the way which he has appointed (Rom. 8: 30.) In order that he may accomplish his beneficent plan, tvSoxlav ayu9oravvrig, God, on his part, takes such measures as are calculated to promote that faith in us, which is requisite to its accomplishment, and cooperates with thus, to make us worthy of our calling, d^tovv trjg xXrjatwg 2 Thess. 1: 11.' 3: 3. Phil. 1: 6. Nor have we any reason to fear, that God would be prevented from promoting, in an efficient manner, these purposes of his grace by any incidental ex ternal circumstances, or that his cooperating agency could be render ed impossible by any prior plan or arrangement of the world. For God, whose omnipotence is engaged in the accomplishment of our salvation, is superior to every obstacle which could present itself. — " And what is the exceeding greatness of his power toward us who believe2 — according to the power that worketh in us3 — who work- eth all things according to the counsel of his own will."4 And certainly his plan for our salvation is not of recent origin, was not formed later 1 Koppe, in his Nov. Test. p. 272, places the words iv dydnrj, not at the end of the 4th verse, but at the beginning of the 5th, and thus join's them to irgoog- ioag ij/iag. It accords better with the context to join these words to -&iog, as they relate to the blessings bestowed by God on Christians ; whereas aydm) would have to mean christian love, if the words are connected with the preceding verse. 9 Eph. 1: 19. 3 Eph. 3: 20. * Eph. 1: 11. Rom. S: 31. John 10: 28. § 74.] GOD WILLING TO SAVE ALL. 411 than his other purposes.1 On the contrary, he has, from eternity, so ordered, guided, and permitted every thing, that nothing can prevent the salvation appointed for us (Rom. 8: 1 7, 35 ;) and every thing that occurs, even the afflictions of life shall work together for our good (avvtgydv tig dya&dv sc. Sdl-av v. 28, 30.) Such is the nature of this plan, that nothing can prevent its accomplishment, unless, notwithstanding the most efficient aid of God, we are our selves negligent, and resist the influences of the divine Spirit, exerted for the sanctification of our hearts (dyiaapo) nvtvpatog 2 Thess. 2: 13,) and will not suffer ourselves to be brought to believe in the Gospel and to obey its injunctions (vnaxorjv 1 Pet. 1: 2,) if we do not receive the invitation to salvation with a becoming seri ousness,2 if we do not make a conscientious use of the blessings and means of grace given us, if, though according to the decree of God, we belong to those who are called, we do not love him or are not willing to persevere in the love of him, who in his gracious plan called us to so glorious a salvation. But the Scriptures do not encourage the inquisitive and timorous inquiry,3 whether we are among the number of those of the called who will persevere in the faith unto the end of their lives. For nothing is more certain than, that those only of the professors of Christianity, whose character at the end of their lives is such as the Gospel requires, will actually receive the salvation offered to them : and it is equally certain that God, from eternity, foreknew distinct ly what would be the character of each. We also shall know, when the event arrives, what God foresaw concerning us; and un til then it is enough for us to know, and of this we may be fully convinced, that it is the most sincere and'earnest will of God, actu ally to bestow the offered salvation on all those who are called ; and on the other hand, that it is necessary for us to use our utmost, and untiring exertions4 to accomplish this earnest will of God, in the at tainment of which he himself cooperates in the most active manner (2 Pet. 1: 3 ;) and that our exertions must be continued even after we belong to those of the called who have reformed (ixXtxtovg Matt. 22: 15. ,5) and after we have attained a distinguished grade among the pious (ixXtxtoi in the more specific sense,6) and have 1 Eph. 1:4. 2 Tim. 1: 9. 2 Thess. 2: 13. 2 Acts 13: 46. 2 Pet. 1: 10, " to obtain and to retain tho rights and privileges of the people of God, i. e. those obtained by justification." 3 Luke 13: 23. comp. Weismann's Schadiasm. Academ. p. 521. 4 Luke 13: 24, strive to enter through the strait gate. 1 Tim. 6: 12, fight tho good fight of faith. Compare v. 17—19. 2 Pet. 1: 5—10. Phil. 3: 12—14. 5 The ixXexroi (v. 14) are the dya&ol of (v. 10) those who accepted the invita tion. See Weismann's lnstitut. Theol. exeget. Dogm.p.676. « Matt. 20: 16, the ixXexrot—lhe ngukot.. 412 OF MAN. [BK. III. made much progress in the path of holiness. If we have not this conviction, we shall be in danger of being discouraged, or of falling into doubts as to our salvation, or of being indolent or indifferent, and thus, perhaps, not perform the condition on which our salvation is suspended. If we do submit to the condition on which alone God is willing to save us, and persevere unto the end, it will appear that God foresaw that we should continue in the faith and attain the promised salvation.1 But the reason why we fulfil or neglect to fulfil the condition appointed by God, is not because God foresaw that we would do so. II. Those passages of Scripture which appear to represent God as the author of evil, may in accordance with the usage of language, be explained as meaning merely that he did not hinder it, that he permitted it. See $ 39. 111. 4. and the Observv. p. 25 etc. In Dissert. II. in epist. ad Coloss. et Philem. Note 165, it is remark ed, that the words (Rom. 9: 15 — 18,) are doubtless the words of some Pharisaic opponent whom the apostle is addressing v. 19, and that the whole passage contains nothing more than the declaration that God abandons the perverse sinner to his perverseness and the consequences resulting from it. III. That the law which prescribes the condition of salvation is a just one, has been proved in $ 67, in connexion with <$> 24. IV. Let the reader consult Baumgarten Crusius' Plan of the kingdom of God, p. 39. In $ 39. 111. 4, it is shown why God, notwithstanding his love to us, still permits the unfaithfulness pf men. 1 In the language of systematic divinity, Praedestinatio stride sumta (Sartorii Compend. p. 195.) BOOK IV. OF JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER OF THE HU MAN FAMILY. PART I. OF THE PERSON AND DIFFERENT STATES OF THE REDEEMER. SECTION LXXV. Jesus is really and truly man, but was conceived in a miraculous manner. The Scriptures teach us, that the Saviour,(l) through whose instrumentality God (2) determined to redeem us (¦§> 65,) is really and truly man, (3) born of a ivoman,(4) and in so far was a descen dant of the ancestors(5) of Mary. (6) But, in order that he might be free from all depravity, he was conceived, not by a human fath er,^) but by the power of God exerted in Mary, his mother ;(8) and, even on this account, he is the Son of God(9) and not the son of an earthly father. Illustrations. I. The idea conveyed by the term Redeemer or Saviour [ototrjg,1] or salvation [atotrjgiov Luke 2: 30. Salus, per meton. for Auctor salutis,] is the same which is expressed by the name Jesus; and this name was given him by divine authority. Luke 1: 31, thou shalt call his name Jesus. 2: 21. comp. v. 11, amtrjg. Matt. 1: 21. 1 2 Tim. 1:10. Tit. 1: 4. 2:J3. 3: 6. In these passages Christ is called oonfig ijpav. 1 John 4: 14, otozyg.zov xoapov 2 Pet. 1: 11, 3, 18, aojzijg, without any addition. 414 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. II. God our Redeemer. — The whole work of our redemption is attributed to God as its ultimate Author, and God is called our Sa viour [atotrjg j1] because he produced the man Jesus by immediate creation, and placed hirn in an entirely peculiar union with the God head ; because God sent his Son ; because Christ did and still does every thing according to the will of God ; and because he was given us by God to be the Author of our salvation.2 That God did thus produce the man Jesus is evident from Heb. 2: 10, 11, He that reconciled and they that were reconciled are both descended from one, *£ ivdg ndvttg. God is their common au thor and Father. In reference to the phrase " Deus creavit homi- nem Jesum" " God created the man Jesus," Morus makes the fol lowing remark :3 " God created him, for he was unwilling that he should be born by procreation according to the ordinary course of nature. It may also be said that the omnipotence of God brought it about, that this man was born of a woman. But here we ought to stop. For who will venture to explain the mode, when any thing is said to be accomplished by divine power ?" That God sent his Son, and that Jesus did every thing according to the will of God, is taught in the following passages : Rom. 8: 3, for what the law could not do, in that it was weakened through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin) (i. e. an offering for sin) condemned sin in the flesh (i. e. punished it in Christ's body and thus destroyed it in ours.) 5: 5 — 8, God hath commended (proved, displayed) his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 1 John 4: 9— 11. John 3: 16, God gave his only begotten Son. 4: 34. 6: 38 — 40, I came down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 8: 29, the Father hath not left me alone, for I always do those things that please him. 10: 17 etc. 14: 31. Isaiah 53: 10, n-;*? iva n,irr ys^rt the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hands. Heb. 2: 9, 10, by the grace of God. III. John 5: 27. The son of man. Compare $ 65. 111. 7. John 8: 40, dv&gmnov man. 1 Tim. 2: 5, av>onog Xgtatdg 'friaovg, the man Christ Jesus. Rom. 5: 15, 19. 1 Cor. 15: 21. IV. Luke 1: 31, tiZyvldv thou shalt bring forth a son. 2: 5 etc. (the whole history of the birth of Jesus.) Gal. 4: 4, ytvdptvog in yvvaixdg, born of a woman. 1 1 Tim. 2: 3. 4: 10. Tit. 1: 3. 2: 10. 3: 4. 2 Luke 2: 30, to aon^giov oov " the salvation bestowed on thee (by God.") Psalm 119: 123, 166, 174, 5p-j»«ji. " the deliverer bestowed on us by thee." 3 " Creavit, noluit enim Deus, procreando eum exoriri, ut vulgo soboles nasci solet. Potest enim dici omnipotentia Dei effecit, ut hie homo e muliere nascere- tur. Hie subsistere debemus. Quis recte audet modum describere, ubi vi di vina ahquid effectum esse dicitur. Epit. Theol. Pt. IV. cap. II. § 3. Note 2. $ 75.] GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 415 V. Christ was the descendant of Mary's ancestors. Born of the seed of David according to the flesh — from whom (the fathers) Christ is descended according to the flesh, who is God over all bles sed forever. — From the fruit of his loins (David's) — And the Lord shah give unto him the throne of his father David — To thy (Abra ham's) seed which js Christ — -the son of David, the son of Abraham. Rom. 1: 3—9: 5.— Acts 13: 23. 2: 30.— Luke 1: 32.— Gal. 3: 16. — Matt. 1:1. In the Diss. I. in lib. N. T. hist. Not. 1, the sense of the title which Mattbew'(l: 1) prefixes to his genealogy (2—16) is expressed thus : " The genealogy of Jesus, whom I believe to be the Messiah (Xgtaroii,) and therefore a descendant of David and Abraham (as the Messiah is to be.") Matt. 22: 42. Acts 2: 30. 3: 25. VI. Luke 3: 31, 34, tov AufiiS tov ' A§gadp of David, of A- braham, to which vldg or son (in its widest sense descendant) must be supplied from the 23d verse. The genealogy of Luke (3: 23) is the genealogy of Mary ; and the words v. 23, 'Jijoovg div tog ivopi£tto vldg 'Jwarjq, agreeably to the meaning of the Evangelist signify : " he was the descendant (not of Joseph, which was a mere conjecture, but of Mary who subsequently was his wife, and there fore also of her father, i. e.) of Heii." The historian, in this extra ordinary case, simply says toff vopl&io as was supposed ; because it was something uncommon to derive the genealogy from the mother's side. VII. Supernatural conception of Jesus. — In the work on the Object of the Gospel of John,1 it is remarked that the genealogy in Matt. 1: 1, was probably derived from some unbelieving relative of Jesus ; for Matthew himself would not have expressed himself in the language used in v. 16: 6 Xtydptvog Xgtatdg, " who is called Christ." But even this unbelieving writer of the genealogy does not dispute the supernatural conception of Jesus, or even pretend to be ignorant of it ; which might have been expected if it had been written by a later unbeliever, after certain sayings had gone abroad. But (v. 16) he merely adduces an indirect relation between Jesus and Joseph. Another evidence that the writer of this genealogy did not regard Jesus as a mere man, may be derived from the structure of the genealogy itself. The evidence is this : The whole genealogy 1 p. 236. [In this passage of the work here referred to, the author states that this genealogical table was probably the family register kept in the family of Jesus; that Matthew, who belonged to that family himself, had there obtained it and inserted it in his Gospel; that the phrase " who is called Christ," suits only the time prior to his resurrection, and that probably one of the unbelieving brethren or relatives of Jesus (John 7: 5.) brought down this family register till the time of Jesus. S.] 416 OF THE REDEEMER. [bk. IV. is divided into three parts, each embracing fourteen generations. David is the last member of the first succession, and also . the first of the second. In like manner Josiah (v. 10. 11,) agreeably to this calculation, must be the last member of the second series and the first of the third. Thus Joseph is the 14th member of the third series, and consequently Jesus, the adopted son of Jo seph, is excluded from the series of generations. The query urged in Schmidt's Bibliothek fiir Kritik und Exe- gese,1 " What is the use of the genealogy of Matthew, which is to prove that Jesus is descended from the family of David, if Joseph, whose genealogical register is- carried back until to David, was not his real father ?" is answered by the remarks in the seventh Illus tration, as well as by the following observation :s " this genealogy, which as a family document Matthew prefixed to his Gospel, was also useful to prove that, even according to that hypothesis of the Jews, which he afterwards (v. 16, 18 etc.) proves to be false, Je sus would still be a descendant of David, because Joseph himself was also of that family." , The objections to the genuineness of the first two chapters of Mat thew, which have been urged principally by Stroth,3 are answered in the Dissert. II. in libros N. T. historicos.4 Other writings and dissertations for and against the genuineness of these two chapters, may be seen in H'anlein's Introduction to the N. T.5 To these are to be added the following later works, in which the genuineness of this portion of Holy Writ is vindicated : Griesbach's Epimetron ad Commentarium criticum in Graecum Matthaei textum, Jena, 1801 ; Hug's Introduction to the New Testament;6 and Siiskind, Symbo- larum ad illustranda quaedam evangeliorum loca.7 The following are the principal arguments for the genuineness of these chapters. — 1. The manuscripts are all in their favour, with the exception of only a few. — 2. The earliest fathers of the church were acquainted with them. They were evidently the ground work of the similar but more circumstantial narratives of the earliest history of Jesus, which were found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and we're transfer red out ofit into the Gospel which Justin used.8 It is evident that Celsus (to whose silence Stroth appeals) was acquainted with them, and specifically with the genealogy contained in the first chapter ;9 1 Vol. 1, p. 199, 403. 2 Ueber den Zweck Johannis. p. 237. 3 Interpolations of Matt, in Eichhorn's Repert. fUr bibl. and Mordent. Lit- teratur, Th. IX. S. 144. s * p. 11—14. comp. Ueber den Zweck Johannis, S. 271. Anmerk.* 5 Vol.11. Pt. II. p. 334 etc. 6 Vol. I. p. 179-195. 7 Pars 1, 1802, p. 3-9. 8 On the Object of John's Gospel, p. 272. Hug, sup. cit. p. 190—194. 9 Dissert. II. in lib. N. T. hist. p. 13. SOskind Dissert. § 76.] GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. 417 for he speaks of historians who trace the genealogy of Jesus from the first father of the human family and from Jewish kings (ytvtaXo- yijoavztg and zov ngtotov qvvtog xal ztov iv 'JovSaioig fiaoiXitov tov Jriaovv.1) By the former must be meant Luke, by the latter Matthew. That Celsus should pass over unnoticed, the apparent contradiction of the- genealogies of Matthew and Luke, is no more remarkable than that he should omit to mention many other things. — If Tatian, according to the testimony of Theodoret in his Mono- tessaron, omitted the genealogy of Matthew, it is certain that he also omitted that of Luke, and acted as a known heretic on doctrin al (systematic) grounds.3 — 3. The words Matt. 4: 13, 'J-rjoovg xa- zaXmtdv trjv Na£agt't Jesus leaving Nazareth, presuppose what is said in ch. 2: 23, he resided at Nazareth. The apparent inconsis tency between Matt. 2, and Luke 2: 39, compared with v. 22, is reconciled by Hug (sup. cit.) — 4. The reason why neither Mark nor Luke inserted any thing into their Gospels from the first two chapters of Matthew is, because they made no such extracts from any part of Matthew. — 5. In the I and II chapters of Matthew, we find quotations made from the O. Test, in the same manner as in the other parts of Matthew. Moreover, the want of a genealogy in Matthew's Gospel, which was written for Jewish Christians of Palestine, would be a deficiency in the work. On the conjecture, that Marcion's Gospel of Luke, in which the genealogy of Jesus and the account of his birth are wanting, is more probably the genu ine one than our own, see what has been said $ 2. 111. 8, where are adduced the proofs that Marcion adulterated the genuine Gospel of Luke. VIII. Luke 1: 34 — 37, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, Matt. 1: 18 — 20, that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. — It is stated in the Tiib. gel. Anzeig. (for 1801 p. 260,) that the expressions, power of the highest, the Holy Spirit, Svvaptg vxpiatov, nvtvpa dytov (ix nvtvpatog dyiov Matt. 1: 20,) always signify divine causation. IX. Luke 1: 35, Therefore also, that holy one who shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. SECTION LXXVI. The close union of the man Jesus with the Godhead. Another reason why the name " Son of God"(l) is given to the l{l. III. 3. 2 Diss. II. p. 12. Hug, p. 194, 53 418 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. man Jesus, is, because, according to the will of the Father, he is partaker of his divine perfections ;(2) inasmuch as the well beloved Son of the Father (John 1:18, 2,) who in consequence of his very close union with him, is himself God and the Creator and Preser ver of the universe, (3) has united himself to the man Jesus in a union so close, (4) that no other union like it is found between God and any other man, and indeed any other creature. Hence Jesus is also called the " only(6) Son of God,"(7) the most perfect im age of God, (8) to whom in reference to his close union with God, no person can be compared. Illustrations. 1. Several names of Christ. — In John 1: 14, Christ is called povoytvrjg only begotten, because he, this man [oag^7] was also, at the same time, the Xdyog Word, who was in the beginning with God and who was God (v. 1 — 3.) Compare 111. 5. infra. In like manner this man who shed his blood upon the cross, is called in Col. 1: 13, 6 vldg t-ijg dydnr\g tov &tov the Son of his love v. 15, tixtdv tov 42. IV. John 1: 14, d Xdyog adgg iyivezo the word became flesh. V. That man |Wp|] who dwelt with the apostles [ioxijvcoae v iv tip7v John 1: 14,] and personally taught them concerning God, is called *' the only Son of the Father [povoytvrjg nagd natgog, povoytvrjg viog,"] because the Xoyog, &tdg [God, the Word v. 1.] had become man, because he who had been with the Father [tig tdv xdknov tov natgog,] and who himself was God (v. 1. John 1: 2,) wished to become man and personally to give instruction con cerning God. VI. In the sense mentioned in § 75, Adam also might be called the Son of God (Luke 3: 38,) because he was begotten of no earth ly father, but created by God in a perfect state. VII. John 3: 16, 18. 1 John 4: 9, povoytvrjg vldg &tov the only begotten Son of the Father. Rom. 8: 32, 'iSiog vldg his own Son. VIII. John 14:7— 11. (comp. 8: 19. 12: 45.) Col. 1: 15. 2 Cor. 4: 4, dxoiv tov &tov the image of God. Heb. 1: 3, dnavyaapu Trie So£tjg xal yagaxirjg trjg vnootdatmg avtov (d-tov) i. q. dxrnv. " image of the glory and transcript of the being (essence) of God." See Schleusner, art dnavyaopa, and Wisdom 7: 26. SECTION LXXVII. More particular description of the union of Jesus with God. This union of Jesus with God is not a temporary or limited 1 De sensu voc. nXr)guipa,\ 10. a Commentary on the Hebrews, p. 8. 420 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. Iv- union, like that of other rational beings, such as the prophets (John 5: 26) (1) ; but so close is this union that according to the dec larations of the Holy Volume, the Logos, who is himself God, be came maa-fJohn 1: 1, 14,) and that the being who is God, is like wise man ;(2) and inversely, that the being who is man, is likewise God ;(3) that the Being who is eternal life,(4) who was with the Father,(5) became visible to men, in the form of a man 1 John I: 1. (6;) and that inversely he who lived amongst men as aman, could declare concerning himself, that he came from heaven, and had previously been in heaven. (7) Illustrations. 1. That the union between Christ and God is not of a limited or temporary nature, is the very proposition which John wished to prove in his Gospel and Epistles ; in opposition to Cerinthus, who maintained that the higher power or Christ did not unite himself with the man Jesus until the time of his baptism, and abandoned him again at the approach of his sufferings, and consequently that their union was neither close nor perpetual. That this was St. John's design we have proved in the work On the Design of John's Gos pel and Epistles.1 II. In the first chapter of Hebrews, it is said of him who is, in v. 8, addressed as -O-tog or God eyptoi at—d -tftdg SOT God anointed thee — thy God. III. He who is declared to have been ix ztov dSeXqdiv tov IlavXov td xatd adpxa of the brethren of Paul, i. e.of the Jews, according to the flesh, is called, in Rom, 9: 5, -Otdg tvXoyrjzdg tig zovg atoivag God over all, blessed forever. IV. In 1 John 5: 20, rj fbii} aitdvtog life eternal is a synony mous expression with -&tog God. V. The expression that Christ " was with the Father" refers to him not as man, but as God. John 1: 1. VI. 1 John 1: 2, we announce to you that eternal life, which was with the Father and appeared unto us. Thus also in 1 Cor. 2: 8, it is said, the Lord of glory (o r.vpiog zrjg Sd&g,) which was the character of Christ as God, (comp. -Otdg rijgSd£rjg, Acts 7: 2,) was crucified ; because this same Lord of glory simultaneously lived (among men as man. Still, the appellation " Lord of glory" might refer to the state of exaltation of the man Jesus (§ 78,) and the sense of the passage be this : " He (that man) who now is the su- i p. 181, 191,45, 498, On John 5: 26, see § 76. 111. 2. § 78.] HYPOSTATIC UNION. 421 preme Lord, whom God has raised to so high a dignity, was former ly crucified by men." Comp. Acts 3: 13. 2: 36. 2 Cor. 13: 4. VII. John. 3: 13,1 " he who came from heaven, the Son ofman who was in heaven." 6: 62, the Son of man ascending to where he was before. In 1 Cor. 15: 47, the second man is called the Lord from heaven. And in John 8: 58. 1: 15, 30, he who, as man, was younger than Abraham and John the Baptist, is repre sented as having had an existence prior to them both. " When divine attributes are ascribed to the Lord Jesus in the N. Testament (says Ernesti) the case is precisely the same as when predicates are affirmed of the whole man, wliich belong only to his soul, or only to his body."2 The communicatio idiomatum results from the communio naturarum, and the latter is a consequence of the unio personalis or hypostatica. SECTION LXXVIII. The exaltation of the man Jesus, presupposes his intimate union with the godhead. The perfection and dignity which are conferred(l) on the man Jesus by this union, are seen most clearly in his present state of exaltation. (2) For it would have been impossible that this man (3) could have been raised to so great an elevation ;(4) that the di vine government,(5) and divine honour(6) could have been confer red on him and he have been made Lord over all ;(7) nor could 1 The design of St. John's Gospel, p. 191. 2 [On the important subject of the union of the two natures of Christ in one person, which enters so deeply into the modus operandi of the atonement of tho blessed Redeemer for the sins of the world, the reader will be gratified by the following quotation from Dr. Woods' Letters to Unitarians, p. 104 : " We be lieve that all the dUine and human perfections, which the Scriptures ascribe to Christ, constitute but one person; and consequently that all his actions and suf ferings belong to him as one person ; much as all the actions and sufferings of any man, whether mental or corporeal, belong to him, as one man. It results from this view of the subject, that the value or significancy of any action or suffering in Christ must be according to the dignity or excellence of his whole character. Whether the action or suffering takes place particularly in one part or another of his complex person it is attributable to his whole person ; and it derives its peculiar character from the character of his whole person constitu ted as it is. The suffering of Christ was therefore of as high importance or val ue, in making an atonement, as if it could have been, and in reality had been, in the most proper sense, the suffering of the Divinity." See Reinhard's Dog matik, | 92—96. Mori Epitomen. Sartorii Comp. § 236. S] 422 OF THST REDEEMER. [BK. IV. " all power in heaven and on earth" have been transferred to him ; (8) if he were not(9) in so close a union with the Creator and Lord of all things, that he could, in exercising the government of the world, avail himself of the infinite perfections of the Logos, as his - own. Illustrations. I. " It is the Spirit, or that invisible Being, which had previous ly been with God in heaven, which maketh alive and giveth salva tion. John 6: 63, the flesh (the human nature without this Spirit) could profit nothing (toward giving life to the world.) In him dwell the entire divine perfections visibly." II. Christ the promised Messiah. — The exaltation of Jesus pla ced the entire signification of the name " Son of God," in a clear light. By this exaltation, Jesus was designated as the Son and Ruler over all vldg &eov iv Swdpti Rom. 1:4; he became like his Father in dominion and honour, and in this respect also was shown to be the most perfect image of his Father. Both in Acts 13: 32 and in Heb. 1: 4 etc. the words of the Psalmist (2: 7,) vldg pov tl av, iyto arjptpov ytyivvrixd at. " Now I have made thee mine image in reference to the actual dominion over all things." " now thou hast become my Son, xXrigovdpog ndvzaiv," are referred to the exaltation of Christ. And in as far as the title " Son of God" em braces the idea of the exaltation over all things, even over the an gels, so far Christ became Son of God only after he had accom plished the work of atonement.1 In the term <; Christ" [the Anointed rj^ra,] the idea of likeness to God in point of dominion is also included. This is evident even from the passage Psalm 2: 2, to which we are to trace the origin of the word Christ; in con nexion with v. 6, 7, " I have anointed thee my King — thou art my Son ; to day have 1 made thee such." At that time when Jesus became " Lord over all" the full import of this name was displayed (Acts 2: 36.) Precisely then when he was seated at the right hand of God, did it become most clearly evident that he was the Christ, the Son of God, see Matt. 26: 63, which verse shows the fallacy of the statement made in Schmidt's Bibliothek,2 that those passages of Matthew which he has in common with Mark and Luke, contain no evidence of the higher power and dignity of the Mes siah." (See Luke 22: 69. Mark 14: 62.) But Christ is not only Lord, but specifically the Christ, the Messiah, i. e. that very 1 Commentary on Hebrews, p. 9. 8 Vol. I. p. 63. In the Christology of Matthew. "§> 78.] JESUS THE F.XPECTED MESSIAH. 423 Lord Acts 2: 36. Luke 2: 1 1 , whom God had in general terms predicted by Moses as the future king. In John 5: 46, Jesus him self says — " Moses wrote of me ;" and Luke says, ch. 24: 27, 44, "and beginning at Moses, he expounded unto them the things con cerning himself," and " he said unto them, all things must be ful filled which are written in the law of Moses concerning me." And Paul (Acts 26: 22) addresses Agrippa thus : " Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue — saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. Rom. 3: 21.1 If the prophecy in Gen. 3: 15, refers, in general, to a pos terity 2*3? of the woman, which should achieve a victory over the serpent or Satan ; and if the predictions in 22: 18. 26: 4. 28: 14, refer, in general, to a posterity of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, through which all nations should be blessed : still the reference is to that particular individual who was subsequently announced as Christ.2 From the time of David, the Lord had predicted his coming by the prophets. Acts 2: 30. 13: 23, 22. Luke 1: 32. — Heb. 1: 5. Psalm 2: 7. 2 Sam. 7: 14. And he was really looked for as the person who " was promised" by the prophets. John 7: 42. 1: 46, we have found Jesus of whom Moses and the prophets did write Luke 2: 38, and spake to all them that looked for redemp tion in Israel. Matt. 11:3, 5, art thou he that should come, or shall we expect another ? Josephus tells us that the Jews had derived their expectation of a Messiah, from their sacred books ; and Taci tus says :3 an opinion was entertained by most persons, that accord ing to the writings of the priests, at this very time, the East would prevail, and that chieftains from Judea would acquire the govern ment of affairs. Jesus himself gives similar testimony. All things (says he) must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me. — How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be ? Luke 24: 27, 44—47, 18: 31. 22: 37. Matt. 26: 54. Mark 9: 12. And "after his resurrection Jesus himself explained to them the prophecies concerning him in the Old Testament. Luke 24: 45, 44. It is, therefore, on the authority of Jesus, that the apostles made such earnest and solemn declarations on this subject. God had before 1 Comment, de protevangelio. 2 In the Comment, on Heb. 10: 7, the words iv xctpaXtSi (lijiXiov yfyganzaij it is written in the volume of the book, are explained thus : " In the Mosaic writ ings, in as far as they treat of sacrifices, which were appointed as types of a fu ture propitiatory sacrifice. (Rom. 3: 21.") On the passage John 19: 36. see su pra, § 13. 111. 8. 3 Pluribus persuasio inerat^ antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tem pore, fore, ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judaea rerum potirentur. Histor. lib. V. § 13. See Diss, de notione regni coelestis, § 1. 424 OF THE REDEEMER. [bK. IV. announced by the mouth of all his prophets that Christ should suf fer — The spirit of Christ which was in them, testifed ' beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow — we an nounce unto you glad tidings, the promise which was made unto the fathers. Acts 3: 18. 1 Pet. 1:11. Acts 13: 23, 32. In Matt. 26: 63, Jesus solemnly declares before the sanhedrim, that he is the Christ, the promised Messiah ; and in v. 16, 17, he declares that Peter's conviction of his Messiahship was not a mere human opinion, but derived by instructions from God. In Luke 24: 25, he declar ed it foolishness to doubt, that, according to the prophets, the Christ must enter on his glory ; and in John 17: 3, the reception of Jesus, whom God sent as the Messiah, is declared to be eternal life. And in v. 20, 31, John declares that his chief design is to persuade his readers that Jesus is the Christ. See 1 John 2: 22. 1 Cor. 15: 1 — 4. Hence it is impossible, without offering violence to the authority of Jesus himself, to deny that the Old Testament contains prophecies and various prefigurations of him.1 Koppen remarks, " Jesus and his apostles very frequently declare that he is the promised Messiah ; but this necessarily includes the declara tion that the Old Testament speaks of Jesus as the Messiah."8 And Herder in his Letters on the Study of Theology,3 says, " the apostles and evangelists were certainly in earnest when they quoted the passages from the Old Testament and applied them to Christ ; they found him predicted every where in the Old Testament, and declared unhesitatingly that 'of him bear-all the prophets witness.' Jesus himself on several occasions refers all Scripture [the Old Test.] to himself, and thus regards the Old Test, in general as a witness for his cause. I cannot see how it is reasonably possible to pervert these passages, or to blunt their edge ; or especially, how any one can charge Jesus or his friends with a designed, ingenious accommodation of these passages, the very idea of which is repelled by their unlearned simplicity. On the eontrary," every difficulty is removed, when, agreeably to his open declarations, we receive him as the sum total, as the ultimate spiritual end of the whole Old Testament, and regard his kingdom as the promise given to the fathers, and developed by the prophets more or less remote, with more or less light and clearness." Hence we see the error of those who will admit of no real prophecies concerning Christ, in the Old Testament; and who either have recourse to the opinion that Jesus and his apostles ac- 1 § 13. III. 7—12. comp. Michaelis Dogmatik, § 122—128. Kleuker de nexu qualis constat inter utrumque divinae constilutionis foedus prophetico, p. 80. 2 Bible a work of divine wisdom, Pt. I, p. 235. 3 B. 18, 21, p. 303,349—352. $ 78.] EXALTATION Of JESUS. 425 commodated themselves to the erroneous ideas of their hearers when they spake of prophecies relative to the Messiah, or that they mere ly-intended to apply these passages of the Old Testament to the history and person of Jesus, and thereby meant nothing more than that these texts suited the particular events and the person of Jesus. This last hypothesis Eckermann has attempted to apply throughout the whole of the New Testament.1 III. In reference to his divine nature it is impossible that Christ could have been raised to a higher dignity, or be made Lord of the universe, and be seated at the right hand of God (Ephes. 1: 20.) The power over all things, could not then be first given him ; in short, he could not- then first be made Lord by the will and power of God. Acts 2:36. Heb. 1:4. On the contrary, we honour (Phil. 2: 11) and acknowledge the supreme dominion of God, when we really acknowledge as Lord the man whom the free purpose of God raised to that state.2 IV. Exaltation of Jesus. — Acts 2: 23. Phil. 2: 9, God hath highly exalted him — being exalted to the right hand of God. Heb. 7: 26, " who was exalted above heaven itself (and the most eleva ted inhabitants of it.") V. Eph. 1: 20, (God) set him on his right hand in heavenly places. To be " seated3 at the right hand of God," signifies, to be exalted on the throne4 of the supreme God ;5 to rule6 with God, to govern, to act, as God governs and acts. Compare Acts 2: 34, where the same passage from Psalm 110: 1, is adduced, with Acts 2: 36, where his being seated at the right hand of God is explained thus : " God hath made him both Lord and Christ." In the Comm. on Heb. 1: 3, note k, the signification of the phrase " sitting at the right hand of God," is more particularly explained ; and in the Dissert. De notione regni coelestis,- the meaning of the phrase " right hand" is given. See also Schleusner on the word Stgid, and Knapp's programma de Christo ad Dei dextram sedente, where parallel passages are adduced from other authors, and the reasons stated why this expression must be referred to the exaltation of the man Jesus. VI. Adoration of Jesus. — Phil. 2: 10, that at the name of Je sus every knee shall bow. This divine honour could not be paid to 1 Theol. Beitraege, Vol. I. No. 3. On the works relative to the prophecies of the Messiah, see Meyer's Hermeneutica of the Old Test. Pt. II, p. 468—502. 2 Commentary on the Hebrews, p. 9. Dissert, de notione regni coelestis, Note 71. On the Design of the Gospel of John, p. 458, 507. 3 Matt. 22: 42—44. comp. Psalm 110: 1. Col. 3: 1. 4 Rev. 3: 21. Heb. 12: 2. 8: 1. 5 Matt. 26: 64. Heb. 1: 3. 6 1 Cor. 15:25; in this passag«, the phrase, " sit at my right hand, until" (Psalm 110: 1. Heb. 1: 13,) is explained by Silavzav flaoihteiv. 54 426 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. Jesus if he were a mere man, and if God, to whom alone adoration belongs, were not united to him in a peculiar manner. See the work on the Design of the Gospel of John, p. 506 etc. The phrase xdpnztiv ydvv bend the knee, is applied to the worship of the one God, in Rom. 11:4. 14: 11. VII. Ephes. 1: 21. Phil. 2: 9, 11, wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those in heaven and those on earth, and those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 1 Cor. 15: 27, 28, he hath put all things under his feet. Heb. 1: 2, dv t&rixe xXrigovopov ndvzmv, whom -he constituted Lord over all things. Peter also calls Jesus Lord over all (Acts 10: 36,) and not only Lord over the human family, but Lord over all, in that comprehensive sense, which embraces angels and archangels within its sphere. Ephes. 1: 22, and hath put all things under his feet. Heb. 1: 4, he is as much superior to (greater than) the an gels, as the peculiar name (or dignity) which he hath obtained, is more excellent than theirs. VIII. Matt. 28: 18, all power is given unto me in heaven and on earth. The words " heaven and earth" cannot possibly mean the church collected from among Jews and Gentiles ; for of this sig nification the words can by no means admit (<§> 42.) But according to the usus loquendi of the language, they mean the world. This is also evident from those passages which clearly ascribe to Christ dominion not only over the Jews and Gentiles, but over the whole world, over the angels, and in short, over all things which God governs. God himself alone, who put all things under him, being excepted. Phil. 2: 10. Rev. 5: 13. Psalm 135. 1 Cor. 15: 27.— Moreover, in Ephes. 1: 22, the church is specifically mentioned as a part of the whole (v. 20 — 22,) over which Christ is placed as ruler. tStoxtv avzov vnig ndvta zrj ixxXr/aia, ijttg iati td otopa avtov "be appointed him to be Lord especially over the church, with which he stands in a peculiarly close union." Col. 1: 18. IX. John 17: 24, which (glory) thou (God the Father) gavest me, because thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. — Comp. <§> 42. Col. 1: 15 compared with v. 16, 18, 19. (<§> 76. 111. 1.) Rom. 1: 4, and powerfully evinced to be the Son of God, ac cording to the spirit of holiness, i. e. according to, or on account of the spirit of majesty, on account of that in Christ, which is invisible and supremely excellent.1 In the technical phraseology of system atic doctrinal theology, the subject of discussion in § 78, is termed genus axiomaticum communications idiomatum [§tXtloiaig,] and in- 1 Comment, on Hebrews 1: 2, Note/. § 79, 80.] EXALTATION OF JESUS. 427 eludes those propositions of Scripture in which divine attributes are predicated of the human nature of Christ. SECTION LXXIX. The design of the diversity of states in Jesus. The reason why Jesus did not obtain an exalted dignity imme diately after his union with the divine nature, is to be sought in the work which he was destined to accomplish on earth. In like man ner, the reason why he now makes full use of his exalted perfec tions, is to be sought in that higher destination which he is now fulfilling ; and which he could not fulfil without the full use of the perfections of his divine nature(<§> 78). But the divine nature of the man Jesus could, by virtue of his union with the Godhead, at any time have displayed itself in the most splendid manner, if such a display had not been inconsistent with the plan of God. And his higher, his divine nature, really was displayed as far as comported with the divine purposes (Phil. 2: 6. §§ 81, 82.) SECTION LXXX. Description of Jesus' state of humiliation. As it was necessary for the welfare of the human family (Pt. II. ch. I.,) that Jesus should live upon earth as a man perfectly like ourselves, (1) sin only excepted (§ 75,) that_ he should experience the afflictions of every kind to which man is subject, and even sub mit to a death of the most cruel nature ;(2) so also it was the will of God, that his Son should be placed in such a situation (Phil. 2: 7, 8) — that is, the higher nature, with which the man Jesus was most closely united, did not exert as great an influence on this man, as it might have done (Phil. 2: 6. ^ 79) and as it afterwards really did (<§> 78.) For example, his divine nature did not exert its pow er to elevate and extend the human knowledge(4) of Jesus, (who 428 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. was destined to pass through the state of childhood like other per sons,) to a degree which would not have comported with his child hood, or generally with the state in this world for which God had designed him. The divine nature forbore to exert any influence, by which the situation of Jesus would have been rendered more splendid than it was intended to be during that particular time ;(5) i. e. it did not produce, in and by the man Jesus, who was united to it, those effects which it now produces, and will hereafter produce. Illustrations. 1. Rom. 8: 3, for, what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the like ness of sinful flesh and on account of sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Heb. 4: 15, a high priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. II. Matt. 20: 28. Luke 24: 25, 46, thus it behooved Christ to suffer. 1 Pet. 1: 10. Heb. 2: 14—18. III. Rom. 8: 3. 1 John 4: 10. John 3: 16, " God appointed his Son unto death (sent him into the world for the purpose that he should die.") Gal. 4: 4, 5, " God sent his Son, as a man like unto us, that he might by his death purchase for us the right to become children of God, and to obtain future salvation." iy. Luke 2: 40, 52, and the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom — And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. Mark 13: 32, but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. V. Heb. 2: 9, but we see Jesus, who, for a little while, was put lower than the angels, who for the suffering of death was crowned with glory and honour that according to the gracious purpose of God, he might taste death for every man. SECTION LXXXI. Jesus voluntarily submitted to this state of humiliation. When we contemplate Jesus in respect to his human nature, we perceive that his obedience to God(l) and love to men(2) were so § 81.] THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST. 429 strong, that he very willingly engaged in the accomplishment of the benevolent purposes of God for the welfare of mankind, and betray ed no premature desire(3) for that greatness and dignity which his union with the divine nature authorized him subsequently to expect, and the possession of which was at least possible at an earlier date. (4) On the contrary, he voluntarily assumed an humble station, (5) conducting himself not as Lord but as a servant ;(6) nay, he even humbled himself beneath other persons, even such as were in the lowest temporal circumstances, and finally he endured the most excruciating sufferings, and submitted voluntarily to the most dis graceful death. (7) Illustrations. I. Christ's obedience to God. — Rom. 5: 19, by the obedience of one. John 6: 37 etc. I came down from heaven to do the will of him that sent me. Phil. 2: 8, having become obedient John 14: 31, as the Father gave commandment, even so I do. 18: 11. 10: 17. Matt. 26: 39, not as I will but as thou wilt. v. 42, thy will be done. Heb. 5: 8, though he was the Son (of God,) yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. 10: 7 — 9, lo — I come to do thy will, O God. II. His love to mankind. — Phil. 2: 4. 2 Cor. 8: 9, for ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich. Matt. 9: 11 — 13. Luke 9: 54, 56, the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Matt. 20: 26 — 28, the Son of man came to minister [to serve] and to give his life a ransom for many. John 10: 11 — 15, I lay down my life for the sheep. 15: 13. 1 John 3: 16. III. Christ's humility. — Phil. 2: 6, ovx dgnuypdv -rjyrjaato id tlvai laa &to) etc. " Who (Christ Jesus) being in the form of God,) did not make an ostentatious display of his equality with God."1 IV. The humiliation of Christ was voluntary. — Just as in Phil. 2: 4, it is attributed to the benevolence of Jesus and not to a ne cessity, that he did not display his divine dignity ; so also in 2 Cor. 8: 9, the poverty of him who might have had all things in abundance, is ascribed to his goodness [jf«gtrt,] which aimed at the welfare of man. nXovaiog div who might have been rich. So also 1 See De Wette's Translation. Storr's Dissert, in Epist. ad Philipp. note. c. 430 OF THE REDEEMER. [bK. IV. Phil. 2: 6, iv pogqrj &tov vndgx 82.] EFFICACY OF CHRIST'S MERITS. 431 childhood (Luke 2: 40, 47) was promoted by that divine nature with which his human nature was united ; but promoted in a man ner which did not interfere with the plan, according to which his physical and intellectual abilities were, like those of other men,(3) gradually to increase (v. 52.) And when he entered on the duties of his prophetic office, his divine nature and the Holy Spirit who was so closely united(4) with his human nature, exerted on the man Jesus(5) such an influence as was required by his office as teacher, and effected in and through Jesus, every thing which was requisite to the accomplishment of the design of his office as teach er. Hence, whatever the man Jesus taught, he taught not at the instigation of his own feelings, nor according to his own views,(6) but because he w&s prompted to it by his divine nature, and by the Father and Holy Spirit(8) who are most closely united lo him, and he taught also in the manner(7) which they suggested to him. (9) All the miracles which were requisite for the establishment of the divine origin of the doctrines of Christ(§ 8,) were wrought by the omnipotence of his divine nature,(10) w.hich is one with the om nipotence of the Father (¦§> 44) and of the Holy Spirit (¦§> 41,) through the instrumentality of the man Jesus.(ll) In short the di vine nature in the man Jesus effected every thing which was requi site to the accomplishment of the design of his destination, in a manner suited to his person ; e. g. it gave him the most profound knowledge of the persons with whom he had intercourse. (12) And so entirely did he depend on the will of that divine nature which was united with him, that he undertook and desired nothing, but what was suggested to him or wrought in him by this divine nature. (13) Illustrations. I. The efficacy of Christ's merits dependent on his twofold na ture. — The salvation bestowed on us, or our participation in the happiness of Christ, was the reward of the obedience of Christ. — But this reward Jesus could confer on us, only because he himself, in consequence of his original union with the Godhead, was incapa ble of any increase of personal happiness as a reward. But the difficulty of the bestowment of salvation, and the holiness of the punitive sanctions of the divine law, are placed in a clearer light, 432 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. the more dignified the person was in whom such fearful sufferings" were requisite to the accomplishment of this noble design. When the man Jesus is called the author of our salvation (John 6: 51, 53,) it is not the mere man Jesus who is alluded to, but that man who was most closely united to him that was in heaven (v. 62, 19, 11, 9,) that man who, on account of his union with God, could perform works which mere human power could never produce j1 in short the allusion is to the greatness and the worth2 of that man who on occount of his union with the divine nature, is the only Son of God (§ 76.) This great man and this one alone is our Redeemer. — Col. 1: 13, 15—19. comp. 14, 20—22. John 3: 13—17. 1 John 4: 9, 10. Rom. 8: 3, 32. Heb. 1:3. 5: 8, 9. Notes. 1. In the Dissert. II. in Libros N. T. historicos, p. 69, it is remarked, that in John 19: 11, above referred to, Jesus alluded to his union with God by the word avto&tv from above, whilst his explanation at the same time affords a reply to Pilate's question " whence art thou." (v. 9.) 2. To this place belongs the genus apotelesmaticum communica- tionis idiomatum, which embraces those propositions in which the person of Christ is the subject, and some act belonging to his media torial work, the predicate. II. Luke 2: 49, " Know ye not that I have another father than Joseph, the performance of whose injunctions must engage my at tention ? tlvai iv tdig natgog pov. III. Phil. 2: 7 etc. He was made in the likeness of men — and found in fashion as a man. Heb. 2: 17, it behooved him in all things to be like unto his brethren. IV. John 16: 14. 15: 26. Rom. 8: 9. Gal. 4: 6. comp. $ 45. V. Acts 10: 38, God anointed him (Jesus) with the Holy Spir it. God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. This says the credible witness (5: 32.) John the baptist concerning Christ. Luke 4: 1, 14, Jesus returned from his baptism full of the Holy Spirit, nXrjgrig nvtvpatog dylov, and went in the spirit, iv nvtvpati, into the desert, and returned thence in the power of the Spirit. VI. John 5: 30. 8: 28. 12: 49. 14: 10. compare <§, 6. VII. The excellence and credibility of Christianity a necessary result of the divinity of its Author. — The doctrines of the man Jesus are expressly attributed to him who had been in heaven with the Father, who came from heaven — and united himself with the man Jesus. John 3: 11 — 13. 6:46. 1: 18. And the credibility of the doctrines of Jesus, on which the faith of Christians in the au- 1 John 6: 63. comp. § 78. 111. 1. 9 1 Pet. 1: 19. See the work On the Design of Christ's death, p. 603. Heb. 12: 3, reflect, who he is that suffered so much contradiction. $ 82.] TWOFOLD NATURE OF CHRIST. 433 thority of the other divine messengers depends, is the more evident and indubitable, because the man Jesus did not enjoy the influence and aid" of God merely at particular times, nor merely in a limited degree. John 3: 34. On the contrary, he was distinguished from all other divine messengers, by this great preference,1 that the di vine power which spake to mankind through him, belonged to his own person and was peculiar to it (5: 26.) Hence, in the case of Jesus, the doubt can never be urged, whether the omniscient pow er of God aided him in every instruction given by him, without ex ception ; or whether we cannot imagine to ourselves a revelation immediately from God, which should be more perfect than that given by God through Jesus. And accordingly we are told, that the doctrines of Jesus, constitute the most perfect revelation. Matt. 11: 27. John 1: 18. Col. 2: 8—10. But for this very reason, the doctrines of Jesus demand from us the most profound veneration f a veneration proportionate to the dignity of that divine Messenger by whom these doctrines were taught, through the person of Jesus, who is in a peculiar and close union with God,3 and is himself the Son of God.4 VIII. The Father and Holy Ghost are one with the Son. — John 14: 7—11. 16: 13—15. compare $<§> 44, 45. IX. Jesus taught the things which he had received from the Father and Holy Spirit John 12: 49. 5: 30. 8: 26, 28, 40. 15: 15. 17: 8. Matt. 11: 27. 3: 34. comp. <$> 6. X. All the miracles of Jesus were wrought by his divine na ture. — Hence Jesus himself is described as the author of his mira cles. John 11: 25. [I am the resurrection etc.] compared with 23. 5: 17. [My Father worketh hitherto and I work.] 19 — 21, 26. — Hence it is said of Jesus, that he manifested his own greatness by his miracles 2: II. [This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Canaof Galilee and manifested forth his glory.] comp. 1: 14. XI. John 14: 10. 10: 32, 37." Matt. 12: 28. compare <$> 8. XII. Through his divine nature, Jesus knew every thing which was requisite for him. — John 2: 24, 25. [But Jesus did not com mit himself unto them because he knew thein all. And needed not that any one should testify of man, for he knew what was in man.] 6:64. 16:19,30. [Thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee.] 1: 48. Matt. 9: 3. [And Jesus knowing their thought, said etc.] comp. with Mark 2: 6 — 8. 1 John 3: 21. 10: 36. compare on this passage § 13. III. 17. and §42. 3 See John 3: 32—36. Heb. 1: 1. 2: 3. 3: 1—8. 10: 28. 12: 25. 3 See John 3: 31. Heb. 12: 25. 4 Matth. 21: 37. John 3: 35: Heb. 1: 1. Compare the work on the Object of the death of Christ, 685, " In proportion as a revelation is clear and perfect, i» the greatness of our guilt in rejecting it." 55 434 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. XIII. But Jesus did and wished to do nothing, but what his di vine nature suggested or approved. — John 5: 30, I can of myself do nothing. 8: 29, and he that sent me is with me ; the Father hath not left me alone ; for I do always those things that please hint. SECTION LXXXIII. Description of Christ's state of exaltation. After Jesus had submitted to that death which had been appoint ed for him by the decree of God ; the divine nature(l) that was united to him, and the omnipotence of which is the omnipotence of the Father,(2) restored to life his body, which had been dead and buried. (1 Cor. 15: 3 etc. comp. § 8. 111. 3.) After the resus citation of his body, Jesus showed himself alive(3) at many differ ent times during forty days ; partly in order to cheer and strengthen his followers, (4) and partly in the most perfect manner to convince those of his return to life, who were to be the future witnesses and publishers(5) of this all-important(6) event. At length, whilst he was engaged in conversation, (7) he was visibly raised on high, and thus withdrawn from the sight of men, (8) and is now(9) in heaven, ^ that is, in a place remote from this earth, inaccessible to the wicked, (10) where he will eternally(ll) enjoy a distinguished happiness, (12) and exercise the exalted privilege of governing all things with divine power (§ 78.) Illustrations. I. John 2: 19, Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple (my body v. 22) and in three days I will raise it up. 10: 18, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it (tyvxnv, life) again. Comp. <$> 42. II. The omnipotence of the Father and the Son is the same. — John 10: 28—30. (comp. $ 44, 42.) 5: 19, for whatsoever things he (the Father) doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise v. 20, 21, for as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Hence also the resuscitation of Christ, is sometimes ascribed to the Father. Rom. 6: 4. 8: 11. Eph. 17: 19 etc. $ 83.] DESCENT OF CHRIST. 435 III. Agency of Christ during the forty days after his resurrec tion. — Acts 1: 3, to whom (the apostles) he showed himself alive, after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days. We find at least one example in the New Testament, to prove to us that Christ was also engaged in the invisible world, during the forty days in which he occasionally appeared to his dis ciples, see 1 Pet. 3: 19. 4: 6. comp. § 66. 111. 3. Whether he visited the abodes of the damned (among whom I do not class the nullipara iv qvXaxrj " spirits in prison" or ransomed spirits, <§> 66. III. 3,) is a point which cannot be decided ; for there can be no passage adduced in which it is expressly declared. The words of Eph. 4: 9, xatifSri iig td xattotriga ptgrj zrjg yrtg descended into the lower parts of the earth, which have been applied to the descent of Christ into hell, are, in the Dissert, in Epist. Pauli minores, Note 68, explained as referring to Christ's state of humiliation on earth, to which Jesus is said, in other passages, to have descended (at his incarnation) from heaven, and which state, is in opposition to heav en (v-ujog Ephes. 4:3, 10,) described as being low, xazoittga, John 6: 38, 62. 3: 13. 16: 28.1 IV. John 14: 19. 16: 20 — 22, your sorrow shall be turned into joy. 20: 15—17, 20. Luke 24: 32, 52. See Herder on the Res urrection, Sect. 4. No. 1. V. Acts 10: 40. 2: 32. 3: 15. Luke 24: 46—48. 1 Cor. 15: 11. 1 Tim. 3: 16. Compare § 8. 111. 3. VI. Objects of Christ's showing hsmself to his disciples during the forty days. — The humiliating death which terminated the lifeof Jesus, may have tended to excite doubts in the minds of some, as to the divinity of his mission (Matt. 27: 39 — 43, Luke 24: 20,) although it had been established by such a multitude of proofs. — John 15: 24. Matt. 27: 42. But the resurrection of Christ, which was not possible till after his death, and which is the greatest of all his miracles,2 and was the more striking, as the humiliating execu tion of this remarkable man had arrested the attention of thousands ;3 1 [See Morus' Epit. theol. Christ, p. 189. Reinhard's Dog. § 102. On the different views of the descent of Christ into hell, see Pott Epist. cath. Vol. II. Excurs. III. On the subject of this doctrine, theologians of different centuries appear to have known more than is taught by the apostles. 1 Pet. 3: 19, is the chief and almost the only passage referring at all, to this doctrine. In the opin ion of that learned and consummate divine Dr. Reinhard, the following defini tion of the Descent of Christ, embraces all our knowledge on the subject: " Est eaanimi Cliristi corporo soluti actio, qua animis eorum qui diluvio perierunt, quaedam nuntiavit, in librissaeris baud patefacta." S.] 2 Jesus frequently referred to this miracle even during his life time, before he had performed it. John 2: 18—22. Matt. 12: 38—40. 16: 1—4. See Flatt's Mag- azine, St. 4. S. 190—199. 3 Matt. 27: 62. Mark 15: 39, the exclamation of the Roman centurion " Truly this man was the Son of God." 436 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK, IV, put all these doubts to flight, and vindicated the honour of Jesus in the most perfect manner.1 It afforded a new, an absolutely incon trovertible, an ocular demonstration of the truth of the declarations of Jesus relative to his union with God, and proved that his preten sions were not groundless and irreverent, but sanctioned by the di vine Being himself, who raised him from the dead. John 14: 19. Acts 17: 31. 2: 24. I Tim. 3: 16, iSixatai&ri iv nvtvpazi he was justified in the spirit, i. e. " He was by his glorified state, declared credible and upright." It proved that all the doctrines which he taught, were absolutely certain and true, inasmuch as their truth de pended on the reality of his union with God. (<§> 6.) The doctrine of the resurrection, for example, and that of the future blessedness of the saints, were confirmed by his own return to life. 1 Pet. 1: 3. 1 Thess. 4: 14. 1 Cor. 6: 14. 2 Cor. 4: 14. Rom. 8: 11. His resurrection proves, by a demonstration of the fact, that though death is our certain lot (John 19: 33.) it by no means follows that a future life is impossible. 1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 15 etc. ti vtxgol ovx iytlgovtai, ovSi Xgtazdg iyrjyegzae if the dead rise not, neither was Christ raised. Paul is here opposing persons who denied the possibility of a resurrection and future existence ; otherwise he could not have appealed to the case of Christ which was peculiar in its nature, and might have been the only instance of its kind. — See Opusc. Acad. Vol. II. p. 333 ; and Herder sup. cit. There is moreover some connexion between the resurrection of Christ and our future happy existence in heaven, because Jesus in his predic tions placed his own eternal life in connexion with the eternal life of his own peculiar people, and hence we are led to believe that the other part of the promise will be fulfilled, as well as the first, the completion of which we have witnessed. 1 Cor. 15:20 — 23, in Christ all shall be made alive. Acts 5: 30, the God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree ; him, the Prince and Saviour (i. e. Prince of salvation) hath God exalted to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and the fogiveness of sins. Heb. 5: 9. Our salvation is dependent on the obedience of Christ ; and the honour which God has thus conferred on him by fulfilling his specific expectation of a speedy return to life, affords us a satisfactory proof that Christ has yielded this obedience in a manner acceptable to God. John 6: 57. compare v. 54. 10: 17, 10, 28. II: 25. 12: 26, 32. 14: 2. 17: 22, 24. ($ 62.) 1 Cor. 15: 17, and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Rom. 4: 25, who was raised again for our justification. 1 Pet. 1: 21, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him 1 Acts 3: 13,15. 1 Pet. 1: 21. §i 83.] Christ's kingdom is eternal. 437 glory, that your faith and hope might be in God. John 10: 17. Luke 24: 44. Matt. 27: 63, 40. 28: 6. VII. Christ gave his disciples various instructions after his res urrection, until the time of his ascension. Acts 1 : 3, speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Luke 24: 45, v. 27. Hence Peter may have derived from Christ himself the information of that incident in the world of spirits, which he relates 1 Pet. 3: 19 etc, and which occurred between the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.VIII. His ascension. — Acts 1: 9, and — while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight. IX. Ascension of Jesus to heaven. — That he really ascended to heaven, was testified by the celestial messengers at the very time the event occurred. Acts 1: 10 etc. We should indeed be au thorized to believe it on the mere prediction of Jesus, since his authority was so remarkably confirmed by his resurrection from the dead. John 6: 62. 16: 28. 20: 17. Matt. 26: 64. But there are also some other events which he had predicted previously to his death, and just before his ascension (Acts 1:4,) and the fulfilment of which he expressly fixed after his return to his Father, which serve as facts, to prove his return to the Father, and his consequent dominion. John 16: 7, if I depart, I will send him (the Comforter) to you. 14: 2, he that believeth in me etc. — and greater works shall he dp, because I go to my Father. In Acts 2: 33 — 36, Peter ex plains the miracle at the Pentecost as an evidence of Christ's having attained that government of all things, which he had said awaited him after his ascension, trj Se'£itf tov -Oeou vxjjai&tlg — dxoiittt therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having re ceived of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear. Matt. 16: 28, " a part of those who now stand here, will see the Son of Man arrived in his glory, igydptvov iv trt (laaiXitq avtov ; i. e. the greater part of my disciples will live to see those important eventSjSuch as my ascen sion, the miracle at Pentecost, and other miraculous events for the promotion of their apostolic office, and finally also the destruction of Jerusalem ; from which they will see that the Son of man, whom now the world despise and undervalue, really possesses divine power. X. The abode of Christ.— Jesus is taken from you into heaven — whom the heavens must receive — who is gone into heaven and is on the right hand of God — seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth. — Again, I leave the world and go to the Father — and what if ye shall see the Son of man ascend to where he was before ? — I go unto him that sent me, ye shall seek me and not find me, and where I am thither ye cannot come — In my Father's house there are many mansions— I go to prepare a place 438 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. for you, that where I am ye may be also. Acts 1: 11. 3: 21. I Pet. 3: 22. Phil. 3: 20. Col. 3: 1—3. John 16: 28. 6: 62. 7: 33. 8: 21, 23. 14: 2, 3. 12: 26. XI. Christ's kingdom is eternal. — Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more — he shall reign forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end — having no end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually — a priest after the power of an endless life, — a priest forever — but this one, because he continueth forever, hath an unchangeable priesthood, — he ever liveth — fear not, I am the First and the Last, I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold 1 am alive forever more — and he (Christ) shall reign forever and ever. Rom. 6: 9. Luke 1: 33. Heb. 7: 3. 15—17, 23—25. Rev. 1: 17, 18. 11: 15. In the Dissert, de notione regni coelestis, § V, it is shown that in 1 Cor. ch. 15, a termination of Christ's kingdom is not proved either by verse 25, dxgig ov (i'tog dv Matt. 22: 44) until he hath put all enemies under his feet j1 or by v. 24, where the words dzav napttSa) t rjv (iaoiXt lav to) nazpi, are to be explained thus: "When Christ shall deliver the dominion over all his enemies, into the hands of the Father, i. e. when he shall have compelled all his foes to acknowledge the universal dominion of the Father." See § 63. XII. Christ will enjoy an eternal and exalted happiness. — John 14: 28, "if ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I go to the Father ; for the Father enjoys a happiness and glory which, in my present situation, I do not enjoy, but which I also shall enjoy with the Father." (pdfav pod iaziv see supra § 42.) John 17: 5, 24. Comp. § 42. 1 Tim. 3: 16, dvaXrjq&r) iv Sd£rj he was receiv ed to glory ; in antithesis to iqavtptd&ri iv aapxl " he appeared as a feeble man." Rom. 8: 29, 17, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. Comp. <§> 64. I See Schleusner's Lexicon, art. euit No. 5. BOOK IV. OF THE REDEEMER. PART II. THE DIFFERENT WORKS OF CHRIST (HIS OFFICES.) SECTION I. THE WORKS OF THE REDEEMER DURING HIS LIFE ON EARTH. SECTION LXXXIV. Twofold destination of Jesus. The. man Jesus was, like all other men, and all rational creatures in general, under obligation(l) of obedience to his Creator, his Lord(2) and his God. (3) This obedience Jesus was required, for a certain length of time, to yield ; and amid circumstances, too, which might appear surprising, when we reflect on the exalted mor al excellence of his character, and his very peculiar union with God (Heb. 5: 8.) But the cause of all this is to be sought(4) in the twofold destination^) of Jesus ; he being appointed by God to in struct mankind, and also himself to provide that salvation which he published to them. (6) Illustrations, I. See the work On the design of Christ's death, p. 666. II. J Cor. 3: 23, Christ is God's 11: 3, the head of Christ is 440 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. God, (i. q. vnozaaatzai is subject to God, Ephes. 5: 24.) 1 Cor. 15: 28. See «§, 24. III. Jesus saith — I ascend unto my God — Jesus cried, My God, my God ! — the God of our Lord Jesus Christ — in the temple of my (Jesus') God — thy God hath anointed thee (Jesus.) — I will put my trust in him. John 20: 17. Matt. 27: 46. Ephes. 1: 17. Rev. 3: 12. Heb. 1: 9. 2: 13. In these words does the Messiah acknowl edge his dependence on him through whom are all things. IV. Heb. 2: 14etc. $ 85 etc. V. Heb. 3: 1 , andatoXog xal dgytegevg zrjg dpoXoylag rjpdjv 'Ir\- aovg " Jesus the Messenger (Instructor,) he through whom we have reconciliation, whom we profess." See Introd. to the Epist. to the Heb. p. en. VI. Heb. 2: 3, which (salvation) at first was published by the Lord. ECTION LXXXV. Of Christ's office as instructor (his prophetic office,) and the obe dience which he displayed in the execution of it. The union of Jesus with God, enabled him to execute, in a more perfect manner, the duties of his appointment as divine Messenger, (1) or as a prophet ;(2) that is, it enabled him the better to deliver those divine instructions(3) with which he was intrusted. (4) § 82. Yet was it necessary for him, during this time, to withdraw the splendour of his greatness and dignity, and to become like unto the rest of his fellowmen, yea, even to assume a station peculiarly hutn- ble(5) amongst mankind. Otherwise, he could not have discharged the duties of a real Instructor, he could not have taught publicly and perseveringly like other prophets. He could not by uninter rupted instruction, have qualified certain persons (<§, 9,) whom he had himself chosen, to perpetuate the office of instructor, which he had commenced. In short, he could not have sustained an office, in the discharge of the duties of vvhich, it was necessary for him not only occasionally to appear to individual persons, but, to live in the midst of frail mortals, (6) and to inspire even persons in the lower stations of life(7) with a high degree of confidence in a person $ 85.] THE OFFICES OF CHRIST. 441 so far exalted above them. (8) Moreover, the example of obedience, which the life of Jesus holds forth for our imitation, (9) is instructive to us in proportion (10) as the circumstances under which he was placed bear a near resemblance to our own situation (Phil. 2: 7.) And the humility of our present situation will have the less influ ence on those splendid expectations with which the religion of Jesus inspires us, when we reflect that Jesus himself experienced (11) the greatest depths of human misery; although some beams of his effulgent greatness shone forth (¦§> 82) from him in the midst of his humility, and although the latter part of his history on earth ($ 83) clearly proved how dear he was to God, and to what an ex alted glory he was destined. Illustrations. I. Christ was the divine Messenger. — John 17: 6 — 8, 18. 20: 21. Comp. § 6. Heb. 3: 1. II. A prophet. — John 4: 44, npoqrjzrjg. Matt. 13: 57. Luke 4: 24—27. Heb. 1: 1,2. III. Our Instructor. — John 7: 16 etc. 13: 13 etc. o SiSdaxaXog a teacher. Matt. 23: 8, 10, one is your (Teacher) Master, Christ. IV. The work of Christ. — 1 John 17: 4, the work which thou gavest me to do. The work or appointment of which Jesus here speaks, does indeed include his death also ;l but a part of it, at least, was to communicate to men. his divine doctrines, and to substantiate their divinity by miracles. John 5: 36. 15: 24. 10: 37. 14: 10. John 9: 4, 5, I must work the works of him that sent me (said Je sus) — I am the light of the world. By e'gyov nazgog or " work of the Father," is meant doctrines, as we learn from the context. 5: 36, 30. 4: 34, comp. v. 27, 32. 7: 16—18, he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true. 6: 37, 40. Luke 1: 33, " I was born for the purpose of being a king, and 1 came into the world that I might bear witness to that which is true 'iva pagzvgrjato trj dXrjitda, to testify that I was born to be a king."2 Now Jesus testified by his instructions that he was a king. Matt. 4: 17, 23. Consequently, he came into the world to give instruction. Luke 4: 43, but I must publish the kingdom of God to other cities also. Mark 1: 38. In the last discourses of our Lord, he considered death as having 1 The Design of John's Gospel etc. p. 189. 2 John 8: 28, 40, 42. 12: 44. 18; 37. Comp. Morus' Epit. Theolog. christ. p. 194. 56 442 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. been already endured, and hence, in this respect also, he could say, I have finished the work inXtiwaa zd igyov ; of which his death was certainly a part. John 10: 17. 14: 31, 11. " It is in general not inconsistent with the usuge of language to contemplate an event which is near, as really present. And on the verge of his departure it was peculiarly suitable for him to present to them the bright side of an event so painful to their feelings, and call their attention to the glorious consequences which would result to them."1 This re mark is applicable to Teller's Antitheses, prefixed to Harwood's four Dissertations (p. xxxv,) and to Oertel,2 who infers from the passage just quoted, that the death of Jesus was not an essential part of the work which he accomplished, because Jesus declares, previously to his death, that he had finished the work which God gave him to do.3 V. Humble state of Jesus. — Matt. 8: 20, the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. 13: 55. The carpenter's son. 11: 19, the friend of publicans and sinners. Luke 2: 24. The reader may find several other collateral objects of that humble state in which God placed Jesus, in Keil's Dissert, de exemplo Christi recte imitando, p. 25. VI. When the situation of Jesus was no longer like that of other men on earth, he no more dwelt among mortals, but ascended to heaven. And even in the interval between his resurrection and ascension, during which time he still gave instruction to his follow ers, (John 20: 17.) he was not always with them, but only appear ed to them and spent some time with them on particular occasions. VII. Jesus dwelt among those in low circumstances of life. — The people which sat in darkness saw a great light4 — they that are sick need the physician. — He had compassion on them, because they were as sheep having no shepherd. Matt. 4: 12, 16. 9: 12, 36. Mark 6: 34. VIII. Matt. 11: 28, 29, come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden — for I am meek and lowly in heart. Luke 15: 1. IX. The example of Christ.— Keep my commandments, even as 1 have kept my Father's commandments. Love one another as I have loved you — It shall be among you, — even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister — he that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also so to walk even as he walked— "If we conform our lives in the world to the example of Christ, 1 The work On the Design of John's Gospel and Epistles. 3 Dissert, on the Epist. to the Romans, p. 509. 3 See Schvvartze on the death of Christ as an essential part of his scheme for the salvation of mankind, Leipsic, 1795, p. 163 etc. 4 Hessttber die Lehren Thaton und Scliicksale des Herrn S. 37. § 86.] PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST. 443 then is our confidence in the love of God complete" — and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren1 — let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, — walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us. John 15: 10. 13: 34. Matt. 20: 26—28. 1 John 2: 6. 4: 17. 3: 16. Phil. 2: 5. Ephes. 5: 2. X. Subject continued. — 1 Pet. 2: 21, for even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps. XI. Christ bore the cross before us. — John 15:20, if they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also. Matt. 10: 25. — John 12: 24 — 26, " If any man will serve me, let him follow me as one who is going (v. 23) forward toward the sufferings of death (v. 27, 32,) and thereby to glory (v. 25.")2 1 Pet. 3: 17, " It is bet ter to suffer in doing good, if such be the will of God, than to suffer on account of evil deeds." v. 18, "Christ also suffered as a just person, dya&onoidlv, and now lives forever in glory."3 1 Pet. 4: 12, think it not strange — but rejoice inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings. Rom. 8: 17, joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him. 2 Tim. 2: 11, it is a faithful saying, If we be dead with him (Christ,) we shall also live with him. Heb. 12:2. SECTION LXXXVI. Mediatorial office of Christ. The agency of the Redeemer in accomplishing that salvation which was promised to man, etnbraces two kinds of works. (1) One part of this destination(2) he accomplishes, by his residence in heaven ; The other he effected, while he sojourned on earth (§ 87.) In reference to the former, we may repose the greater confi dence in him ; as he gladly abstained from any premature use of the dignity of his nature, in the execution of the divine will, and thus leave us no ground to apprehend(3) that he might use that do minion which he has at length acquired, in any other manner than in consistence with the will of God, the Author of our salvation. — We are certainly authorized to expect, (4) with the most perfect as- 1 On the design of John's Gospel etc. p. 213 etc. 2 See Dissert, in lib. N. T. histor. p. 20. 3 On the Design of the death of Jesus, p. 523. 444 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK . IV. surance, that he, who out of love to us relinquished for a season the enjoyment of the dignity of his nature, and submitted to many and various kinds of human suffering, will discharge the duties of that honorable office which he sustains in heaven for our good, with perfect propriety, and with a compassionate reference to our pe culiar circumstances. (5) Illustrations. I. Priestly office of Jesus. — The appellation of highpriest dpxupivg, which is applied to Jesus in Heb. 3: 1, refers to both kinds of the Redeemer's works. (<§> 84. 111. 5.) For it marks out the celestial dignity and divine government of Jesus, as being bene ficial to the human family ; and combines together the salutary in fluence of this exalted nature of Christ, and his death of reconcilia tion which he endured on earth. This is the import of the sacer dotal entrance of Christ into heaven. Heb. 8: 1, 2, 4, we have such an highpriest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. 5: 5, so also Christ did not assume the glory of highpriest himself. 7: 26, for such an highpriest became us — who is higher than the heavens, v. 28, '.' The sworn declaration (Psalm 110: 4) which was made after the introduction of the law, maketh the Son highpriest who is transferred into eter nal glory." Heb. 5: 9, being made perfect, he became the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him, called of God an Highpriest. 7: 24, 25, but this one hath an unchangeable priest hood, wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him. 6: 19, 20. 8: 3, " every highpriest is in ducted into office in order that he may offer sacrifice. Consequently this (our Highpriest) must also have something to offer." The act of dying as a sacrifice is not a priestly act ; but the act of offering the victim which was slain, in the sanctuary. This act, however, could not be performed on earth, where Christ had no sanctuary, but only in heaven (v. 4.) The Socinians do not err in connecting Ins priestly office with his entrance into heaven, but in taking from him that bloody sacrifice of atonement, which he had to offer on his entrance into heaven as highpriest. 9: 12, 14 by his own blood, he entered once into the holy place.— The blood of Christ, who in a state of eternal glory offered himself to God as a perfect offering, Sta nvtvpatog ai(ovwv—[nvtvpanxdv, SeSo£aopivov.] Heb. 10: 12, having brought one sacrifice for sins, which is valid forever, hath set down on the right hand of God. v. 14, 19—22, "We may confidently enter the holy of holies [heaven] with the blood of Jesus— which new and by no means dangerous way, through the § 87.] CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF OUR SALVATION. 445 veil — I mean the state of humiliation of Jesus — he hath consecrated for us." II. See Part 2 infra ; and § 65 supra. III. Heb. 5: 5, 7, " the dignity of the office of highpriest, was not arrogated to himself by Christ, who in the time of his humilia tion implored deliverance with tears." Hence we may justly infer, that he will discharge the duties of that honourable office, in the at tainment of which he so entirely submitted to the will of God, in perfect accordance with the gracious purpose of God, and fully answer the purposes of his priestly office. IV. Heb. 2: 17, wherefore, in all things, it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faith ful Highpriest with God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people — having been tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. 4: 15. 5: 8, " Although Christ felt no sinful propensities in his soul, he can still have compassion for sinful man, inasmuch as he has experienced at least the difficulty of obedience, and thence can infer what must be the feelings of those who, in addition to an innocent dread of pain, labour under a propensity to sin and diso bedience." V. "The exposure of Jesus to the endurance of suffering was a suitable preparation, to qualify him for the office of saving suffering men." See 111. 4. SECTION LXXXVII. Christ could acquire the right of bestowing- salvation on mankind only as the reward of his own obedience. Although Jesus, by virtue of the greatness and perfection result ing from his peculiar union with God, would have been able to be stow a high degree of happiness on mankind (>§> 60 — 65 ;) he was prevented from using the power and dignity of his person for the accomplishment of this purpose, by the character of man himself, which rendered him unworthy of enjoying such a happiness. In order, therefore, that he might bestow salvation on his brethren(l) in a manner consistent with the law of God, it was necessary that the man Jesus should in conformity to the same law of divine jus tice (§ 24,) by which all other men were, on account of their diso bedience, denied the enjoyment of this great salvation, purchase to 446 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. himself the right and power,(2) to avail himself of his greatness in the salvation of his brethren, and to transfer(3) to them that blessed ness which he possessed, and which they could not obtain by their own merits. For, although Jesus might from the beginning have enjoyed the consequences of his union with God just as he now does, and although he might, in a state of happiness and splendour also, have evinced his obedience in a manner corresponding to such a state, as he now really does ;(4) still God assigned to him a very different theatre for the display of his obedience whilst on earth, a sphere which was apparently inconsistent with the dignity of so exalted a man, and assigned it to him under the condition that for this distinguished obedience he should also be rewarded in a distin guished manner. But, inasmuch as his dignity and happiness, being the result of his peculiar and perfect union with God, were incapable of augmentation (§ 82. 111. 1 ;) This dignity and happi ness were at least bestowed on him in a manner which gave them the nature of a reward ;(5) bestowed on him with the acknowledg ment of the merited honour, that he was peculiarly worthy(6) of this distinguished glory ; and with the power to accomplish his most ardent wishes in bestowing salvation on his brethren, (7) who in themselves were unworthy of such felicity. He was elevated to that dignity not only because it was suitable to his peculiar union with God, but he was raised as the Author of salvation to mankind, in remuneration of (8) his distinguished obedience. The obedience to God and the active reverence for him, which were evinced by the man Jesus on earth, together with the honourable declaration (Stxaltopa Rom. 5: 18.) and reward which succeeded, are the cause of the salvation of man ;(9) just as the disobedience and punishment of our first parents (Rom. 5: 19, 16) were the cause of the misery of the human family (§ 55, 57.) Illustrations. I. Rom. 8: 29, That he (Jesus) might be the First-born among many brethren. Heb. 2: 11, he (Jesus) is not ashamed to call them brethren. II. John 17: 2, thou hast given him (Jesus) power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. III. John 17: 22, 24, the glory (said Jesus) which thou gavest <§> 87.] CHRIST THE AUTHOR OF OUR SALVATION. 447 me, I gave to them (Comp. <§> 64.) Heb. 9: 16, " Jesus when dy ing bequeathed his salvation to believers ; they are his heirs under the condition of his death."1 IV. 1 Cor. 15: 28. John 20: 17. Rev. 3: 12. comp. $ 84. V. The exaltation of Jesus is the reward of his obedience. — Phil. 2: 8, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name — -Heb. 2: 9, for [on ac count of] the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour 12: 2, who (Jesus,) for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross. VI. John 10: 17, therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. Eph. 5: 2, (Jesus) hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savour. Heb. 1: 9, therefore, O God ! thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness. Rev. 5: 12. Just as the obedience of Jesus was render ed more splendid by the sufferings of his death, so also was the honour enhanced, which, on account of this obedience, he derived from the subsequent enjoyment of his glory. This he enjoys not only as the natural privilege resulting from his natural union with God, but also as the reward of his moral excellence.2 VII. John 17: 26, 'iva -rj dydnrj, rjv rjydnrjodg pt, iv avzo7g i] (instead of tyrig z-ijv dydnr/v tig avrovg) " that thy love to me may be extended to them."3 Ephes. 1: 6, he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Gal. 2: 20, fjj iv tpol d Xgiazdg " my life and sal vation are properly speaking, his life, or participation in his salva tion." VIII. Acts 5: 31. (comp, ¦§> 65.) Heb. 5: 9, " having received the promised reward, he has become the Author of an eternal sal vation to all them that obey him." IX. Rom. 5: 19, so also by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. " Inasmuch as Christ could, on account of his resurrection and glory, be declared obedient or just (v. 18,) there fore justification unto life has been extended to all men." For it was a principal part of the solemn declaration of his righteousness, or of the reward of his obedience,4 that he could now treat all men as just and obedient, and bestow salvation on them.5 1 Comment, in loc. note. p. 'J On the Design of the death of Jesus, p. 603 etc. 3 Ibid. p. 592. 4 Isaiah 53: 10—12. 5 On the design of the death of Jesus, § 14. 448 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. SECTION LXXXVIII. Jesus displayed his obedience throughout his whole life, but par ticularly at his death. Through the whole course of his(l) earthly pilgrimage, even from bis childhood, (2) did Jesus display this obedience. But it shone with additional lustre during his public ministry, (3) and was seen in its greatest glory(4) amid the sufferings , of that ignominious death to vvhich he submitted. (5) Illustrations. I. Christ's obedience extended throughout his whole life. — John 8: 29, I do always the things that please him (my Father.) Matt. 3: 15, " thus it becometh us to fulfil all the divine commands." Compare James 1 : 20, Sixaioavvrj -&tov.1 Phil. 2: 6, 7. 2 Cor. 8: 9. Comp. <§, 81. H. In his childhood. — Luke 2: 49, 51, 52. III. In his public office. — John 4: 34, my meat is to do the will of him that sent me. John 6: 38. 5: 30, 1 seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me. 7: 18. 8: 49, 1 honour my Father, v. 55, I keep his saying, 26, 28, as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 17: 6, I have glorified thee on earth, v. 12, I have kept them in thy name. v. 4. 12: 49. IV. But most clearly in his death, and the sufferings connected with it. — Phil. 2: 8. Heb. 5: 8. Hence our salvation, which is the fruit of the obedience of Jesus (§ 87,) is specifically described as the effect of his greatest obedience ; is represented as the effect of his sufferings and death. Ernesti has objected to the division of Christ's obedience into active and passive,2 on the ground that all obedience is active. Yet this division (says Reitihard3) may still be retained to designate that the obedience of Christ amid his sufferings, was the highest degree of his obedience. John 6: 51, and the bread (said Jesus) which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 12: 24, but if it (the grain of wheat) die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 3: 14 — 16. 1 John 4: 9, 10, God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him — he sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 Thess. 1 Dissert, de sensu vocis Slxatog, § IX. 2 Theol. Bibl. vol. 9, p. 925. 3 Dogmatik. S. 406. $ 89.] THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 449 5: 9, 10 (Christ) died for us, that we should live. Heb. 10: 19, having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. Moreover, forgiveness of sins, which was the particular design of the death of Christ, is the foundation of our salvation. § 89 etc. Heb. 9: 15, and for this purpose he is Mediator of the New Covenant, that by means of (his) death for redemption from the transgressions under the first covenant, they who were called to the eternal inheritance, might receive the promise. V. Jesus submitted to death voluntarily. — John 10: 17, no man taketh it (my life) from me, but I lay it down myself, v. 18, this commandment have I received of my Father. l4: 31, as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. This Jesus says whilst going forward to his death. 18: 11, the cup which my Fath er hath given me, shall I not drink it ? See also Matt. 26: 52 — 54, 39, 42. Heb. 10: 7, 9. The work on the design of the death of Jesus ;x Hess' Bibliotheca of sacred history,2 in the article " Prag matic narrative of Christ's sufferings ;" where it is proved that every way to escape death was left open to Jesus by the providence of God, and that therefore according to every historical evidence, it is an incontrovertible fact, that his submission to death was perfectly voluntary. SECTION LXXXIX. The remission of our sins is the grand design of Christ's volun tary sacrifice of himself. The meritorious and exemplary obedience of Jesus was certain ly placed in a clearer and more splendid point of view, by his sub mitting to so excruciating a death ($ 88. 111. 4.) This submission to death, also, made him experimentally acquainted with the misery incident to the lot of man, in its highest degree. But even in his previous life, he had not wanted opportunities to prove his obe dience. Nor was he without opportunity, previously to his igno minious death, to exercise himself in self-denial,(l) or to learn by experience the miseries of man. (2) Indeed his obedience would have been perfect, had not God required(3) of him that he should 1 p. 595. 9 Pt. II p. 354. 57 450 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. submit to the punishment of such a horrible death. There must, therefore, have been some very important(4) reason on account of which God would absolutely require, (5) that his only begotten (Rom. 8: 32. Heb. 5: 8.) Son should subject himself to the most terrible sufferings. Nor are we left to conjecture ourselves what this reason might be, inasmuch as the Holy Volume expressly teaches us, that the object of the death of Christ was, to procure remission of sins, (6) or to deliver mankind from future misery(7) after the present life, (8) as well as from the fear of this punishment (9) in the life that now is. Illustrations. I. Phil. 2: 4—7. 2 Cor. 8: 9. comp.<§> 81, 82. II. Persecutions of Jesus.— Matt. 8: 20. (§ 85. 111. 8,) 17: 17, perverse generation ! how long shall I suffer you ? He was slander ed. Mark 8:' 17. Matt. 10: 25. 11: 19. 12: 24. The Jews inten ded to cast him down a precipice. Luke 4: 28. The Pharisees consulted together what they might do to Jesus, when he cured the lame man on the Sabbath. Luke 6: 11. The Jews sought to kill him. John 7: 1. They hated and persecuted him. 15: 18 — 25.— They tempted him. Luke 22: 28. 111. See the work on the Design of the death of Jesus, p. 664 — 666, 421. IV. The death of Christ was absolutely necessary. — Matt. 26: 39, 42. " It would have been altogether inconsistent with the character of the all-wise God to expose his Son to such sufferings, if the object for which he died could possibly have been otherwise attained. But this absolute necessity makes the death of Jesus harmonize with the character of God in accomplishing its grand object, whilst it, at the same time, produces many other good effects which might indeed have been brought about in a less pain ful way."1 V. John 10:17,14:31. 18:11. Heb. 10: 7— 10. comp. § 88. 111. 5. VI. Remission of sins, is the grand object of Christ's death. — Matt. 26: 28. Ephes. 1: 7. Heb. 9: 15, tig dqtaiv dpapzitov (na- gantwpdrcov) — tig dnoXvzgtooiv zdjv naga^doimv. " For deliver ance from the punishment of sins." The " deliverance from trans gressions" spoken of (Heb. 9: 15,) cannot possibly, in this place, mean deliverance from the slavery of sin, or reformation ; for the 1 The Design of Christ's death, p. 442. $ 89.] EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S DEATH. 451 passage treats of allaying the remorse of conscience for past sins, and not for such as are present or future. And it, moreover, refers to such a redemption or deliverance as could not be expected from the Levitical sin-offerings, which aimed at the remission of external transgressions.1 And that this is the signification of dqtaig dpapztdiv also in Matt. 26: 28, has been proved by Siiskind, in his dissertation entitled, Does the remission of sins, spoken of in the New Testa ment, signify deliverance from punishment ?2 VII. Christ's death delivers us from all future evil. — It delivers us from all future punishments (Rom. 5: 9,) whether they are the mere consequences of the sin and punishment of Adam, as would be the case with children who die in their infancy if no redemption had been provided (<§> 57 ;) or are the effects of our own personal guilt. Rom. 5: 16, the free gift is of many offencesunto justification. Col. 2: 13, having forgiven you all trespasses. Tit. 2: 14, that he might redeem us from all iniquity. See LXX. Psalm 130: 8, 3, where this same phrase is used to express forgiveness of sin. 1 John 1: 7, 9, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Every one that believeth is justified from all his sins through Jesus Christ. — Acts 13: 38. But that, even in the case first mentioned, the evil might justly be called a punishment, though it would not be the effect of the guilt of the individual suffering it,3 is proved in the work on the Design of the death of Jesus, p. 585. <§> 57. III. 1. Nay, even those punishments to which an individual who did not die un converted, exposed himself by his sins committed previously to his reformation or during his religious life, would, if no atonement had been made, still befall him in part ($. 57, 56,) in consequence of Adam's transgression and the natural punishment of it, that is, in consequence of the sinful propensities of our nature, which were perpetuated from our first parents throughout all generations, and which at least predispose us to actual sin. Our participation inthe sinful propensities of our nature, which we derive from our first parents by natural generation, cannot be charged to us as guilt. — And it is in reference to this participation, which was not caused by any guilt in us, that the mercy of God (4> 59, 92,) which provided for us redemption from the evil effects of foreign sin, from the effects of the sin of Adam, was extended also to those deserved punish ments which are the result of our own personal guilt. We may admit what has been contended for, that God does not require of frail, imperfect man, such a perfect conformity of life and mind to the divine law as it is impossible for him to yield, and that he does 1 Comment, on Heb. in loc. note b. 9 Flatt's Mag. No. 3, p. 190—223. No 4, p. 76—178. 3 Mauchart's Kepertoriurn fur Empirische Psychol. Vol. II. p. 153, 452 OF THE REDEEMEH. [BK. IV. not denounce punishment upon them for not being more perfect than it was possible for them to be. But on the other hand, even if frail and sinful creatures had done every thing which it was possible for them to do, with their depraved nature, they still could not ex pect as pure and elevated a happiness, as if their nature had been unpolluted by sin and they had made important advances in holi ness and perfection. This disadvantage, under which theywould labour, would still be the consequence of their inherited depravity of nature and of the sin of Adam, who by an act of real guilt, which he might have avoided, entailed a ruined nature upon him self, and his posterity. This disadvantage would be the natural punishment of Adam's transgression. But as Christ, the Second Father of the human family ($ 59,) delivered us from the punish ment of the disobedience of the first father of the race of man, by assuming it himself, and has given us a title to a salvation which even the best of Adam's sinful posterity would have had no right to expect ; we may, even in this respect, say that Christ bore our punishment, the punishment due to the whole human family (John 1: 29. 1 Tim. 2: 6. Heb. 2: 9. ;) inasmuch as the punishment in which an individual participates, may also be called his punishment (§ 57. 111. 1.) But as Jesus also liberated us from the punishment of our own personal transgressions, which, though our natural de pravity disposed us to commit them, we nevertheless could and ought (-§> 56, 57) to have avoided, we can ^ay with truth, in the most rigid sense of the terms, that Je$tisJxxr€ our sins, was punished in the stead of us guilty sinners, on account of our sins. Is. 53: 5 —12. 1 Pet. 2: 24. 3: 18. Gal. 1: 4. Rom. 5: 6—8. 4: 25. 1 Cor. 15: 3. VIII. Subject continued. — The punishments which were re moved by the atoning death of Christ, properly belong to the in visible world ; they are future punishments (1 Thess. 1: 10,) the opposite of which, according to the Scripture representation, is eternal life, the everlasting inheritance, John 3: 14 — 16. Het. 9: 15. Hence, it is not surprising, that the death of Christ did not obviate the temporal consequences of sin. Rom. 8: 10, 18 — 23. — Nevertheless, the death of Christ did divest the temporal effects of sin of their punitive disgrace and terror. They are no longer of a punitive nature. The friends of Christ are no longer exposed to any punishment. Rom. 8: 1, ovSiv xazdxptpa zoig iv Xpiato) 'liiaov there is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. Death is to them no longer an evidence of the divine dis pleasure, but is to be regarded by them as the transition of their spirit to real life. Nor are their temporal afflictions to be viewed as judicial dispensations (Rom. 5: 1,) but as evidence of the pater nal disposition of God (v. 3.) Joyful indeed are the prospects §90.] SALVATION NOT BY WORKS. 453 which futurity presents to their view. In the sight of God, they are even now citizens of the empire of God, and, as far as their circumstances will admit, are treated as such. IX. Subject continued. — Heb. 2: 14 etc, 'iva dnaXXd^v tovtovg, boot qo^to -&avdtov Sid navtdg too £rjv tvoxot rjaav SovXtlag " in order that, by his death, he might deliver those who had been all their life in a slavish fear of death, from that fear." SECTION XC. Hie atonement is the immediate cause of the remission of sins, and is not dependant on our reformation for its efficacy. The instructions of Jesus and his apostles, must not be explained so as to mean that the death of Christ may be a motive to induce us to obey his injunctions and fulfil our duties, in short, may be a motive to such a habit of thought and course of conduct as will procure the remission of our sins. Such an explanation is altogether groundless, inasmuch as no such representation of the influence of Christ's death is expressly given in a single text of the New Testa- mental) On the contrary, our obligation to piety is derived as a consequence(2) from the antecedent blessing. But this represen tation, moreover, expressly contradicts the doctrines of Christianity. For the writers of the New Testament declare, most explicitly, that the good works of men have not the least meritorious influence in procuring the remission of our] sins. (3) Nay, so emphatic is the language used by the inspired penmen on this subject, that they declare that if our own works were the meritorious cause of our salvation, then was the death of Christ superfluous. Gal. 2:21, ii Sid vdpov Sixaioavvrj, aga Xpiatdg Saiptav dnt&ave.(4) More over, the New Testament teaches us, that Christ, by his death, purchased the right of the remission of sins, and eternal felicity for all men (§ 66 etc.) even for those who do not reform, and for those who in this world have not enjoyed the knowledge of a Sa viour, and to whom, therefore, the death of Christ could not be a motive to virtue. (5) 454 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. Illustrations. I. The atonement is the immediate cause of the remission of our sins. — If the writers of the New Testament had regarded the death of Christ merely as a motive to reformation, and that as the cause of remission ; they would rather, in this mediate sense, have derived our salvation from the resurrection than from the death of Christ. There is, indeed, a connexion between the death of Jesus and our reformation. It affords us an example of obedience to God, of faith, of patience, of confidence iu the divine preservation, and of the most exalted love. It proves to us, moreover, his firm con viction of the truth of his doctrines, and thus affords us a confirma tion of them, and a motive to their reception, and a consequent reformation. But it is the resurrection of Jesus, in which we see the happy reward of his obedience unto death, which possesses pe culiar power (compare § 83. 111. 6.) This also affords us the most decided evidence of the truth of those views with which Jesus died. Hence, it would have been natural for the writers of the New Testament to represent the resurrection, rather than the death of Jesus, as a motive to reformation, as the mediate cause of remission of sins and of eternal life ; especially as the resurrection of Christ necessarily presupposes his death, but his death by no means im plies his resurrection. But Jesus and his apostles, when speaking of the ground or cause of pardon and of future blessedness, either mention the death of Christ alone, or they connect the death and resurrection together, but never do they mention the resurrection alone. II. Same subject continued. — In § 4 of the work just cited in the margin, it is proved that all the passages in the New Testament which belong to this subject, either represent pardon, and not re formation, as the immediate object of the death of Christ, or they derived the obligation to reformation and to a christian life from the pardon which the death of Christ procured. To the first class be long the following passages, in which, according to the more correct explanation, pardon, and not a change of life, is represented as the object of Christ's death. 2 Cor. 5: 19, &tdg rjv iv Xpiato) xdafxov xataXXaaatov iavtt) God was, in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself (comp. v. 18.) The clause " not imputing their trespasses unto them" proves the signification of the passage to be " God graciously restored the world to his favour." This interpretation is just as much authorized on philological grounds (Matt. 5: 24. 1 Sam. 29: 4 ; see LXX,) as the explanation, " God reconciled the affections and dispositions of the world to himself," which is, more over, not true in fact. In Rom. 5: 10, the words xazrjUdyrjptv i 66. 111. 2. " The atonement or reconciliation effected by the death of Christ is universal, although the reforma tion which is effected by the Gospel and doctrine of atonement is by no means general." See the work on the Design of Christ's death, § 2'. In refutation of the position, that " the death of Christ makes 1 See Schwartz on the death of Christ, p. 28 etc. 456 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. reconciliation between God and us, only through the intervention of our own reformation," Schwartz, in addition to the arguments adduced in <§> 90, appeals to the general usage of language, which forbids the idea that a mediate cause should be meant in the propo sition, " this was done for the remission of sins." He appeals also to other forms of expression in the New Testament, by which the same idea is expressed, and refers to the fact that the death of Christ is compared to a sin-offering,1 See § 91. 111. 6. Kant has proved that it is inconsistent with the principles of reason, to sup pose that our own reformation and good works are the active or efficient cause of the pardon of our sins. He says, " Whatever may have been the circumstances under which the sinner began his course of piety, and however uniformly correct his deportment may be, still, previously to his change he lived in sin, and the guilt then contracted he cannot possibly ever wash away. The fact, that he, after his change of heart, contracts no new debts, will never pay off the old ones. Nor can he, however holy his walk, ever do more than he is bound to do ; for he is under constant obligation to exert himself to the utmost of his ability in the service of his God."8 SECTION XCI. According to the New Testament, deliverance from the punishment of sin is the immediate object of the death of Christ — Christ suffered as our substitute. The instructions of the New Testament, on the subject of the connexion between the death of Christ and the remission of sins, cannot be construed in any other than the following manner: Christ submitted to sufferings and death,(l) in the place of guilty man(2) and on account of his sins ;(3) so that, in consequence of his suffering the pains of death (4) on account of our sins, we are exempted from the necessity of enduring the punishment of our transgressions, just as though we had ourselves already endured it. 1 Staudlin on tho design and influence of the Atonement; and Ewald's Monthly Magazine for 1802, No. 4. p. 241—249. 2 Religionslehre, S, 78. Compare Tieftrunk's Censur des protestantischen Lehrbegnffs, Th. II, S. 161 . Seo also his Dissertation, in Staudlin's Beitragen, Vol. III. p. 121, 139, 151. and Ewald sup. cit. p. 242.. §1 91.] CHRIST OUR SUBSTITUTE. 457 (5) In short, Christ suffered the penalty of the law on our ac count and as our substitute,(6) and thus reconciled us to God the Judge,(7) so that those apprehensions(8) concerning the pardon of the transgressor, (9) are now removed, which would suggest them selves when he recollected the holiness of the divine law and its denunciations against the sinner. Now the sinner can be pardoned without any violence being offered to the authority of the law ;(10) for its demands are satisfied,(ll) and his pardon is in perfect ac cordance with justice. (12) And certainly the origin of this doctrine is not to be sought in any supposed accommodation, on the part of Jesus and his apostles, to the current opinion of his contemporaries. (13) For, if there be a single doctrine among those taught by the apostles, which can be considered divine, it must certainly be the doctrine of the remission of sins through the death of Jesus ; for, this must be classed among those fundamental doctrines of Christian- ity,(l4) which are derived from God himself and his good Spirit.(15) Illustrations. I. 1 Pet. 3: 18, for Christ suffered for sins, the just for the un just. In the work on the Design etc. it is remarked, that an inno cent person's suffering on account of sin, for the sake of the guilty, cannot well be supposed to mean any thing else than that he suffer ed the punishment due to the guilty. II. Christ was our substitute. — Rom. 5: 6, for the ungodly ; v. 7, 8, when we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. III. It was for our sins that Christ died. — Rom. 4: 25, he was delivered for our offences. 1 Cor. 15: 3, Christ died for our sins. Gal. 1: 4, who gave himself for our sins; and Is. 53: 5, na^iUSTa B5ha ^Tiisisa N3172 he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. On this passage the reader may consult the work on the Design of the death of Christ (p. 475,) where some ob servations are made on the hypothesis, that this passage refers to Hezekiah, or to the Jewish people in generator to some particular part ofit. Beck, in his Comment, histor. decretorum relig. Chris- tianae, p. 76, gives an account of the various recent works on Is. ch. 53. IV. Matt. 20: 28, the Son of man came to give his life a ran som, Xvzgov for many. 1 Tim. 2: 6, who gave himself a ransom for all. The words Xvzgov, dvzlXvzgov, a ransom, always indicate an immediate connexion of causation between the intended deliverance 58 458 of the redeemer. [bk. iv. and the object called Xvzgov or ransom, i. e. they always signify the proper and real causation or production of deliverance. V. Subject continued. — 2 Cor. 5: 15, d tig vnig ndvztov dnt&u- vtv, dga ol ndvttg dni&avov " Since one died as the substitute of all, all must be considered as having died." (Compare yt'yovt Rom. 2: 25, which is equivalent to Xoyia&rjatzai v. 26.) Onthe context of this whole passage, the reader may consult the work on the Design of the atonement. Rom. 6: 2, far be it from us : for we are dead to sin. v. 5, we have been planted together (with him) in the like ness of his death, v. 7, our old man is crucified with (him.) v. 8, — we are dead with Christ, v. 11, consider yourselves dead unto sin. 7: 4, ye are become dead to the law through the body of Christ, v. 6, we are delivered from the law, being dead. In illustration of these passages let the reader attend to the following remarks : — 1. Those who embraced Christianity, at the same time entered into the closest union with Christ (Gal. 3: 27,) and with his death, avpqvzot zd) Xgiazto. — 2. The words oiirto xal thus also, in Rom. 6: 11, evidently show, Gal. 3: 10, that according to the opmion of the apostle, the Romans ought to regard themselves as " dead unto sin" [as having been dead in regard to sin, comp. Col. 2: 13,] in the same sense in which it is said of Christ " dni&avt zrj dpagzla i. e. he died on account of sin." — 3. The design of Paul in Rom. 6: 1 etc, is, to prove that the doctrine relative to grace, which he had proposed in the preceding chapters, afforded no license for sin. But this he would not have proved, if the 2d verse be rendered thus : " and — shall we live in sin who are to die unto sin ?" On the contrary, he answers the objection in v. 1, from the doctrine of grace [or gracious remission of sins] itself. He says, " The reason why punishment was executed through the crucifixion of Christ on us or on " our old man" is that, in the very means of our salvation, we should recognize the law which denounces punishment on the sinner, so that nmv, we, being already punished according to this law (Gal. 2: 19, being dead by the law,) should the more certainly no longer be the servants of sin." — 4. When the apostle Paul ex presses the admonition, not to live any longer in sin, by the figure of dying, he does not say '' dntddvin," but in the imperative (Rom. 6: 13,) naguatrjaurt iavzovg etc. yield yourselves unto God as those who are alive from the dead. Col. 3: 5, mortify your members. On the contrary, he deduces the duty to die unto sin, from the position, that Christians did die with Christ, and are transferred with him into a blessed new life, for which the service of sin is not at all suited. Thus Col. 3: 5, ovv compared with v. 1 — 9. Rom. 8: 3. This same proposition, that Christians have died with Christ, is also taught in the following passages : 1 Pet. § 91.] CHRIST OUR SUBSTITUTE. 459 2: 24 ; " So that we, as those who have died on account of sin (because as was mentioned just before, our sins were punished in Christ on the cross,) should now (guard against sin and) live unto righteousness." 4: 1, he that suffered in his mortal body, is free from sin. Or in other words, " as we have already endured the punishment of sin, in the death of Christ, we are free from sin ; no one can any longer reproach us on account of our past sins. But the punishment which was endured, has rendered sin odious to us for the future. Gal. 2: 19, Std vopov vdpto ant'&avov — Xgiatto avvt- oravgtopai " Inasmuch as Christ was, through the (denunciation of the) law, punished in our stead by the death of the cross, and I was thus through the law, crucified with Christ, I am therefore free from the law." Rom. 8: 3, 4, d &edg xutixgivt trjv dpagzlav iv rjj aagxl (viz. aurot;, tov viob zov &tov) 'iva zo Sixaioipa zov vopov nXrjgtdOtj iv rjp7v. " He punished sin in human nature (i. e. in the human nature of the Son of God, which resembled our sinful nature,) in order that the declaration of the law which required that man (human nature) should be punished (1: 32. Gal. 3: 10,) should be fulfilled in us, and we consequently be no more exposed to punish ment." The death of Christ was undoubtedly a penal suffering, a punishment of the law, inasmuch as God brought about his death. VI. The sufferings of Christ were vicarious. — Gal. 3: 13, " In our stead Christ endured the punishment which is denounced by the law and proves the earnestness of the lawgiver" [ytvdpt vog vnig ijpdiv xazdga;] xazdga means one who was cursed, condemned by the lawgiver, an object of his displeasure. Rom. 8: 3, 4, con demned sin, xazixgivt dpagzlav. (111. 5.) Is. 53: 5, 1 1 etc. 1 Pet. 2: 24, " Christ bore the punishment of our sins on the cross inl zd £i>Xov for ngtpdpevog inl zd giiXov.) John 1: 29, "Behold the Lamb consecrated to God [the sacrificial lamb,] which will suffer the punishment of the sins of the world (aigaiv for piXXtav a'igtiv ;) or which takes upon itself the punishment of the sins of the world." The reader may consult the author's Grammatical Observations on this text, in Flatt's Magazine, where this exposition is defended against another, which makes these words mean " taketh away the sins etc." 1 John 3: 5, " Christ made his appearance (on earth) in order to suffer the punishment of our sins." Hence in him was no sin, and consequently, if we wish to live in union with him, we cannot live in sin. Heb. 9: 28, " Christ was offered once for all, to endure the punishment of the sins of many." Compare Is. 53: 11 (LXX,) zag dpagziag avztov aiiidg dvolatt which, according to v. 5, can signify nothing else than " he suffers on account of their sins, suffers the punishment of their sins." v. 4. It is this same idea (that Jesus suffered the punishment of our sins) on which is founded the comparison of Jesus to a sacrifice. The passages refer- 460 OF THE REDEEMER. [bK. IV. ring to this point, are the following : 1 John 2: 2, he is the propitia tion for our sins. 4: 10. 2 Cor. 5: 21, for he (God) made him (Christ) to be sin for us. Rom. 8: 3, for what the law could not do, because it was weakened through, the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [of a sinful body,] and on ac count of sin, condemned sin in the flesh [in the human body of Christ,] ntgl dpagtiag sc. ngogqogd which is indeed- expressed in full in Heb. 10: 18. Compare Lev. 5: 11, in the translation of the Seventy, where the Hebrew word nNtarj is rendered by ntgl dpag tiag. That dpagtla or " sin," in 2 Cor. 5: 21, signifies a sin-offer ing, is evident from Heb. 9: 28, where the words " he shall appear a second time without sin" are an antithesis to the words in the 26th verse," he appeared — by the sacrifice of himself."1 Rom. 3: 25, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation iXaatrjgiov. On the word IXaatrigiov sc. &vpa, the reader may consult Kypke Vol. II. p. 161 ; Krebs p. 275 ; Michaelis' Introd. N. T. <§>29 ; and Schleus- ner's Lex. A decisive passage from Joseph, de Maccab. § 17, proves the philological accuracy of the above sense of the word. — In the work on the Design of Christ's death (p. 484,) I have prov ed that the word cannot, in this instance, signify " mercy-seat" as it generally does in the version of the Seventy ; for in this passage, the death of Christ is represented as the means of our pardon, (and this the mercy-seat was not,) and God as the Being who bestows his favour. Heb. 7: 27, he offered himself, 9: 12, by his own blood (in opposition to the blood of bulls and goats.) v. 23, it was necessary that the heavenly things themselves thould be purified with better sacrifices than these. " The celestial sanctuary needed purification by a better sacrifice, v. 25, not that he should offer himself often, v. 26, he hath once appeared by the sacrifice of him self, v. 28, he was once offered. Compare 10: 5 — 14. 13: 11. On the subject of the comparison of Christ to a sin-offering and a propitiatory sacrifice, we remark further : the distinguishing charac teristic of the propitiatory sacrifice, was reconciliation, or remission ef sins. And this effect was not dependant on the penitent frame of mind of the person offering the sacrifice, but followed in conse quence of the sacrifice offered ; for who would suppose that the whole Jewish people collected on the great day of atonement were true penitents ? The victim was, in accordance with the will of the the Lawgiver, placed in the stead of the sinner, and punishment (though not precisely the same which would have been inflicted on the sinner,) was executed on it. This vicarious nature of the pro- I So the LXX. Levit. 4: 21. See Comm. on Heb. 9:28. Schleusner's Lex. voc. apagrta no. 11. In the Observv. it is proved, that this signification of this word is acquired by a double metonymy. <5> 91.] CHRIST OUR SUBSTITUTE. 461 pitiatory sacrifice, was proposed to the view of the people in a very clear light by the solemnities of the great day of atonement, with which the great Sacrifice of Christ is compared Heb. 9: 7 — 10, 20. And that the tertium comparationis [or the point of similarity and comparison] between the Jewish sacrifices and the death of Christ, really consists in the pardon of sins effected by the vicarious suf fering of punishment, is evident, because this is expressly stated as the point of comparison in Heb. 9: 26, 24. 10: 18, and because in some passages this vicarious efficacy is attributed to the death of Christ, without any figure or comparison. Gal. 3: 13. 2: 19. As to the object of the Jewish sacrifices, the sins of which they pro cured remission were of a civil or ceremonial nature. The ex clusion of the individual bringing the offering, from the outward people of God,- and from the outward privileges of this people, was thus removed. But by the atonement of Christ, forgiveness of sins was wrought in regard to the conscience (Heb. 9: 14r) which has a reference to the future judgment ; that is, the remissioirof future punishments was effected. Our exclusion from the blessed part of the invisible world of Spirits (Hades) and from heaven was prevent ed. The signification of the word " punishment," in the proposition, " Christ suffered the punishment of our sins," is explained in the work on the Design of the death of Christ. When substitution is spoken of, it is of course not meant that the punishments are merit ed by the substitute himself. Vicarious punishment is a punish ment endured on condition that the individual who would otherwise have been exposed to it, shall be released J or it is a punishment endured in consequence of a judicial decree, because some other person was to have been punished. It is, therefore, not necessary that it should be the very same punishment which the criminal must otherwise have endured. The inexorable justice of God, de manded of Jesus, that before his desire of delivering mankind from punishment could be gratified, he must first submit to such miseries and punishments as sinners alone endured. The guilt of Adam and the guilt of his descendants, could not indeed be transferred to Jesus. Still the sufferings- which he endured may have been im posed on him (and thus far be considered punishments) in order to declare, that the punishment which awaited us sinners, who were not only unworthy of the happiness intended for us, but who ac tually deserved damnation, must be regarded as a serious impedi ment to our obtaining that salvation which the Redeemer designed by his obedience to purchase the right of bestowing on us ; and that this impediment is as assuredly removed as the Redeemer endured the most painful sufferings."1 In Reinhard's Dogmatik, the phrase 1 Annotat. ad Kantii philosoph. p. 16. 462 OF THE REDEEMER. [bk. IV. " vicarious death of Christ" is explained to be " a death which Christ resolved to submit to, because God had purposed, in con sideration of it, to remit to man the punishments ef his crimes."1 And the word " satisfaction (atonement") is by the same writer de fined to mean "all that Christ did and suffered, to avert from us the punishment of our sins ;"2 or that Christ by his death had per formed the condition on which God had determined to pardon sin.3 Christ is called our Priest, or Highpriest, in several passages of Hebrews, because he bore his blood as the blood of a sacrifice into heaven ; that is, because after he had laid down his life as a sacri fice for our sins, he entered on the enjoyment of a glorious happi ness with God in heaven ; he is so termed, to show that he really procured the remission of our sins by his death. " Highpriest — to make reconciliation for the sins of the people — we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once — and every priest standeth daily ministering.* Heb. 2: 17. 10: 10, 11. He is our Highpriest, inasmuch as in virtue of his death, which he en dured out of obedience to God, he possesses a divine (Heb. 5: 4 — 6) and to us a salutary dignity. Heb. 5: 9. 7. 24, 25. VII. Christ's death reconciled us to God. — Eph. 2: 16. Rom. 5: 10. Compare <$> 90. 111. 2. The proposition, " Jesus by his death reconciled God to man," must not be supposed to mean, that God was induced to feel a compassion for man, only after Jesus had satisfied the demands of the violated law, by suffering the pun ishment it prescribed. For, a judge who is possessed of a truly compassionate heart, may inflict punishment on an offender, out of love to the law and to the general welfare of society ; or, as it is sometimes expressed, according to the usus loquendi of Scripture, " he may be angry." See $ 24. III. 8. He cannot be reconciled or gracious, or liberate the sinner from punishment, until the law is satisfied and its dignity supported. Moreover, it was none other than God himself, who devised the scheme by which pardon can be extended to the sinner, in consistence with the principles of his government, as is proved by the following passages. John 3: 16. 1 John 4: 9 — II. Rom. 5: 5 — 8. 8: 32, he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. 2 Cor. 5: 18. 1 Pet. 1: 19, the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot, who was foreordained before the foundation of the world. — Heb. 2: 9. Comp. § 59, 75. 111. 1. The death of Christ itself is 1 Mors a Christo propterea susccpta, quod Deus hominibus ob earn condonare decrevit peccatorum poenas. 2 Complexus eorum omnium, quae Christus fecit et passus est ad avertendas a nobis peccatorum poenas. 3 Schwartze sup. cit. p. 50 — 54. 4 Icgcvg—dgyisgevg, hence the sacrifice of Christ is compared to the annual propitiatory sacrifice of the highpriest. § 91.] THE ATONEMENT. 463 in many passages represented as the most strinking evidence of the grace and love of God to the human family. God was reconciled to us by the death of Christ. Not that he was before literally angry with us, and would have delighted in our destruction ; but his wisdom found in the death of Christ the ground or cause on account of which he can save the sinner from feeling the misery consequent on the loss of his favour without doing violence to the dignity and authority, of his law. Hence we are told, in 2 Cor. 5: 18, God reconciled us to himself through Christ, xazaXXagai rjpdg tavtt), that is, God has, through the sacrifice of Christ, accomplish ed his wish to extend pardon to the sinner in a manner consistent with the law, pr] Xoy!£to&ui td naganzoipuza, and thus to indulge his mercy, Compare <§> 90. 111. 2. VIII. The atonement removes the fears in reference to our pardon, which result from the denunciations of the law. To the accomplishment of this object the atonement was peculiarly well adapted. For, although the punishment was not inflicted on the individual who had incurred the guilt, it was nevertheless required of him who had undertaken the work of bestowing salvation on man, that he should endure the penalty of the law. And as so ex alted a person (Rom 8: 32) would certainly not have taken the punishment of the sinner on himself without absolute necessity, it follows that the liability of the sinner to punishment, must notwith standing the dignity of Jesus, have been a very formidable obstacle to the extension of pardon (Matt. 26: 42,) and consequently that the holiness and authority of the law (Sixalaipa zov vopov Rom. 8: 4. 1: 32. Gal. 3: 10) must, in the sight of the Almighty, be per fectly inviolable. Mark 4: 36. Nor was the punishment imposed on Jesus, connected with any injustice to himself. For, his most. ardent wish was, to obtain the right to pardon the sinner in con sistence with the principles and authority of the law. And, after he had suffered death, he received the reward of his obedience, ac cording to the law which declares that obedience is entitled to re ward. The moral excellence of the character of Jesus was display ed in the most splendid manner, and his glory thus advanced. And he finds the most elevated happiness in restoring fallen men and making them possessors of eternal blessedness. IX. The necessity of the atonement. — This display of the free goodness of God, which could best be made to man, because of his peculiarly wretched situation, was as beneficial, not only to man, but also to the holy angels, as was the proof of his strictness as Judge, which God gave in the scheme of salvation. 1 Pet. 1: 12, which things (the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow) angels desire to look into. Ephes. 3: 10. For, in this last point of view, the scheme of salvation is also important to the an- 464 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. gels themselves. Col. 1: 20, and by him (having made peace through the blood of his cross) to reconcile all things unto himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Heb. 9: 23, it was necessary for the heavenly things to be purified. " The death of Jesus, being a most solemn declaration that we deserved punish- . ment, is, at the same time, an honourable testimony in favour of the blessed spirits in heaven, a declaration that they are far too pure, for us to be received into their society, if Jesus had not prepared us for admittance among them, by delivering us from exposure to pun ishment. And thus also did God solve to them the problem, how sinners could be received into the society of those who had never incurred any guilt, without contradicting that opinion of the inviola ble sanctity of the law and the certain punishment of the sinner, which is so salutary even to the angels themselves." The whole scheme of salvation adopted by God, which derives the salvation of man from the merits of Christ, was not indeed necessary for the sake of God himself; for his own nature disposed him to have compassion on us (111. 7.) But it was necessary on our account. This however gives no sanction to that erroneous notion, that a sacrifice was necessary in order literally to appease the wrath of God, nor does it imply a condescension of God to hu man infirmity, as seems to be supposed, even by some writers who appear to entertain a reverence for the Holy Volume, such as Lang and Senff.1 On the contrary, the object was, to confirm the opinion of the sanctity and inviolability of the holy law of God, which de nounces punishment on transgression, and promises reward to the virtuous ; an opinion true in itself, and highly salutary not only to man, but even to the purest and most exalted spirits. For, to the angels in heaven, the punishment thus inflicted on the Son of God himself, must present the most awful demonstration of the inviola bility of the divine law, and afford the strongest motive to constant obedience. X. The authority of the law. — Rom. 3: 31, do we then make void the law through faith ? far be it from us ! yea, we establish the law. XI. The law was satisfied by Christ. — Rom. 8: 3, 4. Gal. 2: 10. See supra 111. 5. XII. The Justice of God ivas displayed. — Rom. 3: 25, 26, " God offered up the Lord Jesus as a sacrifice, for the purpose of showing his justice in that forgiveness of sins which, out of mercy, he had in times past extended to transgressors, tig i'vSti'gtv zrjg Sixaioavvvg aviovSid trjv ndgtaivztov ngoytyovdztov dpagttipdtoiv ; and also to prove his justice in his present dealings ; in short, to 1 Versuch ueber die Herablassung Gottes, § 23—34. § 91.] THE ATONEMENT. 465 show that he might be just and still justify or pardon the sinner who believes in Jesus." A circumstantial exposition of this passage is given in the work on the Design of Christ's death, <§> 11. In p. 558, it is remarked, that if Sixatoavvrj righteousness, is translated " goodness," as some contend it ought to be, then v. 26 would con tain a proposition which is partly contained in v. 24, and which is so self evident as not to require being mentioned ; and that those very passages of the New Testament which speak of the death of Christ as a punishment of the law, also represent it as a proof of the divine justice. Rom. 8: 4. Gal. 2: 19. 3: 13. An objection has been urged, that vicarious sufferings cannot be consistent with the punitive justice of God., because, in order to the accomplishment of the object of the punishment, which is reforma tion, it is necessary that the sinner should himself personally feel the punishment. To this, it may be replied : — I. that reformation is not the only object of the punishment. 2. that part of the ob ject of the atonement which consisted in the reformation of the sinner, can thus be accomplished, just as well, and even better, than by the personal sufferings of the sinner himself. Comp. § 92. and 111. 8 of this section. Siiskind and Seiler remove the objection, that the divine justice requires the personal suffering of the sinner himself, in this manner : " The promotion (say they) of moral ex cellence (the chief good,) is the supreme design of God. Hence, if the remission of sins is better calculated to promote this -supreme design of God than the actual infliction of the punishment, then remission of sins must be consistent with the divine justice."1 Lang, in his dissertation on the (permanent) connexion between the death of Christ and the pardon of sin, arrives at the following result, when discussing the question, whether the pardon of sins is possible on the principles of moral equity : " The fear of punishment impairs our power, and thus impedes our course toward holiness, the ulti mate object of man. And yet reason require that the punishment be executed. Now, the vicarious death of Christ entirely removes the conflict between these principles. The object of this punish ment is by actual fact, to display to the world the neeessary con nexion between transgression and misery. The lively view of this connexion in reference to our own persons, urges us to reformation. But if we suffer the punishment ourselves, the pain which we feel, will involuntarily have the greatest influence on us, and thus the reformation produced will be merely a legal one, will result not from a hatred to sin, but from a fear of punishment. But in the 1 Stlskind On the possibility of the remission of sins, in Flatt's Mag. No. 1. p. 1 — 67. and Seiler on the questions, Is the remission of sins possible ? and, Are we authorized to expect that God will pardon us through Jesus Christ? 1798. 39 466 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. case of the substitute (Christ) who endures the punishment, for us, the odiousness of sin is displayed in a clearer light, and thus a purely moral reformation, a reformation resulting, from proper motives, is rendered the more easy." Compare § 73. 111. 1. XIII. The doctrine of the atonement is not a mere accommoda tion to the notions of the Jews. — In reply to the hypothesis, that the doctrine of the atonement was taught by the apostles, merely as an expedient to reconcile. the Jews to the loss of their ritual sacrifices, we remark : — 1. Jesus did not distinctly teach, that the sacrifices of the Jews would be abolished. Hence there was no necessity for his speaking of bis death as being for the remission of sins. Matt. 26: 28. And still less was there any such necessity in the case of John the Baptist. John 1: 29. — 2. The apostle Paul contends against the abuse of the vicarious death of Christ (Rom. 1: 6 etc.,) but does not deviate from his ordinary represen tations of this doctrine, though he had the most direct occasion to do so. He does not obviate the abuse by saying, that this doctrine was a mere accommodation or condescension to the current opinions of the Jews, and that repentance is the meritorious cause of pardon. In this case also, he deduces the sanctifying influence of the death of Christ from its atoning efficacy, and not the latter from the for mer. — 3. In the epistle to the Hebrews, the apostle Paul institutes not merely a transient, but a very circumstantial comparison be tween the death of Christ and the Jewish sacrifices. — 4. The whole scheme of doctrine taught by the apostles, is founded on the fact, that the death of Christ, and not our own repentance and good works, is the cause of our salvation. Plank, in his Introduction to the theological sciences, Pt. II. p. 481, makes the following remarks : " The idea that we are recon ciled to God by. the merits of Jesus, was taught so frequently by Jesus and his apostles, and with such energy, and so sedulously interwoven with their practical instructions, that no man can possi bly be in earnest who says, that this doctrine was held up by the apostles merely as an empty image, in order to induce the Jews to abandon their ideas about sacrifices to which they were so much accustomed. Even had this been their object, they could not have adopted a more unsuitable measure, as the sequel itself proved."1 XIV. John 16: 8, 10, iXdoiv—dndyto " He (the Comforter) will instruct the world on the subject of forgiveness of sins, which is grounded on my going to the Father (my death, resurrection, and glory.") Aixaioawrj righteousness, has the same meaning in 2 Cor. 3: 9, where it is placed in opposition to xazdxgiaig condemnation. 2 Cor. 5: 18, God hath given' us the ministry (having committed unto us the word) of reconciliation. 1 Gess' Letters on the doctrine of Accommodation etc. Stuttgard, 1797. $-91.] VIEWS OF THE ATONEMENT. 467 The explanation of Stxatoavvr; which makes it signify " the good cause of Christ," labours under the difficulty that avzov, which must be supplied in v. 8, would have to refer at the same time to two different subjects, to xoapog and Xgiazog ; whereas if we ren der the passage thus, " He will instruct the world on the subject of their sins, their pardon, and their liberation from the power of Sa tan," it refers only to the former. XV. The doctrine of the atonement is a divine doctrine. — In the passage just cited, 2 Cor. 5, to which the words in v. 20, " as though God did beseech you through us," are yet to be added, the apostolic doctrine concerning the atonement is expressly attributed to God ; and in John 16: 8, 10, to the nagdxXriiog or Spirit of truth, or Spirit of God. Comp. v. 7 and 13. See <§> 10. 111. 12, 13. Note. On the various hypothesis relative to the connexion be tween the death of Christ and the pardon and salvation of the sinner. The various hypotheses on this subject, as well those of former times as those of recent date, are collected in Flatt's Inquiries on the doctrine of reconciliation between God and man, Pt. 1. § 21 — 31. They may be reduced to three principal classes. — 1. Those which suppose that there is an actual causative connexion between the atonement and the pardon and salvation of man, not in any sense dependant on the cooperation of man himself — 2. Those who suppose a mediate connexion, a -connexion through the medium of the cooperation of man. Reformation is the intermediate cause. — The manner in which reformation is supposed to be produced by the death of Christ is various. § 90. 1. — 3. Those who regard the atonement merely as a symbolical representation and declaration of the pardon of sin, of the grace and love of God ; or, which amounts to the same thing, as a memorial of the love of God, from which the sinful family of man might infer, that their transgressions will be forgiven ; or as a symbol of any other lesson of instruction. To the latter class belongs the hypothesis of Kant, " that the vicarious sufferings of the Son of God may be considered as a symbol of the sufferings which "regenerated (renewed) men must endure on ac count of their former sins (as it were for the " old man") — as a symbol of the substitution of the new man (who suffered during his reformation) for the old man." In reply to this notion, it maybe remarked, (a) the afflictions of life, which are, by supposition, to be regarded as punishments of the sins committed before reformation, may just as well be considered as punishments of the guilt incurred after reformation. — (b.) The measure of the afflictions which be fall Christians, is not always proportionate to the sins committed previously to their change. 468 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. Loeffler, in his Dissertation on the doctrine of the atonement, has proposed the hypothesis, " that the pardon or reconciliation consequent on the death of Christ, referred only to the past sins of the Christians of that day, which they had committed whilst they were yet Jews or Pagans, but that it does not relate to the sins of all men, not to the sins of any who are Christians." Various argu ments are adduced in refutation of this hypothesis, by Staudlin, Paulus, Siiskind, Flatt, Lang, Niemeyer, and Ewald. The princi pal are these — 1. The universality of the atonement, which is taught in the N. Testament in the strongest terms. That various passages in the apostolical Epistles, which treat of remission of sins, should refer to new converts from among the Jews and heathen, is very natural, for these Epistles were directed to such persons. — 2. If, as Loeffler maintains, the death of Jesus had a reference only to the reception of converts from Judaism or paganism into the christian church, it would, for that very reason necessarily have to refer to their future participation in the blessedness of Jesus, and to the sins committed after their conversion ; for these are just as much a hindrance to their salvation «s those committed before their refor mation. — 3. If the apostle Paul bad confined the remission of sins through the death of Christ to the state of his readers prior to their conversion to Christianity, he could, by a mere statement of the fact, have given a short and most decisive refutation of the objection (Rom. 6: 1) " that the doctrine of a free, gracious pardon of sin, is detrimental to the cause of virtue." — 4. Deliverance from death as a consequence of the disobedience of our first parents, (the blessed resurrection of Christians,) is attributed to the death of Jesus. Rom. 5: 17, 19. 1 Cor. 15:21, 22. Heb. 2: 14. Hence, if all Christians die, the pardon of sins which results from the death of Jesus, must extend to Christians also. — 5. Agreeably to Heb. 9: 12, the re demption purchased by the Saviour's death, is " an eternal re demption" aitovla Xvzgtoaig, and his priesthood " continueth forever, and is unchangeable." 7: 24. — 6. The declarations of the apostles, that Christians no longer commit sin, such as 1 John 3: 9. 5: 18, evidently refer to wilful sin. See supra $ 56. On the other hand, St. John directs Christians to apply to the atonement of Christ for the remission of individual sins. 1 John 2: 1, 2. And according to Heb. 10: 26, it is only for the wilful sinner that there remaineth no more sacrifice. And it certainly comported better with the general design of the apostles rather to encourage those who had been reconciled through the death of Christ to the practice of christian virtue, than by anticipation, to comfort their minds in respect to the sins which they might afterward commit. But no passage can be found, in which all hope of pardon is denied to the backslider in an absolute and unconditional manner. •§> 92.] ATONEMENT FAVOURABLE TO PIETY. 469 SECTION XCII. The doctrine of the atonement is not prejudicial to christian virtue, but tends to promote it. Such is the nature of that scheme which God devised for the salvation of the human family, that the obedience of Jesus, which was displayed in a distinguished manner by his voluntary submission to death as the substitute of man, confirmed that very principle of the divine justice which might seem to have suffered violence in the pardon of man. (1) For, that principle would withhold from man a happiness of which he always proves himself unworthy by his con duct in life, and would denounce upon him the punishment of the law, if God had not mercifully resolved to afford him his" aid, in a manner just as peculiar, as were the circumstances which became the occasion of his misery ; circumstances in which no other class of rational beings was ever placed. The consoling doctrine of the obedience and voluntary sufferings of Jesus, comforts the heart of unhappy man, with the hope(2) of pardon and future happiness. — But the obedience of Christ, on which our hope of salvation is founded, calls on us(3) to show a similar obedience, though we can never merit so great a happiness by our own deeds. And nothing could exert a more powerful influence, in deterring us from volun tary transgression, (4) than the remembrance of the fearful punish ments which Christ was compelled to endure in order to purchase for us the hope of pardon. Illustrations. I. The apparent violation of justice in the pardon of man. — It is evident, of course, that God did not establish the law relative to the connexion between obedience and happiness without a fore knowledge of the individual case of man. He did not enact the law merely in a general indefinite manner, but with an accurate foreknowledge of every individual case. To the view of the crea ture, however, who contemplates the law in general, the conduct of God in relation to man, wears the aspect of an exception to the rule. And the object of the scheme of redemption, is to prevent the supposition of other such exceptions by his creatures, to guard 470 OF THE REDEEMER. [bk. IV. men against the idea that in other cases also God will have similar reasons to lead him to extend pardon, just as he had in reference to the human family at large. § 91. 111. 1. II. The atonement promotes piety by inspiring hope. — This hope lias a very important influence in promoting christian virtue, just as, on the other hand, despair of pardon and future happiness, or a proud dependence on our own merits, has a powerful tendency to impede our christian course. On the importance of the atonement as a means of comforting the sinner-, or of delivering him from the fear of the divine punish ment, and of enabling him to obtain the assurance of pardon ; and on the practical influence of a comfortable faith in the atonement, see the passages from the work on the Design of the death of Je sus, which are adduced in § 73. 111. 3. Schwartze, in his work on the Death of Jesus, gives the following views of the atonement as an incentive to virtue. — 1. By the consolatory influence which it exerts, it properly prepares us for a life of piety. — 2. It renders a life of piety more easy and agreeable, by raising our love and grati tude to God and the Lord Jesus our Saviour to the most exalted height, and by presenting to our view the sufferings of Jesus, who was the most perfect example of perseverance and fortitude in the discharge of duty, and by awakening and confirming within us a sense of the high importance of man, even in the sight of God. Reinhard, in his sermon on the reformation, makes the following remarks : " It is a debt which our church owes to her own internal security, and to the peace of her members, not to suffer the doctrine of the atonement to be neglected. Is it possible that the super stition, which searches out other means of reconciliation with God, can acquire the sway in her ? can she possibly be in danger of fal ling into that self-prescribed service, that righteousness of works, which wishes to make atonement itself, and deserve heaven by works, if she steadfastly adheres to the doctrine that we are justified, without any merits of our own, through that atonement which was made by our Lord Jesus Christ ?" III. The salvation for which we hope, and which results from the divine approbation of the obedience displayed by Christ, is the most immediate and the strongest evidence of the high value of obedience in the sight of God. IV. The atonement has a tendency to deter us from sin. — Luke 23: 31, for if these things happen to a green tree (which produceth such beautiful fruit,) what shall be done in the dry (which at any rate is intended for the fire ?) 1 Pet. 1: 17, 19. (Comp. $ 90. 111. 2.) 2: 24. 4: 1 etc. Rom. 6: 2—12. Compare § 91. 111. 5. God could not possibly have placed before the view of the inhabitants of the world of spirits, in a more striking light, the inviolability of his § 92.] ATONEMENT SUPPORTS THE LAW. 471 law and the certain executions of its sanctions, than by exacting the infliction of the punishment even in a case in which every thing seemed to favour an exception. For, such was evidently the case before us. The innocence of the man Jesus, his extraordinary and peculiar union with God, the divine approbation of the obedience which he had previously displayed, and his generous and noble desire of sharing his happiness with his fellowmen, together with the peculiar situation of man, who had become miserable in consequence of Adam's transgression, all seemed to authorize the expectation that the penalty of the law would not, in this case, be executed. It was the blood of Christ, which gave a sanction to the New Covenant.— Matt. -26: 28, this is my blood of the new covenant. Luke 22: 20, the new covenant in my blood ; that is, the death of Christ confirmed the certainty of the promise of pardon and happiness, as well as the sanctity of that condition1 on which pardon and eternal life are sus pended. Heb. 13: 20. 9: 20. It was customary among ancient na tions, to ratify their contracts or covenants by bloody sacrifices. The blood of the covenant, therefore, was forcibly to remind the Jews of the punishments which awaited them if they violated their promise (v. 7,) and, on the other hand, also to assure them of the certainty of the promises given by God. It was therefore, at the same time, a lively memorial of the severe punishment which awaited the trans gressor of this covenant, and, on the part of God, the most solemn confirmation of the pardon which the covenant promised.3 The truth of the doctrines of Jesus is evinced, not so much by his death, as by other proofs (<§> 7 etc.,) especially by his resurrection, <§> 83. 111. 6. But the inviolable sanctity of that part of the divine doctrines, which promises salvation to man on a certain, fixed condition, is displayed in the most forcible manner by that doctrine of the chris tian scheme which expressly teaches, that " the Son of God died in order to procure pardon for us in a manner consistent with the au thority of the law, which requires obedience ; that this exalted man laid down his life a sacrifice, for our advantage, and for the honour of the divine law." In other words, from the fact and the design of Christ's death, we may infer how earnestly God desires th,at we should obtain salvation,3 and that we should obtain it by showing that obedience which is the condition on which it is suspended. 1 Pet. 1:2. As God confirmed the new covenant by Jesus, making him the surety of it (Heb. 7: 22,)" Jesus is called the Mediator of it (Heb. 12: 24, )4 not only because it was through him that God 1 Heb. 8: 10. 10: 16. Rom. 3: 22,25. Phil. 3: 9. 2 Comment, on Heb. 9: 20. infra, § 114. 3 Rom. 8: 32. Heb. 12: 24. 10: 19. Schwartze, p. 179—184, where the death of Jesus is viewed as a proof that. God is love, that he is the God and Fatherof all mankind. 4 Comment, on Heb. in loc. 472 OF THE REDEEMER. [BE. IV. published1 the promise and condition of pardon, not only for the reason on account of which Moses was the mediator of the old covenant (Gal. 3: 19. Heb. 12: 18—21. 9: 19 ;) but also because Christ was the Priest of the new covenant,2 or because in conse quence of his atonement,3 he dwells in the presence of God as au thor4 of our pardon and salvation. And finally, Jesus is denomina ted the Mediator between God and man, (ptalzrjg &tov xal dv&goi- ntov,) not only because God announced salvation to men through him, but also because it was by Jesus, as the immediate Author of it, that God provided this salvation for mankind (1 Tim. 2: 6 ;) be cause it is through Jesus, that he still carries on the work of salva tion, and because he will ultimately also, in the most solemn man ner, bestow this salvation on those who shall obtain it, through its Author and Publisher, Jesus. Schwartze, in discussing the evidence of the divinity of Christ's mission, and the truth of his doctrines as far as they are deducible from his death, reduces it to the following heads : — 1. All the cir cumstances attending the death of Jesus, combine to prove that he was not merely a sincere, benevolent philosopher, who became a sacrifice to his reformation. — 2. They establish the fact, that he was not led astray by fanaticism. — 3. Hence, the most natural method of explaining these circumstances, is really to regard him as the personage he professed to be, namely, the Son of God. SECTION XCIII. Collateral objects of the atonement. There are various other benevolent objects, which were connect ed with the chief design of the death of Christ.(l) Such were the termination of the Mosaic system of sacrifices, (2) the abrogation(3) of the entire Mosaic(4) preparatory institutions,(5) and the cessa tion of the distinction between the Jews and other nations. (6) In addition to these effects of the atonement, other aspects of this event present themselves, which, though they would have been in sufficient to induce God to sentence Jesus to so ignominious a punishment, could, nevertheless, well be combined with the main design of his death, after that event had been resolved on. (7) l Heb. 12: 25. 2 Heb. 8: 6. 9: 15, 11. 3 Heb. 9: 15. 8: 3. 4 Heb. 8: 1—4. 9: 12, 14. § 86. 111. 1. § 93.] system of sacrifices annulled. 473 Illustrations. I. The main design. — The apostle Paul declares (Gal. 2: 21,) that the death of Christ would have been in vain, if it were not the ground on which our pardon is effected. But he, at the same time, infers (v. 11 etc.) that Christians are no longer obligated to the ob servance of the Jewish ceremonies.1 II. System of sacrifices annulled. — He (Christ) taketh away the first (sacrifices which are offered by the law,) that he may establish the second (" I come to do thy will,") by which will (concerning the offering up of the body of Jesus Christ once for all) we are sancti fied — for by one offering, he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified — But where there is remission of sins, there is no more sacrifice for them. Heb. 10:8 — 18. Which was~a figure for the time then present — appointed until the time of a better institution — But Christ came as highpriest of future good things — by his own blood he entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. Heb. 9: 9 — 12. III. Abrogation of the ceremonial law. — Heb. 7: 12, now, if the priesthood is changed (transferred to Christ,) it necessarily follows that the law (which admits of no other than Levitical priests) must also be changed. IV. Same subject continued. — The Mosaic economy or the Mo saic law, is called the " Old"2 or " first"3 covenant, in contradis tinction from the " New"4 or " second"5 covenant, which affords much greater privileges (Heb. 8: 6. 7: 22,) and is of eternal dura tion. Heb. 13: 20. 9: 12. "The one covenant," we are told, (Gal. 4: 24) " is from the Mount Sinai." The ministry which, in 2 Cor. ch. 3, is placed in opposition to the ministry of the New Covenant, is termed " a ministry of the letter (v. 6) engraven with letters on stone." v. 7. " The reading of the Old Covenant" signi fies " the reading of Moses." v. 14, 15. See also Heb. 8: 7, 9. 9: 1. A covenant is a solemn contract under certain conditions. The promise of Isaac's birth and the possession of Palestine, God con firmed to Abraham by the establishment of a covenant. Gen. 15:4. 13: 9. In like manner, that subsequent legislation which was con nected with this promise, was also represented as a covenant. Ex. ch. 24. And the same name is given to that new dispensation which God established for the benefit of all nations, through Jesus Christ, the most exalted of all the descendants of Abraham, and which was 1 On the Design of Christ's death, p. 457. Comp. § 73. III. 3 supra. 2 2 Cor. 3: 14. Heb. 8: 13. 3 Heb. 8: 7—13. 9: 1, 13, 18. 4 Mark 14: 24. 1 Cor. 11: 24. 2 Cnr. 3: 6. Heb. 8: 8, 13. 9: 15. 12: 24. in all which passages the expression xaivr) dia&rjxi; occurs. 5 Heb. 8: 7, Sevzsga dia&r/xrj. 60 474 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. the developement of that scheme which was begun by God with the promise of a son to Abraham. Morus, in lib Epitome Theol. Christianae, says, " A covenant of God with man, is a promise of certain . blessings, suspended on a condition. Formerly God prom ised to the Jews certain blessings, suited to them as a nation (tem poral, civil happiness,) if they would obey the laws of Moses. Now, he promises to all nations the pardon of sin, and eternal felicity, if they will believe."1 In one passage, Heb. 9: 16, the New Cove nant is, in the train of discussion, compared to a testament or be quest. Paul did not, however, intend by this comparison, that Jesus had to die in order that he might bestow on us an eternal inheri tance. He had previously (ch. 8: 8 — 12) proved from the des cription of the New Covenant by Jeremiah, that God had promised redemption from the punishments of sin ; and that this pardon re quired the death of Christ, be bad previously shown from the idea of a priest (8: 3.) For, according to Ps. 110: 4, a priest was re quired in the New Testament also. The reference to a testament, is merely a collateral idea, which resulted from the ambiguity of the word covenant, Sia&rjxri ; and the apostle does not dwell on it, but returns again (v. 18) to the principal feature of a covenant. — Still, it was not unnatural to compare a covenant, which makes the inheritance of the family or people of God (Heb. 3: 6. 9: 15) de pendant on the death of him who made the covenant, to a testament. V. Subject continued. — Gal. 2: 14 — 19. I regard the word " law" (vopog v. 16, 19) as signifying not merely the ceremonial law; for it evidently means every precept which connects our sal vation with the observance of certain duties, with works and not faith. Still, the general proposition, that we cannot obtain salvation by the observance of the law, includes the particular truth, that we are not to perform the ceremonial precepts with a view of obtaining a title to salvation by them as someof the Jews vainly recommended. Acts 15: 1. If then the observance of them is obligatory or* Christians at all, there must be some other ground on which the ob ligation rests. But this was not the case, inasmuch as it could be proved that those ceremonies had only a conditional necessity for a certain time, that the views which led to their establishment, were of such a nature, that after the introduction of the new economy by Jesus Christ, they would rather be injurious than beneficial ; in short it can be proved that they were preparatory to the advent of the l Foedus Dei cum hominibus, est promissio bonorum cum conditiowe. Glim Deus promisemt nationi Judafcas bonahuic nationi proprie destinata, si Mosaicam legem observaient. Nunc prnmittit omnibus rvationibus veniam peecati felicits- teinque sempitornam si iriazsvataat, p. 160. See Meyer's Dissert, foederis cum Jehova notionem in V. T. scriptis frequentissime obviam illustrans, Goettingen, 1797. § 93.] JEWS AND GENTILES UNITED. 475 Saviour (Gal. 3: 19,23,) and therefore necessarily fell to the ground when the new economy was established by Jesus himself. Gal. 3: 25, but since faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (or pedagogue, one who has the care of youth.) 4: 5. Heb. 8: 7 — 13, for if the first (covenant) had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for the second — he hath made the first old. The following remarks are made in explanation of Gal. 4: 4, 5, in the Programma de consensu epistolarum Pauli ad Hebraeos et Galatas : God sent his Son into the world, not only as a man, but as a Jew, who was under obligation to observe the Mosaic institutions (" born under the law,") to purchase specifically for the Jews the right of filiation, and thus to deliver them from the law iva tovg vno vopov i^ayogdatj. For he delivered them from the dominion of the law, by liberating them from the fear of the punishment of the law, through his atonement, and by thus inspiring them with a filial dis position. How much less, then, could the other Christians, who had been gentiles, and for whom Christ had also purchased the right of filiation, be brought under obligation to observe the Mosaic law when they embraced Christianity ? Eph. 2: 15, 16, having abolish ed the law of commandments in ordinances. Col. 2: 14, " God blotted out the handwriting (the Mosaic law) by letting Christ be crucified; — he, as it were, nailed them to the cross of Christ (he destroyed the validity of the law.") The death of Christ, by' which we obtain the pardon of our sins, renders superfluous the propitia tory sacrifices which prefigured the more perfect sacrifice, Christ himself (v. 17,) which are a shadow of things to eome, but the body [substance] is Christ. The Mosaic law, in general, would fall to the ground with the Levitical sacrifices, as it was so closely inter woven with the laws concerning priests and sacrifices. VI. The wall of partition between the Jews and other nations broken down. — Ephes. 2: 13 etc. he (Jesus Christ) is our peace, who hath made both one — having, in his flesh, abolished the enmity — having slain the enmity on his cross. Col. 2: 14, "the hand writing (the Mosaic law,) the ordinances of which prevented our union with the Gentiles." John 1 1: 51, Jesus Christ should die not only for the (Jewish) nation, but also that he might gather to gether in one the children of God that are scattered abroad. VII. Secondary collateral designs of the atonement. — The con firmation of the doctrines of Jesus, and the exhibition of an obedi ence to God of a peculiar kind, belong to this class. Another such design is mentioned by Schwartze as being inferable from the New Testament, viz. to weaken and destroy, especially in the minds of his disciples, their erroneous Jewish ideas relative to a temporal kingdom to be erected by the Messiah. In refutation of the hy- 476 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. pothesis, that the object of the atonement last mentioned was its chief object, Lang remarks, " The death of Jesus did not destroy the worldly expectations of his disciples ; they continued unimpair ed at his resurrection. Acts 1: 6. And the fact that they relin quished those temporal views, and adopted nobler views of the Messiah, after the Saviour had left them and had gone to his Father, resulted from the circumstance, that they received particular in structions from that Holy Spirit (the Comforter,) whom the Saviour promised to send to them." BOOK IV. OF. THE REDEEMER. PART II. OF THE WORKS OF THE REDEEMER AS LORD OVER ALL THINGS. SECTION I I. DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT IN GENERAL. SECTION XCIV. In his state of exaltation also, Jesus is engaged in accomplishing the salvation of men. Although the work of Jesus on earth has been accomplished, the welfare of the human family continues still to be the object of his attention. (1) He is now engaged in the farther accomplishment of the scheme of salvation devised by God. Is. 53: 10. He exercises the right by which he purchased his obedience even unto death, the right(2) to bestow salvation upon man, who not only did not merit happiness, but who even deserved the highest misery. He regards it as an occupation not unworthy of his present exalted station,(3) to indulge those feelings of compassion for the human family, which his own experience tended to render still more acute, and to exert his omnipotent, providential protection in the advancement of their welfare. (4) 478 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. Illustrations. I. Agency of Jesus in his state of exaltation. — 1 John 2: 1, we have (a Comforter) an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.— Rom. 8: 34, Christ is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession (ivzvyxavti) for us. Heb. 7: 25, he is able to save unto the end (forever) them that come unto God by him, ever living to make intercession for them (ivzvyxdvtiv tinig avtolv.) The ex pression ivtvyxdvtiv to make intercession, indicates, that since Je sus has been raised from the dead, he is sitting at the right hand of God, and engaged for the benefit of man (vnig rjpdiv 1 John 2: 1. The opposite is ivtvyydvtiv xatd tivog. Rom. 11: 2.) that not only his life and his death, but also his government as God, is beneficial to the interests of man. It also indicates, that as Jesus is risen from the dead (Rom. 5: 9,) and shall live forever, his salutary exertions for our welfare are not confined to his life on earth, but are contin ued in the other world, ooi£tiv; that his present residence with God in heaven is devoted to the advancement of our welfare. 'Heb. 9: 24. 6: 20. Comp. $ 86. 111. 1. Morus has collected the various explanations of the passages in which i'vttv^ig vnig rjpdiv intercession for us, is attributed to Christ. He observes that ivtvyxdvtiv tivl to intercede for any one, has the general signification, to labour (in any way) in conjunction with another, in the promotion of an object ; and he endeavours to show that ivtvyxdveiv vnig avtdiv, in Heb. 7: 25, is synonymous with oto£tiv immediately preceding it. The general idea of the passage would therefore be " that Jesus is still, at the present day, the Au thor of our salvation, and will continue to be so forever."1 II. His legal right to save sinners. — The just Governor of the universe (Heb. 7: 2, fiaoiXtvg Sixaioavvrig,) before his entrance on the government of the world, made provision, that the honour of the law, according to which he dispensed rewards and punishments, should not be violated, but on the other hand rather promoted, by the work of redemption, and by the mercy which, for special rea sons, he extended to the family of man. This he accomplished by his own personal obedience and by voluntarily suffering the punish ment of our sins. In order to maintain the honour of the divine laws, which was so important to the future Ruler of the world, the right to bestow salvation on men was given him on the condition that he should take upon himself the punishment due to them.2 III. Dignity of Jesus. — The dignity of Jesus is evident from 1 De notionibus universis in theologia Dissert. Vol. I. p. 298 etc. 2 On the Design of the death of Christ, p. 575, 669. $ 95.] Christ's legal right to pardon sin. 479 the fact, that by virtue of it he is enabled to extend relief to men, and from the circumstance that he is, at the same time, Priest and King. Hence he is called " King of peace," (PaaiXtvg\tigrjvt]g. Di>V5 i. q. Sibia', as is remarked in the- Dissert, de sensu histor.,) i. e. a king who is author of salvation. He is called, in Heb. 6: 20, " priest according to the order of Melchisedek, that is, Priest and Kin&; - , , Ao'§rj xai tipri tattqavojptvog — agxrjyog amtriglag. Acts 5: 31. Heb. 2: 9. 2: 10. comp. v. 9. " The great honour of being Au thor of salvation to his brethren, belonged to the exaltation of Jesus, itXiiaiaig."' IV. Administration of Christ for the benefit of his people. — Luke 1: 33. Heb. 7: 24—28. On the passage 1 Cor. 15: 24— 28, see the Dissert, de notione regni coelestis, p. 19. Compare § 42. 111. 10. <§» 83. 111. 11. SECTION XCV. The happiness which Jesus derives from the welfare of his people, constitutes part of his reward. Jesus will forever continue to feel the most ardent desire for the welfare of his people ;(1) and in the accomplishment of this desire, he finds the reward of his obedience. Hence, it is evident that the residence of Jesus in heaven must be beneficial to the interests of his people. The happiness which he is himself to enjoy, is con nected with the welfare of mankind, who are so dear to him. He is beloved(2) and honoured(3) when his friends are honoured and beloved. It is on his account, that those who strive after holiness, are pleasing to God,(4) notwithstanding their imperfections ; it is through his influence, that they may now pour out their supplica tions with confidence, for the aid of heaven.(5) Illustrations. I. The desire of Jesus for the welfare of his people. — John 10: 14 — 28. 14: 21. 15: 10. 17: 24. Rom. 8: 34, who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Heb. 7: 25. 4: 15. 1 On the design of the death of Christ, p. 598. 480 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. II. How Jesus is beloved. — John 17: 23, 26, thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me. 14: 21, 23. 16: 27, the Father loveth you, because ye have loved me, 3: 35. Compare § 87. 111. 7. III. How he is honoured. — John 12: 26, if any man serve me, him will my Father honour. 8: 50, the Father seeks my honour — " verily, to him who keepeth my word, will he give eternal life." IV. We are accepted for Christ's sake. — 1 John 2: 1 . Rom. 8: 34. 1 Pet. 2: 5, spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Je sus Christ. Heb. 13: 21, " May God work in you what is well pleasing in his sight, through the mediation of Jesus Christ." The sacrifice of Christ and the divine approbation of his perfect obedience, is of much advantage to us, even in the acceptance of any thing good that is in us : for our best works are mingled with sin. v. 15, " Let us bring unto God a sacrifice of praise, through the mediation of Christ our priest, through whose influence our prayers are made worthy of acceptance." V. Heb. 10: 19 — 22, let us draw near in full assurance of faith. 4: 15. SECTION XCVI. Jesus promotes the welfare of mankind, by virtue of his dominion over all things. But it is not only for Jesus' sake, it is also through Jesus, that God bestows salvation on man. It was with this view, that the man (1) Jesus was raised from the dead, that(2) he might be Lord and Judge of the whole human family, of the living and the dead. (3) And as the administration of the concerns of man could not- well be conducted, excepting in connexion with the government of the whole universe ; the whole world,(4) even the ranks of angels themselves,(5) are, in connexion with the human family, subjected to the government of Jesus. (6) Illustrations. -John 5: 27. Act: II. Design of his resurrection. — Rom. 14: 9, for to this end I. The man Jesus. — John 5: 27. Acts 17: 31. Compare $> 65. 111. 7. § 97.] AGENCY OF JESUS IN HEAVEN. 481 Christ both died and rose and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living. Col. 1: 18, "he is Ruler (dgxv Tit. 3: 1) after he had been raised from the dead, in order that he might be the first among all." It was needful that he should die, in order to obtain that universal dominion which is so beneficial to the inter ests of his children, and that he should rise again, in order that he might actually enter on this dominion. See Dissert. I. in ep. ad Coloss. note 33. 30. III. Christ the Judge.— Acts 17: 31. Rom. 4: 9. 2 Tim. 4: 1. Acts 10: 42. IV. Christ's universal dominion. — Eph. 1: 20 — 22. Col. 1: 18, and he is the head of the (his) body, the church. The universal dominion of Jesus is the subject of discourse in the preceding and subsequent parts of the context. When the church is called " the body" of Christ" (adipa Xgiatov Ephes. 1: 23,) her particular con nexion with the Lord over all things (v. 20, 22) by virtue of which he is particularly her Lord, xtqaXrj vnig ndvta v. 22, is compared to the union between a husband, xtqaXrj, and wife, adipa {Eph. 5: 23,28.) See also 2 Cor. 11: 2. John 3: 29. and Dissert. I. in epist. ad Coloss. Note 29, 30. Compare supra § 78. 111. 8. V. Christ is Lord over the angels. — Matt. 13: 41, the Son of man shall send forth his angels. Heb. 1: 14, Xtizovgyixd nvtvpata " they must await the commands which are given them from the throne on which Jesus sits." VI. Jesus exercises universal dominion. — Ephes. 1: 10, "God hath determined in the time that yet remaineth (in the time of the New Covenant) to commit the government of every thing that transpires in heaven and on earth, into the hands of Jesus" (dvaxt- qaXaitoaaa&ai td ndvta iv to) Xgtato)j summam rerum omnium Christo permittere. See Diss, de sensu vocis nXrjgtopa, $ VII. SECTION XCVII. Agency of Jesus in bestowing salvation on his worshippers in the life to come. All those who do not themselves prevent their salvation, are, when they leave this world, received by the mighty Redeemer into the habitations of the blessed. (2 Tim. 4: 18. Comp. § 65.) And the presence of this most blessed of all men, is a source of pleasure and of various blessings(l) to the inhabitants of those regions, even 61 482 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. for those who had entered them previously to his arrival there. <§> 65. 111. 5. Finally, he will prove himself the Redeemer of his peo ple, by delivering their bodies(2) from death, and by all(3) the manifestations of his power connected with it ($ 61. 65,) and be stow salvation on them in the new dispensation by his everlasting dominion. (5) Illustrations. 1. The presence of Jesus, is a source of happiness to the inhabi tants of the celestial world. John 17: 24. 2 Cor. 5: 8. Rev. 7: 17, the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne, shall feed them, and shall lead them to living fountains of water. II. Jesus will raise our bodies from the dead. — Rom. 8: 23. 1 Cor. 15: 21—26. Comp. <§, 62. III. Displays of his power. — Even the solemnities of the judg ment, which will take place about this time (§ 65. 111. 5,) are per fectly consistent with the character of the Redeemer of men. For, that judgment will confer honour and happiness on some of its sub jects ; whilst the condemnation of the wicked will be an evidence of the displeasure of the Judge at those who prevented their own sal vation, and the accomplishment of the Redeemer's wishes, and will thus also evince his earnest desire for their salvation. Finally, it will show the love of the Redeemer to those who were contemned or even abused by the wicked (Matt. 25:41. 2 Thess. 1:6. Luke 18: 7,) and who could not be perfectly happy if the wicked were not separated from them. Matt. 13: 41 — 43. Comp. $ 58. 111. 3. IV. The Saviour. — Phil. 3: 20, from whence (from heaven) we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. Ephes. 4: 30, the day of redemption. Heb. 9: 28, to them that look for him, shall he ap pear the second time without sin, unto salvation. V. He shall preserve us forever. — 1 Thess. 4: 17, and, so shall we be ever with the Lord. John 14: 3. Rev. 21: 22. 22: 3. <§> 62. SECTION XCVIII. Jesus prepares us in the present life, for happiness in the life to come. The providential care of Jesus for men, is engaged in preparing them(l) in this life, for that happiness which he will bestow on them § 98.] JESUS PREPARES US FOR FUTURE HAPPINESS. 483 hereafter ; he is making them worthy of all these future blessings which are reserved for them. It is only as exerted upon those to whom the revelation is known, that we are acquainted with this agency of Jesus. For, although the providence of the Redeemer of all men (1 John 2: 2. 1 Tim. 2: 5, 6) certainly also extends to all men, we are nevertheless totally unacquainted with the manner in which he exerts his agency for the welfare of those who are ig norant of his doctrines (<§> 71.) And it is certainly very natural, that the records which treat of this providential care of the Re deemer, should speak of it with particular reference to those who should read those records or learn their contents ; for it is to them that the Gospel is addressed, and their interests and duties, there fore should of course be considered. Illustration. Acts 5: 31, him hath God exalted to his right hand, a Prince and Saviour (a prince of. salvation,) to give repentance unto Israel, and the remission of sins. Compare § 65. 111. 2. Heb. 2: 10, " He is the captain of our salvation, through whom, God will bring many sons unto glory." BOOK IV OF THE REDEEMER. PART II. THE DIFFERENT WORKS OF CHRIST (HIS OFFICES.) SECTION III. THE PROVIDENTIAL CARE OF CHRIST OVER HIS CHURCH. SECTION XCIX. The Christian church. The collective body(l) of those who have received(2) the Chris tian doctrines, together with all those who are to be qualified(3) for the reception of them, is termed " the church of God and of Christ" (4) ; that is(5) the people or family of God and of Christ(6); who worship Christ, and in so doing, God as their Lord, (7) and who are supported and governed by his particular providence. Illustrations. I. The church not -sectional. — 1 Cor. 1: 2. Paul embraces in one the christian congregation in Corinth, and all Christians in all places, iv navtl tdnto. John 10: 16, pia nolpvn one flock. 1 Cor. 12: 12 etc. navttg tig ev adipa i^antla&rjpev' eite 'fovSdtoi, e'iti 'EX- Xrjvtg we are all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Greeks. Rom. 12: 4, ol noXXol tv adipd iaptv tv Xgiato) we many are one body in Christ. Eph. 4: 4 — 6. § 99.] the church of christ. 485 II. Subject continued. — In other words, all those who are call ed (xXtitol 1 Cor. 1: 2,) in the sense of this phrase which is given in <§> 71. 111. 2 ; or all those who in the time of the apostles, could not be reckoned among the Jews or Gentiles, who belonged not to the 'lovSatoig xal "EXXnai (1 Cor. 10: 32,) are sometimes called " the church." III. Membership of children. — Comp. «§> 1 12. Little children were included also among the ancient people of God. Gen. 17: 10 —14. Children eight days old, were to receive circumcision, which was the mark of those who belonged to the people of God, or which was a sign of the covenant between God and his people. IV. The name church. — The appellation ixxXrjala (or church) without any adjunct, occurs 1 Cor. 12: 28. Eph. 1:22. 3: 10. Phil. 3: 6. The phrase ixxXrjala -&tov or zov fitov church of God is applied to the whole christian church (1 Cor. 10: 32. 15: 9,) and to a single christian church. 1 Cor. 11: 22, 16. 1: 2. 1 Tim. 3: 5. The church is termed " church of Christ," ixxXrjala Xgia tov, in Matt. 16: 18, I will build my church. Eph. 3: 21, the church in (or of Jesus Christ. 5: 23. She is called " the church of God and Christ," or, which is the same thing, " in God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess. 1: 1, and 2 Thess. 1:1. Of the same import is the phrase, " the churches of God which are in Christ Jesus," 1 Thess. 2: 14, where iv, which corresponds to the Hebrew b. , expresses the dative, ecclesia Christo sacra, i. e. ecclesia Christi. Thus, in Jude v. I, we read "the Christians xXrytol, are dedicated to God the Father, " iv -d-eo) natgl rjyiaapivoi, and are preserved for Jesus Christ, i. e. they remain Christians (belonging to Christ.) In short, Christians are here termed " a people conse crated to God the Father, and Jesus Christ." Thus the words, (John 17: 11,) trjgrjaov avtovg iv rco dvdpatl aov may be translated thus, " Preserve them, O Father, (as thine) for thyself."1 On the philosophic view of a church or of an Ethical Polity ; that is, of a public union of men for moral purposes under a moral Law giver and Judge, see Kant's Religionslehre, 1st ed. p. 123 — 134 ; Staudlin " Ueber den Begrif der Kirche, und Kirchengeschichte," in the Gotting. Theol. Bibl. Vol. I, p. 600—653 ; and Stapffer " De natura, conditore, et incrementis reipublicae ethicae," Bern, 1797, Dissert. 1. On the insufficiency of mere natural religion, for the foundation of a church and social religious worship, see Staudlin " On the pub lic worship of natural religion ;" " Beitrage" to the philosophy and history of religion and morality, Vol. I. No. VIII. V. Subject continued. — The ancient people of God also bore l Dissert. I. in Libros. N. T. histor. p. 89, 486 of the redeemer. [bk. iv. the name " church of God," exxXvala [brjj3] xvgiov. Deut. 23: 2 etc. 8. Eckermann remarks, that this expression has a peculiar force in Deut. ch. 23, because the context relates to persons who are to be excluded from connexion with the people of God ; and that Paul may also have used the expression (1 Cor. 1: 2.) ixxXrj ala ¦&toii " church of God" with an emphatic reference to the in cestuous person (ch. 5,) whom he pronounces unworthy to be a member of the church. From this ancient people of God, the new people originated.1 Hence the ancient name of the Israelites de scended to Christians or the new people of God, which consists of the better and more genuine portion of the Israelites (Rom. 9: 6, ov ndvttg oi i'§ fagurjX, ovtoi 'jagarjX. 2: 28, 29, d iv td) xgvnto) 'Jov8a7og — ntgtzoprj xagSiag,) and an addition of Gentiles.2 Luke 1: 32 etc. he shall reign over the house of Jacob. Acts 15: 16, 1 will rebuild the tabernacle of David. Phil. 3: 3, we are the cir cumcision. Rom. 4: 11, 12, 16, the seed of Abraham which is of faith. Gal: 3: 29, If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed. All these appellations are figurative, and signify the new people of God, which was prefigured by the old. Dissert, de notione regni coelestis, § VI. VI. The church is called " the people of God and of Christ. Acts 15: 14, a people for the name of God. v. 17, all the gentiles over whom the name of God is called. 1 Pet. 2: 9 etc., ye are a holy nation, a people of God. 1: 14, as obedient children, v. 15, 16, be ye holy as he who hath called you is holy. Tit. 2: 14, that he might purify [consecrate] unto himself a peculiar people. 1 Tim. 3: 15, in the house of God, which is the church of the living God. Heb. 3: 2, 3, 6, we are the house of Christ. The ancient people of God, from which the new is derived, and to which there is an evident reference in Acts 15: 16. 1 Pet. 1: 16. Heb. 2: 5, also re ceives this name. Compare 2 Chron. 7: 14, ¦'Xril-N'ipq '-iiaK "'h? drpbj-'. my people which is called after my name, with Acts 15: 17, 14" ;' and Ex. 19: 6,'ijiij3 "os'i B"2rib rDlbaa a kingdom of priests and a holy people, with 1 Pet. 2: 9. The expression olxog xvgiov the house of the Lord, which is applied to the new people of God (1 Tim. 3: 15. Heb. 3: 2 — 4, 6,) is, according to the Alexandrian Codex, used by the LXX (Deut. 23: 1, where the Hebrew is bttp FilrT1) of the children of Israel ; whereas the Vatican Ms. has ix- xXrjoiav xvgiov. " House of God" or " people of God" oixog&tov 1 Luke 24: 47, Krjgvx&rjvai — de itdvro. zd e&vq, dg^dpevov ano 'IegovoaXijp should be proclaimed among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Rom. 11: 12 — 24, the gentile converts are called aygii)Miog iyxcvToio&elg eis xaXhiXatov. 15: 27. Acts 15: 16. v v 2 Eph. 2: 19, Ovxhi l-ivoi xal ndgoixoi, dXld ovprtoXttai itav dytxav itrti ye are no longer guests and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints. § 99.] the church. 487 — Xadg &tov (comp. Heb. 3 : 6 — 8 with 4 : 7 — 9) are synonymous, and both signify " the family of God." Of similar import are the following expressions of the Old Testament. — 1 . Ex. 4 : 23, "^a ¦nM Israel, my (God's) firstborn son. — 2. Hos. 11: 1, "33 my som —3! Is. 1: 2—4, tPia children of God. Deut. 32: 5, 6, 'he is thy Father. — 4. Num. 12: 7, rp2 house. In v. 14, God calls himself, Father of the house to wliich Moses and his sister Miriam belong ed.1 — 5. The term dyiot holy, when it is used- without adjunct (as 2 Cor. 1: 1 and 1 Cor. 14:33. 6: 1. v. 4, — ixxXrjala), signifies nothing else than a people consecrated to God and Christ, or a peo ple of God and Christ, dyiaapivoi iv Xgtaito' Irjaov 1 Cor. 1: 2. Comp. Illust. 4 sup. Thus the ancient people of God is called " a people consecrated to God," ("'vpb ci^rr-DS Ex. 19: 6. Deut. 7: 6. and 14: 2,) in opposition to idolatrous nations.2 VII. The true church worship Christ. — Eph. 5: 24, the church is subject to Christ. Col. 2: 19. 1 Cor. 1: 2. Comp. ¦§> 42. John 10: 3 — 5, 14,1 am known of mine. v. 27, my sheep hear my voice — and follow me. It must indeed be admitted, that in the present mixed state of the church (<§> 105,) this sincere adoration, which can alone be pleasing to Christ, is not the characteristic of every member of the church. But each Christian ought to be a sincere worshipper of Christ, and all would be, if they actually were what they are called, if they all were true Christians or genuine members of the church. And with regard to those who are merely nominal professors of Christianity, one object of the institution is, that they should become what as yet they are not ; that in this nursery of true Christians (§ 105,) they should be trained up to be sincere worshippers of the Lord Jesus. VIII. The church is under the special protection and guidance of Christ. — Eph. 1: 22, and constituted him head over all things to the church. This relation of Christ to his church is referred to, when his guidance of the church or people of God, which is only a part of his government, is, by way of distinction, termed " his reign" (Luke 1: 32, 33,) and the church itself is called the kingdom or state of Christ, the descendant of David, Acts 15: 16, axrjvrj AaviS the tabernacle of David. Col. 1: 13, (3aoiXtia zov vlov the king dom of his Son.3 (¦§> 105.) Thus also the particular government of the ancient people of God, which is only a part of the universal di vine government, is called the "reign of God." Malt. 21: 43. And in reference to Christ's special government of his church, the church is also termed "the body, of Christ." Eph. 1: 22. Col. 1: 18. Comp. $ 96. 111. 4. 1 Vide Storr's Comm. on Heb. 3: 2, note 1. 2 Vide Dissert. I. in Ep. ad Col. not. 42. 3 Vide Dissert, de notione regni coelestis, not. 77. 488 of the redeemer. [bk. iv. In " Hess' Bibliothek der heii. Geschiehte," Pet. II. No. I. On the subject of Theocracy, the true idea of a special Providence, is thus determined : " When in a limited sphere of action, which is within the extent of our observation, the intentional guidance of a higher power and wisdom is manifest in a higher and more striking degree, than in the ordinary course of events ; this, whether it is connected with more or less that is actually miraculous, is termed " special Providence." IX. Subject continued — Matt. 16: 18, 1 will build my church. — 28: 20, 1 am always with you ; i. e. not only with the apostles, but also with all who shall learn to keep my commandments, or teach others to keep them, in short with all, even unto the end of the christian church.1 Eph. 1: 22. 4: 15. Coloss. 2: 19. "By which (head, Christ) the whole body attains a glorious growth, because it receives strength and compactness in all its individual parts." Eph. 5: 23, he is the Saviour of the body. 29 — 32, the Lord nourisheth and cherisheth the church. John 10: 14, 27, 28, 1 know my own — and I give unto them eternal life, and no one shall wrest them out of my hand. The influence of Christ is of course bestowed in different degrees, and adapted to the different callings and necessities of the members of the church. Eph. 4: 7 — 12. 1 Cor. 12: 4, and it is evident also, that the conduct of individual members of the church, may incapacitate them for the reception of many blessings, which they might expect of Christ, if they were sincere members of the church, and made a conscientious use of the privileges which it affords. SECTION C. Origin of the christian Church through the special agency of Christ. The history of the origin of the Christian church, presents striking 1 This is evident from the phrase succeeding, 'itog zrjg owTtXttagrov altuvog until the end of the world. Thus, Deut. 4: 25 etc. ch. 30, the Israelites are fre quently addressed in the second person, when such things were spoken of, as concerned the whole Jewish nation in every age. This figure of speecb is termed communicatio xolv or a i g, and by it the speaker embraces, in the first or second person plural, all of the same nation or religion, to which he or his hear ers belong. John 7: 26, 22, vplv. Acts 7: 53, iXdfisrs ye received ; and sometimes that particular part of a whole nation which does not belong to the generation then living. John 6: 32. ov. Muivaijg SiSoixtv vptv Moses did not give to you. Vide Diss, de sensu histor. note 183, where other examples are adduced. § 100.] ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH. 489 evidences(l) of the fact, that Christ exercises a particular provi dence over her. For, he is the Author and promoter of the doctrines (2) by which he collects and preserves his worshippers,(3) not only because he commissioned the apostles whom he himself instructed, to disseminate the doctrines he had taught them ; but also because he endowed them, (4) and other members of the new church, (5) with extraordinary qualifications^) for teaching ; and because he even substantiated the truth of his doctrines by miracles. (7) Illustrations. I. See Dissert, de notione regni coelestis, p. 31. Opusc. Vol. I. p. 288. Such evidence is afforded by the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire, without the instrumentality of the least violence. II. Christ is the Author of the doctrines taught by the apostles. — Acts 26: 23, the first that should rise from the dead, and should announce a light unto the people and to the Gentiles. Ephes. 2: 17, (Christ) came and preached peace to you who were far off, and to those who were nigh. 2 Tim. 1: 10. III. Matt. 13: 37 etc, he who sowed the good seed (the sons of the kingdom) is the Son of man. John 10: 16, other sheep — I must bring them. IV. He sent the Comforter. — John 16: 7. 14: 26, nipipto ngog vpdg (niptpti d nairjg iv ovopazi pov) zov nagrjxXrjzov I will send unto you (the Father will send in my name) the Comforter. Acts 26: 16. Comp. ¦§> 9, 10. V. All spiritual gifts come from Christ. — In the " New Repert. for Biblical and Oriential literature," the phrase Xdyog ooqlag the word of wisdom (2 Cor. 12: 8,) in comparison with the expression dSivai pvazrjgia to comprehend mysteries, (13: 2) is explained as meaning " a communication of unknown truths, made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ;" and Xdyog yvoiattog, " a prudent com munication, well adapted to the circumstances of the case." Com pare yvoiatg I Pet. 3: 7 and 2 Pet. 1: 5. Both these phrases are embraced in the word ngoqvzivtiv to prophecy, taken in its more extensive sense (1 Cor. 14: 1 — 5, 6,) for in this sense it includes, in general, every communication of truth, which presupposes a special influence of the Holy Ghost. Both of these, as well as the other spiritual gifts specified (12: 8—10,) were of supernatural origin. VI. -Subject continued. — Eph. 4: 7 — 11, having ascended on high, he gave gifts unto men — and he appointed some apostles, and 62 490 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and some teachers. VII. He substantiated the doctrines of the apostles, by miracles. —John 14: 13 etc. Acts 14: 7—10. 3: 6. 9: 34. 16: 18. Rom. 15: 18. Comp. supra $ 10. 111. 26, 27. SECTION CI. Multiplication of christian churches, and the care of the apostles over them. The very nature of the christian religion led( 1 ) those who first embraced it to form themselves into an associate body. But as an intimate social connexion can exist only among persons of contig uous residence, the natural consequence was that distinct churches were formed in the different sections of the country. (2) And the apostles by divine authority, (3) sanctioned these societies, and superintended the administration of their affairs. (4) Illustrations. I. The nature of Christianity social. — Christianity requires love and unity among her children (John 13: 34 etc. Eph. 4: 3 — 6, 16 ;) social edification by conversing together on the things of the king dom (5: 19. Col. 3: 16,) by good works (Matt. 5: 13—16,) and finally also by a public profession of religion (Matt, 10: 32. Mark 8: 38.) Hence, the natural consequences of these requisitions were, separation from those who rejected Christianity, and a more inti mate connexion among the Christians themselves. See § 108 inf. See Reinhard's system of Practical theology, § 306. p. 311, 313. II. Individual churches formed. — Acts 2: 41 — 47. Description of the church at Jerusalem. 8: 1. Other particular churches are mentioned, with or without their location. 1 Thess. 2: 14. Gal. 1: 22. 1 Cor. 1: 2. 4: 17. 11: 16. 16: 1, 19. III. Matt. 16: 19*. Comp. $ 90. 111. 19 supra. IV. The apostles superintended the Churches. — Acts 2: 38 — 42. 4: 32 — 35. 6: 2 — 4. 15: 22. It is evident from all these passages, that in the church at Jerusalem, every thing was conducted under the direction of the apostles. Acts 15:41. 16:4 etc. Paul travelled through several churches, taught in them, and made various arrange- § 102.] CHRIST PROTECTS THE CHURCH. 491 ments. Ch. 19: 9. Paul collected the new converts and gave them instructions. 1 Cor. 7: 17, oiiztog iv zdig ixxXtjot'aig ndaaig Siatda- oo^atthus do I ordain (direct) in all the churches. 2 Cor. 11: 28, xj pigtpva naaoiv zdiv ixxXrjaltov anxiety for all the churches. Comp. Heb. 10: 24 etc. SECTION CI I. Institution of the ministerial office. As it was the design of our Lord that Christianity should be pre served on earth until the end of the world, (1) and be gradually(3) extended by means of instruction ;(2) the apostles, in obedience to this divine purpose,(4) issued their general injunction, that the first teachers should qualify others for the duties of that station, (5) and that the ministerial office should be of perpetual standing. (6) They moreover made specific declarations by which they promoted the settlement of ministers in particular congregations. (7) ILLUSTRATIONS. I. Perpetuity of the church. — Matt. 13: 30, until the harvest, v. 39 — 43, 47 — 49. Until the separation of the good and evil at the end of the world, there shall be a church of Christ, consisting of good and bad. Matt. 28: 20. Compare <§, 99. 111. 9. II. The church to be extended by instruction. — Matt. 28: 20. SiSdaxovztg avzovg x. z. X, teaching them. John 17: 20, ntgl toiv nioztvaovztov Sid zov Xoyov avzdov igtotdi I pray for those who shall believe through their word (doctrine or preaching.) Luke 8: 11, the seed is the word of God, 6 Xdyog &tov. Eph. 4: 12, t'Stoxe (Xgtatdg) SiSaaxdXovg—iig oixoSoptjv zov aoipazog Xgiatov Christ appointed some teachers — for the edification of the body of Christ. 1 Pet. 1: 23 etc. 2: 2. III. Matt. 13: 31 — 33, the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven. IV. Bishops or ministers appointed by the apostles. — Eph. 4: 10 etc. see 111. 2. and § 100. HI. 6. ^ Acts 20:28, vpdg to nvtvpa zd dytov t&ezo tniaxonovg, notpaivtiv zrjv ixxXvolav tov &tov the Holy Ghost hath appointed you overseers (bishops) to feed the church of God. V. These are commanded to ordain others. — 2 Tim. 2: 2, 492 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. aijxovaag nap' ipov, zavza napd&ov niazoig av&gomotg, o'izivtg Ixavol i'aovzui xal izigovg SiSd'iai the things which you have heard of me, commit to faithful men, who shall be able also to instruct others. Eph. 4: 11, 12, i'Sojxt (Xgioidg) StSaaxdXovg, npdg zov xazapzta- pov zoiv dyluiv, tig i'gyov Siaxoviag Christ appointed teachers, for the perfecting (improvement) of the saints, for the work of the ministry. VI. Perpetuity of the ministerial office. — Eph. 4:12, 13. In this passage, the phrase, i'gyov Siaxoviag the work of the ministry, for vvhich certain Christians were from time to time to be prepared ; is mentioned as the means to be used tig oixoSoprjv tov ooipazog zov Xgiatov for the edification of the body of Christ, until the church of God shall have attained a state of perfection in the future world. See •§ 62. III. 18. VII. The apostles directed, that ministers should be located. — Acts 20: 17. (comp. with v. 28) nptaftvzepoi — iniaxonoi, Comp. 111. 4. 14: 23, ytipozovrjaavztg (IluvXog xal Eapvaftag) ngeopuii- govg xaz' ixxXqalav Paul and Barnabas, ordained them elders in every church. Tit. 1: 5, Paul directs Titus to ordain elders or presbyters in the towns of Crete. 1 Tim. 3: 1 — 5. 5: 17. 1 Thess. 5: 12. etc. Gal. 6: 6, 7. Heb. 13: 17. These passages enjoin res pect and obedience to the elders or ministers of the churches. SECTION CI II. Even in those instances, in which the agency of Christ in the government of his church, is' not manifested by any extraordinary acts, that agency nevertheless is exerted. By these arrangements (§ 100 and seq.,) provision was made for the preservation and extension of Christianity, so that such extraordinary and striking acts of Christ (<$, 100,) as were required for the formation of christian socielies(l) and the establishment of the ministerial office, (Eph. 4: 11) should no longer be necessary; but that Christianity should of itself,(2) make a progress(3) which, though not- so strikingly apparent(4) to its teachers and friends, should nevertheless be uninterruptedly advancing. Yet(5) Christ does not leave the church to herself, even in our days ;(6) but car ries on his work in the hearts of men (<§, 114,) and by virtue of his V 103.) CHRIST PROTECTS THE CHURCH. 493 government over all things (Matt. 28: 1 8. § 96,) overrules also external circumstances(7) for the good of his church ; even those which seem detrimental to her interests. Illustrations. I. Miracles wrought for the purpose of establishing the churches. — Acts 2: 6 — 43. The miracle on Whitsunday, after the perform ance of which three thousand persons received Christianity. Acts 4: 4. (comp. 3, 10 etc.) The great multiplication of Christians in consequence of the miracle of healing the lame man wrought by Peter. Acts 5: 11 — 16. The great influence which the miracles of Peter (the death of Ananias and his wife, the healing of the sick etc.,) had on the inhabitants of Jerusalem and of the surrounding country. Acts 8: 6 — 17. The founding of a church in Samaria by the miracles of the apostle Philip. Acts 14: 3. Miracles of Paul and Barnabas in Iconia. Acts 19: 10 — 20. Miracles of Paul at Ephesus, the consequences of which are thus described (v. 20): ovzoi xaza xgazog d Xdyog zov xvgiov rjv^avt xal 'iayvtv thus mightily did the word of God increase and prevail. Rom. 15: 18 etc. xaztigyaaazo Xpiazog St ipov tig vnaxorjv i&vdiv, Xdyto xal tgyto, iv Svvdpet arjpdwv xal ztgdzwv Christ wrought by me to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders. 11. Mark 4: 28, uviopacrj rj yrj xagnoqogti the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself. Comp. v. 26, oiiztag iaziv rj (SaaiXtla zov &tov thus is the kingdom of heaven (the church of Christ.") III. This is proved by the prarable of the mustard seed which gradually grew up to be a large tree Matt. 13: 32 — and of the little leaven which gradually leaveneth the whole lump v. 33. IV. Mark 4: 27, " the seed, unobserved by the husbandman, sprang up and grew to be a large tree." V. Just as the expression "of herself or spontaneously, avzo- pairj (Mark 4: 28) does not, according to Michaelis' own confes sion, exclude the influence of the weather and other similar circum stances, but only indicates, that the seed which was deposited in the earth, possessed a power to bring forth plants corresponding to the seed, and to produce something which the utmost exertion of the sowers could not effect, and which they at first could not even per ceive ; in like manner also does the apodosis or application of this parable, ascribe to divine truth, the seed of which is committed to the soil of the human heart; an intrinsic power, which, of itself, unobserved by others, effects a salutary change in those who re ceive it, without thereby denying that the efficacy of this truth is 494 OF THE REDEEMER. [bK. IV. augmented in various ways by divine providence. 1 Cor. 3: 6 etc. •§> 115. VI. Matt. 28: 20. § 99. 111. 9. VII. I Cor. 3: 21 — 23, navza vpoiv iativ — (xdapog, Coir], &dva- tog, iviatdiia, ptXXovta) vpdg Si Xptatov all things are yours (the world, life, death, things present, things future) and you are Christ's. Rom. 8: 28 etc. <$> 74. 111. 1. SECTION CIV. Notwithstanding all the adnersity which the church has to encoun ter, she is nevertheless under the uninterrupted guidance of Christ. The frequent adverse incidents of an internal or external nature, to which the church is exposed, are not evidence either of incapac ity or inattention in her Ruler. For, precisely such adversity also befel her in those days, when God exerted(l) himself in her de fence, in an ocular manner, and demonstrated by miracles, that he did not want power(2) either to repel the assaults of his enemies, or to counteract the influence of the unworthy members of his church. But if the church of Christ was to be established on this earth, (3) if she is to continue and to increase(4) as long as the pres ent state(5) of mankind lasts, and if the" purity and multitude of her members are to be augmented by the conversion and accession of such (6) as were formerly inimical to her interests and oppressive to her comfort and disgraceful(7) to her character — then neither death, 6 tayatog iy&pog the last enemy (1 Cor. 15: 26.) and the mortality of the human family, (8) nor the other enemies and obstacles by which the peace of the church was disturbed, can possibly be imme diately removed. (9) But in due time, (10) when it shall be accor dant with the divine purposes/ 11) they will doubtless be removed, and Christ shall rule with undisputed sway over all his prostrate (12) foes. But even now he does rule in the midst of his enemies. (13) He restrains(14) their power, when necessary, and overrules their iniquitous machinations to the prosperity of the whole,(15) or to the benefit of individual metnbers(16) of his church. V 104.] CHRIST PROTECTS THE CHURCH. 495 Illustrations. I. The church formerly defended by miracles. — Acts 1 3: 8 — 11. Elymas the magician who opposed Christianity suddenly became blind, at the rebuke of Paul. Acts 5: 19 etc. An angel opens the prison for the apostles. 12: 16 etc. An angel leads Peter out of the prison. 5: 1 — 11, The sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira. 1 Cor. 11: 30 — 32. Diseases at Corinth, in consequence of the abuse of the Lord's Supper. 1 John 5: 16, dpapzla npdg tidvazov a sin which brought a mortal disease on the transgressor.1 James 5: 15. At the commencement of the christian church, the first Christians were sometimes punished for great crimes by extraordinary diseases ; but if those sins were not sins unto death, dpagzlat npdg ftdvazov, they could be cured by those who possessed the gift of healing sicknesses, by means of the prayer of faith.2 II. Acts 18: 10, iyto dpi ptzd aov, xal ovSdg inifirjotzal aoi zov xaxtdaai atl am with you, and no one shall lay hold of you to hurt you. Thus saith Christ to Paul at Corinth. 1 Cor. 5: 3 — 5. — Paul was resolved by the authority of Christ to inflict a mortal dis ease (nagaSovvai tt) aatavd3) on the incestuous person, even in the assembly, in which, though absent himself, he would work by the power of Christ, ovv trj Svvdpti tov xvgiov rjpoiv 'Jrjaov Xgiazov. III. Matt. 13: 38, d aypdg iaziv d xoapog the field is the world. IV. Matt. 13:31— 33. Eph. 4:12. V. Matt. 13: 49, 6 tftgiopog rj owztXelu zov aioivog ianv the harvest is the end of the world, comp. 28: 20. VI. Gal. 1: 13, etc, the conversion of Paul, who had persecuted the church. Eph. ch. 2, Conversion of the Jews and Gentiles in general. Tit. 3: 3, rjpiv nozt dvdrjzoi, dntt&dg, nXavoiptvoi x. t. X. for we were ourselves sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived etc. 1 Pet. 2: 12. Exhortation to lead such a life that the Gentiles might be gained over to Christianity by it, 'iva So^aaoiai zov d-tov iv rjpiga iniaxonijg that they may glorify God in the day of visita tion [retribution,] 3: 1, 2. Christian wives may by their conduct gain over their husbands who are not Christians. 2 Tim. 2: 25, prjnozt Sdi d -dtdg zoig dvziSiazi&epivo.ig ptzavoiav tig iniyvwaiv dXv&tlag perhaps God will give repentance to the opposers, to the acknowledgment of the truth. 2 Cor. 13: 10, ttjv i'6.ovolav i'Stoxt pot d xvotog tig oixoSoprjv the Lord gave to me authority for edifi cation. l Vide Dissert, concerning the Spiritual Gifts N. Repert. Pt. 3, p. 317 etc. Where this version is defended. 3 Vide Dissert, de sensus historico, p. 8. Opusc. Vol. I. p. 10. 3 Vide Diss, in Epp. ad Corinth, Note 181. 496 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. VII. 1 Thess. 2: 14 etc. 2 Thess. 1:4, 6. 1 Cor. 16: 9. 1 John 2: 18—26. 4: 1—6. 1 Cor. 3: 17. Gal. 5: 9 etc. 15. 2 Cor. 12: 20 etc. Eph. 4: 25. 5: 18. 1 Thess. 5: 14. 2 Thess. 3: 11—15. 1 Tim. 3: 3—5, 8, 10. 5: 11—15, 24. Tit. 1: 6 etc. 2: 3—5. 10, 15. In these passages are mentioned persecutors, opposers, false teachers, and seducers, and sins and offences of every kind, among those who were at the time brethren. Matt. 13: 41, avXXe"£ovaiv ix zrjg (SaaiXtiug avtov ndvta zd axdvSaXa xal zovg noiovvzag zrjv dvoplav they shall gather out of his kingdom all seducers and ini quitous persons. VIII. If true Christians ceased to be mortal, they could no-lon ger live on this earth ?.r.:\ let the light of their example shine before other men. They could no longer qtoazijptg iv xoapto thai be lights in the world (Phil. 2: 15 etc.,) and Xapntiv i'pngoa&ev zoiv dv&goinojv shine before men (Matt. 5: 16,) nagaxaXtiv exhort (Heb. 10: 25,) imaxondv, take care (Heb. 12: 15. )1 IX. Otherwise, those wicked must also be removed, who will yet reform and become ornaments of the church f and thus would much wheat be weeded out with the darnel. Matt. 13: 29. X. 1 Cor. 15: 26, eayazog iy&gdg xutagydrai-Qdvarog the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. Matt. 13: 40 — 43. 49 etc. The wicked shall at the end of the world, be banished from the kingdom of God. 2 Thess. 1: 5—10. Comp. <§> 61, 97. III. 3. XI. Christ has nothing to fear from the enemies of the church in regard to his own dignity ; although, for important reasons, he does not choose to make them feel his power more sensibly at present. Therefore, although the subjection of all things to Christ is, as yet, only partial, it by no mean follows that it shall not be perfect here after. XII. Matt. 22: 43 etc, xd&ov ix Si^ioZv pov, i'mg dv -&oi zovg tX&govg aov vnondStov toiv noSaiv aov sit at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Comp. Dissert, de notione regni coelestis, § V. XIII. Psalm 1 10: 2, T^'i* :nj?3 rTin rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Consult the Commentary on Heb. 5: 5. Note k, where the arguments are stated which prove that the 110th Psalm refers not to David but to Christ.3 1 See Commentary on Heb. on the two last passages, Notes p and y. Comp. § 65. 111.5. 3 Comp. § 24. Illust. 6. 3 [The principal arguments from which it is evident that this Psalm refers to the Saviour, are the following. — I. The express declaration of Jesus himself, in his conversation with the Pharisees, recorded in Matt. 22: 42 — 45. This testimony must be decisive to every true believer in the divinity of the Saviour, to every Christian. But supposing for a moment, that the Lord Jesus had not decided the point in question, and that the application of the psalm, must be ascertained from other circumstances ; we should be led to the same result by the subsequent § 104.] CHRIST PROTECTS HIS CHURCH. 497 XIV. Jesus restrains the power of his enemies when necessary. — It is evident from the downfall of the Jewish state, that Christ can restrain the power of his enemies, in other ways than by such extraordinary acts as are related in 111. 1. - That event answered a determinate object for Christ ; as is evident from the prophecies by which it was foretold. In the prophecy Matt. 16. 28, Jesus refers to the destruction of Jerusalem ; from which those of the apostles who were then living, should infer the efficiency of his dominion j1 and, Matt. 10: 23, i'aig dv i'X-0-tj d viog tov dv&goinov, the judgment inflicted on those haters of Christianity, the Jews, is represented as the reappearance of Christ. Apology for the Revelation, p. 336. And in Matt. 23: 34 etc, 1 Thess. 2: 1 5 etc, Christ declares the destruction of Jerusalem to be the punishment of the persecutors of Christians. Compare § 39. 111. 5. This destruction of the Jewish state, was to be a proof, that, although Christ may not immediately come to the aid of his people,2 although he may not punish his enemies instantly ; he nevertheless observes their conduct, and in due time will, by political changes, or some other means,3 frustrate their designs. XV. Jesus overrules the machinations of his enemies for the good of his church. — This we find exemplified in the following instances, which are stated in the Acts of the apostles, 8: 1 . (comp. 4 — 40.) The persecution of the Christians in Jerusalem gave rise considerations. — For, II. This psalm was, as far as we know, universally be lieved, in and before the time of Christ, to be the production of David. But David could not possibly speak the language of this psalm and allude to him self; hence it is agreed, that if the psalm does not refer to the Messiah, David could not have been its author ; for no personage existed, who bore to him the relations called for by the psalm. But the Jewish nation who lived 1800 years nearer the time of David than we, were certainly better judges of the historical question, Who was its author? — III. The Jews in the days of our Saviour be lieved that this psalm referred to the Messiah. This is evident from Matt. 23: 4g. IV. The Jewish writers themselves formerly explained it as referring to theMessiah. — V. Although ins priest, may signify, in general, a person who has special access to the King or to G-od ; it cannot be proved that this appella tion was ever given to an individual, merely because he was resident in the vi cinity of'the king or of the sanctuary. Hence the residence of David on Mount Zion near the temple, could not justify its application to him, as some have contended. — VI. The personage who is described as inb priest, in the 4th verso, is in the samo verse declared to resemble Melchisedeck : but it was a peculiarity of that ancient king of Salem, that he was not only king, but also at the same time priest of the Most Hiffh ; which was absolutely prohibited to the later occupants of Mount Zion. — VII. The 6th and 7th verses are irreconcilable with the supposition, that the psalm refers to David. As the illustration of this his torical argument would require considerable detail, we refer the reader to the work of Dr. Storr. &.J 1 Vide Dissert, de notione regni coelestis, p. 10 etc. Opuscul. Acad. Vol. I, p. 2GI etc. 2 TWnxnn&b-uti. i. e. ffoaSv'vei (dvau&vsi) " he tarries with reference to the righteous " 3 See New Apol. for Rev. p. 308-334, 63 498 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. to the spread of Christianity in Samaria, and, according to 11: 19 — 26, in Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antiochia. 21: 27. ch. 28. The captivity of Paul afforded him an opportunity to defend and pro mote Christianity in Jerusalem and Rome, 23: 11. Phil. 1: 12. 2 Cor. 4: 8 — 15, 6 piv -ddvatog iv tjptv ivtgydtai, rj Si £tor] iv vp7v — ndvta Si vpdg as then death worketh in us, but life in you — all things for you. 12: 9, " The Lord said unto me, Your weakness places the efficacy of my power, which works through you, in so much the stronger light," rj Svvaplg pov iv da-&tvtla ttXtiovtat. Dissert, in Epp. ad Corinth. Note 153. XVI. 1 Pet. 1: 6, 7, iva to Soxlptov trjg nlctttag vpdiv — tvgt&ij " Your sufferings serve as a trial of your faith." 3: 14, ii xal ndayoize Sid Stxaioavvrjv, paxdgiot and if ye suffer for righteous ness' sake, blessed are ye. 4: 12 etc. 2 Tim. 2: 11 etc. Comp. § 23. SECTION CV. The commixture of good and bad in the Church does not justify us in seceding from it. Even at the very commencement of the christian church, we find that some persons, who were not sincerely attached to Chris tianity, could nevertheless give it an ostensible reception (Matt. 13: 23 etc. v. 19 — 22.) The example of their friends and relations, or the power of the amazing miracles which were wrought, or the in fluence of some other motives may have induced them to make a profession of Christianity. (1) Children whose parents were true Christians, although they were educated in the Christian religion, may easily have been of. a character unlike that of their parents, (Eph. 6: 4.) And especially, in the course of time, when the pro fession of the religion of Jesus was connected rather with advantage than detriment, many would assume the name, who reflected no honour on the cause. (2) But this mixture of unworthy members, (3) ought not to deter those of better(4) character from connexion with the church. Because, although others may undervalue(5) the means for the promotion of growth in grace(6) and happiness, which the christian church affords,(7) they have it in their power § 105.] GOOD AND BAD IN THE CHURCH. 499 to make a conscientious and profitable use of them. Moreover, the Head of the church can easily distinguish between his true worship pers, and those who disobey the precepts of his Gospel.(8) Finally, the worthy members of the church, even if they should be a minor ity (Rev. 3: 4, 2,) can, not only counteract the influence, which their connexion with the nominal Christians might have on their piety ;(9) but they can and ought to strive to promote true piety among others. § 104 and 78. In the present life, (10) the church (o tftptXiog tov&tov 2 Tim. 2: 19, comp. Not. 3,) embraces not only those who are true Christians, but such also as are yet to be led on to piety. ('Ovopd£ovoi to dvopa xvgiov 2 Tim. 2: 19, comp. Matt. 7: 21,) (dnootrjvat and dSixlag 2 Tim. 2: 19.) The church is therefore not only a society of Christians, but also a nursery in which true Christians are to be formed. Illustrations. I. Even in the apostolical church, there were some merely nomi nal Christians. — John 2: 23 etc, many believed in him because they saw his miracles ; but he would not trust himself into their hands, because he well knew them all." 6: 70 etc. *£ vpdiv (SoiSixa) dg SidfioXdg iaziv of you twelve, one is a devil. Acts 8: 13, (comp. 21 — 23,) Simon the magician believed on account of the miracles. II. John 2: 23, noXXol inlaztvaav tig zd dvopa avtov many be lieved in his name. Comp. with 6: 64, tialv *g vpmv ztvtg, o'i ov niaztvovaiv there are some among you who do not believe with sincerity. 1 John 2: 19, *f rjptiiv i£ijX8ov, dXX' ovx r)aav i'§ rjptov they went out from us, but they were not of us. Thus also had the ancient people of God genuine and spurious members. Rom. 9: 6. 2: 28 etc. III. Matt. 13: 27 — 30, dqtzt ovvav£dvio&ai dpqdttpa (td xaXdv ant'gpa xal zd &&via) pt'xP1 T°v Otptapov let them both (the good grain and the darnel) grow together until the harvest. Compare v. 3g 43. 22: 10—14, avvrjyayov navtag, novrjpoiig tt xal dyu&ovg they collected all, the good and the bad. 2 Tim. 2: 20, iv ptydXn oixia (v. 19, td) ¦deptXltp tov &tov. 1 Tim. 3: 15, o'ixto &eov, 'rjtig iatlv ixxXnoia' &tov Cdivtdg) iati axtiirj, a piv dg tiprjv, a Si dg dtiplav in a large house (the foundation of God — the house of God, that is, the church of the living God) there are vessels, some to honour and some to dishonour. IV. Existence of unworthy members, no ground for secession. — 500 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. The farther a person has advanced in piety, the more lively is the sense which he has of the longsuffering which he himself needed (Tit. 3: 3—5,) and which he still requires. (Phil. 3: 12 etc. Gal. 6: 4 etc.) And (comp. $ 24. 111. 6) under the influence of this sense of his own imperfections, he will feel a greater benevolence for his fellowmen, and be the more willing to bear with the faults pf others. Tit. 3: 2 etc, vnoplpvrjaxt avzovg, tlvai dpdxovg, inttixdg —ngog ndvtag dv&goinovg, rjptv ydg nott xal rjpdg dvdijtot x. t. X. put "them in mind to be no brawlers, but gentle — unto all men, for we also were ourselves foolish etc. Gal. 6: 1 — 4. 1 Cor. 13: 4, rj dydnrj paxgo&vpd, xonottvttai — ov qvaiovrai (v. 7,) ndvta ozt'ytt — ndvta vnopivn love bears every thing, believes and hopes the best, and if her hope is not immediately realized, she awaits its fulfilment with patience." ( ,,,,,,, V. Matt. 13: 19 — 22, d anagtlg nagd trjv dSdv — inlta mtgoiStj — tig tag dxdv&ag he that received the seed by the way side — on rocky places — among the the thorns. VI. Matt. 13: 23, o inl trjv yrjv trjv xaXrjv anagtlg — og St xagnoqogdhe who received it upon good ground — the same bring eth forth fruit. VII. These means of grace are, instruction from the word of God, and reciprocal communication of thoughts and feelings, which render our knowledge of Christianity more firm, complete and practical. 1 Pet. 2: 2. Eph. 4: 12, 15 etc. Col. 2: 2. Heb. 10:24. VIII. The Lord knoweth them that are his.— 2 Tim. 2: 19, 22, i'yvto xvgiog tovg ovtag avtov (zovg imxaXovpivovg tov xvgiov tx xa&apdg xagSiag) the Lord knoweth those who are his (who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart.) Rev. 1: 13, tiSoy iv piam twv intaXvyvitov (i.e. ixxXrjaiolv v. 20) opoiov via) dvftgoinov I saw in the midst of the seven candlesticks (i. e. churches) one like unto the Son of man. "Jesus is intimately acquainted and connected with the seven churches ; he dwells in the midst of them, has charge of them, and knows their excellencies, and defects."1 2: 2 etc. 9, 13, 19, oiSa td i'gya aov I know thy works, v. 23 — 25, iyto dpi d igewoiv vtqgovg xal xagSiag (compare 3: 4) I am he who searches the reins and hearts. IX. Necessity of church discipline. — 2 Tim. 2: 21, idv tig ixxaQ-agrj tavtov ano tovttov, i'azaiaxtvog ligziprjv if any one purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour. ' But although it is impossible entirely to prevent the occurrence of snares (offen ces Luke 17: 1 ;) they are to be avoided as much as possible, for Paul, when speaking of the incestuous person, tells us that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (1 Cor. 5: 6, ptxgd Cvpn dXov to qvgapa £vpo7 ;) and Christ reproved the pastors or angels of the I Vide New Apology for the Revelation, p. 312 etc. <§>106.] CHARACTERISTICS OF A GENUINE CHURCH. 501 churches of Pergamus and Thyatira, for tolerating certain seducers. Rev. 2: 6, 14, 20. Nevertheless, every individual Christian is to beware lest he arrogate to himself an authority which belongs only to the church, and not to individuals. 1 Cor. 5: 2, 13. The in cestuous person was condemned, not by an individual, but by the majority of the church members (who coincided with Paul in opin ion ;) and Paul says (2 Cor. 2: 6,) Sufficient unto such an one is the punishment which was inflicted by many." Let no one make encroachments on the regulations of the church, but 1 Cor. 14: 33, 40) let all things be done decently and in order. 11: 16. There are indeed certain measures which an individual may take, such as exhortation (vov&tzdv 1 Thess. 5: 14. 2 Thess. 3: 15) and shun ning intercourse with unworthy members of the church (prj avvava- plyvva&at v. 14. 1 Cor. 5: 9 — 11 ;) but those measures must not be taken in an irregular manner (Matt. 7: 6. Eph. 5: 16. comp. Col. 4: 5 and v. 6,) or at an unseasonable time, or in such a way as shall interfere with the jurisdiction of the civil government. The civil government is now so intimately interwoven with the church, that we cannot judge every thing by the standard of the ancient christian church, which had no connexion with the government of the state, and therefore, could have more efficient internal regula tions, without being in danger of interfering with civil liberty and rights. It is the duty of the church to counteract all evils as far as possi ble, and, in short, to conduct all things as circumstances may dic tate, so that their measures may not entail greater evils on the church whose prosperity they were intended to subserve. Thus, Paul advises the restoration of the incestuous person, because he feared that its procrastination might lead some to slander his charac ter, by which rneans Satan would strive to alienate the affections of the people from him, and thereby from Christ. X. In the future world, the church will attain the state for which she was intended, namely, that of entire purity and perfection. — Eph. 5: 27. 4: 13. <§> 104. 111. 10. <§> 62. SECTION CVI. Purity of christian doctrine, is a characteristic of the genuineness of the christian church. As the christian religion is preserved and extended by instruc tion ; the purity of any individual church, i. e. the degree of her 502 OF THE REDEEMER. [BK. IV. proximity to the character of a perfect church,(l) must be judged of by the conformity of the doctrines (1 Cor.. 3: 10) which she professes, to the doctrines of Christ and his apostles. (2) § 9 — 11. Illustrations. I. The purity of churches. — Every church is worthy of the name of a christian church, just in proportion to the degree of her obedience to Christ and his doctrines. Eph. 5: 24. Compare § 99. And her obedience will be perfect, in proportion as she adheres to Christ and his doctrines in her faith and practice.1 But it may happen in a church whose doctrines are more conformable to the doctrines of Christ than those of another, there may be fewer mem bers whose lives are conformed to the will of Christ, than in the other whose doctrines are more adulterated. For, the members of the latter church may use those true doctrines which they have re tained, for their advancement in holiness and happiness ; and by these truths may counteract the pernicious influence of the errors which they have adopted. The erroneous opinions of their church may have been merely treasured in their memory ; without having influenced their understanding or impressed their heart, and there fore will have no influence on their conduct. Or, it is possible that on some, points they have abandoned the publicly acknowledged doctrines of their church. For, it is not necessary for a member to recede from a church on account of every deviation -from her public standards of doctrine, as long as such deviation is tolerated when known (as it ought to be,) and does not compel its subject to de clare that which is not true. Michaelis says,2 " If a perfect coincidence of all the opinions of all the members of a church were required, we should eventually have as many churches as heads, that is, no church at all. — The er rors of individuals do not injure the other members of a church, and by continued instruction in their assemblies, they may be reclaimed from their errors."3 But, although the worthy members of an adulterated church are of far higher estimation (Luke 13: 29. Acts 10: 34) in the eyes of the Lord of the church, than those members of a church of purer doc trines who abuse the advantages afforded them, and are consequent ly subjected to greater responsibility (Luke 12: 47 etc. 13: 26 — 28. Matt. 7: 21—23, 26. Rom. 2: 5, 9, 13 ;) still, the abstract excel lence of a church is proportionate to the actual purity of her doc- 1 Col. 2: 6—10. Comp. 111. 2. and Niemever's Popul. and Practical Theol. p. 357. 2 Dogmatik, p. 678,"681— 683. 3 Schwab De jure Protestantum examinandi rel. suam, § 40 — 43. § 107.] CHARACTER OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 503 trines ; because the church of the greatest doctrinal purity, offers her members the best means of acquiring a christian disposition and character, and thereby of attaining a higher degree of blessedness (<§> 63.) But should we attempt to institute an accurate comparison, we must compare the conscientious members of a purer church, with the better individuals of a less pure church ; and from the latter subtract also every thing good, for which they are indebted, rather to their deviation from the received doctrines of their church, than their adherence to them. II. Matt. 28: 19 etc. SiSdaxovttg ttjguv ndvta oaa ivtttiXdprjv vptv teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you. John 17: 20, ol ntaztvovztg Sid zov Xoyov avztov tig ipi those who shall believe on me through their teaching. Col. 2: 2, 3, 6 — 10, tog nagtXafitzt zov 'Irjoovv Xgiatov tdv xvgiov, iv avzto negma- ttite — f}tj2aiovptvoi iv zrj nlatu, xad-oig iSiSdx^rjte as ye have re ceived Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in him — established in the faith as you have been taught. Eph. 2: 20, inotxoSoprj&tvzeg inl to) &tptXlo) zwv dnoazdXoiv xai ngoqrjzdiv, ovzog axgoXovialov avzov Jrjoov Xgiazov being built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being himself the chief corner stone. Gal. 1; 7 — 9. 5: 7 — 10. Tit. 1: 13 etc. SECTION CVII. The duty of the church to provide orthodox ministers. Since therefore, it is so highly important, that the doctrines of a christian church should coincide with the doctrines of Christ ; it is the duty of every ecclesiastical body,(l) above all things, to watch (2) those to whom the instruction of the church is committed, and see that(3) their doctrines are conformable to the doctrines of Christ, (4) [and that their conduct corresponds with his precepts(5).] Illustrations. I. The very idea of a society implies, that every thing which affects the common good of a church, should be transacted by the church, as a whole. This was acknowledged even by the apostles 504 OF THE REDEEMER. [bK. IV. themselves, although they had received of the Lord special injunc tions, and also peculiar authority to direct the affairs of the church. Matt. 16: 19. Comp. $ 9. 111. 9. John 20: 23, dv ztvtov dqrjte (xgatrjzt) zdg dpagxlag whose sins soever ye remit, etc. Vide Mori Ep. Theol. Christ, p. 288, where it is asserted that these words re fer to the apostles alone. 1 Cor. 5: 4. (<§> 104. 111. 2.) 2 Cor. 10: 8. 13: 10. 2: 9. 10: 6. For they commanded(Acts6: 2—6) the church to elect certain persons who should attend to their domestic con cerns, Siaxovdv tganrjCatg; and Paul directs the church of Corinth to cast out the incestuous person themselves (1 Cor. 5: 2, 13) 2 Cor. 1: 24, ovx' o'T* xvguvoptv vpdiv trjg nlattojg I am so far from governing you tyrannically, who have received my doctrine, vpdiv toiv niattvdvtwv etc. But the church had authority to commit to the charge of particular Christians, the1 administration of part or of all the concerns of the community (Tit. 1: 5,) as circumstances might dictate. Hence, in countries where church and state are united, they have a right to commit this trust into the hands of a christian government, which is already bound as a civil body to watch lest the ordinances of the church should prove prejudicial to the state, or abridge the civil liberties of its subjects. 1 Pet. 2: 12 — 17. 4: 15. Rom. 13: 1 — 10. (In the Dissert, de sensu vocis nXrjgwua <§> xm. it is proved that the latter passage refers to the duties of a citizen toward his government, as well as toward his fellow citizens.) II. It -is the sacred duty of the church to watch over the ortho doxy of her ministers. — By virtue of this obligation, it is the duty of the church, to adopt all necessary measures, so that, as far as the number of the applicants for the sacred office, and the imperfect state of the churches will possibly admit, such teachers be selected as not only themselves adhere to the doctrines of Christ, but also are able to teach and defend them. The apostle Paul expressly says to Titus, ch. 1:7,9 ^d inlaxonov (ngtofivzegov v. 5) thai — dvztxdptvov tov xata zrjv SiSayriv niazov Xoyov, "iva Svvatog rj xal nagaxaXdv iv zrj SiSaaxaXla zrj vyiaivovarj, xal tovg avtiXiyovtag iXiyxttv a bishop (i. e. elder) ought to hold fast the faithful word (doctrine,) as he has been taught, that he may be able (to confirm his hearers in the sound doctrine) by sound doctrine both to ex hort and to convince the gainsay ers. Of Timothy he requires that a bishop should be SiSaxttxdv, apt to teach. 2 Tim. 2: 24, 2, and in Tit. 2: 7, 8 he tells Titus to be nagtxdptvog Xoyov vyirj dxatd- yvtoaiov " to teach unadulterated and true doctrines in an unobjec tionable manner (with dignity.") It is further the duty of the church, so soon as any of her minis ters are convicted of leading their churches off from the true doc trines of Christianity, and of teaching things contrary to sound § 107.] ORTHODOXY OF ministers. 505 doctrine (1 Tim. 5: 19,) earnestly to warn them (2 Tim. -2: 24 etc.) against every such deviation. 1 Tim. 1: 3, naguyyiiXyg ztal pr] iztgoStSaaxaXdv that you might charge some not to teach other (false) doctrines ; and finally, if they will not be reclaimed by mild and friendly representations, to depose them from the ministry. — For, however proper it is for a church to tolerate persons who enter tain opinions differing from their own ; the case is materially chang ed with regard to those who are not contented to enjoy their opinions in private, or to converse about them in a modest manner as private individuals ; but who, under the cloak of an authorized public ministry, endeavours to impose upon their hearers, contrary to their will, or even without their detecting it, doctrines different from those which their church professes,, and which they expected to be taught. The apostle says, Gal. 5: 12, oqtXov dnoxdxpovzai ol avaazatovvzeg vpag (zagaaaovitg — -OiXovzig pezaaxgiipai to tvay- yiXiov zov -Otov v. 9. 1: 7.) " may those who disturb you by en deavouring to obtrude circumcision upon you, be cut off from your church (and be treated like those, spoken of Deut. 23: 1, who were not permitted to come into the congregation of the Lord."1) And Eph. 4: 14, be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every, wind of doctrine by the sleight and cunning crafti ness of men. If heterodox ministers are permitted to retain their opinions, and reject the received doctrines ; why should not a church also enjoy their opinion, and rid themselves of such teachers ? I admit it pos sible that those who depart from the public standard, may have the more correct opinions, that though they are considered to be in error, truth may be on their side (2 Cor. 6: 8) — 1 admit, that for this very reason, it is the duty of those to whom the care of the church is committed, and who are qualified for the investigation, impartially to weigh the truth and importance of the disputed doc trine ; and if it be found true, to incorporate it with the acknowledg ed standard ; or if it seem doubtful which of the opposite opinions is more correct, to leave tlie adoption of either, optional with the ministers of the church. But as it is equally possible' that a minis ter, who believes his opinions more correct than the doctrines of the acknowledged standard, and who lias had address enough to succeed in raisinf his character and extending his influence among the peo ple, may nevertheless entertain doctrines truly pernicious to a Chris tian church (1 Cor. 3: 17 etc;) it does not. on that account, be come the duty of those who have the charge of the church, to view such a person as a new and great light risen amongst them, because he considers himself as such. Nor, if they believe his doctrines 1 Dissert. De sensu vocis Slxawg, § xix. in fine. Rom. 16: 17. 64 506 OF the church. [bk. IV. dangerous, are they bound to suffer the members of their church to be tainted by them, and led astray into dangerous errors. If the judges have been influenced by passion, or have decided with pre cipitancy, God will call them to account for the negligence and criminality of their conduct ; and to this God ought those who suffer unjustly, with christian confidence, to commit their cause. But no society could retain any rights if we should take from them every privilege, which passion and prejudice may sometimes abuse to the detriment of individuals. Hence, a christian society has a right to reject a minister, whose ministrations they believe to be detrimental to the primary objects of the association : although their judgment may be erroneous, and his doctrines more agreeable to the Bible, wliich they themselves desire (<§> 106) to follow, than their own opinions are. But those who reject the divinity of Christ, are in truth not Protestants ; for it is essential to the character of Protest ants, that they not only reject all human authority, but more particularly, that they receive the Holy Scriptures as the only and the infallible criterion, by which they are to judge doctrines and ministers,1 nay, they are not even Christians:2 for the acknowledg ment of the divine authority of Christ, is essential to the character of a Christian. Such persons are at liberty to pursue their own opinions, and if they are desirous of being teachers of a church which rejects Christ, they may, in countries which tolerate such churches, collect disciples who desire a teacher of this cast. 2 Tim. 4: 3. But, to undermine the dignity of Christ and of the Holy Scriptures, under the deceitful mask of a Christian and Protestant minister, and to receive for his treacherous attempts to demolish the very pillars of Christianity and Protestantism, a salary which is ap propriated only for their preservation and defence, which can be merited only by ministers who are labouring (Tit. 1: 9) to accotn- 1 Comp. Busching's General Remarks on the Symbolical Books, § 4 etc. [2 The Unitarianism of this country, and the Neology of Europe, are, in their cardinal features, the same ; and the position taken by Dr. Miller, in his Letters on Unitarianism, is precisely similar to that here maintained by our author. In Letter VIII, pp. 284, 285, we find the following remarks : — " If they (Unitarians) reject every fundamental (distinguishing) doctrine of the religion of Christ, they, of course, reject Christianity; if they reject Christianity, they surely ore not Christians; their congregations evidently ought not lo be called churches, nor their ordinances be considered as valid. — I have said, that Unitarians ought to be considered and treated as Deists in disguise. I beg that this language may not be misconstrued. It is by no means my intention to intimate, for I do not be lieve, that Unitarians are, as a sect, a sot of hypocrites ; that they profess one thing, and really believe another. — But my meaning is, that, while they assume, and insist on retaining the christian name, their creed really does not differ much, in substance, from that of serious Deists. Now if this be the case, and if the fact that they are substantially Deists, be, in effect, concealed from popular view by the name which they bear, what is this but being Deists under the christian name, in other words, Deists in disguise? S.] § 107.] ORTHODOXY OE MINISTERS. 507 plish that object (1 Cor. 9: 7—11. 1 Tim. 5: 17 etc. Gal. 6: 6,) and which traitors and enemies to the cause can never with good conscience accept ; this I say is a course of conduct, of which no man of honour, no conscientious man, will suffer himself to be guilty. III. The qualifications requisite for the ministry. — As it is the will of Christ, that teachers should be placed over the churches (§ 102,) and as he has, through his apostles, determined the quali fications of such teachers as he approves (1 Tim. 3: 2 — 7. 2 Tim. 2: 24 etc. Tit. 1: 5 — 9. 1 Pet. 5: 2 ;) all ministers who possess those qualifications, must be pleasing to the Lord of the church, although they were not appointed immediately by himself, but regularly inducted into the sacred office by the church, or by those to whom the care of the church is confided. In these qualifications, are included, not only doctrinal knowledge and a capacity to teach, but also and principally, true piety, a character and conduct confor mable to the doctrines and precepts of our Saviour. Matt. 5: 19, og noirtari xal SiSa§rj (plav zoiv ivzoXoiv zovztov rtov iXaxiaztov,) ovzog piyag xXrj&rjatzai iv z-tj @aoiXtiq zoiv ovguvoHv whosoever shall practise and teach even the least of these commandments, the same shall be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven. 1 Tim. 3: 2 — 4, dlt zov inlaxonov avtniXrjnzov (aviyxXrjzov Tit. 1: 7 etc.) livai x. t. X. a bishop ought to be blameless. The good or bad example of the teacher has undeniably a very important influence (Matt. 5: 13 — 16. 1 Tim. 12: 16. Tit. 2: 7. 1 Pet. 5: 3;) and his instructions are powerfully enforced by a conscientious and exemplary life. Tit. 2: 7, nagtxoptvog iv trj SiSuxaXia aStaqdoglav, otpvozrjta " showing in his instructions, an incorruptible love to truth and virtue ; together with zeal and dignity."1 For, although integrity of character alone, is not sufficient to enable a man to discharge the duties of the min isterial office, in a manner pleasing in the sight of God ; still, those who possess the ability to teach, will be less inclined to detract from the sanctity of Christ's commands, in proportion to the zeal with which they are pursuing holiness themselves. Matt. 5: 19 etc. The Sixaioavvtj which Jesus required of his disciples, consisted partly in their fulfilling all the moral precepts of God themselves (notrjaai,) and partly in a conscientious and unreserved manner of teaching them to others (StSdlai.) These two are intimately con nected with each other ; just as the laxer morality of the Pharisees was connected with their neglect of certain duties of life. (Dissert. I, in locos N. T. histor. p. 21 etc.) Matt. 7: 16—20, every good tree yieldeth good fruit, and every evil tree, evil fruit. They will, moreover, adhere to the doctrines of Christianity with the greater and more conscientious firmness, and they will be the less in danger Vid. Dissert, in Epist. Pauli Minores, p. 54. Comp. oh. I. II. 508 OF THE CHURCH. [BK. IV. of sacrificing any particular doctrine to the favour of their contem poraries who deny it, in proportion as they have a love for the truth, and reverence for our Lord Jesus Christ. And the more solicitous they are for the salvation of their own souls and the souls of others, the greater progress will they make in the investigation of truth, and in their capacity for instructing others. 1 Tim. 4: 15, 16. This zeal for the salvation of our own souls and those of others, is very necessary to the conscientious discharge of the various duties of the sacred office. He who strives to profit by the christian doctrines himself, and to conform his principles and conduct to them, will thus become acquainted with his own heart, and be the better qualified to recommend a christian character to others, and to urge them to attain it. But as the good and bad are so generally mixed, throughout the world, it is not to be expected, that a sufficient number of pious clergymen, who are at the same time apt to teach, can always be found. Nor could those who are truly good, always be distinguished, even if they did exist in sufficient numbers. — ( Tivoiv dv>onoiv al dpagtlai ngoSrjXoi tiai some men's sins are manifest.) But we should remember, that the doctrines of Christ, although taught by a man who neglects the improvement and con sequently the salvation of his own soul, if (Matt. 7: 22) they are taught in their purity, have by virtue of their own power, a very salutary influence on inquiring souls. Phil. 1: 15 — 18, nXrjv navtl rgonto,e'ite ngoqdati, t'ltt dXrj&ilce, Xgtatdg xatayytXXttai " in either case Christ is preached, whether it be with a sincere or insincere intention." Matt. 9: 36. 10: 4 (comp. Luke 9: 1 etc.) And among the Twelve whom Jesus sent forth to preach the Gospel, was Judas the traitor. Comp. John 6: 64, 70, etc. We must not forget that it is the duty of an audience to observe, not who is the teacher, but what is taught. Matt. 23: 3, ndvta oaa dv eintooi (ol ygappatdg xal 0agtaa7ot) vp7v trjgflv, irjgdrt xal notdif xatd St td i'gya avtdiv pr\ noitltt whatsoever they (the Scribes and Pharisees) enjoin you to observe, observe and do ; but follow not their. example. IV. Orthodoxy essential in the ministry. — Tit. 1: 9. Comp. 111. 2. 1 Tim. 4: 6. 6: 3 etc, ngogt'gxta&ai vyialvovat Xdyoig toig rov xvgiov rjpdiv 'Irjaov Xgiatov (a minister must) consent to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ. And 2 Tim. 1: 13 etc, vnotvnwaiv tyt vyiaivdvzoiv Xdytov hold fast the form of sound words. From those who do not, the apostle commands his son Timothy to " withdraw himself." 1 Tim. 6: 5. V. [Piety requisite in the minister of the cross. John 3: 3. Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. — 1 Cor. 2: 14. Wvytxdg Si uv&gwnog. — The natural, the unregene- rate man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; for they are § 107.] QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE MINISTRY. 509 foolishness unto him : neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned. Luke 6: 39. And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind ? Shall they not both fall into the ditch 1] THE SACRAMENTS. BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER. SECTION CVIII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are among the appointed means for the preservation of the christian church. It is evident from the two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which Christ himself instituted, that it was not his inten tion that Christians should dwell in seclusion and be separated from each other, but that, on the contrary, it is their duty to live in the utmost possible intimacy. (Michaelis Dogmat. p. 602.) The first was instituted as an ordinance for the solemn reception of persons into the number of his disciples, or initiation into the christian church ; (1) and the other as a means to promote, and solemnly to promulgate the permanent union of Christians. (2) Illustrations. I. Baptism is the initiatory ordinance. — Matt. 28: 19, pu&tr ttvaatt — panzlfrvztg go ye and make disciples of all nations, (by) baptizing them in the name etc. Eph. 4: 4 etc. tv adipa xal tv nvtvpa — tv pdnziapa one body and one spirit — one baptism. Acts 2: 41, ifsanztod-rioav xal ngoattl&rjaav were baptized and added Comp. with v. 47, d xvgiog ngoattl&ti zrj ixxXnala the Lord added to the church. II. The eucharist is intended to promote the union of Christians and give publicity to it. — 1 Cor. 10: 17, 18. "Just as those who belong to the same house and are subject to the same father, also partake of the same bread ; so also do Christians by partaking of the same bread in the Holy Supper, evince that they all belong to the family of the same God, and are brethren and partners in the faith. Thus also did the Jews, who ate together at their sacrificial repasts, to which none but Jews were admitted, there- 4> 109.] institution of baptism. 511 by profess that they all viewed each other as brethren."1 Com pare Worbs " On Oriental tokens of Covenants and of friendship, in illustration of some passages of Scripture, 1792." The writer of this article proves that eating a morsel of bread and drinking to gether, are considered by several oriental nations, as a token of im mutable fidelity to a contract, and constancy in friendship. The same writer also makes the following remark : " among the reasons vvhich induced our Lord, in the institution of the Holy Supper, to select this pleasing ceremony, which had previously been customa ry, one was, to clothe his cardinal precept " love one another," in a form visible to the senses, and thus to give universal prevalence to that noble custom of the East." "The solemn consecration of an individual to communion with the church, i. e. his first admission to membership by baptism, is a very significant solemnity indeed, a solemnity which aims at the holy object of educating a soul in a kingdom erected by God, and imposes great responsibility on the person thus initiated ; or if the subject be an infant, on those who promise to educate it in the christian faith. The solemnity of renewing and perpetuating this church communion on principles of equality (an ordinance which is fre quently to be repeated, and which, agreeably to the example of Christ, is also performed in remembrance of him) has in it some thing of an exalted nature, which expands and elevates the narrow, selfish, and intolerant views of men, to the idea of a universal mo ral community, embracing the whole world, and is happily calcu lated to awaken a congregation to those feelings of brotherly love designated by it." SECTION CIX. Institution of baptism. Christ commanded(l) that all those who would be his disciples, (2) should, at the time of their reception into the church, be, once, (3) baptized, i. e. bathed(4) with water, in honour of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Illustrations. I. This command is given in Matt. 28: 18 etc. Mark 16: 16. 1 See Mosheim's Exposition of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 607. 512 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. Eph. 5: 26, Xovtgdv tov vSatog iv grjpazi " the water bath, which is connected with a command." II. Baptism is to be administered once to every Christian, throughout all ages of the church. — Baptism is intended for the church in general, without distinction of nation or condition, or sex, or time, Eph. 5: 25 — 27, xa&agiaag trjv ixxXijolav to) Xovigto tov vSatog that he might purify the church by the washing of water. Matt. 28: 19, ndvta td tSvrj all nations. Gal. 3: 27 etc. ' JovSaiog " EXXrjv — SovXog, iXtvdtgog — agatv xal &fjXv (ifiantto&rjaav tig Xgia tov) Jew, Greek — slave, free — male and female (were baptized in to Christ.) Acts 16: 15, AvSla ifianzio&rj xal d oixog avtrjg Lydia was baptized and her (family) household. 8: 12, ifiantl£ovto dv- Sgtg tt xal ywaixtg both men and women were baptized. As long as there is a church on earth, as long as the Holy Supper is to be solemnized,1 even until the end of the world (1 Cor. 11:26,) this command of Christ, that his disciples are by all means to be bap tized, must, together with the other precepts of his which are to be taught in his church, be attended with the utmost care. Hence, whosoever knowingly and wilfully rejects baptism, treats with indifference a precept of the most exalted Messenger of God (John 3: 31,) yea, of the Lord himself (Matt. 28: 18;) and is guilty of a much greater crime2 than those were, who rejected3 the baptism of John, which had also been commanded by God. John 1 : 33. Luke 3: 2. And how can the despisers of baptism expect to meet the approbation of the Lord, when he himself, although he did not need baptism, so highly honoured the invitation of John as to be baptized by him, amid the most evident tokens of the divine favour? Matt. 3: 14 — 17. But those, on the contrary, who are unacquainted with the precept of Christ relative to baptism, and who are not themselves the cause of their ignorance of it, cannot be deemed despisers of baptism ; nor are they guilty of unbelief or disobedience, in not attending to this ordinance of God. Compare III. Baptism is administered only once to each Christian. — Hence, the sacred writers, when speaking of those who had already been received into the church, say, " they have been baptized," and not "they partake of baptism." Thus Rom. 6: 3, etc. i§an- tiadrjpiv we were baptized. Col. 2: 11. Heb. 10. 23, XtXovpt'vot being washed. But the Holy Supper they represent as a rite which is to be often repeated, and is to be habitually performed ; and never do they speak of it as an ordinance which has already l Matth. 28: 20, and 28: 18— 20, Comp. Eckerman's Comp. Theol. Christ, p. 215. ed. 1. 2 John 3: 32—36. Heb. 2: 2, 3. 12: 25. 3 Matth. 21: 25—32. Luke 7: 30, they rejected the counsel of God etc. "§- 109.] BAPTISM. 513 been observed by any one, and which is not to be repeated. 1 Cor. 11: 25 etc. Acts 2:42. 1 Cor. 10: 16, 6 tvXoyovptv — ov xXdiptv, which we bless— which we break. 17: 21. In reference to Acts 19: 3 — 5, where it is staled that the disciples of John, who had re ceived John's baptism, were again baptized in " the name of the Lord Jesus," Weismann remarks,1 that between the baptism of John and that instituted by Jesus, there existed such a difference as would justify them in being baptized again. And Ernesti^ says, the difjsr- ence consisted in this, that John baptized in the name of the future | Messiah, id igxdptvov; whereas the baptism commanded by Christ, r- was connected with the profession, that Jesus of Nazareth, who died for us, and after his resurrection ascended to heaven, is the Messiah. IV. The primitive mode was probably by immersion. — The dis ciples of our Lord could understand his command in no other man ner, than as enjoining immersion ; for the baptism of John, to wliich Jesus himself submitted,3 and also the earlier baptism (John 4: 1 .) of the disciples of Jesus, were performed by dipping the subject into cold water ; as is evident from the following passages.- Matt. 3: 6, i(3antt£ovio iv to) '/ogSdvrj were baptized in Jordan, v. 16. 'Jtjaovg dviprj and tov vSatog Jesus ascended out of the water. John 3: 23, on iiSata noXXd rjv ixd because there was much water there. [That the language of our author in this and the following paragraphs is entirely too strong, will we think appear from the ap pendix annexed to this paragraph. S.] And that they actually did understand it so, is proved, partly by those passages of the New Testament, which evidently allude to immersion. Acts 8: 36 etc. on dvi§rjaav ix tov vSatog when they had come up out of the water, v. 39. 16: 12 — 15, nagd notapdv at the river. Rom. 6: 4, avvtzdqrjptv avro) (toi Xgiazoi) Sia zov /Sajr- zlapazog, 'iva diantg rjyig&rj Xgiazdg ix vtxgtav are buried with him (Christ) by baptism, so that as Christ was raised from the dead etc. Comp. Col. 2: 12, and 1 Pet. 3: 21, where baptism is termed, the antitype (dvtltvnov) of the flood. — And partly, from the fact, that immersion was so customary in the ancient church,4 that even in the third century, the baptism of the sick, who were merely sprink led with water, was entirely neglected by some, and by others was thought inferior to the baptism of those who were in health, and who°receive baptism not merely by aspersion, but who actually 1 Institut. Thoel. exegetico-dogm. p. 684. 2 Vindici^e arbitrii divini in religione constituenda, § 50—53. 3 John 1:25 etc. 28,31,33. i Vide Suicer Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus art. avaSv'oj. Bingham, Origines ec- clesiasticae, L. XI. chap. 2. Opp. Lond. 1726. English edit. Vol. 1. p. 521 etc. 65 514 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. bathed1 themselves in water. This is evident from Cyprian, (Epist. 69. ed. Bremae, p. 185 etc.) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. L. VI. cap. 43), where we find the following extract from the letter of the Roman Bishop Cornelius : " Novatus received baptism on a sick- ; bed, by aspersion, {ntgiyvdiig,) if it can be said that such a person received baptism." — " No person who had, during sickness, been baptized by aspersion, was admitted into the clerical office." More over, the old custom of immersion was also retained a long time in the Western church, at least in the case of those who were not in disposed. And, even after aspersion had been fully introduced in a part of the Western churches, there yet remained several, who, for some time adhered to the ancient custom.2 Under these circum stances, it is certainly to be lamented, that Luther was not able to accomplish his wish3 with regard to the introduction of immersion in baptism,4 as he had done in the restoration of wine in the Eucha rist. But it is evident that there was a very important difference be tween the two eases. After the restoration of the wine, the laity could partake of both bread and wine in the celebration of the Sup per of our Lord. But, on the contrary, if immersion had at that time been restored, whatever course those who had been baptized by aspersion might pursue, whether they were contented with their baptism by aspersion, or incurred the danger of disobeying Christ's precept, by being baptized twice ; they would have been harassed by doubts and fears, which it would have been difficult, and per haps, in most cases, impossible to remove. Happily, however, the change of the ancient custom of immersion, although it ought not to have been made, destroys nothing that is essential to this cere mony as it was instituted by our Saviour.5 For the essence of ; the rite, is not the washing of the body,6 but the use of conse- ' Baptism is termed Xovxgdv, a washing orbathino-. Eph. 5:26 Tit 3t 5 Comp. XAovpivoi Heb. 10: 22. 1 Pet. 3: 21, oagxog dno&sotg gvnov putting away the filth of the flesh. [Fnr a learned and radical discussion of every thing phil ological, exegetical and historical, which is of moment in this controversy, we would refer the reader to Prof. Stuart's Dissertation onthe Mode of Baptism, lfa the Biblical Repository, of Dr. Robinson, vol. III. p. 288—390. a Vide Forbesii Instr. Historico-Theol. de doctrina Christiana, L. X. «=. s. S m,-^C'. J'C' Amsterdam, 1702. Danovii Institut. Theol. Dogm. § 277, p. 525. JMUIler s Neue Darstellung der christlichen Glaubenslehre, p. 271. 3 [In this wish the great body of Lutheran divines has never coincided : nor can the translator entertaining the views exhibited in the Appendix, see the de sirableness of such a change; especially for moral reasons resulting from the difference in the habits of the Orientals and ourselves in regard to bathing] 4 Lutheri Opp Lips. 1792, Vol. XVII. p. 272, 536. Buddei Institut. Theol. Dogm. p. 1444 — 1446. 5 This remark may also serve as a reply to the author of a publication " On 1803 Pt' 7 P' 55 etc'' ° aspersion is °bJected to- Vide Tub. Gel. Anzeig. 6 1 Pet. 3: 21, ov oagxog dno&eoit gonov not the putting off the filth of the § 109.] BAPTISM. 515 crated water1 in honor of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And this is retained in baptism by aspersion. Nor is it of as great importance as Luther2 and some late theologians have thought, that aspersion destroys the force of some passages of the New Testa ment, in which immersion is figuratively applied to certain spirit ual changes and blessings. For, the signification of these figures, namely, the Christian's participation in the death and resuscitation of Jesus, together with the blessings and duties connected with it, is not destroyed ; because the whole is performed in honour of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (<§> 43. 111. 4.) And a specific, cir cumstantial, figurative representation of those truths which refer to the relation which those who are baptized, bear to God and Christ, has no necessary connexion with the rite of baptism itself. Christ did not intend to prescribe immersion as a ceremony which should specifically represent a certain participation of the Christian in his burial and resurrection. For, the apostles do not always retain the figures drawn from immersion (Rom. 6: 4. Col. 2: 12;) but also use others. At one time they compare baptism to the immersion of those who were destroyed by the flood (1 Pet. 3: 21 ;) at an other time, to a washing off. Acts 22: 16, " be baptized and wash away your sins." Sometimes it is compared to a Levitical wash ing ; as Heb. 10: 22, XtXovpivoi iiSazi xu&agi) being washed with pure water, compare with 9: 10, Sidqogoi j3anziapoi, various wash ings ; and sometimes to any other washing, as Eph. 5: 26 etc. where baptism is compared to a bath or washing Xovtgdv, by which spots and impurities are removed. Whereas, if those peculiar circum stances were essential, the apostles would have used them exclu sively and uniformly. The reason why Christ prescribed immer sion, in baptism, from which the several figures found in the New Testament are taken, seems to have been, that some of his first fol lowers were already accustomed to religious washings of this kind, especially the Jews, who had been used to Levitical washings (Heb. 9: 10,) and to the baptism of Jesus and of John (John 3: 22 etc. 4: 1,) and perhaps also to proselyte baptism.3 Thus we see that a custom, previously existing, gave a peculiar form to baptism, just as the paschal supper of the Jews gave rise to the Holy Supper of our 1 Acts 10: 47. (Comp. 11: 16.) John 3: 5. 1 John 5: 6, 8. In these passages, water is mentioned instead of baptism, or at least, as the principal thing in that ordinance. 2 Lutheri opp. sup. cit. p. 536. Heilmann Comp. Theol. Dogm. p. 356. Mi chaelis Dogm. p. 622, 632. Teller Excurs. II. ad Burnetum de fide et officiis Christianorum, p. 256. 3 Vide Seileri Theol. dogmatico-polemica, p. 582— 584, 2d ed. In favour of proselyte baptism, see Michaelis' Dogm. §180. Against it, Ernesli Vindieiae arbitrii divini, § 49. Heilmann's Comp. Dogmat. p. 314. Paulus' Commentary on the New Test. p. 194 etc. Reinhard's Dogmatik, p. 563. On Baptism, p 11. — 15, where the historical objections against its truth are stated. 516 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. Lord. Mark 14: 12—26. Luke 22: 14—20. We may, therefore, without any hesitation admit, that our Lord would have preferred aspersion or affusion to immersion, if a custom of affusion or asper sion had previously prevailed. Appendix on the Mode of Baptism.1 The mode of applying water in Baptism. The controversy on this subject has always been regarded by the most enlightened divines, including Luther, Melancthon, and Chem nitz, as one of comparatively inferior importance. It has no con nexion with the question of infant baptism ; because churches which baptize by immersion, may and often do practise infant baptism (the Greek church) ; and those, who baptize by affusion or asper sion, may confine the ordinance to adults. The Augsburg Con fession, therefore, whilst it distinctly enjoins the baptism of infants, specifies nothing as to the mode of applying the water. The ques tion in dispute is not whether baptism by immersion is valid ; this is admitted, though that mode is thought less suitable to a refined sense of moral feeling than the other. But the question is, wheth er immersion is enjoined in scripture, and consequently is one essen tial part of baptism, so that without it no baptism is valid, though it contain every other requisite. On this subject the Lutheran church has always agreed with the great majority of Christian denomina tions, in maintaining the negative, and in regarding the quantity of water employed in baptism, as well as the mode of exhibiting it, not essential to the validity of the ordinance. The argument may be briefly stated thus : No circumstances can be necessary to the validity of a divine ordinance, excepting those which God has commanded in his word : But God has not commanded immersion in his word; Therefore, it is not necessary to the validity of the ordinance of baptism. The first of these propositions is admitted by all Protestant de nominations : and cannot be denied by any one, who does not hold the following absurd positions, a) that the word of God is an insuf ficient guide for man, b) That uninspired men may add to this rev elation, and c) That whatever any uninspired men may choose to add, all other men must subsequently observe on pain of eternal per dition. The second proposition, therefore, alone needs investigation ; namely, " that God has not commanded immersion in his word." 1 See the Translator's work entitled Elements of Popular Theology, with special reference to. the doctrines of the Reformation,, p. 216—223. 2d edition. $ !09.] BAPTISM. 517 1. The friends of immersion do not contend, that there is any specific command ; but allege, that the word " baptize" itself, does in the New Testament Greek, necessarily imply immersion. The fallacy of this opinion is evident from all the passages, in which the word is used in such a way as to throw light on its precise meaning. a) Heb. 9: 10. Which (the Jewish service) stood (consisted) in meats and drinks and divers baptisms (fianziapoig.) A reference to the Old Testament,1 where these baptisms, or as our English version renders it, washings, are described, proves that they were performed by sprinkling and pouring ; but it is not mentioned in a single case, that the object must be put under the water. b) Mark 7: 4. " And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptize themselves) they eat not:" Now it certainly was the custom of the Jews to wash their hands before eating, but what author ever contended that they entirely immersed themselves in water ? Yet this application of water to a very small part of the body is called baptism, c) Again ; " And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the baptism of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables (beds, couches, xXivn") The cups and pots might indeed be immersed in water, yet of this we are not certain. But will it be contended, that the beds or couches were carried to some often distant river to be immersed ? or that ev ery pharisee had a cistern provided in his yard for this purpose ? It is therefore evident that many of the purifications, termed bap tisms in the New Testament, were certainly performed by sprink ling, and (as in the case of the tables) by pouring ; whilst it is not certain that they were performed by immersion in a single case. Hence there is much more scripture authority for sprinkling and pouring, than for immersion. 2. Nor do the circumstances, related in the New Testament as attendant on baptism, prove the practice of immersion. a) The baptism of the three thousand converts,2 on the day of Pentecost, was performed at Jerusalem, where there was no river or creek; at a time, when it was summer in Judea (close of March,) and rains were scarce, and the brook Kedron dry, and nothing re mained near Jerusalem but the single pool of Siloam. How could the apostles, under these circumstances, have found places to bap tize such a multitude in one day by immersion ? Suppose, that the apostles went into the pool alternately, relieving each other, and one was constantly engaged in the act of baptizing, it is utterly I Numb. 19: 18. And a clean person shall take a hyssop, and dip it in water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were tliere, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave, etc. So also verse 4, 13, 19, 20, 21. 2 Acts 2. 518 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. impossible that the three thousand could have been baptized in a day. But a large part of the day had elapsed before the baptisms began: the effusion of the Holy Spirit, their preaching to persons from different countries, in their own languages, the accusations a- gainst the apostles, Peter's defence from the scriptures, the convic tions of multitudes and their inquiries what they must do to be saved, — all these things had occurred beforehand, so that, at earliest, the work of baptizing did not begin before noon. Admitting that the six remaining hours of the day were all devoted to this business, and that by frequent changes one of the twelve was incessantly in the act of baptizing, he would have to baptize five hundred persons in one hour, or eighty every minute ! Or suppose, what is indeed very improbable, and contrary to the tenour of the narrative of Luke, that when the work of baptizing had been resolved on, the apostles divided the whole multitude into twelve equal parts, and each one, at the head of his division, marching straightway in quest of some bath house or cistern, all spent the remainder of the day laboriously engaged in this work ; would it not still be impossible that they should have bap tized that number? An hour at least would be consumed in di viding the multitude and inquiring for the baths, in repairing to them and placing them in order. Can it be believed, that each apostle could have baptized two hundred and fifty in five hours, averaging very nearly one for every minute of the whole time, even if they were all standing naked, ready to leap in as soon as the apostle could lay his hands on them ? But surely it will not be contended that all these persons of different sexes bathed naked in each other's presence. Yet where could the three thousand suddenly have found bathing dresses ? And to bathe with their ordinary clothes on would have been certain disease or death to multitudes of them. Is it not infinitely more reasonable to believe, that the multitudes remained together, and, after having been baptized by sprinkling according to the Jewish custom (Numb. 19: 8.) wliich could have been done in less than an hour, continued to listen to the words of eternal life ? b) The language of Peter, when he baptized the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, does not favour immersion. When they believ ed and received the Holy Ghost, Peter said, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized ?" that is, forbid water to be brought. Had he intended to baptize them by immersion it would have been much more natural for him to say, " Can any man forbid us to go out to the water, and baptize these." c) The circumstance of the Jailor's baptism, Acts 16: 19 — 39. imply that he was not baptized by immersion. He was baptized in the night, when it would have been very inconvenient to go to a suitable place for immersion. The rite was evidently performed in § 109.] BAPTISM. 519 the principal room of the prison; for nothing is said of their leaving the house ; we are only told that they had been thrust into the dun geon or inner prison, and that they were brought out of that apart ment to where the family of the Jailor were, whom they taught. — And when he professed his faith, we are told that he was baptized immediately, not, he immediately started off with his family and with Paul and Silas, in the night, to a suitable place to be immer sed. d) Matt. 3: 16. When Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan, " he went up straightway out of the water :" and Acts 8: 38, " They (the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip) went down both into the water, and he baptized him." In these passages the prepo sitions dg and and, may with equal propriety be rendered to and from. Thus the former is translated in John's gospel,1 " John came first to (eig) the sepulchre" of our Lord, " but he went not in;" and again " He sent forth his servants to call them that were bid den to (tig) the wedding (feast")2 and many other passages :3 and the latter is thus rendered in the passages, " And forthwith the an- '/ gel departed from (and) him,"4 and " The angel came and rolled the stone from (and) the door,"5 and others.6 These prepositions do, therefore, not with certainty prove any thing more, than that these persons went to the water to be baptized, and afterwards came from it. But even if it were certain, that they went into the water, this would by no means determine the manner in which they were baptized. They might have gone into the depth of their ' ancles or knees, and baptized according to the Jewish baptism, des cribed in Numbers,7 by pouring the water on with a vessel, or with the hand, or by sprinkling it over the subject. e) Nor does the fact, that " John baptized in iEnon, because there was much water (noXXa vSaza, many springs) there," de termine the mode of baptism. Because whatever be the object, sacred or profane, for which large multitudes assemble, to spend one or more day together, it is a notorious fact, that the vicinity of a spring or creek or river is always preferred, for water is indispen sably necessary to their subsistence. Are not such places always preferred for fourth of July orations, military parades and camp meetings ; yet who would infer that the methodists baptize by im mersion, because they hold their camp meetings in the vicinity of water? And as thousands followed John, what is more natural, than 1 John 20: 4, 5. 2 John 2: 3. 3 John 4: 5. Then cometh he to (eig) the city. Acts 13: 48. 21: 4. Rom. 2: 4. 4 Acts 12: 10. 5 Matt. 2872. 6 Matt. 4: 25. 24: 31. 28: 8. 7 Chap. 19. 520 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [bK. IV. that he should select a place where there was abundance of water for their subsistence. Indeed, at no other place could such crowds remain with him more than half a day, or even that long, in the warm season. Moreover, we are told that there were " many wa ters" at iEnon. Now it is geographically certain, that there are neither many rivers nor many creeks at any of the supposed sites of jEnon, for its location is not fully ascertained. At most, then, there were several springs there ; but are springs the most suitable places for immersion ? Certainly not. f ) The texts Rom. 6: 4, and Col. 2: 12, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into his death," appear to refer not to the mode of baptism, but to the spiritual obligations which that ordi nance imposes ; it requires us to be dead to the world, buried to all earthly and sinful pursuits, growing together with him spiritually, " planted" or grafted on him. What reason is there to suppose that one of these figures refers to the mode of baptism rather than the other in the same sentence ? And what mode of baptism, would be indicated by being " planted together with Christ by baptism?" Or what mode by putting on Christ like a garment.1 g) 1 Cor. 15: 29. " Else what shall they do who are baptized for (vnig,) or over the dead, if the dead rise not at all ?" The sig nification of this passage is somewhat obscure. TertuUian, Theo- philact and Epiphanius inform us, that it was the custom of the Marcionites and Corinthians, if a catechumen died before his bap tism, to baptize some other in his stead, as the apostles here seems to intimate. And as the early Christians regarded with much veneration the graves of martyrs, and occasionally held assemblies on the spot, it' is supposed that in these vicarious baptisms, the rite was performed over his grave. This would be the obvious meaning of the apostle, if his language (vnig) in this passage signifies over as it certainly often does in Greek writers. But could the baptisms over the graves of martyrs be performed by immersion ? V^Kere their graves dug at the bottom of rivers ? h) The moral unsuitableness of immersing both sexes even with bathing dresses before a promiscuous community, especially in countries where bathing is seldom practised, renders it highly im probable, that it would form a part of the pure system of gospel re ligion. Christianity was designed for universal dissemination, and, therefore, i) Finally, the danger to the life and health of those, who should be thus baptized, in the winter season, and especially in the colder climates of the earth, renders it a very unsuitable part of a universal religion. The ministers of Christ are no where directed to defer 1 Gal. 3: 27. § 110.] baptism. 521 the administration of this ordinance till the summer arrives, nor are they authorized to make an exception in the case of the most con firmed invalids, whose very life would be in jeopardy. From all these considerations, we think, our second position is clearly established, .that God has not commanded immersion in his word : yea it is clear that the scriptures contain more evidence for sprinkling and pouring, than for immersion ; hence our conclusion follows incontrovertibly, that it is not a necessary part of the ordi nance, and that sprinkling and pouring are preferable to it. SECTION CX. The promises which are connected with Baptism. When Christ commands his disciples to administer the ordinance of baptism in honour of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he thereby declares Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be the God of those who are baptized (% 43, 45.) This declaration amounts to (1) a solemn promise of the divine protection and favour ; and as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be considered the God of the baptized, it in cludes a promise of those specific blessings which, according to the doctrines of Christ, are to be expected from Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In short, by virtue of the union with Christ, (2) into which we enter by baptism, we are assured not only of an interest in the death of Christ, and of the remission of sins(3) which result from it, but also of our union with God the Father as our Father,(4) and our consequent title to eternal life ;(5) as well as of our union with the Holy Spirit, and the participation of his gracious influences. (6) In short, all the blessings, which have a reference to salvation, and for which we are indebted to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are promised to the subjects of baptism; and, in case they do not deny themselves the enjoyment of them, are actually bestowed upon them ($111.) (7) Illustrations. I. Baptism assures us of the divine protection and favour. — Those who are dedicated to God in Baptism, and have thus placed 66 522 OF THE sacraments. [bk. IV. themselves under an acknowledged obligation of obedience to God as their God, are also thereby authorized to expect the protection and the blessings of God. Heb. 11: 16, " God calls himself the God of the deceased patriarchs, because they dwell in his presence serving and worshipping him, because he rewards their obedience, and because they live to his glory." Hence, in 1 Pet. 3: 21, one effect attributed to baptism, is, that it procures for its subject a con fident access to God. $ 43. 111. 4. Membership in the christian church, does indeed assure us of this privilege in other ways ; but baptism is peculiarly well adapted to produce this confidence in God, inasmuch as it embodies the divine promise in a visible cere mony, and applies it specifically to an individual person.1 II. Effects of baptism continued. — Gal. 3: 27, daoi tig Xgiozdv i^anzla&rjzt, Xgiatov iveSvaaa-Bt for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. By virtue of this union with Christ, the subjects of baptism are entitled, not only to an interest in the death of Christ, but also to the right of being chil dren of God,2 and the hope of hereafter possessing the riches of their Father. In Rom. 6: 4, 5, the apostle says, We are buried with him, by baptism into (his) death : for if we have been planted with him [become partakers with him] in the likeness of his death, we shall be also etc. Gal. 4: *l. Moreover, as those who are baptized, are children of God, and sustain the most intimate union with the Son of God, the Holy Spirit is given to them. Gal. 4: 6, and be cause ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts. Gal. 3: 13, that ye might receive the promise of the Spirit (the blessing of Abraham.) Those who have, by baptism, been united to the Son of God, the descendant of Abraham (v. 16,) will, in consequence of this union, be themselves considered and treated as sons of God, as descendants of Abraham, and heirs of God. To them also is the Spirit given, who inspires them with filial confi dence in God, and who is the pledge of their future blessedness. — Rom. 8: 14— 16.3 III. Subject continued. — Col. 2: 12, Buried with him (Christ) in baptism, compared with v. 13, having forgiven you all your tres passes. Acts 2: 28, be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. Tit. 3: 4, 5, 7, but when the kindness and love of God our Saviour to man appeared, he saved us, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but accord- 1 See 114. 111. 13. and Heilmann's Compend. & 370, and Reichardi Init. doct. christ. P. II. C. III. § 65. p. 117. ed. 2. 2 Gal. 3: 26. 4: 4. John 1: 12, he gave them power to become the sons of God . — adoptio.3 On the Design of the death of Christ, p. 516. Programma de consensu Epp. Pauli ad Hebraeoset Galatas, p. 12, 22. § HI.] baptism. 523 ing to his mercy (or for his mercy's sake,) by the washing of re generation and the renewing of the Holy Ghost — that being justified by grace etc. 1 Pet. 3: 21, (Sdntiapa — avviiSrjattog dya&ijg intgto- tnpa eig ftidv. In this passage, the pardon of sins is represented as connected with baptism into the death of Christ. See v. 18.1 Eph. 5: 25, Christ gave himself for the church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water. Heb. 10: 22. In this pas- page, Christians are represented as having by baptism attained an interest in the redemption purchased by the blood of Christ.2 IV. By baptism we become sons of God the Father. — Gal. 3: 26, 27, for ye are all sons of God, by faith in Jesus Christ; for as many of you as have been baptized into [in the name of, or in hon our of] Christ, have put on Christ. Tit. 3: 5, Sid Xovzgov naXiy- ytvtalag. V. By baptism we are made " heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Gal. 4: 7. Rom. 8: 17. compare John 3: 5, where we_are taught, that those who are " born of God" (dvm&tv v. 3. ix tov ovgavov v. 31. ix {rtov 1: 12) i. e. who are made children of God by water, or by the Spirit, or by the divine agency, have ac cess to the kingdom of God, to eternal life. 3: 15 — 17. In Matt. 21: 25, the phrase *£ ovgavov " from heaven" is placed in antithe sis to t^ av>ontov " of men," and is therefore synonymous with ix &tov " of God." VI. Baptism is a means for effecting our union with the Holy Spirit, and obtaining his gracious influences. Tit. 3: 5. Acts 2: 38, be baptized every one of you, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. VII. Tit. 3: 5, i'atoatv etc. 1 Pet. 3: 21, vvv atdCn etc Mark 16: 16, ato-&rjaeiai etc. SECTION CXI. Obligations attending the blessings which are promised in baptism. As we may, by our disobedience, forfeit the salvation which was purchased by Christ (§ 67, 72 ;) even those who were baptized will incur this Ioss,(l) if their reception of this ordinance is not at- 1 See also the work on the Death of Christ, p. 530. 2 Comment, on Heb. in loc. note h. 524 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. tended by a change of heart, and reformation of life. (2) If we de sire to regard God, in whose name we are baptized, as our God, whose favour we may expect to enjoy ; we must also honour him as our God. And as we were baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we must honour him in the manner prescribed by those doctrines,(3) which the Father(4) has revealed through the Son and Holy Spirit. He who sincerely believes that his baptism has secured to him an interest in the sufferings of Christ, and the pardon purchased by them, will, if he was sincere in his baptismal professions, feel himself powerfully urged by this belief, to renounce the ways of iniquity, (5) and submit to the guidance of him whom he acknowledges as his Lord and Redeemer. (6) Illustrations. I. Baptism not sufficient for salvation, without a change of heart and life.— In Acts 8: 21 — 23, Peter addressing Simon the sorcerer, who had received the ordinance of baptism, says v. 13, thou has neither part nor lot in the matter — repent therefore. And in Matt. 3: 7 — -10, John the Baptist admonishes in the most earnest manner the Pharisees and Sadducees, who came to be baptized by him, telling them that without repentance and reformation, they could not escape the wrath to come. II. Subject continued.— Acts 2: 38, repent and be baptized, every one of you. Tit. 3: 5, the washing of regeneration. Acts 13: 24. 19: 4. John's baptism is termed " baptism of repentance," in Mark 1: 4. Matt. 3: 11, John says, I baptize you unto repentance. In the work on Baptism above referred to, the phrase " washing (or bath) of regeneration," Xovtpov naXiyyevealag, as also the words " washing of water by the word" Xovtgdv vSatog iv prjpati Eph. 5: 26, are supposed to refer to the Gospel, as the true means of moral purification, in opposition to the Levitical purifications. But in re ply to this, it may be remarked, that as the words Xovtgov and Xovtpov vSatog washing, and washing of water would naturally be understood by every reader to signify baptism, it would have been necessary for the apostle to add some explanatory clause, if he in tended by them to designate the doctrines of Jesus.1 III. The subjects of baptism must adore God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. — According to the formula of baptism, the Fath er, Son, and Holy Spirit are the God of those who receive that ordinance. Hence, those who do not receive the doctrines of Jesus 1 Tubing, gel. Anzeig. 1803. p. 52. § 112-] baptism. 525 Christ or the Son of God, and the doctrines of the apostles or of the Holy Spirit, (<§> 9 — 11) as the doctrines of the Father, with whom the Son and Spirit are one, as the doctrines of their God ; either do not receive baptism with a sincere heart, or reject that ordinance after it has been administered to them ; that is, either they are not true disciples of Jesus Christ, they are not pa&r}tev&elg to) Xptard) made disciples in the name of Christ (Matt. 28: 19. comp. John 4: 1 ;) or they lose that character after having possessed it. — For this reason it was, that Christ, when giving his apostles the command to baptize his future disciples, places in immediate con nexion with it, the injunction that they should teach the subjects of baptism to keep his commandments. Matt. 28: 20, comp. John 17: 20. It was the promotion of his honour (declarative glory) of which Jesus aimed in the institution of baptism ; and this too was the design of the Father, when he declared at the baptism of Je sus, that he was his well beloved Son,1 whom we ought to hear,2 and who would baptize3 his apostles with the Holy Spirit, which Spirit would, after his death, teach mankind through the instrurrien- tality of the apostles. IV. God is to be worshipped, in the manner prescribed by the Father, through the instrumentality of the Son and Spirit. John 12: 49 etc. 16: 7—15. Matt. 10: 20. V. Baptismal dedication to God is a powerful motive to a holy life. Rom. 6: 2—12. 1 Pet. 3: 21. 4: 2. See supra § 92. VI. 1 Cor. 1: 13. Eph. 5: 23—26. <§, 43. 111. 4. SECTION CXII. The propriety of infant baptism. That it is proper to receive infants into the visible ehurch by bap tism, appears evident from the following considerations. The gra cious provisions of God for the salvation of man, such as remission of sins or liberation from punishment, to which we become entitled by baptism, are represented in Scripture, as extending to little children (§ 68, 58.) Little children also are, although not imme- 1 Matt. 3: 17. John 5: 37. comp. with v. 18. and 1: 34. 2 Matt. 3: 17. c omp. 17: 5. The same words are used at the baptism and at the transfiguration of Jesus : merely with the additional phrase, " hear ye him." 3 Matt. 3: 16. comp. John 1: 32. Acts 1: 4 etc. 526 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. diately after their birth, yet subsequently, to be taught to observe the commands of Christ,(l) just as is the case with those who are baptized. Matt. 28: 19, 20. The lawfulness of their early recep tion^) among the followers of Christ is rendered the more evident from the fact that, by virtue of their birth and of the duties of christian parents, Christianity is already allotted to them by God. — Nor is there any thing in the nature of baptism(3) itself, which could disqualify children for being proper subjects ofit. Hence the nature of christian baptism does not render it necessary to limit the command of Christ " baptize all nations," (navza zd t&vij,) to ad ults. And, as the command of Jesus, in its natural acceptation, embraces the whole human family, without reference to diversity of age, it is not probable that children (and among the multitudes who embraced Christianity, the question concerning children must have arisen) would have been debarred from baptism by the apostles; for the apostles, as well as the other Jewish converts, had always been accustomed(4) to see little children received into the number of God's people by circumcision, (5) and to see it done even under the Old Testament dispensation, in which the people of God, con fessedly, was not destined to such an unlimited extension as in the church of Christ, into which we are received by baptism. Under these circumstances, the statement of Origen, (6) who derives the custom of infant baptism, by tradition, from the apostles themselves, seems to be entitled to our belief. At any rate, no one, even of the most ancient writers pf the church, presumed to object to pedo- baptism as being of recent origin ;(7) although the question of its propriety was often agitated. Illustrations. I. Children were to be instructed in the principles of Chris tianity. — Matt. 28: 20. Eph. 6: 4. The principles of the Essenes were approved of and regarded with admiration, by a part of the Ephesians. And as it was customary among the Essenes to re ceive strange children and educate them in their principles,1 it would certainly have been altogether unbecoming Christian parents, to be negligent in educating their own children in the doctrines and prin ciples of Christianity. Hence the apostle requires, that the children l Josephus de Bello Judaico, L. II. c. 8. § 2. *§> H3-] baptism. 527 of christian parents should be educated, not indeed with the rigour of the Essenes (for to this an allusion is doubtless made in the words " provoke not your children to anger," pr] napopyl&tt zd zixva vptov,)1 but in the fear and admonition of the Lord,2 according to the principles and directions of Jesus, which are far more excellent than all the doctrines of the Essenes. Col. 2: 8—10. II. Children were to be made disciples. — Matt. 28: 19. Michaelis has proved, in his work On the history of the burial and resurrec- y tion of Christ (p. 336 etc.) that the word pa&rittvaazt signifies " to make disciples" and not " to teach," [as it is rendered in the com mon English version.] He proves — 1. that no example can be ad duced in which the word paQrjztvuv signifies " to teach." Nor could the word in the present case, have this signification^ Christ afterwards mentions " teaching," SiSdaxovztg, specifically. — 2. In Acts 14: 21, the word pa&rjtivnv evidently signifies " to make dis ciples" [here also it is erroneously rendered " taught" in the com mon English version.] This sense of the word can also be proved from the Fathers of the church. In profane authors it is never used in a transitive sense, though it frequently is used intransitively in the very sense for which .we contend. Matt. 27: 57, " to be a dis ciple," pa&rjzeveiv zivl. Christ probably used the word iinbn, which is found in all the Oriental translations of this passage, and which, according to the common usage signifies " to make disciples." Wetstein also, in commenting on Matt. 28: 19, has proved at ji much length, that the word pa&rjttvtiv may, with perfect propriety, be taken here in that general sense, in which children are also em braced in it. III. There is nothing in the nature of baptism itself, which could militate against its administration to children. Little children are i indeed unable to worship God. But they are capable of receiving ; the grace of God, which is secured to them by baptism (§ 1 10.) And in this respect, at least, they may be said to be made disciples , of Jesus by baptism, that they are, by this ordinance received into ' the nursery of God's church, into the school established for the purpose of training up worshippers for him. IV. The silence of the New Testament concerning the baptism of children accounted, for. — The Jews had always been accustomed i to seeing children admitted as members of the church, and had never heard of the contrary custom. Hence it was altogether un necessary for Jesus to mention little children in particular in his command. Matt. 28: 19. On the contrary, had he intended that 1 Comp. Col. 3: 21. and Note 51 in Dissert. II. in Epp. add Coloss. 2 Tov xvgiov instead of rot xvgioi an education which is pleasing to God, which promotes the glory of God. See Phil. 2: 30 in the Dissert, on that Epistle. 528 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. they should be excluded, it would have been much more necessary for him to mention the particular and new exception. For this same reason it cannot be regarded as strange, that the children are not mentioned, specifically in the accounts of baptisms, contained in the New Testament ; for their reception among the people of God was nothing new or unexpected, and they are also not mentioned par ticularly in the command of circumcision (Acts 15: 1, 10. Gal. 6: 12, 13,) although no one will contend that they were not meant to be included in it. And in perfect accordance with this, is the fact, that the baptism of women is particularly mentioned (Acts 8: 12,) for it was something strange, as the old initiatory ceremony, cir cumcision, was not extended to them. Nor is it singular, that the few fragments of the works of uninspired writers of the earliest age which have survived the desolations of time, should contain nothing specific on this subject ; for they well knew that the practice was no where objected to and occasioned no dispute. Some passages, however, are found in these writings, which do not indeed, particu larly discuss infant baptism, but which speak of it as a custom uni versally known and prevalent. Thus Irenaeus in speaking of this subject, uses the following language i1 " Omnes venit (Christus) per semetipsum salvare, omnes, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores," i. e. " Christ came to bestow salvation upon all men, upon all who are dedicated to God in baptism, who are regenerated unto God, whether they be infants, or youths, or aged persons." Schroeckh, in his " history of the christian church," (Pt. III. ed. 2. p. 203 etc.) remarks, that the word renasci commonly signifies2 baptism in the writings of Irenaeus and Justin, and adduces other proof of the early existence of pedobaptism. Wall's History of infant baptism, which was translated into Latin by Schlosser, with notes, deserves particular attention on this subject, Pt. I. ch. III. See also Suicer's Thesaurus (Tom. I. p. 647 ;) Bingham's Origines ecclesiasticae (L. XI. c. 4,) and Seller's Theolog. dogm. polem. (p. 609.) V. Baptism was instituted in place of circumcision. — We find that baptism was compared to circumcision, even as early as the days of the apostles, as is evident from Col. 2: 11 etc. ntgiizpij&t]zt iv trj ntgitopr] tov Xgiatov — avvtaqivttg avrto iv td) paniloputi in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ — ¦ being buried with him in baptism etc. In the Dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew (edit. Colon, p. 261,) we find the following I Contra Haereses, L. II. t. 22. § 4. 2 For a clear and satisfactory proof of this point, the reader may consult the learned Dr. Mosheim's Sittenlehre, Tom. II. p. 89. III. p. 275. and Wall's Hist. of Baptism, Tom. I. p. 38. § 112.] pedobaptism. 529 passage : " We have not received bodily circumcision, but spiritual circumcision through- baptism ; and all are equally at liberty to re ceive this ordinance, ndoiv oqtXov vpoltog Xappdvttv." It is evident from another passage (p. 241,) which treats of the fact that females were not circumcised, that the meaning of this sentence is, that baptism is of much more extended application than corporeal cir cumcision, which was performed only on males ; that this ordinance is to be performed, not only on the male part of the race (which in cludes children,) but also on all, without exception, even on females (as to children there is not even any question.) It is, moreover, evident, from the nature of the case, that in the institution of bap tism, Christ had a reference to circumcision, just as he had to the Passover, in the institution of the Holy Supper (§ 109. 111. 4.) Just as instead of the Paschal supper, which was a new ordinance under the old covenant, and was instituted in commemoration of the cardinal1 blessing bestowed by God on his people, at the time when the Passover was celebrated the first time2 — just as instead of this Paschal supper the Lord introduced the Holy Supper, as a new ordinance under the new covenant, in commemoration of that chief blessing which was given to his new people at the time when it was first celebrated ;3 so also did he introduce a rite, which had' been known before, and by which persons were to be admitted to i the new people of God, and set apart for christian instruction, in stead of the more ancient ceremony, which had existed previously to the time of Moses,4 and by which, according to the command of Moses,5 the members of God's ancient people were to be. set apart for instruction in the doctrine and precepts of Moses.6 VI. The testimony of Origen en this subject, is "found in his Comment, in Epist. ad Rom. 6: 5 — 7. Tom. III. fol. 178, Paris, 1512. (Compare Melancthon's Loci Theolog. p.' 447, Leips. 1556.) " Hence there was a tradition derived from the apostles, that chil dren also ought to be baptized. For those to whom the divine mysteries were entrusted, well knew that the contaminations bf sin were really found in all, which ought to be removed by water and the Spirit."7 Wall justly remarks, that this testimony of Origen 1 Ex. 20:2, " I am Jehovah, thy God, who brought thee out of Egypt;" with these words the publication of the Law begins. 2 Ex. 12: 17, 14, 24—27. 3 1 Cor. 11: 23. Luke 22: 20—22. 4 John 1: 25—28. 3: 22. Comp. § 109. III. 4. 5 John 7: 22, 23. Lev. 12: 3. 6 Gal. 5. 3, " Every one that is circumcised, is bound to fulfil the law." Rom. 2:25. John 9:28. 7 " Itaque et ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem accepit, etiam parvulis dare- baptismum. Sciebant enim illi, quibus secreta divinorum mysteriorum common - datafuerunt, quod inessent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam et Spiritum aboleri deberent." >..!,' i v 67 530 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. derives double weight from the circumstance that he was descended from christian parents, as well as from the fact that he possessed the most extensive acquaintance with the christian church in all the different countries. VII. No ancient author ever charged infant baptism with being an innovation. — It can by no means be inferred from fhe celebrated passage of TertuUian, on infant baptism (De Baptismo, c. 18,) that the custom took its rise at that time. The remark of Teller (sup. cit. p. 258,) " that TertuUian, -who lived so near the age of the apostles, would scarcely have spoken against the practice, if it had been of apostolic origin," is not conclusive. Otherwise, we should likewise have to infer from the same passage, that the baptism of unmarried persons, had also been deferred previously to the days of TertuUian, and had' not been hastened until his time. For, he dissuades them from administering baptism, not only to children, but also (non minore de causa) to all persons in single life. He adnnts that it is customary in the christian church to baptize infants, when he laments that " the age of innocence (infancy) hastens to obtain pardon of sins," (Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remission- em peccatorum ?) And he does not allege that infant baptism was a recent custom, but supports his advice by arguments drawn from his particular ideas of the importance of the ordinance of baptism, and of the situation of the subjects on whom it is administered. Schlosser, in a note appended to his translation of the passage of Wall (sup. cit. c. IV. <§> VIII, IX) referring to this subject, re marks, that as TertuUian attributed so high an importance to apos tolical tradition, he would undoubtedly have referred to it in support of his opinion in this case, if he had not known that pedobaptism was customary in the earlier ages. The position above maintained, also derives additional confirmation from the fact, that the authority of TertuUian, and the arguments which he adduced against infant baptism, which would easily have produced a change in the cusr torn, if it had been of recent origin, produced not the least effect on this ancient rite ; and that, at the time when the question was agi tated, " Whether the custom of baptizing children on the second or third day after their birth, should be preserved ; or whether, in allusion to circumcision, they ought not to be baptized before the eighth day?" not a single bishop in Africa, not even Cyprian (Epist. LXIV,) who was so partial to Tertullian's views, even mentioned the opinion of TertuUian, or hinted that a minister had lately lived at Carthage, who not only entertained different views as to the proper time for the baptism of children, but who rejected infant baptism altogether.1 Finally, our position derives additional 1 See the view of the history of infant baptism during the first three centuries, given in Mtlnscher's Dogmengeschichte, Vol. 2, p. 341 — 353. '.' <§. 113.] THE LORD'S SUPPER. 531 proof also from the case of the Pelagians (in the fifth century.) They found it very difficult to reconcile infant baptism with their doctrines ; and, if they had been able to assail the custom, would undoubtedly have done so. But they defended themselves with the utmost zeal against the charge of slighting infant baptism, pro nounced it false with the greatest displeasure ; but never thought of alleging that the custom was not of apostolical authority. The custom of administering baptism only at particular holydays, was introduced at a later date ; and Bingham has proved, that at these holy-day baptisms, the ordinance was administered to chil dren. Origines Eccles. L. XI. c. VI. § IX. L. X. c. IV. $ XIV. SECTION CXIIL Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The second ordinance which our Lord instituted, was the Holy Supper. He commanded that this ordinance should frequently be celebrated. (1) It consists of the solemn(2) participation of bread and(3) wine, in eommemoration(4) of his death<-(5) Illustrations. I. The obligation and mnemonick nature of the Holy Supper. — It is admitted (§ 114. 111. 11,) that the design of the first cele bration of the Holy Supper, was to confirm the, prediction of the approaching death of Christ. Matt.1 26: 26 — 28. But it is also evi dent, even from the narrative of Matthew, that Christ had likewise a farther object in view, and certainly intended, what Paul also men tions as a command of God (1 Cor. 11: 23—25.) that this sacred ordinance should in future be repeated in memory of him. For, in Matt. 26: 28, Christ regards this ordinance as' the feast of the New Covenant, or as a feast which had reference to the_ chief blessing of the New Covenant, to alpa to trjg xaivijg Sia&ijxrjg to ntgl noXXtov ixxvvdptvov- just as the paschal supper, with which Jesus con nected it was instituted in commemoration of the cardinal blessing of the Old Covenant. Ex: 12: 14, .fhst!} tt?b n-rri Bi»n rprjl this day shall be a memorial unto you. Comp. 4 112. 111. 5. That it was really the paschal supper, and not an ordinary meal, at which Jesus was engaged, is proved in Gabler's New Theol. Journal,1 in opposition to the contrary opinion of former divines. l Vol. 13. p. 472—484, and Paulus' Comment, on the New Test. Pt. III. p. 535. 532 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. But, independently of these circumstances, the command of the apostle, who spake on the authority of the Lord Jesus, is sufficient for any Christian ; and the apostle commands that the Holy Sup per, or the Supper of the Lord, shall be repeated until the end of the world. In 1 Cor. 10: 21, Paul calls this ordinance, " the Lord's Table," zgrjneCa xvgiov, and in 11: 20, "the Lord's Supper," xvgiaxdv Sdnvov ; and TertuUian denominates it, " convivium dominicum."1 That it is to be celebrated, often^is enjoined in 1 Cor. 11: 26, dadxig " as often" as ye eat and drink etc. 10: 16 — 21, Acts 2: 42, they continued stedfastty in the breaking of bread etc. Comp. $ 109. 111. 3. 1 Cor. 11: 26, shew forth the Lord's death till he come. v. 23. See «§, 10. III. 6. II. Ordinarily it ought to be celebrated in public. — The nature of the Holy Supper is such as to dictate its celebration in the con gregation of Christians, as being most consistent with its design. 1 - Cor. 11: 20 — 34.3 This celebration under these circumstances, accords best with the fact of its being a public commemoration3 of the death of Christ as the principal blessing of the New Covenant; and is,, at the same time, best adapted to cement our union with that church, which professes to worship Jesus as her Redeemer, § 108. But by no means follows, that the private celebration of this ordinance is, under all circumstances,, to be discountenanced ; if the design of the person desiring it be a correct one. 1 Cor. 11: 22. — Reinhard's Dogm. p. 603. For, even in this case also, there is a public profession made before the minister of the Gospel who ad ministers the ordinance, and the friends who are usually present ; and it may be regarded as a public profession, inasmuch as the fact that the ordinance has been celebrated by a particular individual, becomes publicly known. Herder remarks, " Did not Christ say, Where two or three of you are gathered together, I will be with you ? — Friends and family constitute a communion. — Remember that Christ himself was the father of a family, when he instituted the ordinance; — that family consisted of his friends." Sup. cit. p. 164 etc. III. The participation of both wine and bread are necessary to this ordinance. — 1 Cor. 11: 26, for as often as ye eat this bread 1 L. II. ad uxorem, comp. Ernest! Theses Dogm. P. II. Thes. XXII. 2 Boehmer's Dissert, quart. Jur. Eccles. Antiq. ad Plinium secundum. 3 1 Cor. 11: 26, xarayyiXlcze. Compare Ex. 13: 8, where it is commanded that the circumstances of the deliverance from Egypt, should be explained to the children at the feast of the Passover. Buxtorf remarks (in his Lex. Chald. p. 1295,) that the prayerbook of the Jews contains a narrative of the feast of the passover or Haggada, which they are in a habit of reading on the first night of the feast. See Engelken Comment, super argumento e verbis Pauli, 1 Cor. 11- 26 deprompto. 4> 113.] the lord's SUPPER. 533 and drink this cup, v. 27, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup v. 28, so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup v. 29. 10: 16, the cup — the bread, v. 21, the cup of the Lord — the Lord's table. See on this subject Spittler's history of the cup in the Eucharist. IV. Of the subjects of this ordinance. — The public administra tion of the Holy Supper, may cherish the recollection of the death of Christ, even in the minds of those who do not partake of the ordinance themselves.1 — And even those who are not sincere in the reception of this ordinance, and who do not partake of it with the design of perpetuating the memory of Jesus, still cooperate, though unintentionally, in accomplishing this object.2 But the omniscient Lord, whose memory is celebrated, cannot regard with approbation those communicants, who approach his table in a thoughtless man ner,3 without reflection on the importance of the ordinance, or the proper manner of receiving it, and who do not really appreciate the blessing of the Saviour's death, though they publicly profess to do so. On the other hand, the Lord knoweth them that are his ; he can well discriminate between him who approaches the sacred board with a thankful and reverent heart, and those whose admission to the table is, just like their reception into the church, an evil which cannot be remedied. 2 Tim. 2: 19. Luke 22: 19—21. The Sa viour suffered Judas to be present, at the institution of the Holy Supper., According to the custom of the Jews, no one "was per- mitted-to withdraw, until the Paschal Supper was finished : and therefore it cannot be inferred from John 13: 30,4 that Judas had previously retired. It is evident from the nature of the Holy Supper, that, like the Paschal Supper of old, it was not intended for children. And as this ordinance, unlike that of baptism, is not intended indiscrimin ately for all without regard to age ; it is proper that the Holy Sup per should be withheld even from those children who are entering on the years of reflection, until they are able to discern fhe proper and peculiar nature of this sacred ordinance. 1 Cor. 11: 29. Mi chaelis' Dogmatik § 191. _ V. The atoning sacrifice of Christ is commemorated by this ordinance. — 1 Cor. 11: 24, this is my body which is broken for you ; do this in remembrance of me, v. 26, as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show [publish xazayyiXXtte] the Lord's death till he come. Luke 22: 19, this is my body which is 1 1 Cor. 11: 26. Exod. 12: 26. 13: 8. comp. 111. 2. 2 Melanchthonis Loci theol. p. 454. Chemnitzii Loci theol. Pt. III. p. 149. ed. Francof. et Witteberg, 1690. 3 i Cor. 11: 28, 31. 4 Michaelis' Dogmatik, p. 539. 534 OB THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. given for you, this do in remembrance of me. Matt. 26: 28, drink ye all ofit, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. SECTION CXIV. Benefits of the Lord's Supper — Christ present at its celebration. All those who partake of the Lord's supper in a proper manner {ovx avai'ttog 1 Cor. 11: 27, 29,) are not only inspired with chris tian confidenee(l) and excited to piety,(2) by the remembrance of the death of Christ ; but such is the nature of this ordinance, that they may cherish the pleasing(3) and salutary belief of the pres ence of the glorified Redeemer, who formerly laid down his life for them. We may indeed, without violating the laws of exegesis, ex plain the words Matt. 26: 26, 28. Mark 14: 22, 24.) " this is my body — «this is my blood" — thus(4) " this bread and this wine(5) are the emblems [signs](6) of my body and my blood." But this Interpretation is not accordant either with the words of the institution, (7) whieh Paul declares he received from the Lord (1 Cor. 11: 23;) or with the explanation of Paul himself, according to which(8) the meaning of Christ's words, recorded by Matthew and Mark, is this : *' This bread confers(9) my body upon you^ — this wine gives you [exhibits, offers] my "blood." Christ promised his disciples, at the institution of this ordinance,(10) that, although he was about to pass over into another life, he would nevertheless be present whenever they celebrated this supper ; that his body which was to be offered up, and his blood which was to be shed, (11) would, according to his promise, as assuredly be present, as they beheld the bread and wine before them. The very Jesus(12) whom they beheld before them., whose human blood they would soon see shed, whose human body they would soon see die ; but who, at the same time, possess ed divine perfections(13) or who is the Son of God, promised that he would be present at every solemnization of such a supper as that which they then once celebrated during his earthly existence ; and that after his death and liberation from all human sufferings, he § 114.] the lord's SUPPER. 535 would nevertheless be present, and that this presence, by which the guilt of irreverent communicants is aggravated, (14) should have a very salutary influence on those, who partake of this supper with up right intentions.(15) Illustrations. I. The Eucharist is calculated to inspire us with christian con fidence. — The worthy communicants at the Lord's table, receive bread and wine as the visible pledge of their personal, interests in the benefits of the atonement, particularly the pardon of their sins. Matt. 26: 28, for the remission of sins. See § 89. Mark 14: 24, atpa negl noXXdiv (vnig vpdiv) ixyvvopevov, blood shed for many (for you.) Luke 22: 19. 1 Cor. 11: 24, adipa vnig vpdiv SiSdpevov (xXto'pevov) body given for you (broken.) Heb. 13: 10, " The Jew ish priests have no right to eat from our altar," i. e. to enjoy the blessings of his death.1 II. The contemplation of the death of Christ, as a death en dured for the purpose of purchasing pardon for sins, must naturally excite us to a life of virtue. See § 92 supra. IIT. Those who, after mature and unprejudiced investigation, are not able to persuade themselves of the truth of this peculiar view of the Holy Supper, (which, when we consider the mysteriousness of the doctrine, and the inconclusiveness of many of the arguments often adduced in support of it, is a very possible case,) cannot in deed derive consolation and encouragement from a doctrine which they do not believe. But the blessing itself does not depend on us or our views of the doctrine, but on the divine agency of the Lord. Hence, if they do their duty, and endeavour to partake of the ordi nance with proper intentions, and with a grateful recollection of the death of Jesus, they may still, though unknown to themselves, be come partakers of the blessing thus conferred.2 It is, therefore, to be regarded as a matter of just congratulation, that those violent and bitter contentions have been buried in oblivion, which formerly ha rassed the Protestant churches,, and in which, as Luther himself confessed, the theologians of our church also were hurried into too great extremes.3 IV. The words of our Lord "This is my body etc." may in deed be explained figuratively, without ] violence to the usus lo- 1 Comment in loc. 3 Weismann's Institut. theol. exegetico-dogm. p. 932. § 31. sq. Seller's Theol. dogm. polem. p. 633. Mori Epit. Theol. christ. p. 270. 3 See Schwab's Dissert, de jure protest, exarainandi religionem suam, § 66. 536 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. quendi of the New Testament. The figure thus assumed, would not be an uncommon one (see 111. 6.) Nor can it be said that the nature of the case altogether forbids the supposition of the language being figurative. For it cannot be denied that some of the language used in the institution of the Holy Supper, is figurative [tropical] 111. 5, 6.. And even the Lutheran opinion of a propositio exhibiti- va contained in the words of the institution, evidently presupposes figurative language. See 111. 9, infra.1 It has been urged, that the language of Jesus is the language of a testament, and consequently must be understood literally. But Morus2 and Michaelis3 have both remarked, that the word SiaQrjx-ij does not here signify testament, but covenant. And the latter justly adds that the phrase adipa xXtopevov body broken, is indisputably figurative. V. The word " this," zovzo, in the proposition " For this is my blood" (Matt. 26: 28. Mark 14: 24,) refers to the preceding word " cup," notriglov, and the " cup" is used figuratively for the wine. Examples of the same nature, are found in 1 Cor. 11: 26 etc. 10: 21. Matt. 10: 42, in which the word " cup" is used to signify that which the cup contained. Thus also, in the words " this is my body," the pronoun " this," zovzo, is placed instead of the " bread" (dgzov 1 Cor. 10: 16) which Jesus gave his disciples to eat ; al though the gender of the pronoun does not correspond to that of the subject dgzog, but of the predicate adipa. For cases of similar construction, see Gal. 4: 24. (111. 6.) Matt. 7: 12, oiitog iatlv d vopog etc. instead of tovto etc. See Dissert. I. in Libros N. T.histor. Note 32. Eph. 1: 14, og instead of o. 3: 13, rjtig instead of a'itiveg. 1 Cor. 3: 17, o'itiveg instead of dgng. VI. The interpretations of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius. — It is a matter of little moment, whether, with the former, we trans late the words of the institution thus :" This indicates my body and my blood ;" or with the latter, " this, which I here extend to you, is a ' sign' of my body and my blood."4 In both cases, the thing itself is, according to a customary figure of speech,5 placed for the sign of the thing; and the phrases, ",this is a sign of the thing" and, " this signifies or indicates that thing," are equivalent. Thus^ in Gal. 4: 24, the words avzai (instead of zavza) tioi Siio Sia&ijxai, may be rendered " this is a sign of the two covenants," or this signifies the two covenants." I shalloffer no remarks on Rev. 17: 9 etc. 12: 15, and other passages, which are usually ad- 1 Toellner's vermischte Aufsaetze. B. 2. Samml. 2. S. 180 f. 2 Sup. cit. p. 269. 3 Dogmatik. p. 652. 4 Plank's Geschiehte des protest. Lehrbegriffs, Th. 2. S. 259,273. s See Observv. ad analog, et. syntaxin Hebraicam pertinentes, p. 18. note 5. Dissert, in Lpist. ad Corinth. Note 59. Fischer de vitiis Lex. N. T. "§> 1 14.J the lord's SUPPER. 537 duced1 in support of this form of expression, as the preceding ob servations may easily be applied to them. But, according to the analogy of the Hebrew language, the substantive verb is usually wanting in the sentences which contain such a trope, and the figure is more usually found in the noun which is expressed.2 Thus in Ezek. 12: 10, the words tDirfi — rrrn fcteari {Oiasri must evidently be translated, " this carrying "(of the ' stuff' or preparation for re moving or for wandering v-. 6) is a sign [symbol] of the (wandering) Israelites and their princes ;" and not thus: '-'This carrying signi fies the prince of Jerusalem and the Israelites." And the word Siadrjxriv covenant, itself is used figuratively in other passages be side the one adduced Gal. 4: 24. In Acts 7: 8, we read tStoxtv avtd) Sia&rjxrjv ntgtzoprjg " he gave him a sign of the covenant, which was circumcision."3 Compare Gen. 17: 10 with v. 11, TP-ia— mia nii*. Similar to this in the expression aipa Sia&rjKng instead oi'afpa, Sia&rjxrj. Heb. 9: 20. 10: 29, 13: 20. Matt. 26: 28. Mark 14: 24, " the blood which is a sign of the covenant." Nay, this figure occurs in the very words of the institution. 1 Cor. 11: 25. Luke 22: 20, tovto td nozrjgiOv rj xa'ivr] Siw&rjxtj iv td) a'ipatl pov, td vnig vpdiv ixxvvdptvov " this wine (see 111. 5) is the sign of the new covenant, which is formed through my blood :" to ixyvvdpevov is placed for zto ixxvvopivai — a mode of construction which is also found in Rev. 9: 14. 3: 12. Luke 20: 27 ; and of which other additional examples are noticed by Bengel in his Gno mon, on Luke 22: 20. VII. Examination of the words of the institution themselves. — 1 Cor. 11: 25. Luke 22. 20. (See 111. 6.) If the words, « this cup is the new covenant," which, according to Paul and Luke, Christ used at the institution of the Holy Supper, are to correspond to the synonymous words given in Matthew and Mark, " this (cup) is my blood," just as the words " this is my body" are given alike by all the four Evangelists and by Paul (in 1 Cor. 1 1 : 24 ;) then we cannot, with Oecolampadius, translate the words " the blood of Christ," to alpa tov Xgiatov, sign [symbol] of the blood of Christ." For it is the blood of Christ itself, and not the sign of that blood, which is the sign of the New Covenant. It was by the blood of Christ itself, and not by a sign of his blood, that the New Cove nant was sanctioned; hence, in 1 Cor 11: 25 Luke 22: 20 the words " in my blood" are expressly added. The sign of the New Covenant which was made by the blood of Christ, is that blood TMichaTlis Dogm. p. 652. Heddaeus on Matt. 26:26, p. 401. 2 Chemnitii fundamenta sanae doctrinae etc. p. 33. 3 The genitive mgiropijg is the genitive of apposition. See Observv. p. 104 etc. 68 538 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. itself. But that which Paul and Luke call the sign of the New Covenant, which was made by the blood of Christ, is, according to Matthew and Mark, the blood of the New Covenant, to alpa zijg xaivrjg Siu&rjxrjg. Hence, Matthew and Mark are speaking, not of a mere sign of the blood of Christ, but of that blood itself, of that blood which is a sign of the New Covenant. Libri Symbolici, p. 740 etc. Michaelis is of opinion, that the variety of expression in the words of the institution, is probably, not the arbitrary circumlocution of the narrators, but the words of Jesus himself, who in handing about the bread and wine, expressed the same thing in different words. Sup. cit. p. 649. VIII. St. Paul's explanation of the words of the institution. — The design of Paul, in the passage 1 Cor. ch. 10, was, to warn the Corinthians against the temptation to be present at the pagan sacri ficial feasts (v. 14.) The consideration which he urges on them, is, that those who attend their religious feasts, thereby avow them selves worshippers of the pagan deity,' -ih honour of whom the feast is celebrated (v. 18: 20.) Just as those who partook of those pa gan feasts, professed themselves to be worshippers of the pagan deities, and to be connected with them (v. 20 ;) so also do those who partake of the Holy Supper, profess themselves to be wor shippers of Christ, and thereby enter into connexion with him as members of his body (v. 22 ;) and that their conduct would be in consistent in the highest degree, if, on the one hand, they should profess themselves worshippers of Christ by receiving his Supper, and, on the other, declare themselves worshippers of the pagan deities by partaking of their feasts (v. 22;) and that God, whose power is superior to that of every other being, would not suffer such an insult to his character to go unpunished (v. 22.) In this res pect, the Holy Supper and the pagan feast resemble each other. — But the caution in v. 19, presupposes, that the apostle attributed a peculiar influence to the Holy Supper, which he was apprehensive some might suppose lie meant, by his comparison, to ascribe also to the pagan .festivals. But the object of the apostle is, to inform them, that although their attendance at the feasts of those deities (which are nothing 10: 19,) could not place them into the same union with those idols, as that into which the Holy Supper brings the Christian with Christ (who is the Mighty Lord v. 22. 8: 6 ;) still by attending those feasts, they became united to those idols, as far as the encouragement of their idolatry produced such a union, xotvwvovg tdiv Saipovlmv ylvta&at. That although the pagan idols are " nothing" and cannot exert any influence on the things sacri ficed unto them, and although the things thus sacrificed cannot poi son any one (v. 19. 8: 4,) and the meats that remain of their feasts, § 114.] the lorb's supper. 539 are, in themselves considered, no more injurious than any other meat (10: 25 — 30 ;) still do those who participate in the demon strations of honour paid to the deities at those feasts, thereby dis honour Christ (10: 20, 22.) For, the heathen honour their deities at their festivals, as the Christians honour Christ in the Eucharist, and as the Israelites honoured God by their sacrifices (v. 18, 20.) But it is indeed a fearful thing to dishonour Christ, inasmuch as Jesus, in honour of whom the Holy Supper is commemorated, is not an impotent idol (v. 22. comp. 11: 27, 29,) but is the Lord (v. 21) whose power and influence are undoubted, and in whose pres ence and agency, Christians in the most solemn manner profess to believe, by that holy sacrament of which they partake in honour of him (v. 16.) Now, that all Christians are one body of Christ (12: 12 — 27,) just as the bread is one, of which they all partake in the Eucharist (10: 16, 21,) and that therefore they all, as members of the body of Christ (Eph. 5: 23—32,) ought to worship Christ and trust to his providence (ibidem,) the apostle infers, in v. 17, from the fact that they all partake of the same bread, of that bread which makes them partakers of the body of Christ (v. 16.) But it is evi dent that by " body of Christ," in this verse, is not meant, as in v. 17, the Church of Christ, but the body of Christ, which, in the Holy Supper, is mentioned in connexion with the blood (which never signifies the church) of Christ (11: 27,) that is,, the body of Christ which was sacrificed for us. As all partake of the same sa cred bread, which communicates to us the body of Christ, all also partake of the same body (and blood) of Christ (10: 17, 16,) as Christ says, " he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him." John 6: 56. Hence also, all are united to the same Christ, and consequently to one another, John 17: 21, 23, " that they may be one in us — I in them — that they may be made perfect in one." They are therefore one body, or one people of Christ, who are to worship Christ and not the pagan idols, and who are authorized to expect a presence and agency of Christ in the Eucharist, such as the votaries of pagan deities, which' are mere imaginary beings, have no right to expect from them (v. 19.) The 16th verse I translate thus : " the salutary1 cup which we give and receive2 with thanksgiving, is it not the communication3 ' John 6: 35, 48. compare the expression agzog zrjg twijg with v. 33, agtog t/ar)v SiSovg Ttoxoopto. v. 57 etc. 2 Thus I translate the words to notijgiov r-ijg, ev'Xoylag and o svXoyovpcv — so that these phrases may not be tautological. EvXoyuv is used in the latter sense, in Mark 14: 22. comp. v. 23. 1 Cor. 11: 24. Luke 22: 19, where el%agwztiv ia used instead ofslloytlv. Compare Luke 9: 16. John 6: 11. Mark 8: 6. 3 This (communication.) is also the meaning of xovvtavla in Heb. 13: 16. Sea Schleusner's Lex. in voc. No. 1. 540 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. of the blood of Christ ? [does it not make us partakers of Christ's blood ?] — the bread1 which we brake and distribute amongst us, is it not the communication of the body of Christ? [is not the body of Christ thereby given us ?"] that is, " the reception of the bread and wine makes us partakers of the body and blood of Christ." Ac cording to the explanation of Paul, therefore, the sense of the words of the institution, is this: " This wine is that by which the sign of the new covenant which is made by my blood, is communicated ; or, this wine is that by which my blood is given you," — and " this bread is that which communicates to you my body." There is this difference between the Lord's Supper and all other feasts, that in the former there is not only visible food, but also nourishment of a peculiar nature, namely the body of the Lord, as we are taught in ch. 11: 29. IX. Subject continued.— -Yf e shall now proceed to show by ex amples from the New Testament, that the figure of speech which, on the authority of Paul we have assumed in the words of the in stitution, is an authorized one ; namely, " This wine is my blood," instead of " this wine gives you my blood" — " This bread is my body," instead of " this bread gives you my body." A trope per fectly similar is found in 1 Pet. 3: 21, avvttSrjattog dya&rjg intgto- ttjpa (baptism is) the witness of a good conscience etc. " baptism gives [procures for] us confidence to address ourselves to God." — Comp. $ 43. 111. 4. The seeond example which we adduce, is Rom. 7: 13, id ovv dya&dv ipot yiyovt &dvatog ; did that which is good become death unto me ? " was therefore the law which is good (v. 10, 12,) productive of misfortune to me?" or "did it produce mis fortune to me :" The third is 1 Cor. 11: 29, xgipa iavtd) io<i teal nlvu he eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, " he eateth and drinketh that which will produce punishment unto him." The fourth is John 11: 25, and Col. 3: 4, dpi rj avaazaaig xat rj £o>j) I am the resurrection and the life, " I give (am the author of) the resurrection and the life." The fifth, Rom. 10: 4, Xgiozdg tiXog vopov iati Christ is the end of the law, " Christ makes an end to the law ;" that is, he has put a lawful end to the applicability of the law (by which perfect obedience was indispensable to happiness) to the human family.2 X. 1 Cor. 11: 23, iv trj vvxtl rj nagtSlSoto in the night in which he was betrayed. Luke 22: 15 — 18. XI. The body and blood, spoken of by our Lord, were those 1 Onthe subject of the usage by which the noun is put in the accusative absolute (as in Hebrew when ri« precedes the noun) see Observv. p. 295, 297. Dissert, in Epp. ad Corinth. Noto'163. 2 On the Design of the Atonement, p. 677. <§. 114.J the lord's SUPPER. 541 which were shortly ' be broken and shed. This is evident from the expressions ixyvvoptvov, SiSdptvov (xXoiptvov.) 1 Cor. 11: 24. compare nagoiv 2 Cor. 13: 2. Paulus in his Commentary on the New Testament, has advanced the hypothesis, that the words " given for you," Luke 22: 19, and " broken for you," 1 Cor. 11: 24, were not spoken by Jesus, but were a part of the ritual of Christians, and signify " This, fellow- communicants, which is now broken for you — given for your use." This conjecture is refuted in the Allgem. Litter. Zeitung for 1802, p. 410 etc. As Jesus did, according to all three of the Evangelists, say, when mentioning his blood : which was shed for many ;" is it not probable that he also uttered those words mentioned by Luke concerning the bread, though Matthew and Mark have not men tioned them ? They indeed seem to be essentially necessary to the design of Jesus, which was, to call their attention to the circum stance that he was about to give his body and blood a sacrifice for the welfare of mankind." XII. The expression " flesh [body] and blood of Christ" odg£ [td adipa] xal zd aipa Xgiatov, is used in this passage, as in John 6: 53 — 56, by synecdoche, to express Christ himself; for those ex pressions are interchanged with iyoi " I," in v. 57, 35, 41, 48, 51. They signify that Christ is a real man, and laid down his life for men.1 v. 62, 53, 42, 51. In other instances also, the entire man Christ is expressed by the phrases " Flesh," or " body," " blood," "flesh and blood" [adg't-, atopa,2 aipa, odg'£ xal aipa,3] John 1: 14, he, the Word or Logos, became flesh, i. e. became man. More over, the body of Jesus is not severed from the rest of himself ; and therefore he cannot be given us in a separated state. But the man Jesus himself who died for us, is present at the celebration of the Holy Supper, in that manner in which he now exists, that is, in a glorified state.4 Hence Paul uses the phrases " body" and " body and blood" of Christ as synonymous, in 1 Cor. 11: 27, 29; for both, by synecdoche, signify the man Jesus himself, who is the Lord (15: 47.) And the object of his being thus designated by his body and blood, is to remind us, that it is the same Jesus who once died for us, though now he is Lord over all, and of whom it may 1 See the work on the Design of the Gospel of John, p. 193 etc. 2 Gataker de novi instr. stylo, c. X. p. 103—105, and Schleusner's Lex. art. ooZpa no. 5. 3 See Kypke on Matt. 27: 4. Tom. I. obss. SS. p. 135, and Schleusner's Lex. voc. aipa no. 6. Tom. I. p. 59. -*4 Libr. Symbol, p. 158, "Loquimur de praesentia vivi Christi." Seller's Theol. Dogm. polem. p. 644,639. 542 OF THE sacraments, [bk. IV. therefore with truth be said, that he gave his body a sacrifice, and shed his blood.1 XIII. Christ is not to be regarded as a mere man, from whom nothing could be expected which transcends the powers of human nature. John 6: 42. We must remember that the person who makes these promises, is in the most perfect union with the divine nature, which existed long before the time of the incarnation (v. 62,) and is therefore possessed of advantages and perfections of such a nature as cannot be measured by the contracted standard of human power.2 This is especially the- case in the present state of Jesus, in which he has the full enjoyment of his divine greatness and power. That divine Logos, or Word, who is omnipresent, who became man (John 1: 14,) and whose human nature puts him into a peculiar union with us (Eph. 5: 29 — 32,) is present at the eu- eharist, and exerts his influence in an incomprehensible manner.3 But although it is impossible for the finite mind of man to compre hend the mode of the omnipresence of God, in general, and conse quently also the mode of his presence in/the eucharist ; we never theless believe the doctrine on the authority of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (John 6: 68.) I do indeed willingly admit, that the 6th chapter of John does not treat of the Lord's supper; but we may at least learn from that chapter, that, in consequence of his peculiar union with the Deity, Jesus is the food of the soul to those who put their trust in him (see v. 35 48 — 11. 53 — 56, 58;) that is, that in consequence of a peculiar union (v. 56,) he becomes ours, becomes as it were our meat and drink, and promotes our spiritual life and welfare, and that by virtue of this union with Christ, we may expect that our bodies will after death enter on a new and blessed existence.4 He who puts his trust in Christ, derives nourish ment from him, but this nourishment does not consist merely in faith, or reliance on him, as Calvin himself declared.5 Just as is the case of bodily eating, the nourishment derived from the food does not result merely from the act of eating, but also depends on the presence and quality of the substance eaten ; thus also the nourishment received in the Holy supper by the worthy communi- ' " Flesh and blood" signify a mortal body. Heb. 2: 14. 1 Cor. 15: 50. 53, 42. This signification of the words odgl- xal aipa is admitted in Eichhorn's Biblioth. Vol. 6, p. 759—772 ; in which Dissertation, however, the words of the institution themselves are explained in a very different way. 2 On the Design of John's Gospel, p. 194. and Calvin's Institution es Christ. rel. L. IV. u. 17. § 7—10. 3 See Libr. symbol, p. 753. Seiler sup. cit. p. 641. Startorii Compend. Theol. Dogm. § 651. Reinhard,p. 599. i John 6: 54. Rom. 8: 10. 1 Cor. 6: 13—17. 15: 47—49. § 65. 5 Institut. Christ, relig. Lib. IV. u. 18. § 5. § H4.] the lord's SUPPER. 543 cant, does not depend merely on the act of believing, but also on the presence and influence of Christ, with whom we become united through the instrumentality of faith, and who thereby becomes ours (v. 56.) Faith is merely the instrument by which this union of the believer with Christ is effected, Eph. 3: 17, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith. Nor does this spiritual food consist merely in the recollection of that favour which Christ has long since shown us by his death. For, although the glorified state of Jesus could have had no beneficial influence on us, and could not have tended to nourish our souls, i. e. to promote our spiritual welfare, if he who had come from heaven, and who, after he had assumed human na ture, returned to heaven as man (v. 62,) had not previously laid down his life ; still his death is not the only blessing which he in tended to bestow on us. But the exalted1 Redeemer, desires to bestow on us a new and permanent blessing by taking us into an intimate union2 with himself, and by being present with us3 (Eph. 5: 32) in an incomprehensible manner, and thus exerting a bene ficial influence on us, and by this union, qualifying us for the benefits of his death.4 Had the idea which Jesus intended to convey in John 6, been merely this, that those are blessed (gtorjv i'xttv v. 53, 58) who accept the blessings which he purchased by his death and make a proper improvement of them ; he might have taught them this5 without giving such decided offence, as it is evident he did, from the fact, that many of his disciples, in consequence ofit, even abandoned his cause and left him v. 52, 60, iotlv, axXtjgdg ovtog Xoyog this is a hard saying. Moreover, had he meant no more than this, he would certainly have rectified their misapprehension of his meaning by an explanation. But we find on the other hand, that he always repeats the very same words (v. 53 — 58,) and every thing which he says by way of explanation, goes to confirm the proposition, that he who is truly man, who was sent into this world, and who would suffer death for all its inhabitants (v. 51,) actually was the food of the souls of all those (or according to another read ing, the actual food, dXrj&dig or dXrj&rjg figoiaig rj odg% pov iati v. 55.) who are desirous of obtaining salvation procured by his death; or that they must be received into a peculiar union with him (v. 1 John 6: 62. Matt. 28: 18. Eph. 5: 23. 1: 22. 2 John 6: 56, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, remaineth in me and I in him. Eph. 5: 30 — 33. 1 Cor. 6: 15, your bodies are the members of Christ, v. 17, he that is joined unto the Lord, is one spirit. 3 Matt. 28: 20, I am with you. Eph. 5: 29, the Lord nourisheth and cherisheth the church. 4 Phil. 3: 8. Rom. 8: 1,9. Calvin's Instit. sup. cit. § 11. p. 491. 5 Nay, this be actually did teach without giving so much offence. John 10: 11—18. comp. 6: 60—66. 544 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [bK. IV. 56,) and that on this union, and the union of himself (the man Je sus) with God, depended their spiritual life and salvation. It was necessary for Christ to be a man, odgi;, and a man most closely united to God (v. 63,) in order that he might be enabled to die for the human family (roil xoapov v. 51 . <§> 82.) But in order that each individual may actually enjoy the salvation purchased by his death, it is necessary that Jesus who died for us, and who now lives in the full enjoyment of his union with God (v. 63, 57,) should be united with us (v. 50, 53 — 58,) and exert his divine power in the exercise of that right to bestow salvation (<§> 87 ;) in order to effect and consummate the salvation of those sinners who put their trust in him (v. 47.) The agency of Christ in the salvation of his peo ple, will not indeed be visible in its highest degree (§ 65) until the end of the world (iaxatrj rjpiga v. 54.) But he is now also en gaged in promoting the salvation of his people, in a manner suited to their situation (v. 56.) Now, if the man Jesus, who is the Son of God is in general present with his people and exerts his agency for their good ; if true Christians are united to him and through him1 to the Father2 and Holy Spirit ;3 surely it is not unreasonable to believe, that he will, according to his promise, be present at the celebration of the Holy Supper also, and exert his salutary influence on those who partake of that ordinance with upright intentions.4 — But the Holy Supper is distinguished by the peculiar circumstance, that in it the presence of Christ is displayed by a visible pledge, with which pledge he has placed his presence in such intimate con nexion, that we may believe its truth, as assuredly as we believe the testimony of our senses that bread and wine are before us, — And the confidence of the believer in the general presence and protection of Jesus must certainly be confirmed in a high degree by the idea, that on this particular occasion he is present at a specific time and at a particular place, and evinces his presence and agency by a visible pledge and symbol.5 XIV. The guilt of irreverent communicants is aggravated by the circumstance of the presence of Jesus. 1 Cor. 11:27 — 29- It could not be said of the unworthy communicants, that they are " guilty 1 John 17: 23. 14: 9. 16: 13—15. Gal. 4: 6. § 44, 45. 2 John 14: 23, I and my Father will make our abode with him. In the Dis sert, de efficientia spir. sancti in mentibus nostris, it is proved from the context v. 16 — 22 that these words refer to a union between the believer and Christ and the Father in this life. 3 Rom. 8: 9 etc. the phrase " the Spirit of God dwelleth in you" is synony mous with " to have the spirit of Christ," and with the phrase " Christ is in you." * Comp. Seiler, p. 650.Sartorious, § 557. p. 441. 5 See Crusius' Plan of the kingdom of God, p. 160, 171—173. Goetz on Matt. 26: 26, in his Commentary, p. 493. §114."] the lord's SUPPER. 545 of the body and blood of the Lord," evoypl tov awpatog xal trjg aipatog tov xvgiov,1 if the body and blood of Christ were not pres ent ; if, in addition to the bread and wine which are received in an irreverent manner, the Lord himself were not present, and willing to form or cherish a most salutary union with the guests. XV. The presence of Jesus at the Holy Supper, has the hap piest influence on the worthy communicants. John 6: 53, 56 — 58. 48—51,35,63. Comp. 111. 13. Appendix on the Mode op the Saviour's presence in the Eucharist, by the Translator.2 « The mode of the Saviour's presence in the Eucharist, Although this ordinance was designed as a memorial of the dy ing love of the Redeemer, it has unhappily been the occasion of much controversy in the christian church. The strongly figurative language of the Saviour, together with the careful repetition of the precise words by the apostle Paul and the explanation annexed by him, was variously interpreted even in the earlier centuries of the christian history, and a kind of mysterious influence ¦ ascribed to this ordinance. In the middle ages of ignorance and superstition, views of the grossest kind obtained currency; until, in the year" 1215, the doctrine of transubstantiation was formally adopted as the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, by a Lateran Council, under pope Innocent III. According to this doctrine, the outward emblems, though they retain their external form, are no longer bread and wine ; but " the consecration of the bread and wine produces a change of the whole substance of the bread, into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine, into the substance of his blood."3 This monstrous error, Luther and his coadjutors rejected for the following reasons, viz. a) It is contradicted by the clear and indisputable testimony of our senses, which demonstrate to us that no change has occured in the nature and properties of the 1 "Evtxa must be supplied, as in James 2: 10, Comp. Diss, in Epist. Jacobi, Note 64. a See the Translator's Elements of Popular Theology, pp. 245 — 255. 2d edit. 3 Sancta heee Synodus declarat, per consecrationen panis et vini, conversio- nem fieri totius substantia? panis, in substatiam corporis. Cliristi, Domini nostri, et totius substantia? in vini substantiam sanguinis ejus — qua? conversio conven- ienter etproprie Transubstantiato est appellata. Concil Trident. Sees. 13. cap. 4. 69 546 OF the sacraments. [bk. IV. bread and wine. We have this testimony not of one sense only, but of sight, taste, smell, and touch : nor of the senses of one in dividual only ; but of all men of every generation and country. But no testimony is so strong as that of the senses ; because on it rests even our belief of the scriptures.1 b) This doctrine contradicts the universal observation of mankind, that all bodies (material sub stances) must occupy definite portions of space, and cannot be at more than one place at the same time : for according to this tenet, every portion of consecrated bread is really the whole material body of the Saviour ; hence the whole body is locally present in many different places at the same time, which is absurd, c) The apostle still calls the symbols bread and wine after their consecration, which he would not have done, if they had been transmuted into the body and blood of the Saviour.3 d) Because the consecrated bread and wine are subject to the same laws of decomposition and corruption, as if they were not consecrated.3 e) Because it is a comparatively recent doctrine, unknown in the christian church in general, until about a thousand years after this sacrament was instituted. But whilst the Reformers agreed in rejecting this papal error, it is much to be regretted, that they could neither harmonize among themselves what should be substituted in its stead, nor consent to walk together in love, when they could not entirely accord in opin ion. It was on the subject of this docfrine, that the first important diversity existed among them ; a diversity subsequently increased by the peculiar views of Calvin relative to the divine decrees.- — Alas ! that men, distinguished so highly for intellect, and chosen of God to accomplish so great a work, should betray such a glaring want of liberality toward each other ; that having gloriously coope rated in vanquishing the papal beast, they should turn their weapons against each other, for a point not decided in scripture, and there fore of minor importance ! Yet, when we recollect that this inflex ible, uncompromising spirit was an essential qualification for the successful conflict against the papal hierarchy, for which they were designed by Providence, we shall feel constrained to regard it rather as an unavoidable evil of the age than a blemish in the character of the blessed reformers. 1 1 John 1: 3. That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you. — John 3: 11. Luke 24: 29: Behold my hands and my feet ; handle me and see that it is I. 2 1 Cor. 10: 16. 11:26. 3 The following lines of Cicero, are so applicable to the doctrine of transub- stantiation, that if they had been written for the purpose, they could not have been made more appropriate. " Dum fruges Cererem, vinum Liberum dicimus, genere nos quidem sermonis utimur usitato, sed ecquen tam amentem esse putas, qui illud quo vescatur Deum credat esse?" Nor would the charge be entirely inapplicable to the language occasionally used by some early Lutheran divines. §114.] the lord's SUPPER. 547 The views adopted by the different reformers and principal di vines of the Protestant churches, though-numerous and diversified in their modes of explanation, may be reduced genetically to four. The first was that adopted by Luther and the major part of the Lutheran church in the sixteenth and seventeenth and earlier part of the eighteenth centuries, as also by the Moravian church until the present day. The advocates of this opinion premised the fol lowing points : a) that agreeably to the declarations of the apostle Paul,1 all hu man bodies will experience a very great change at death, and prior to the resurrection in their glorified form. The extent of this change they regarded as such, that although enough of the old body would remain to serve as the basis of its identity (its substance, or essence ;) its properties would be entirely changed, and it would no longer be subject to the laws and limitations which now regulate matter. In this sense they understood the declaration of the apostle, that the glorified body shall be incorruptible and immortal, yea, so highly refined and elevated in its properties that it may be said to partake of the properties of a spirit, may justly be called "a spiritual body." Now, it cannot be denied that the body of the Saviour has also experienced the change described by Paul : and it is therefore, no longer subject to those laws, nor possessed of those properties (visibility, tangibility, etc.) which belonged to it in the present world. b) It was, moreover, believed, that in consequence of its union with the divine nature, the glorified body of Christ had been en dowed with properties -still higher than those which the glorified bodies of the saints will possess : and that it was therefore even less restricted by those laws which now regulate the matter known to us. With these premises, their view of this subject may be advanta geously stated thus : I. The bread and wine remain in all respects unchanged ; but the invisible, glorified body and blood of Christ are also actually } present at the celebration of the eucharist, and exert an influence J on all those who receive the bread and wine ; not indeed present in that form nor with those properties which belonged to the Saviour's body on earth, such as visibility, tangibility, etc. for these it no longer possesses, but present with the new and elevated properties which now belong to its glorified state. There seems to have been a peculiar fondness among the advo cates of this view, to use the figurative language of the Saviour and 1 1 Cor. 15: 40. There are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial, but the glory of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another, v. 44. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. v. 52. 53. The dead shall be rai sed incorruptible, and we shall be changed ; for this corruptible must put on in- corruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 548 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. speak of eating his body and drinking his blood ; but they denied that they understood these terms literally, and rejected the idea of a carnal, material reception. Their idea seems to have generally been, that we thereby come into communion with, and under the influence of the glorified Saviour. Speaking of this view the celebrated Lutheran divine Dr. Mo sheim says:1 "What the nature of this presence is, we know not. — The thing itself we know; but the mode of its truth is a mystery which we cannot comprehend. We deny that Christ is present and received in a physical or material manner. But should anyone ask, How is he present ? our answer is, We know not. We com monly call his presence in this holy ordinance, a ' sacramental presence.' This might seem to be an attempt to define the mode of his presence ; but by this word we mean nothing more than that we are ignorant of the mode. It has been said, we receive Jesus in, under, or with the bread (in, cum,, sub pane.) These three words might signify three modes ; but they are designed to indicate, that we do not wish to determine any thing about the mode of Christ's presence. Those therefore err, who say, that we believe in impanation, or that Christ is in the bread and wine. Nor are those more correct who charge us with believing subpanation, that is, that Christ is under the form of bread and wine. And equally groundless is the charge of consubstantiation, or the belief that the body and blood of Christ are changed into one substance with the bread and wine. To all the objections, derived from the testimony of our senses, the advocates of this view reply, that they are based on the proper ties which belong to human bodies in this life, and therefore are not applicable to the glorified body of Christ, which does not possess these properties. To the objection that this system is exposed to the same difficul ties as transubstantiation, it is responded that the cases are different. In the Roman Catholic error, which the reformers rejected, an ex emption from the common laws and properties of matter, is attribu ted to bread and wine, material substances confessedly belonging to this world, and subject to the laws of matter ; but the Lutheran doetrine ascribes such exemption to a substance belonging to anoth er world, concerning which all admit and the scriptures expressly declare, that it does differ very much from ordinary matter. II. The second view of this doctrine is that, which was early entertained by some Lutheran divines, and, in the last century be came generally current. That the bread and wine remain in all respects unchanged; that the I Elementa Theol. Dogm. Vol. II. p. 328, 329. § 114.] the lord's SUPPER, 549 glorified human nature of Christ is not substantially (essentially) present at all, but only influentially, efficaciously or virtually ; that is, by a special supernatural influence exerted on all communicants, at the time when they receive the bread and wine. This was probably the opinion of that distinguished ornament of the Lutheran church, Melancthon, who rejected the doctrine of the substantial presence, of the glorified human nature, and wisely maintained, that as the scriptures had not specified the mode of the Saviour's presence, every individual should be left to the free exer cise of his own judgment. Many of the most judicious divines adopted the views of Melancthon, although he and they were treat ed with much intolerance by the other party. The Formula Concordia;, which was published in 1577, expressly to counteract this opinion, strange as it appears, seems itself, in some places to inculcate it, and is thus inconsistent with itself, as will be seen from the following extract : " And by that word (spiritually) we exclude those Capernaitish notions, concerning a gross and carnal presence which have been attributed to our churches by the sacramentarians, in defiance of all our public protestations against them. And when we use this term (spiritually,) we wish to be understood as signify ing, that the body and blood are received, and eaten, and drank spiritually in the holy supper. For although the participation is effected by the mouth, the manner in"which it is done is spiritual."1 Yet in other parts of the work its authors even go beyond Luther himself. When they say, this spiritual participation is effected by the mouth, the only intelligent idea deducible from their language is, that this influence, which Christ exerts on us through his body and blood, is made dependent on the oral reception of the external em blems, bread and wine. The habit which prevailed of using the strongly figurative lan guage of the Saviour even beyond the extent of his example, often involves the earlier advocates of this second opinion in inconsistency ; yet there was always a strong party in the church who favoured Melancthon's views, nor was the power of the princes nor the influ ence of symbolic restrictions sufficient to repress them. Amono- the later divines who have asserted the merely virtual or influential presence of the Saviour in the eucharist, may be ranked Reinhard, Zachariae, Storr, Flatt, Marheinecke, etc. I Formul. Concord. Art. VII. No. XXI. p. 604. "Et quidem per vocabulum illud (spiritualiter) Capernaiticas illas imaginationes de crassa et carnali presen- tia excludimus et rejicimus : qua? ecclesiis per sacramentarios, post tot publicas nostras protestationas, affingitur. Et in ea sententia intelligi volumus vocabu lum (spiritualiter) cum dicimus, corpus et sanguinem Cliristi in sacra erena spiritualiter accipi, edi et bibi. Tametsienim participatio ilia ore fiat ; tamea modus spiritualis est." 550 OF THE SACRAMENTS. [BK. IV. Of this opinion also was the distinguished reformer, Calvin, whose sentiments are in this country often misapprehended, but who cer tainly used language fully as strong as that above cited from the Lutheran Symbol. " I therefore maintain (says Calvin) that in the mystery of the supper, by the emblems bread and wine, Christ is really exhibited to us, that is, his body and blood, in which he yield ed full obedience in order to work out a righteousness for us : by which, in the first place, we may as it were become united with him into one body, and secondly, being made partakers of the substance of himself, also be strengthened by the reception of every blessing."1 The entire opinion of Calvin is thus stated by a very distinguished living writer of Germany :2 " Calvin's spiritual reception of the body and blood of Christ is indeed a real but not an oral one, and consists in this, that in the moment in which we partake of the bread and wine, if our hearts are by faith elevated to him, a super natural influence emanates from the substance of the glorified body of Christ (that is and remains iriheaven) by which the soul of the believer is animated and strengthened in a mysterious manner. But the unbeliever receives nothing more than bread and wine." The only difference between -the above extracts from Calvin and the views of some Lutherans is, that the former confines this supernat ural influence to believers, whilst the latter extends it to all who partake of the consecrated eleftients. III. The third opinion is, that there is no presence of the glori fied human nature of the Saviour, either substantial or influential, nor any thing mysterious or supernatural in the eucharist ; yet thai whilst the bread and wine are merely symbolic representations of the Saviour's absent body by which we are reminded of his suffer ings, there is also a peculiar and special, spiritual blessing bes towed by the divine Saviour on all worthy communicants, by which their faith and christian graces are confirmed. This view seems sometimes to have been maintained by Melancthon and by some of those Lutheran divines, who were termed Sacramentarians ; and is received by not a few theologians of the Lutheran church in Europe and America at the present day. According to this view, the Holy supper exerts its influence as a symbolic representation of divine truth, on the principles explained in the discussion of the means of grace, see Art. V. but its worthy 1 Dico igitur in coena? mysterio persymbola panis et vini Christum vere nobis exhiberi, adeoque corpus et sanguinem ejus, in quibus omnem obedientiam pro comparanda nobis justitia adimplevit : quo scilicet primum in unum corpus cum ipso coalescamus ; deinde participes substantia? ejus facit, in bonorum omnium communicatione virtutem quoque sentiamus. Institut. Lib. IV. C. XVII. II. 2 Brettschneider's Systematische Entwickelung aller in der Dogmatik vorkommender Begriffe, p. 721. edit. 3d, 1826. Y 114. the lord's supper. 551 , 1 — . reception is also the condition of a special spiritual blessing from the divine Saviour, beyond that of the other means ; a) Not only because religious exercises of various kinds are usually combined on sacramental occasions, and continued longer than at other times ; but b) also because of the peculiarly impressive manner in which the solemn truths conveyed by it are presented to the mind ; and c) in consequence of the Saviour's promise of a peculiar spiritual blessing on the celebration of this ordinance, which is invariably conferred on all worthy communicants. The promise of this bles sing they regard as contained in the strongly figurative language of the Saviour, by which he represents himself as the spiritual food of the soul, and also in the declaration of Paul, that the cup and bread are the communion, or communication, bestowment, or inipartation, of the body and blood of Christ, that is, of the blessings purchased by his atoning death. IV. The fourth opinion is, that there is no presence of the hu man nature of the Saviour of any kind in the holy supper ; nor any peculiar spiritual influence connected with this ordinance other than that accompanying the truths which it symbolically represents. This opinion was maintained by the distinguished reformer Zu- inglius, and is generally received by his followers in Europe and America, and at present also by the great mass of trie Calvinistic churches, which gradually abandoned the views of Calvin on this subject. There are but two points of doctrinal diversity, worthy of note between the second and third views above detailed, a) The former maintains that the influence exerted on communicants is a super natural and mysterious one, whilst the latter ascribes to the eucharist itself, no other effect, than the moral influence of the truths which it symbolically represents. And b) the former considers the special influence of this ordinance as exerted by the glorified human nature of the Saviour, whilst the latter regards the special blessing, atten dant on the worthy participation of the Lord's supper, as a gracious influence emanating from the divine being. In regard to practical utility, there appears to be little or no difference between them. If, as is contended, the influence emana ting from the Saviour, is nothing material ; what can it be but a special spiritual blessing on the soul of the communicant ? And it may be questioned, whether, what is termed an " influential" pres ence can in propriety of language be termed any presence at all. In point of exegetical evidence, it has been argued with no small degree of plausibility, that the opinion of a real, that is, an actual presence, either substantial as held by Luther, or influential as maintained by Melancthon and Calvin, has a decided advantage over the other views. 552 OF the sacraments. [bk. iv. After a protracted and unprofitable struggle, the Lutheran church has long since settled down in the happy conviction, that on this, as on all other subjects not clearly determined by the inspired volume her sons shall be left to follow the dictates of their own consience, having none to molest them or make them afraid. In the Luther an church in this country, each of the above views has some advo cates, though the great body of our divines, if we mistake not, embraces either the second or third. THE INFLUENCES OF GRACE. SECTION CXV. Of the true nature of these influences. The same Redeemer who is present at the Holy Supper, and exerts a salutary influence on those who partake of that ordinance with sincere and christian views, also exerts a general, comforting and supporting influence on those who make a proper use of his doctrines. (1) Some of the passages, (2) which refer to this subject, might, indeed, if there were no others of a more explicit nature, be considered as alluding to the influence of the doctrines themselves, and be supposed to term the influence of the doctrines, "a divine influence," because God is the Author of the doctrines. But there are also numerous other passages in Scripture, in which the divine influence is clearly distinguished(3) from the doctrines and their in fluence. Some of these passages are, moreover, of such a nature, that they cannot well be supposed to refer to any outward agency of God, such as a particular arrangement of the external circum stances of our situation, (4) which might predispose our hearts to receive the Word of God, (5) and to abide and grow in the love of the truth. But they must(6) necessarily be supposed to refer to an internal influence of God on the mind of man, (7) to an influence which we can neither explain nor comprehend ;(8) but which we must believe exclusively(9) on the authority of the Oracles of truth. Illustrations. I. The general comforting and supporting influence of the Re deemer. 2 Thess. 2: 16, 17, now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father, comfort your hearts and stablish you in 70 554 influences of grace. [bk. iv. every good word and work. In this passage the influences of grace are ascribed to Christ, as well as to the Father (compare Eph. 1: 17. 3: 14 etc ;) but in other passages they are very frequently at tributed to the Holy Spirit, who is one with the Father and the Son <§, 45. In Rom. 8: 9. Gal. 4: 6. Tit. 3: 6, the influence of the Holy Spirit on true Christians is represented as the influence of the Spirit of God and of Christ, and as the gift of God, the Father of Jesus Christ. And in Eph. 4: 16, and Col. 2: 19, growth in holi ness is represented as an effect of the agency of Christ,1 for in both these passages, ix (i'§ ou) from signifies the efficient cause. II. The passages which might be understood as referring to the effects of the doctrines, are such as the following. Psalm 51: 10 create in me a clean heart etc. Ezek. 36: 26, 27. 1 Pet. 5: 10. John 17: 17, sanctify them through thy truth. James 1: 18, dntxv- rjotv rjpdg Xoyop dXrj&tlag " He hath made us new and excellent creatures through the true doctrines (of the Gospel."3) III. The scriptures clearly distinguish between the influence of the doctrines, and the direct or immediate influence of God. 1 Cor. 3:6,7,1 have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the in crease etc. Here the divine influence [6 -d-tdg av£avwv God gave the increase] is distinguished from the labours of the preachers [" planting" and " watering ;"] and, consequently, from the doc trines themselves, and the influence of God on the preaching.3 Phil. 2: 12, 13, " Labour at the salvation of others with modesty and respect for them, qd^to xai tgdpto , — for their salvation is not the fruit of your labour alone ; but God must also exert an influence on them before they are willing and able to obey the doctrines of the Gospel ; it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do [accomplish."4] In 2 Thess. 2: 15 — 17, the agency of God and Christ is distinguished from the influence of the apostolical doctrines (v. 16, 17.) Eph. 3: 16, that he (the Father) would grant unto you according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might [powerfully strengthened] by his Spirit in the inner man. Even if this passage did not attribute the strengthening of the heart to the Spirit, in an immediate manner ; if it described this effect merely as a mediate one, through the instrumentality of the word ; still it would clearly inculcate an influence distinct from the word ; for it contains a prayer to God, that he might cooperate with the word (which Was previously known,) and render it effectual in con firming the heart. But a comparison of the 20th verse with ch. 1: 1 See § 10. Ill, 13. and Dissert. I. in Epist. ad Coloss. 2 Dissert, in Epist. Jacobi, Note 26. 3 Dissertation on gracious influences, Tubingen, 1799. 4 See Dissert, de spiritus sancti efRcientia, Note 52. § 115.] IMMEDIATE GRACIOUS INFLUENCE. 555 19, renders it probable that the words "strengthened with might," Svvapti xgaraiw&ijvat refer to some internal influence of God, which internal influence produced faith in the Christians of those days (1: 19,) and is still operative in the hearts of believers (3: 20,) through the Holy Spirit. Rom. 8: 9, II, 14, 16. 5: 5. The following texts also refer to this doctrine. 1 Pet. 1: 5, who are kept by the pow er of God, through faith unto salvation. 2 Thess. 1:11, wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would — fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power. Acts 16: 14, whose (Lydia's) heart the Lord opened, to attend to the things which were spoken of Paul. IV. It has been proved, in >§> 96, that Christ superintends and governs the external circumstances of men, in such a manner as is calculated to promote their spiritual welfare. V. Subject continued. — Ps. 119: 71, "Afflictions produce the salutary effect of making me learn thy statutes." Hosea 2: 8 — 16. 5: 15. Philem. 15. comp. v. 10. § 69. VI. That there is an immediate divine influence on the human mind, is taught in the following passages : — a) 1 Thess. 2: 13, when ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye re ceived it, not as the word of man, but (as it in truth is) as the word of God, who also worketh effectually in you that believe. The pronoun who, iig cannot, in this case, refer to " the Word," Xdyog, but must belong to the word '*' God," ¦d-tov, immediately preceding it. For, the stress of the passage must rest on the word ''• God," because the design of the apostle is, to confirm the truth, that the doctrines which the Thessalonians had heard from him, were not of human but of divine origin. Again, the force of the word " also," xal is this : " even he who wrought in the teacher — so that his in structions, though given by a man, were actually derived from God — he also worketh in those hearers who believe these doctrines." — b) Rom. 15: 13, now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. The latter words would be superfluous if they meant nothing- more than this, " that the Romans might be filled with confidence (iXniSt v. 1 2) through fhe doctrines which are de rived from the Holy Ghost." For this ,idea is already contained in the preceding words, "that God might promote joy and unity among you, through faith in his saving doctrines (iv iw niaztvtiv.") The concluding clause of the verse appears, therefore, rather to be an explanation how and how far God is the " God of hope" {&tdg iXnlSog) or of a confident trust in him ; or how he fills the hearts of the Romans with joyful confidence through faith ; and, inasmuch as Jews and Gentiles are by the christian doctrines entitled to equal confidence (v. 8 — 12,) how he fills them with unity of sentiment. 556 INFLUENCES OF GRACE. ' [BK. IV. It teaches us that he himself produces faith in the divine doctrines, and the joyful confidence (xagdv, iXnlSa) resulting from it, through the Holy Spirit. — c) 1 Pet. 1: 22, having purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit. " Spirit," nvtvpa, cannot here signify the Gospel, for this is meant by "the truth," dXr]{teta; nor can it mean the proper use of the Gospel, for this is expressed by " obeying the truth ;" it must therefore necessarily signify the Holy Spirit.1 — d) Jude v. 20, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in (iv) the Holy Ghost. In this passage also, the aid of the Holy Spirit is joined with holy doctrines and personal exertion, and prayer recommended to us for the very reason, that the divine assistance is necessary, in order to render the use of the doctrines effectual in edifying and confirming us. The word " in," iv, in this passage signifies through or by (the aid of,) as it also does in 1 Cor. 9: 1. compare 3: 5 — 9. VII. Nature of this immediate divine influence. — Eph. 3: 20. comp. v. 16 etc. Rom. 8: 9, 11, 16, 26, the Spirit of God (the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead — the Spirit of Christ) dwelleth in you. This Spirit beareth witness with our, spirit that we are the children of God. — Likewise also the Spirit helpeth our infirmities — The Spirit itself maketh intercessions for us with unut terable groanings. On these texts the reader may consult the Dissertation on the Influences of Grace, >§> 5, where it is proved that these passages distinguish between the work of God (the Spirit of God,) and the personal agency of the individual. The argu ments are in substance the following : — 1 . The word nvtvpa or " Spirit" cannot in v. 26, signify a christian disposition produced mediately by the Spirit of God. For, the groanings with which the Spirit maketh intercession for the righteous, cannot be groans utter ed by the righteous themselves. Such groans of Christians bad been previously mentioned (v. 23,) for by virtue of its relation tov. 15 — 18, this 23d verse refers, not to the groans of the apostles alone, but to those of Christians in general. And the term oiaavzwg likewise also (v. 26) shows that the participation of the Spirit in the groans of believers, is different from what preceded. Moreover, the groans spoken of in v. 26, are not silent in their nature, as those of v. 23 probably are, but they are such groans as we do not our selves comprehend, and therefore cannot clothe in words. — 2. The phrase " this Spirit," avid zd nvtvpa, in v. 16, also cannot signify a christian disposition ; because it evidently corresponds to v? 26, and because the interpretation would be unnatural, to say, " the disposition of our spirit beareth witness with our Spirit." If this had been the idea it would rather have been r]p7v " with us" than 1 Dissert, de Spiritus sancti cfiicientia, Note 35. "§¦ H5.] IMMEDIATE GRACIOUS INFLUENCE. 557 " with our spirits." Nor can any appeal be made, in this case, to "the spirit of bondage" nvtvpa SovXtlag (v. 15,) for this phrase does not necessarily signify a slavish disposition ; but the sentence may be rendered thus : " ye have not received a spirit that pro duces a slavish state" (comp. nvtvpa zrjg nlatttog 2 Cor. 4: 13.) — 3. The passage v. 9 — 11, in connexion with the context, not only does not prove that nvtvpa " Spirit" means a christian disposition, but the phrase " the spirit of him that raised Christ from the dead," and the proposition " that God will raise the mortal bodies of be lievers on account of his Spirit that dwelleth in them," will not ad mit of any other sense in the 11th verse, than this: "If the Spirit of God, or the infinite power of God, is at work in us even now ; then this present agency of God is a pledge to us that he will here after raise our bodies." A christian disposition cannot well be meant by " the Spirit of him (the Almighty) who raised Jesus from the dead." Rom. 5: 5. "Our hearts are filled with confi dence in the love of God through the Holy Spirit, not only because he is the Author of the joyful doctrines given by God, but because he is communicated, given to Christians, dydnrj tov S tov ixxiyvtat iv ta7g xagSiaig rjpoiv. (comp. v. 1: 11.) — Sid nvtvpatog dytov too So&ivtog r]p7v. Ayanij tov -&tov here signifies confidence in the love of God, as it does in 1 John 4: 17,4s.1 VIII. We cannot understand the mode of this immediate influ ence. — John 3: 7, 8. Every child of God, that is, every one who is born again (ytvvrjSdg dvm&tv. v. 3, 7. Comp. <§> 110. 111. 5) unto the attainment of eternal life or the kingdom of heaven, in other words, every one that believeth in the only begotten Son of God (v. 15,) becomes what he is, through the instrumentality of the Spirit [ix nvtvpatog] i. e. in an inexplicable manner (v. 8) through the agency of the incomprehensible power of God (compare xatd nvtvpa Gal. 4: 29.) Eph. 1: 19, 20, zd vmg(3dXXov—ix vtxgtov i. e. " God grant that ye may know what is the transcendant greatness of his power, which has been evinced in us, who believe in him, by virtue of the working of his mighty power, by which he wrought in Christ, and raised him from the dead." This exposition of the passage before us, is vindicated in the Dissertation on the influences of grace, § 6, where it is proved — 1. that' this passage cannot refer to the future resurrection, because the context forbids it (ch. 2,) in which the con version of Jews and Pagans to Christianity is the subject of dis course ; and because the parallel passage, Col. 2: 12, militates against this explanation. — 2. That if the true interpretation were, " Believe in the agency of God by which he raised Christ from the 1 See the work on the Design of John's Gospel, p. 214. 558 INFLUENCES OF GRACE. [bS. IV. dead" or " Believe in the Gospel on account of the agency of God etc," the phraseology would be different. In the first case, xatd would be superfluous, or at least would be used in a singular manner. In the second case, Sid would have been used instead of xatd. But in either case, the preceding words would have to be rendered in this forced manner : " what is the exceeding greatness of his power which he manifested (in Christ) for our good." Eph. 3: 20. Heb. 13: 20, 21, " May God (the omnipotent) who raised Jesus from the dead, perfect you [rectify you, make you right] in every thing that is good, and work in you what is pleasing in his sight." [xatagtiaai vpdg — ivmniov avtov.] IX. The reality of gracious influence known only by its effects. — All that we can know on this subject from our own experience is, that a salutary change has taken place within us. But we are not conscious of an extraordinary influence of God. Experience teaches us the fact of our change, but not the cause which produced it. Nor are these facts which we observe, possessed of the same cri teria of a superhuman nature, the same marks of power exceeding the ability of a soul enlightened by the divine word* as are found in the fulfilment of a prediction of future events, the occurrence of which was altogether unexpected by human foresight, and the pro duction of which the power of man could not have accomplished. The influences of grace are, therefore, not of a miraculous nature. {<$> 37. 111. 2.) But, on the other hand, experience offers not the least evidence against their real existence, and all the facts which we observe are in perfect accordance with the belief that they do exist, as we are taught in the word of God.1 SECTION CXVI. The influences of divine grace on Christians are suspended on the use of the word of God, and are not irresistible. As the salutary change, which will be more particularly des cribed in the next book, is, in those who are acquainted with God's word, commenced and continued(l) through the instrumentality of that word ; we have no reason to expect that God will exert any immediate influence on the minds of those who neglect to use the 1 See the Dissert, on the influences of grace, § 2. Dissert, de Spiritus sancti efficientia. § II. § 116.], IMMEDIATE GRACIOUS INFLUENCE. 559 sacred oracles. On the contrary, the influences of. grace among those to whom the divine word is accessible, are suspended on a proper use of that word. Nor is the word of God itself impotent or inefficient in its nature. (2) It is therefore unreasonable for us to wait for God to bestow a saving knowledge of divine truth on us, by immediate revelation. This knowledge can be expected only from a proper use of the word of God itself.(3) For it was for our instruction that the revelation was given us by God, and if we could obtain this knowledge from any other source, the word of God would be superfluous. Nor are those religious feelings which by the divine aid, are excited and cherished within us(4) for the pur pose of assisting us in our conflict with the sinful propensities of our nature, either independent of our knowledge of divine truth, or con trary to the principles of our moral nature. On the contrary they are in perfect accordance with our religious knowledge, and are in one respect within the power of man ;(5) he can cherish and obey them, and act in conformity(6) to those views of religious truth (Matt. 13: 23, 19) with which they are connected (Rom. 8: 4, 13,) or by a different course of conduct he can neglect and suppress them. (7) Illustrations. I. Instrumentality of the divine word in changing the moral character of man. — John 17:20, " through the instrumentality of my divine doctrines (iv trj dXv&tla) preserve them as thine own (v. 11.,) separated from the world and the lord of this world (dylaaov."*) John 8: 31, 32, " If ye obeymy doctrines (pivtiv i. q. trrgdv v. 51) ye shall be my true disciples ; for ye shall so know the truth, and the truth will make you free from the dominion of sin (rj dXrj&ttu iXtv&tgtdati dpdg"2) Matt. 7:24. Luke 8: 11, 15, but that on the good ground are they which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. Rom. 10: 13 17. 1 Thess. 2: 16, (the Jews) forbidding us to speak to the gentiles, that they might be saved. 1 Cor. 4: 15, I have be gotten you through the Gospel. 15: 1, 2, the Gospel— by which. ye are saved. 1 Pet. 1: 23, being born again by the word of God which liveth forever (that is through the Gospel v. 25.) 2: 2, as 1 Dissert. II. in LL. N. Test, histor. Note 71. 2 Dissert. I. in LL. N. Test, histor. p. 86. 560 INFLUENCES OF GRACE. [BK. IV. new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby. James 1: 18. See <§> 115. 111.2. v. 21 , receive with meekness the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. Compare <§> 121. II. The word of God is not impotent or inefficient in its nature. — Acts 20: 32, and now, brethren, I commend you to God and the word of his grace. Rom. 1: 16, it (the Gospel of Christ) is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth. The immediate influence of grace and the logico-moral influence, i. e. the moral suasion of the word of God, are so closely combined, that they cannot be distinguished from one another, inasmuch as their influence is exerted jointly.1 III. Supernatural revelations of divine truth are not to be ex pected. Luke 16: 29, they have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.2 Inspiration or the immediate super-natural communica tion of a knowledge of divine truth, will remain the exclusive prero gative of the extraordinary messengers of God. It is necessary that they should demonstrate the divinity of their mission by deeds which transcend the powers of human nature, that is, by miracles, in order that they may justly claim faith in their instructions. But when the New Testament speaks of Christians in general, and says that they must be enlightened or instructed by God himself (qtozia- &ijvai, Xd@t7v iniyvwaiv ;) the idea intended is, that it is necessary for all Christians to have a vital, a practical knowledge of the truth, that is, such a knowledge as is attended with correspondent good feelings, and followed by such a course of conduct as is dictated by the word of God. In Heb. 6: 4, and 10: 26, the phrases " to re ceive a knowledge of the truth" and " to be enlightened," are used as synonymous. According to Eph. 1: 17 etc, those to whom God has given a knowledge of himself (Col. 1: 9, a knowledge of his will,) have had the eyes of their understanding opened. And Koppe adduces several passages of the LXX in which the word qoitiCttv to enlighten is used for the Hebrew rtnitt to teach, but at the same time remarks, that in most passages of the New Testa ment, in which it occurs, this word does not signify the mere act of teaching.3 1 John 2: 3, hereby we know that we have known him (Christ) if we keep his commandments. Col. 1: 10. 1 Cor. 8: 3, " if any man love God, the same is known of him (the same has received from God a living knowledge of the truth.") Neverthe less, to the attainment of such a living and practical knowledge of 1 Dissert, de Spiritus sanctj efficientia, § 6. 2 Dissertation of the influences of grace, § 1. 3 See also Schleusner's Lex. voc. amriUo No. 3. Reinhard's Dogmatik, p. 496. No. 2. V H6.] NATURE OF GRACE. 561 the truth as is above mentioned, the divine aid of course is requisite. And our views of divine truth are, moreover, improved and promo ted by the conscientious desire to conform our life to the holy word ; whereas, a love of sin and the indulgence of forbidden pro pensities tend, not only to destroy our love of truth, but also to obscure our views of the divine word.1 IV. But the divine aid may be expected in the use of means. Kant hiniself concedes that such a divine influence may be admit ted, provided no violence be offered to the moral agency of man. "It is a principle (he says) of practical religion, that every indi vidual is under obligation to exert himself to the utmost of his pow er in order to accomplish his reformation, and that only after this has been done, can he reasonably expect that the deficiency will be supplied by a higher power. All that we can determine on the point is, that gracious influences are possible, and perhaps that they are absolutely necessary, to ensure success to our exertions after holiness. It is evident that it must be possible for man to become what it is designed that he should be, that is, conformed to the di vine will. And if this cannot be accomplished by the use of his natural powers, we are authorized to expect that God will aid us by his gracious influence."2 V. Gracious influences may be cherished or suppressed, by the individual who is favoured with them. On the subject of the effi cacy of the word of God, of the cooperative influence of God with the word, and of the influence of man over the feelings thus awak ened in him, we refer the reader to the Dissert, de Spiritus Sancti efficientia, <§, XVI, XVIII, XIX ; and the Dissertation on the in fluences of grace. The following are the prominent ideas contain ed in these works : — 1. In the influences of grace, it is presupposed that the mind of the subject has comprehended the doctrines or truths of God's word. — 2. The effect which God produces in an immediate manner, consists in a susceptibility of the heart to re ceive to itself the doctrine of the Holy Volume. — 3. If with sincere self application we meditate upon the truths of God's word (that is if we suffer our hearts to be opened,) every individual truth will produce that effect which, by virtue of its own nature, it is calcula ted to produce ; that is, by virtue of the laws of our mental opera tions [psychological principles,] it will produce those feelings and those volitions which accord with its nature. This is the logico- moral influence of the doctrine, or moral suasion. The peculiar nature of this influence, therefore, depends on the nature of the 1 See the Dissert, sup. cit. Note 61 and § 107. 111. 3 supra. 2 See Rapp on the springs of human action, especially those of the christian religion. 71 562 INFLUENCES OF GRACE. [BK. IV. truth itself, but the fact that it exerts any influence, results from the immediate agency of God. — 4. The operations of grace do not con sist in or involve any violation of the laws of our moral agency. There is no moral coercion. It is true, indeed, that we cannot prevent the religious convictions and feelings excited in the soul by the immediate agency of God ; but we are able to suppress them after they have been excited, or to cherish them by yielding obedi ence to them. In short, the effects of those feelings are under our control. And this is the case, not merely in the first religious im pressions, but in every subsequent gracious influence. — 5. The doctrine of gracious influences harmonizes perfectly with the im portant truth, that sancti fication is a gradual and progressive work; as is clear even from the fact, that these influences are suspended on the use of the word of God, which cannot possibly be the work of a moment. And even if this were not the case, it would still be in the power of God, to carry on this work in the human soul gradu ally ; although if it were his will, he might also advance the soul to absolute perfection in an instant. The practical importance of this doctrine concerning the influen ces of grace, is briefly discussed in the Dissertation on gracious in fluences, and is treated more at large in the " Dissertatio qua doc- trina de Spiritus Sancti in mentibus nostris efficientia, momento suo ponderatur."1 The prominent positions relative to the importance of this doctrine, which are assumed in these works, are the follow ing : — 1. This doctrine places the depravity of our nature in alight which inspires us with a deep sense of our'unworthiness, and, at the same time, does not discourage the hope of salvation. ^-2. It pro motes, in a high degree, a grateful love to God, from whom all gra cious influence proceeds, for this inestimable gift. — 3. It inspires us with courage in the accomplishment of every good resolution, by assuring us of the divine aid. — 4. It tends to subdue levity and indolence, by teaching us that the guilt of those who continue in their sins, is aggravated by the fact, that God himself exerts an immediate influence on them for the purpose of promoting their salvation.-— 5. It confirms our hope of happiness in the life to come, by the representation, that even in the present life, God is engaged in cooperating in an immediate manner to effect our salvation. — 6. It enhances our regard for our fellow-men, and increases our ardour to labour for their salvation with modest humility. That the doctrine of gracious influences, when properly under stood, has no tendency either to diminish our regard for the instruc tions of reason or Scripture, or to cherish enthusiasm or inactivity, is proved in the Dissert, above cited, § II, III. 1 See Flatt on Moral Agency and Absolute Election, Magazine Vol. I. p. 213. 41 ' 16.] GRACE NOT IRRESISTIBLE. 563 VI. Diversity of degree, in gracious influences. — The degree of this salutary influence is different, even among those who cherish the good feelings excited in them by the immediate agency of God, and act in conformity to the directions of the Holy word. Matt. 13: 8, 23, some brought forth a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty fold. This diversity may arise from the different degrees of care fulness with which these gracious influences are cherished, or from the different degrees of faithfulness evinced in obeying the instruc tions of the holy word, or from a diversity of disposition, talent, means, or incentives to understand and apply the doctrines of the sacred oracles. VII. Grace is not irresistible. — Matt. 13: 20 — 22, some re ceived the seed of the word into stony places — some among the thorns. Rom. 8: 12, 13, for if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die ; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live. Eph. 4: 30, grieve not the Holy Spirit of God. Acts 7: 51 — 53, ye stiff necked! ye do always resist the Holy Spirit ; as your fathers did, so do ye. Acts 24: 25. When the conscience of Felix had been awakened by the discourse of Paul, Felix di rected him to " go his way for this time." BOOK V. OF A CHANGE OF HEART AND REFORMATION OF LIFE, AND THEIR RELATION TO OUR ATTAIN MENT OF SALVATION. PART I. OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. SECTION CXVII. Nature of justification [pardon] by faith. Although the obedience of Christ (Rom. 5: 18, 19. § 87,) and particularly that obedience wliich he manifested in submitting tp an ignominious death, (1) procured pardon for all men ($ 66.) that is, procured for them "justification of life" (Sixalmaiv £oji]g Rom. 5: 18,) or an exemption from future punishment (from xazdxgtpa v. 18. or ogyrj v. 9) and access to salvation ;(2) still this blessing, which is general in its nature, cannot be bestowed on those who, from an habitual disobedience to the dictates of conscience (§ 72,) wicked ly refuse to accept it. That is, it will not be bestowed on those who, although they had an opportunity of becoming acqainted with the news of this general pardon, (3) nevertheless do not believe it ; either because they do not institute a particular and impartial inves tigation of its truth, and, on the contrary, even sedulously shun its evidences ; or at least, because they suppress those religious feelings and convictions which were excited in their minds by the truths of § 117.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 565 Scripture and the immediate influence of God (§ 115.) By " re ceiving the offered pardon," is meant a sincere belief that the rep resentations of Scripture and the promises connected with this scheme of mercy are true, and an application of these general prom ises to ourselves,(4) with the approbation of our understanding and the cordial assent of the feelings of our heart. (5) The meaning of the proposition, " we are justified by faith,"(6) is therefore this, " Although we are guilty beings,(7) we shall be treated(8) by God the Judge (Rom. 8: 33) as if we were innocent, nay, even as if we were positively good ;(9) we shall be delivered from future punish- ments(lO) and even from the fear of them;(ll) we shall obtain pardon of sin, (12) and even blessed(13) with the hope of an exalt ed, glorious salvation, (14) a hope which sinful beings can, of them selves, never lay claim ; — -but all this is suspended on the condition, (15) that we believe(16) the doctrine concerning the salvation pur chased for us by Christ,(17) and the appointments of God in ref erence to it, — that we repose our hope and confidence(18) in Christ, (19) and particularly in his death upon the cross,(20) by which he purchased salvation for us — that is, that we put our trust in God, who provided(21) for our salvation by this particular scheme of mer cy (¦§> 75. 111. 1,) that we acknowledge this love of God and of Christ, and be impressed with the deepest and most lively sense of it. (22) Illustrations. I. Rom. 5: 9, being justified by his blood. § 88—91. II. Rom. 5: 18, "By the justification of one, justification of life was extended to all men." As our Lord Jesus Christ merited justification by his obedience unto the death of the cross, and by his resurrection and ascension to glory, we were at the same time pro nounced justified for his sake ; and justified in such a manner, that we are not only delivered from punishments, but have also a glori ous salvation (fay? life v. 18) promised unto us, and are permitted to rejoice in the special favour of God (v. II.)1 III. For the proof of this position, see §71. 111. 5 ; and the work,' On the death of Christ, p. 685— 687. IV. We must appropriate to ourselves these doctrines and prom- l See the work on the Design of the death of Jesus, p. 637. 566 JUSTIFICATION. [BK. IV. ises. Rom. 6: 11. (See 111. 5.) Gal. 2: 19, for I, through the law^ am dead to the law. Phil. 3: 8 etc. 1 Tirn. 1: 15, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief. V. Our understanding and heart must approve and embrace the plan. Rom. 6: 11, likewise reckon [Xoy!£eo&t, consider, judge] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin. 2 Cor. 5: 14, we thus judge. It is, nevertheless, possible that a genuine and saving faith (Luke 18: 14) may be accompanied with fear and a sense of guilt, and therefore manifest itself rather by an ardent longing after grace, than by a placid serenity of soul. VI. Justification by faith is taught — Rom. 5: 1. 3: 28, 30. Gal. 2: 16, Sixatova&at ix nlaztwg (Sia zrjg niozttag, ntaztt, Sid niattag Jrjaov Xgiatov.) VII. It is sinners that are justified. Rom. 4: 5, the " ungodly" {zdv datfirj) are justified. 3: 22 — 24, for all have sinned — being justified freely (i. e. gratuitously, Stogtdv) by his (God's) grace. VIII. Nature of justification — a forensic act. — God justifies us or pronounces1 us just, Slxaiot, when he does not impute unto us, the sins of which he knows we are guilty (Rom. 4: 5,) and does not inflict the punishment which these crimes deserved ; but on the contrary, by an unmerited judicial act of pardon, imputes to us an innocence and righteousness, which authorize us to expect a great salvation,2 (Stogtdv zrj avzov tfdpm Rom. 3: 24 ;) although he well knows how void we are of the proper moral character (Sixaioavvrj)3 — he justifies us when we come under a sense of our own misery and want of personal merit (iSla Sixaioavvrj Rom. 10: 3. Phil. 3: 9,) take refuge in the offered grace ; and he accepts this our confi dence in his grace in place of that innocence and holiness which we ought to possess (nlatig Xoyi^tzat tig Sixaioavvrjv,)* but of which we are void ; when he treats us as innocent and morally good be ings, when he declares us to be exempted from the punishment of those sins which we actually did commit, holds forth to us the hope of an unmerited salvation, and thus by acts4 declares us innocent 1 Jtxaiovv corresponds to the Hebrew pis in Hiphil or Piel ; and signifies, to cause one to be regarded as just {Sixaiov dnocpdivstv as the LXX use it in Job 32: 2.) See the Dissert, de sensu vocis Stxaiog § XX. 2 Rom. 4: 7, to forgive — to hide — not to impute one's sins, atpihai— intxa- Hmztiv tag dpagrtag i. q. pi, Xtnyltsod-ai. v. 8 compared with 2 Cor. 5: 19. 2 Tim. 4: 16. " 3 Rom. 3: 23, vozsgovvrai zi]g 86&jg zov &sov " they want [are without] the approbation of God." Comp. John 12: 43. and the Dissert, sup. cit. § XVI. 4 Rom. 4-. 5, 9, 3, 22, 23 etc. Thus, also, Teller, in his Lexicon of the New Testament, explains this expression : " the confident trust of a converted sinner in the paternal mercy of Cod, for the pardon of his past, sins, is imputed to him for merit, is accepted, instead of that merit which he does not possess. The question here is not, What is the real merit of man ? but What has God prom ised to accept instead ofit?" <§> 117.] JUSTIFICATION NOT BY WORKS. 567 and righteous, Slxatog.* Accordingly, that act of the divine favour by which guilty men are acquitted, and, notwithstanding their want of personal merit, are treated as morally worthy and meritorious, is, in the New Testament, termed Sixaioavvrj, as in 2 Cor. 3: 9. Rom. 10: 4, 10. 8: 10. John 16: 8, 10. Heb. 5: 13 f or properly Sixai oavvrj EK QE07 or "the righteousness of (from) God," as it is termed in Phil. 3: 9 ; or more briefly, Sixaioavvrj {rtov, that is, a righteousness or worthiness not founded on the personal merit of men, but imputed to them by the free grace of God, and as a gift of God. Rom. 5: 19. 1: 17. 3: 21 .3 In these passages, Sixaioavvrj righteousness, is synonymous with Sixaltoatg justification ; comp. Rom. 3: 21 with v. 24, 26, 28, 30. The signification of the phrase " to impute righteousness" Xoyl£ta&ai Stxaioavvrjv Rom. 4: 6, 11, is discussed in the Dissert. de sensu vocis Sixatog^ xiv — xvi. The following are the prominent ideas of these sections. — 1. Sixaioavvrj righteousness is never per fectly synonymous with aomjgia salvation ; e. g. Rom. 9: 30. 10: 4. The former does, indeed, in some passages include atotr/glav or £mrjv salvation or life, but it at the same time embraces also the condition of this awttjglav, that is, integrity. Just as this remark is evidently true in reference to the phrase " the righteousness of the law," n Sixaioavvrj r] ix vopov, so also it is applicable to the opposite phrase " the righteousness of faith, rj Sixaioavvrj rj ix nlattmg. — 2. The phrase '-' righteousness of faith," Sixaioavvrj nlatttog, is in many cases distinguished from " life" far]. Rom. 5: 17, 21. 8: 10. 1: 17, the just shall live by faith. — 3. " To impute any thing to a person" Xoyl^ta&ul nvi ti or dg it, is indeed used to designate the active (renumWative or punitive) imputation of excellencies which are really possessed, or of actions which were really performed, as in Ps. 106: 30. Levit. 7: 18. 1 Cor. 13: 5 ; but it is also used to ex press an active imputation of excellencies which the person does not 1 See the Dissert, sup. cit. § XX, XXVI. Aixaiovv sometimes signifies " lo- declare by deeds that a person is righteous," as in Ezek. 16: 51, Ecclus. 31: 5. The deeds by which God pronounces the believer just, are, the assurance of liberation from punishment and of salvation through that Gospel which ho has received in faith, and the communication of that Spirit who produces salutary changes of both an internal and external nature in man. 2 In 2 Cor 3- 9, the word "righteousness" is contrasted with " condemna tion-" and in Rom. 10: 10, it corresponds to the word "salvation." Seethe Dis- t'suD cit 6 XIII The passage, John 16: 10, contains the proposition, " we owe our liberation from punishment to Christ's going to the Father, i. e. to his death and the glorification which succeeded it." 3 JtxaioovvV ix to^™^!!^^;™!;^,8!?^^ 568 JUSTIFICATION. [BK. V. possess, and of acts which he did not perform. According to the latter sense, the phrase " to impute righteousness to any one," koyi&o&ui Sixaioavvrjv tivl, signifies " to impute [attribute] to a person a righteousness which he does not possess, so that he shall be treated as a righteous person;" and " to count (or impute) faith for righteousness, Xoyifeaftai nlaziv tig Sixaioavvrjv, means " to im pute faith to an individual as if it were a meritorious act — to account faith as a virtue deserving of reward." (tig or the Heb. b=oig. Rom. 2: 26. Job. 39: 16. Isaiah 29: 16, 17. It is only in this sense that the phrases " to account for righteousness" and " to impute righteousness" can be applied in Rom. 4: 5, 6, where "an ungodly person," a " righteousness without works" is the subject of discourse. — 4. The proposition " God graciously regards and treats us as morally good persons," embraces, more than the sentence " we ob tain salvation through the grace of God." The latter is compre hended in the former, but the former also includes the idea that the moral excellence [the obedience] of Christ is the ground of our sal vation. Rom. 5: 19. IX. That we are treated as though we were righteous, is evident from the fact that we are not only liberated from punishment just as if we were innocent, but that, notwithstanding our unworthiness, (Rom. 3: 23,) that salvation, £tor], which the righteous alone (iXnlg iixaioavvrjg) are authorized to expect, is graciously bestowed on us, just as if we had merited if by obedience to the law. Rom. 2: 13. But before we could be treated as righteous and as- worthy of the heavenly happiness, it was necessary that all obstacles should be removed, by the death of our Redeemer (§ 88. 111. 4.) For, on the principles of justice, we were so far from being entitled to ad mission into heaven, that we even deserved to be excluded from it: we had not only not merited reception into the heavenly kingdom by any obedience, but on the contrary, our forefather Adam, and we ourselves had actually deserved to be excluded from it by our sins. It was necessary therefore that the general punishment of banishment from the kingdom of God should be removed, as well as the particular punishment of exclusion from future salvation which every one had individually merited by his own personal guilt. And not until all this was accomplished, were the demands of the law perfectly satisfied. Gal. 5: 5, " we expect from faith that which righteousness alone in entitled to expect — that which is the object of her (righteousness') hope. Compare Rom. 8: 24, where iXniSi is equivalent to td dntx- Sixta&ai, v. 24, but immediately afterwards iXnlg designates the object of hope o iXntCti tig." The scheme of salvation through Christ suspends the fulfilment of tbose promises which the law makes to righteousness (i. e. the observance of all the requisitions of * l '"' JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 569 the law,) not on our works, but on our reliance on the merits of the am i ol Uod.i But that iXnlg Sixatoodvrjg hope of righteousness, is nothing else than far] or "life," is evident from a comparison of (*al. 3: 12. Rom. 10: 5. X. " To justify," Sixaiovv, signifies to pronounce a person free from punishment, and therefore also indicates the consequence of this acquittal, viz. actual liberation from punishment.3 For this liberation from punishment the children of God are indebted to the death ot Christ, inasmuch as he thereby suffered the punishment for us, and thus gave a display of the justice of God. Rom. 3: 24—26. § o95 yl. XI. Rom. 8: 33. 10: 4, Christ is the end of the law, in order that all who believe might obtain righteousness, compared with 2 Cor. 3: 9, where Sixaioavvrj righteousness, is contrasted with the " condemnation" threatened by the Mosaic law. Rom. 5: 1,9. XII. Rom. 4: 5— 8. Acts 13: 38. In both these passages the phrases " remission of sins," dqtaig dpagtidiv — dvopiuiv, and " to justify," Sixaiovv, are used synonymously. XIII. In the Dissert, de sensu vocis Slxatog, <§, xxv, it is proved that "justification," Sixalwaig, includes "life," £torjv. For this sal vation which is enjoyed in part at present, but which is chiefly re served for the future world (Rom. 8: 24,) we are indebted to the obedience of Christ ($ 88 ;) and particularly to his death, as that was the most illustrious display of his obedience (§ 88.) Hence, as we are indebted for our justification, Sixaltoaiv, or for the rio-ht- eottsness, Sixaioavvrj, imputed to us, to that obedience in consequence of which Christ was pronounced just (Rom. 5: 18 ;) there is nothing reprehensible in the common phrase, " the righteousness [obedience] of Christ is imputed to " us." In consequence of the obedience of Christ, or by virtue of the reward granted to the obedience of Christ, we are treated as if we had yielded a perfect obedience, and had thereby made ourselves worthy of so great a salvation. The solemn acknowledgement of the righteousness of Christ, in cludes the right which he acquired to treat us as if we were right eous, and to bestow salvation upon us.3 XIV. The believer has the hope of an exalted salvation. — Rom. 5: 1 , 2, being justified — we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 8: 30, them whom he justified he also glorified. Tit. 3: 7, that being justified we should be made heirs — of eternal life. Gal. 3: II, the just shall live by faith. Rom. 5: 17, they shall reign in life. Gal. 3: 9, so then, they which be (justified by) of faith, are blessed. XV. Faith is the condition. — Phil. 3: 9, " The righteousness, Sixaioavvrj, which is graciously bestowed by God, is suspended on 1 Ibid. 444. 2 Dissert, do sensu vocis Sixaiog § 24. 3 See the work on the Design of the atonement, p. 591. 72 570 JUSTIFICATION. [BK. V. the condition of faith," inl nlattt. Gal. 2: 16. Rom. 3: 22,26. 4: 11,24. 10: 4.1 XVI. Faith the condition. — Rom. 10: 4. comp. 6 — 10. 1: 16, for therein (in the Gospel) is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, ix nlattwg tisniattv, i. e. revealed in order that we should believe in it. 3: 21 . XVII. Rom. 10: 4, 10. Here, " to believe unto righteousness" is equivalent to the phrase, " to submit themselves unto the right eousness of God" in v. 3, or to the expression, " to believe as the righteousness of faith says" in v. 6 ; or to the phrases : v. 14, niattvtiv ov tig rjxovat. v. 8, Sid tov grjpatog trjg niazetog v. 16, vnoxovtiv tvayytXiw? ¦ XVIII. Nature of faith. — According to John 3: 14 etc, faith in Christ consists in a confident reception of the promise which is con nected with the death of Christ, a looking unto him who was lifted £>n the cross, with the hope of eternal life. As this faith is a reli ance on Christ, or on God and the promises which he gave in refer ence to Christ (Rom. 4: 17 — 24) we find these expressions : 1 Tim.. 1: 16. Rom. 10: 11, niattvtiv in avtt) Heb. 10: 19,3 naggtjoia tig trjv t'iaoSov etc. XIX. This faith must be in Christ. — Rom. 3: 26, o ix niottag 'Inaod, comp. 22. Gal. 2: 16. Phil. 3: 8 etc. 1 Tim. 1: 16. Acts 13: 38. 10: 43. 26: 18. comp. with v. 15. XX. This faith must embrace his death. — John 3: 14 — 16. Rom. 3: 25, faith in his blood. Gal. 2: 20. Heb. 10: 19. XXI. We must believe in God. — Rom. 4: 5, believing in him who justifies the ungodly (in God.) v. 24, in him who raised Jesus — who was delivered for our offences and raised for our justifica tion. 5: 1], we joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, comp. v. 6 etc. 1 Pet. 1: 23. XXII. We must be impressed with a deep sense of God's love to us. — 1 John 4: 16, we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. comp. v. 9 etc. Rom. 5: 3 . comp. v. 5 etc. See § 115. 111. 7. SECTION CXVIII. Faith is most perfectly adapted to the scheme of mercy, as the con dition of salvation. This condition of our actual attainment of salvation accords in the J For this signification of inl, see Opusc. Academ. Vol. I. p. 213. Vol. III. p. 93: i On the Object of the Death of Christ, p. 557. 3 Ibid. p. 430, 394. §118.] SALVATION BV GRACE., 571 most perfect manner with the nature and circumstances of the scheme by which it was provided. For, those who are actually justified [pardoned,] owe their salvation, not to their own merits, but to the grace of God who provided a Redeemer for us, and to the merits of Christ our Redeemer (Rom. 3: 24. <§> 73.) Justification [pardon] by faith, therefore, signifies nothing else than this, that a Christian is treated as if he were righteous, not, in any sense, on account of his works,(l) but on account of the free grace of God,(2) who gave us a Redeemer,(3) or for Christ's sake(4) — that he is justified, not because he is entitled to salvation as a reward, or because he has done any thing which would give him a claim to salvation [not as noitjoug iv oTg av&gconog £r]otiai, Gal. 3: 12,] not as an igya£dptvog, as one that worketh (Rom. 4: 4 ;) but he is justified in directly the opposite manner,(5) that is, as a person whose works give him no title to salvation. (Not by the law, Gal. 3: 11. Rom. 10: 4. 3:21. Gal. 3: 12. Rom. 10:5. 4: 5, pr] igyaCdptvog.) Having, there fore, no claim to any reward, having no works of which he can boast(6) or on which he can depend, he has no other refuge left than to repose his confidence in another. (7) He must put his trust in him, who has devised a scheme, by which he can justify those who not only deserve no reward, but who are even actually guilty creatures, by which he can accept their confidence in him and his wonderful scheme of grace,(8) instead of righteousness, and can, not on account of their obedience, but in consequence of their confi dence in him [not ix vopov but ix niatttogRom. 10: 5. Gal. 3: 11, 12,] bestow a salvation on them to which those only are entitled (9) who have yielded perfect obedience to their requisitions of his law. In short, confidence in the grace of God and in the merits of Christ, is a state of mind which perfectly accords with the nature and circumstances of justification. By faith [reliance on Christ] we accept an undeserved favour, as such, that is, we accept it as an undeserved favour. (10) Illustrations. I Salvation not of works.-Rom. 3: 28. 9: 32. Gal. 2: 16. Enh 2- 8 9. (See supra $ 73.) From these and other passages of Scripture, we have proved in the work On the Design of the 572 justification. [bk. v. death of Christ (p. 675,) that in all cases in which " the righteous ness of faith," Sixaioavvrj trjg niattaig, is spoken of, " faith," niatig is not represented as an act deserving a reward, not as a source ofa personal righteousness or internal dignity, but rather as a something which God has resolved to accept in its stead ; it is described as di rectly the opposite of self-dependence, as a reliance on what God has done without our agency. Paulus, in his Theol. Journal, for 1796, p. 221 — 227, endeavours to prove that " the righteousness of faith," Sixaioavvrj zrjg nlazetog, signifies, uprightness before God and the acceptance of this as being a sincere desire of faith. The arguments against this explanation are found in the work referred to in the last Illustration (comp. § 117. III. 7.) The same arguments also militate against the explana tion of Stoltz, who explains this phrase thus : by becoming follow ers of Jesus, by embracing his doctrines, and making proper use of them, we are led to the true worship of God."1 II. Salvation is by grace. — Rom. 4: 16, therefore it is of faith, that it might be of grace. Eph. 2: 8, for by grace ye are saved, through faith it is the gift of God. III. Gal. 2: 20,21, "I. enjoy salvation by reliance on the Son of God, (not on my works 3: 12) who delivered me from the pun ishment which my conduct brought on me. I do not frustrate the grace of God, by the opinion that my own deeds could authorize me to expect to be treated as righteous."2 IV. We are saved for Christ's sake.— Gal. 2: 16, 17. Acts 13: 38 etc. 10: 43. V. It is a strange remark of Teller, " that igyaCdptvog is used only to designate low and servile works (operis operatis.") This word, on the contrary, is in various passages of the New Testament {such as John 5: 17. 9: 4. Rom. 2: 10. Gal. 6: 10. Heb. 11: 33) evidently applied to deeds of moral excellence. But in Rom. 4, ¦igyaCdptvog evidently signifies a person who has done something which merits a reward3 (pioirdv v. 4,) and pr] igyaCdptvog desig nates one who has not done that which deserves to be rewarded, but who, on the contrary, is a guilty person, (a delinquent, a debt or,) dvijirig. " Egyov work, signifies also the reward of an action ;4 1 Erliluterungen des Neuens Test. Ill Heft. Ammerk. zu Rom. 3: 21 — 26 St The Design of the death of Jesus, p. 456. 3 The present igyatofiivog is used for igyaodpivog as in Gal 3: 5, o imyogrjyojv is instead of J intyogriyt/oag, Eph. 4: 28, u xXinzoiv instead of 6 xXlipag, see com ment, on Heb. 10: 25. Note q. 4 Rev. 14: 13, " their works, i'gya. shall follow them.'' See Schleusner's Lex. N. T. p. 826. No. 9. Kypke, on James 1: 4, proves that I'gyov signifies also fruit, profit, wages, as well by passages from Greek authors as from the Old Test. where the word V?s has the same signification. * 118.] justification by faith. 573 and hence also " to work" igydCto&ai (noidv i'gyov, igydCta&ai tgyov) means, " to acquire a reward of one's work." In the same sense also is this word used in John 6: 27. (to work out, elaborate, procure)=ntos Gen. 13: l.1 VI. Justification by faith, leaves us nothing whereof to glory.— Rom. 4: 2, he (Abraham) had nothing whereof to glory before God. 3: 27, where then is boasting? it is excluded— by the law of faith. Eph. 2: 9, Not of works, lest any man should boast. VII. Though faith is the condition, it is by no means the meri torious cause of our salvation.— Faith is so clearly distinguished from meritorious obedience to the divine law, or from human merit. in many passages of Scripture (e. g. Gal. 3: 11 etc. Rom. 10: 4 etc. 4: 4—6, 16. comp. 11: 6. Eph. 2: 8 etc.,) that it cannot be regarded as a meritorious cause of our salvation. Nor, indeed is it possible, however excellent and noble the reliance on the Redeemer sent by God is in itself (<§, 119—121,) that it should pay the past debt of man. The excellence of this reliance cannot make man cease to be a debtor, dat^rjg. Nor has this confidence in the Re deemer so high an intrinsic value, as to entitle us to the great sal vation which is promised to believers, as a merited reward. Faith is not really a virtue or righteousness, by which we become worthy of so great a salvation ; but it is merely accounted as such (through grace. Rom. 4: 5, 24. § 117. 8,) the subject of it is treated as if he had yielded a righteousness which would entitle him to so great a salvation Gal. 5: 5. § 117. 111. 9.) It is, moreover, very evident, that the salvation which we believe we shall obtain, must exist previously to our belief, and therefore cannot be the result of our belief; but that, on the contrary, this faith or belief must depend on the reality (the anterior existence) of that in which we do believe. The belief of the pardon of our sins and of a salvation so far trans cending all merit, cannot be the belief of a truth, cannot be worthy of notice, if the object of our belief did not previously exist, and had not been derived from some other source, on which other source the promises of this salvation were based. Faith in the promises of God, presupposes the truth of those promises, and does not create it by first believing it. VlII. The condition of salvation is, that we should believe. — Rom. 10: 6 — 9, if thou wilt confess the Lord Jesus— and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (not Xgiaidv dyaydv ix zov ovgavov — ix ziov vtxgoiv. IX. Gal. 3: 1 1, "He who is justified by God on account of his faith (in the unmerited pardon of God,) shall be saved" (Sixaiogi. q. 1 Compare Raphelii Annot. ex. Herodot. on Matt. 25: 16 ; and the work on the Desio-n of Christ's death, p. 245. 574 JUSTIFICATION. [BK. V. Sixaito&tlg naga tto &ioj) — d Slxatog ix nlaztwg Cvatzai. On this passage, see the work sup. cit. <$> 19, p. 678, where it is remarked, that these words of Habakkuk which, according to Paul's own ex planation (Heb. 10: 38,) have another meaning, are not adduced in this passage as evidence, but are merely used as a known and con venient expression, to designate an evangelical doctrine. X. Faith is, therefore, the acceptance of the blessing of justifica tion [pardon] which is offered to all. BOOK V. OF A CHANGE OF HEART AND REFORMATION OF LIFE, AND THEIR RELATION TO OUR ATTAIN MENT OF SALVATION. PART II. OF THE REFORMATION OF LIFE CONNECTED WITH FAITH, AND ITS RELATION TO OUR SALVATION. SECTION CXIX. Of the change of heart and reformation of life consequent on faith. But the wisdom of the prescription of faith or a reliance on the grace of God and merits of Christ as the condition of salvation, is not evident merely from the circumstance that it is reasonable in God to require that we should acknowledge and accept the bless ings offered in the Gospel as they are there proposed. There is another reason which evinces the same truth. (1) Faith also exerts a highly salutary influence(2) on us, in producing(3) a change of heart and reformation of life. (4) There can be no faith without a knowledge(5) of that which we are to believe, and an assent to it. (6) A cold indifferent assent in matters pertaining to our salvation, and so closely connected with our highest interests, cannot be a sin cere and proper assent.(7) A genuine faith must be accompanied with suitable feelings of the heart,(8) feelings which correspond to the truths which are the object of our faith. (9) Those who have a sincere confidence in Christ, and are convinced that they shall 576 REFORMATION. [BK. V. obtain an inconceivably great salvation, purely through the grace of God and Christ, are impressed by this confidence with the habitual conviction, (10) that to be a slave of sin is beneath the dignity of Christians, who are destined for such exalted purposes, and that a zealous " following after holiness" alone comports with the highness and the holiness of their calling.( 11) This confidence [reliance,] therefore, must(12) inspire them with gratitude, love, and in short with every disposition toward their Benefactor(13) which is required by the divine law. It must produce(14) an habitual obedience to God and Christ, and particularly love to our fellowmen, whom God and Christ(15_ loved just as he loved us, and whom he requires us to love. It is in this manner that divine grace and a reliance on the promises of God, produce a change of mind and reformation of conduct. (16) Illustrations. I. In 2 Pet. I: 3, we are told that through a knowledge of the merciful and gracious God and Christ (v. 2,8,) that is, through faith (v. 1, 5,) God bestows on us, not only what is necessary to salva tion, but also what is necessary to godliness, ivaijjtiav; and that from this faith proceed all the various christian virtues, v. 5 — 7.1 II. Acts 3: 26. Rom. 6: 21. 7: 12. 8: 6, to be spiritually mind ed, is life and peace. Tit. 3: 8. III. How this change of heart is produced. — The internal mode of the new birth is inexplicable to man. Hence Christ could ren der it intelligible no farther (John 3: 1,8. § 115. 111. 8) -than by say ing that this change is effected by confidence in Christ, v. 11 — 18. IV. John 3: 3, 8. He that puts his trust in Christ (v. 15) is a child of God (is ytytvvnptvog dvtofltv v. 3, 7, or ix zov Qtou 1 John 5: 1, 4 etc. Comp. § 110) and an heir of salvation. Rom. 8: 13 — 17. He has a certain hope of being admitted into the kingdom of heaven — of attaining salvation. John 3: 3, 5,1 5 — 17. And in this re spect he is born again, dvayeyivvtjpivog 1 Pet. 1: 3. But he has be come more like unto God in holiness also as well as happiness2 (v. 14 1 The work on the Design of the death of Jesus, p. 417, 683, 689, 415. 2 To this subject belong the texts Matt. 5: 48, be ye perfect etc. v. 45. Eph. 5: 1, be ye followers of God as dear children. 2 Pet. 1: 4, that ye may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world. See Noesselt's Dispulatio de vera vi nominis filiorum Dei ; in which it is proved that similarity to God in point of holiness and happiness, is the cardinal idea meant by " sons of God" in the New Testament. § 119.] REFORMATION. 577 16 ;)he is born again also in this sense, that his heart has become more pure, v. 23, 22. Heb. 12: 10. In accordance with this view of the subject, we find that of those who wished to enter into the king dom of heaven, and who were therefore required to be born again (John 3: 3, 5, 7,) Jesus, in other passages, requires a change of mind, ptidvoiav, Matt. 4:17. 11:20,21. And the twelve also, whom Christ sent forth into the world during his life time, in like manner connected the joyful tidings of the approaching reign of God with a summons to repentance, ptidvoiav, Matt. 10: 7. Luke 9: 6, 2. In the parallel passage Mark 6: 12, we find the words ixtjgvaoov iva pttavorjawai they preached that they should repent. Paul also represents regeneration, naXiyytvvtalav, as being a change, a renewing which is effected by the Holy Spirit (¦§> 115.111. 3,) and by which the Christian becomes another, a new creature, and begins to be not only a more happy but also more holy being. Tit. 3: 5. In 2 Cor. 5: 17,1 we are told, " If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature," that is, " He who is truly united to Christ, has be come a new, a happy (ol Ctdvteg v. 15,) and better person (he no longer lives unto himself, comp. Rom. 12: 2. Eph. 4: 23,) and is more pleasing to Christ."- If we have that faith which is wrought by the Holy Spirit (<§> 115. 111. 7 ;) if, through the instrumentality of the divine Spirit, we have been received among the people of God, among the dy'tovg saints, or those dedicated to God,3 in such a manner that we are actually in the enjoyment of the happiness des tined'' for Christians in this life; if we have been sanctified or set apart [dyidCaai] by that Spirit, so that we really belong to the happy people of God ;4 if, through the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the Gospel, we have actually obtained salvation (bles sedness 2 Thess. 2: 13 ;) then are we renewed (Tit. 3: 5) by this faith and sanctification of the Spirit, transformed into new creatures, and entitled to a place among the obedient children of God.5 We are also sanctified (or set apart, comp. 1 Thess, 5: 23) in this re spect, that we strive to attain a degree of holiness6 worthy of God's people, Eph. 5: 3, 27. 1 Pet. 1: 14—16. Of the subjects of this change, it is also said, that they are turned away7 from evil through the instrumentality of faith,8 and turned [converted] unto God and 1 Comp. Gal. 6: 15. s See the work on tho Design of tlie Atonement, p. 513. 3 § 99. 2 Thess. 2: 13. Acts 26: 38. " § 71. 111. 2. 5 1 Pet ]¦ 2 2- ') " As tlie people of God, ye are under obligation daily to mao-nify the riches of the grace of God by your works, and to live to his glory." e"l Thess. 4: 3. Rom. 6: 19.2 Cor. 7: 1. Heb. 12: 14. 7 Acts 26: 18. 3: 2G. James 5: 19 etc. 8 See Fccles 17: 25 etc. where imtnqitfeiv inl xvqiov aftd anoXtinur ufiaQTiag, ¦A nylni ttyiff-rovand ieioargitpstv onto aSixlctg, are connected together.. 73 578 CHANGE OF MIND. [BK. V. Christ. The words intatgiqta&ai and pttaXodv, are sometimes used together, and at others interchanged. The meaning of the latter word is, to reform, to change our evil dispositions,1 and thus2 also to reform our mode of living.3 In Acts 26: 20, pttdvoiav=iniazgiqnv inl zov &tdv. 3: 19, ut- zavodv=iniorgiqtiv. 11: 18, ptidvoia=iniazgoqrj in 15: 3. >*Thus also in Job 36: 10, Symmachus translates the Heb. ipca "\ttti by ptzavorjatoat, and the LXX by iniargaqrjaovzai i'i dSixlag. That pttavodv signifies, to reform, to come to reflection, is clear from the subsequent passages. Luke 15: 7, 10, 17. 5: 32. Rom. 2: 4. Acts 17: 30. Wisdom of Solomon 11: 24. Ecclus. 44: 16. V. Knowledge necessary to faith. — Rom. 10: 14, how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? Eph. 1: 13. Matt. 13:19. VI. 1 Thess. 2: 13, ye have received the word of God which ye heard of us. Heb. 4: 2. VII. Faith without works is dead. — James 2: 14, 17, 20 — 26. 2 Pet. 1:8, 9, " He whose knowledge of Christ is unfruitful [does not produce the virtues mentioned v. 5 — 7] is iSot possessed of the genuine knowledge of Christ. He does not view the great blessing of pardon for Christ's sake, in the proper light, or he has forgotten it."4 VIII. Proper feelings of the heart necessary to true faith. — Rom. 5: 5. 2 Cor. 5: 14, " The love which Christ evinced toward all men by his death, hath taken entire possession of me [constrain- eth me."j5 IX. 2 Cor. 5: 15. Rom. 5: 6. Compare III. 8. X. 2 Cor. 5: 15. The conviction of the Christian, that he has died with Christ and shall live [enjoy salvation] with him in another world, must produce an indifference in him to worldly objects and worldly advantages [iva prjxtn iavtd) fjj.6] Heb. 9: 14. XI. Eph. 2: 4—10. Col. 3: 1—8,' if ye are risen with Christ, -seek those things which are above — set your affections on things .above and not on things on the earth. Rom. 6: 11 — 13. Tit. 2: 11—14. 1 Pet. 1:3, 14— 16.7 XII. Philem. 5: 6, " I have heard of your love to Jesus and jyour faith in him, which tend to promote the welfare of all Chris tians; so that your grateful recollection of the blessings of Christ »1 Arts & 22. Wisdom of Solomon 12: 10, 19. 2 Matt.7: 16—20. 12: 33—35. -3 Acts 26: 20. Luke 3: 8— 14. Heb. 6-. 1. ¦* On the Design of the Atonement, p. 389. 5 Ibid. p. 409. * Ibid. p. 510, 413. and Comment, on Heb. 9: 14. 7 On the Design of Christ's death, p. 383, 411, 521. <§> 120.] REPENTANCE AND CONVERSION. 579 has produced an active benevolence toward him (or toward his worshippers" v. 7.)1 Gal. 5: 6, faith worketh by love. In the work on the Design of the death of Jesus, (p. 386, 390,) an explanation is given of the manner in which faith in the doctrine of a gracious remission of sins, produces love and gratitude to God and Jesus, and thus promotes christian virtue.2 XIII. Luke 7: 42, 47, her sins which are many, are forgiven ; for she loved much ; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. 1 John 4: 19. v. 16, 9. Heb. 12: 28. 8: 11, 12. XVI. 1 John 4:9—11. John 15: 12—14. Eph. 5: 2. Phil. 2: 4—8. RomS 14: 15. XV. 1 John 5: 3, this is the love of God, that we keep his com mandments. John 15: 14, ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Heb. 8: 10, 11 etc. XVI. Rom. 12: 1, 2 compared with 3: 21—11: 32. 2 Pet. 1:4, " God, according to his glorious grace, hath given us great promises, in order that ye may continue to become more like unto him (con tinue to become more holy as he is holy.") SECTION CXX. Genuine sorrow for sin, and its connexion with faith and refor mation. The origin of genuine faith is also accompanied by sorrow for sin, (1) that is a knowledge of our sinful state,(2) accompanied by pain ful feelings. (3) This penitence produces an aversion to sin, and a desire for holiness (2 Cor. 7: 11,) and thus, if faith be combined with it, promotes a salutary change of mind and reformation of life, pttdvoiav.(A) And faith, or reliance on God and Christ,(5) will alike prevent a despair of attaining salvation,(6) and excite our zeal in the conflict with sin. (7) Illustrations. I Repentance and conversion.— -It is indeed true, that the word petdvoia change of mind, does signify sorrow, pttapiXna, (which ' 1 Dissert. II. in Ep. ad Col. et Philem. Note 115, 123. Opusc. Acad. Vol. II. p. 223—227. 2 See Reinhard's Moral, B. II. S. 177. 580 change of mind. [bk. v. meaning Michaelis prefers,1) not only in pure Greek,2 but also in Hebraistic Greek. Examples of this are found in Ecclesjasticus 17: 24 : in Wisdom of Solomon 5: 3 ; in the version of the LXX, who frequently render the word Dri: by pttavodv ; and even in the New Testament itself, e. g. Luke 17: 4. But when this salutary change in man is spoken of, pttdvota embraces the entire change, including its two constituents, sorrow for sin, and faith, and not sorrow (Xvnrjv) alone. Thus in Luke 15: 7, 10, this word evidently indicates the entire change of the sinner f and the essential parts of this change are, in the parable of the prodigal son, represented as consisting in sorrow (v. 17 — 19,) and faith or confident reliance on his father (v. 18, 20.4) On the contrary, pttdvota change of mind, is represent ed as the consequence of Xiinrj sorrow, penitence, in 1 Cor. 7: 9, 10. Acts 2: 37, 38. But, that penitence or sorrow, pttapiXeta, constitutes a part of the entire change of mind, pudvoia, is evident from the expression " for godly sorrow worketh a salutary reforma tion never to be repented of," pttdvota tig aiotngiav dpnapiXijiog, which is used in 2 Cor. 7: 10, in specific reference to the fact that penitence or sorrow is included in the entire change or reformation. Thus also the change of mind, ptzdvoia, which John the Baptist required Matt. 3: 2, 1 1, or that change from which a different mode of thinking and acting should result, was at least connected with a knowledge of our sins. v. 8, 10, 6. The command of our Saviour, " pttavodtt" Mark 1: 15, requires an entire change of mind, like that which John the Baptist taught. For, the supplementary phrase, " believe in the Gospel," is not used for the purpose of showing that pttdvota does not include faith ; its object is, to call our atten tion to the fact that this pudvoia change of mind is produced through the instrumentality of the Gospel, or by faith in the doctrines of Christ (•§> 121.) In the parallel passage, Matt. 4: 17, this word is used .alone, because it properly signifies, not merely sorrow for sin, but an entire change of mind. The reason why " repentance to wards God" and " faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," are distinguished and mentioned separately in Acts 20: 21, was, the design of the apostle to describe this change with a peculiar reference to Jews and Gentiles (1 Thess. 1: 9, 10.) In gentile subjects of conversion, the most striking feature of the change was found in their views con cerning God ; for, having been idolaters before, they had never properly known and worshipped him. Acts 14: 15. 15: 19. On the other hand, when a Jew was converted, the most prominent part of his change referred to his views of Jesus, and consisted in his conviction that he was Christ the Lord.5 ' Dogmatik § 148. 2 Schleusner's Lex. N. Test. T. II. p. 113. No. 1. 3 § 119. 111. 4. i On the Design of Christ's death, p. 394. 5 Dissert, in Ep. ad Philem. Note 115. §120.] SORROW FOR SIN. 581 II. The knowledge of pur sinful state, with which our salutary change must commence,1 consists in a conviction that we are guilty2 miserable creatures, and in a just acquaintance with our own situa tion, which must necessarily be connected with mournful and pain ful feelings.3 Luke 18: 13. Ps. 51: 19. Jer. 31: 19. James 4: 9. But as we are to be saved, not by any merit of our own, but on ac count of the sufferings of the Redeemer, this sorrow for sin could not be necessary for its own sake,4 or for the purpose that man might be punished at least with the painful sense of his sins, and thus make some satisfaction for them. But it is the unavoidable consequence of an accurate knowledge of ourselves, which is essen tially necessary to the existence of a true conversion, of joy for par doned sin (James 4: 10,) and of a genuine andsahitary faith (Rom. 4: 5—9.) In the passages 1 John 1: 8 etc. Jer. 2: 35. 3: 13. Ps. 32: 5. 51: 5 etc, the proposition is plainly taught, that those only who are conscious of their sins, can obtain pardon. From these considerations it is evident, that no general standard can be settled which shall be applicable to every individual, either for the exact measure to which his sorrow for sin must rise, or for the degree in which those painful feelings must be outwardly manifested. The penitential sorrow of different individuals may be genuine, though there may be a diversity, both in the degree of the feelings them selves, and in the manner of manifesting them ; provided, their sorrow be the result of sincere and earnest. conviction of their sins, and detestation of them. III. This conviction of sin and sorrow for it, are essentially ne cessary. Gal. 3: 24. Luke 18: 13. 25: 17—20. If, like the Phari see of old (Luke 18: 11,9,) we depend on our own morality (iSlav Sixaioavvrjv Rom. 10: 3.,) and consequently do not acknowledge our guilt, and the righteousness appointed by God f we reject the doctrine of the free grace [pardon] of God.6 and therefore shall not obtain the pardon of our sins.7 It is a just sense of his guilt and l'~Eph 5- 137" He vvll° wi!I suffer himself to be reproved by the light [to be brought to a knowledge and abhorrence of his sins, through the admonitions and example of Christians.]lhereby comes forth out of his former darkness (in which he neither knew nor felt his misery.) Hence, a certain hymn says ; "If you will suffer yourselves to be awakened from the slumber of your indifference, and delivered from your unhappy condition, Christ will daily make you better and happier." 2 ha^-° 15: 18> 2L Jer- 14: 20' Dan' 9: 5' 3 Luke 15- 17, 24. 32, my son was dead— was lost. Rom. 8: 6—8. James 4: 9, ¦vaXai-KOig-rjoars ''¦ Learn to see your great misery." 4 2 Cor. 7: 9, now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorrowful, but that ye sor rowed unto reformation. 5 Rom 10: 3, being ignorant of God's righteousness. See the work on the Design of Christ's death1; p. 554. , , , 6 Rem 10-3 Tv Sixaioavvrj zov &aov ovy' vntzayrjaav. AixaloovvV=svayys- hov, v. 16 (Xdyog Sixawavvyg ') Dissert, de sensu vocis dixaiot, note 95. 7 Luke 18: 14. 582 CHANGE OF MIND. [bk. V. misery, which awakens in man the desire for the divine favour : " The publican standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast saying, God be merci ful to me a sinner."1 The law, from which we derive a knowledge of sin (Rom. 3. 20,) and the knowledge of sin itself, lead us to Christ. And the sinner finding that he cannot depend upon his own merits, now gladly accepts salvation2 through faith (reliance on Jesus,) and having thus learned the great value of the doctrine of salvation through grace, he embraces it in the most conscientious manner, and frames his life according to its dictates. And a renewal of those painful feelings in the various stages of the christian course, has a tendency to preserve3 and exalt our faith, and the grateful recollec tion of the free and gracious mercy of God. Acts 9: 9, 11, 19. Thus Paul's gratitude to God and Christ is renewed in the most lively manner, by the recollection of his former unworthiness. It is this recollection of the past days of his life, which explains the ar dour of feeling which he displays when speaking of the pardon of the sinner for Christ's sake, and of his office as messenger of this salvation. 1 Tim. 1: 12—16. 1 Cor. 15: 8— 18.4 IV. Godly sorrow worketh reformation. Luke 15: 17 — 19. comp. v. 7: 10. 2 Cor. 7: 9, 10. V. The prodigal son applies with confidence to his father, Luke 15: 18—20. VI. -A sorrow for sin which is accompanied by a despair of sal vation, has a prejudicial influence ; for a despair of success will nat urally destroy all courage to attempt a reformation, as we see in the example of Judas, Matt. 27: 4.5 And the false impression, that even those who entertain a reverence for God nevertheless cannot regain his favour, sometimes degenerates into the most criminal levity and neglect of every duty.6 VII. Rom. 6: 2, 6, 11. 1 Pet. 3: 21. 4: 2. Compare §111. SECTION CXXI. Connexion between obedience to the commands of Christ, and a re liance on his merits. Finally, our reliance on the merits of Christ (John 3: 14 — 16) as the ground of our justification [pardon,] is founded(l) on a be- 1 Luke 18: 13. \5: 17—26. 2 Gal. 3: 24, Sixatai&wp6v=ll7]twpev Sixawj&tjvai 2: 17. 5: 4. Diss. sup. cit. Note 111. 3 2 Pet. 1:9. § 119.111. 7. * Dissert.de censu histor. p. 4 etc. ' 5 Melancthonis Loc. theol. p. 498 — 500- 6 Psalm 130: 4. See the work on the Design of Christ's death, p. 570. § 121.] OBEDIENCE CONNECTED WITH FAITH. 5S3 lief in his divine authority (v. 11, 13) and in the divine attributes ;(2) in short, it is based upon a faith which is most intimately connected with a desire for holiness, a " carefulness to maintain good works" (Tit. 3: 8.) For, this faith is necessarily connected with obedience (3) to all the instructions of Christ or to the gospel taken in its wi-, dest sense. (4) It is connected with obedience not only to the glad tidings of the pardon of our sins and the consequent salvation (the Gospel in its more confined latitude)(5,) but involves also obedience to the law of Christ. (6) Illustrations. I. No one can receive the instructions of Jesus and his apostles in reference to the design of the Saviour's death, with entire sincer ity of heart, who does not receive Jesus and his apostles as divine messengers, and has not entire confidence in the veracity of God (<§> 6. III. 10.) (§ 27 ;) nay, who does not believe the supreme dig nity of the person of Jesus. And every one who entertains these high ideas of the person of Jesus Christ, must also necessarily at tribute divine authority to all his doctrines and also to those taught by his apostles. ¦§> 82. Illust. 7. II. Faith in Christ implies a belief in the divine attributes. Rom. 4: 20 compared with 23. These passages refer to faith in the di vine promises ; and 1 John 5: 10, to a belief in the veracity of God. In Acts 16: 34 compared with v. 31, " to believe in Christ" is interchanged with the phrase, " to believe in God." III. Every individual who sincerely believes in Christ and his apostles, does, even by this belief, glorify God. Thus Abraham, as he " staggered not (at the promise of God) through unbelief, but was strong in faith, gave glory to God ;'n and John tells, us, "he that receives his testimony, hath set his seal that God is true."a For, it is his reverence for the infallibility and other attributes, of God (e. g. power Rom. 4: 21) on which the divine veracity and immu tability are founded (<§, 26,) which induces him to give his assent to the divine doctrines of Christ and his apostles. And as it is the duty of those to whom the doctrines of Christ are published, to glorify God by faith in these doctrines, and as these doctrines ex pressly require men thus to glorify God,3 it is evident that this belief, by virtue of which we do not resist these doctrines,4biit yield obedience 1 Rom. 4: 20. 2 John 3: 33- l John 5: 10- 3 John 8: 42-47. 10: 24-27. 15: 22—24. 1 John 3:23. 4 Rom. 10: 21. Acts 13:45. Heb. 12: 25. 584 FAITH. [BK. V. to them, is itself an obedience to the will and instructions of God.1 But if we cordially acquiesce in those doctrines which refer to our selves, our acquiescence cannot be a mere cold, indifferent assent (<§> 119.) Some of the doctrines announce joyful events and prom ises, whilst others present to our view a picture of our lamentable condition and warn us of the punishment awaiting the transgressor. Some enjoin duties, and others forbid their neglect. Hence the effect of a cordial reception of these divine instructions, must neces sarily be a diversity of feelings corresponding to the various nature of the doctrines themselves, it must naturally produce joy. cheer fulness, hope, gratitude, (<§> 118,) penitence (<$> 120. 111. 2,j fear, a sense of moral obligation. 2 Cor. 5: 10 etc. Heb. 12: 28. v. 29, Xazgtvoiptv zto dtw ptra aiSovgxul tvXapdag — " the christian feel- ino- of reverence for God, aiSwg, must sometimes be supported by the fear of punishment, even in the friends of Jesus." Heb. 11: 1. " Faith is a belief in the existence of things which we do not see," ov pXinopiv, partly of future events which we hope or fear, partly of things actually existing which we do not see, and partly of events which are past. IV. The term evuyyt'Xiov or " Gospel" is used in its more ex tended sense in the following passages: 1 Tim. 1: 10 etc. Rom. 2: 16. 1 Pet. 4: 17. Matt. 4: 23. comp. v. 17. Luke 3: 18. comp. v. 7 etc. 20: 1. Acts 15: 35. 14: 15. 17: 28. 1 Cor. 15: 1—11. V. In its more confined sense the word evayyiXiov is used in Rom. 10: 16 comp. v. 3— 15. 9:31. 1: 16,17. 3: 21 etc. As " Gospel," in this sense of the word, signifies the doctrine concerning the un merited grace of God through Christ, in which we may justly re pose our confidence, in other words, the doctrine of " the right eousness of God by faith" (Sixaioavvrj -0 tov ex nlaztwg 10: 3, 6. 1: 17. 3: 21 etc ;) the doctrine vvhich requires us to rely, not on our own works, but on the merits of Christ, which requires2 faith nlaziv, in that sense in which the word is used Gal. 2: 16 — 3: 22. (<§> 118 ;) therefore, this Gospel may also be called " the doctrine concerning faith in Christ," (grjpa trjg nianwg Rom. 10: 8) or "faith" itself (niang Gal. 3: 23. Comp. $ 117. III. 16,) or " faith in the blood of Jesus" (niang iv td) aipanfrjaov Rom. 3: 25.) And this name {niang or faith) was by synecdoche applied to the whole doctrine, that is, to the Gospel in its most extended sense, of which the doc- 1 Rom. 1 : 5, vitaxor) niOTSwg. Comp. Acts, fi: 7. inr/xovov rij niozei. Heb. 2: 1, icgoaiyuv zoig dxovo&eioi—the opposite is pyinozaynvai. oiy viiaxovuv. Rom 10:3,16. 2 Rom. 1: 17, " Justification before God through faith in Christ is published in the Gospel, in order that this faith [reliance] in Christ may be produced." ngnioziv, see Diss, de sensu vocis Sixaiog, Note 68. Hermann's Erklaeruns des N. T. Th. VII. S. 50. <§> 121.] FAITH. 585 trine of " faith" or reliance on the merits of Christ is a part, as e. g. in Acts 6: 7. Rom. 1: 5. Jude v. 3, 20. And, in truth,"it is not only that part of the doctrines of Christ which teaches reliance on his merits, but his entire doctrines, which are the joyful tidings tvayytliov, xaXdv grjpa Heb. 6. 5. For all his doctrines have a reference to our salvation,1 even the commands themselves, and the menaces which are intended to deter us from sin. Heb. 4: 1. And even if niatig faith, is used, not in its more limited, but in its widest sense, as having a reference to all the doctrines of Christ, it may still, according to a very common metonymy, signify the entire doctrines of Christ. For " Gospel," in its more extended sense, signifies the doctrines which we are under obligation lo receive with approbation, to believe, which are the object of our faith or assent. VI. True faith is uniformly productive of obedience to the di vine laiv. — By the "law of Christ" (vopog Xgiatov Gal. 6: 2. comp. 1 Cor. 9: 21) is meant the precepts of Christ in reference to our duty.2 The greater part of our duties are indeed taught in the Old Testament, and maybe known even from reason.3 " I came not (says our Lord) to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil."4 Still the doctrines of Christianity apply the ancient precepts to new objects, which had previously been unknown, and which were intro duced by Christianity. Of this kind are the precepts which relate to the worship of Christ (<§> 42 etc,) and to the duties of the church and her members (<§> 105 — 107.) These are indeed embraced in those moral precepts which enjoin the worship of God, and the relative duties of the members of the social compact in general. But they are placed in a new light by the doctrine concerning Christ, and the nature and constitution of the christian church. Some of the precepts of Christ, moreover, are entirely new and peculiar.5 Now all these laws of Christ constitute a legal code, the prescriptions of which we can and ought to obey.6 The salvation which is promised us by the doctrines of Christ is indeed of so ex alted a nature and degree, that we could never expect to merit it by our works (§ 73, 118.) Still, after it had been resolved upon that this salvation should be offered to guilty and imperfect man, the law (§ 67, 72) was given and published for a two-fold purpose ; in l 1 Cor. 15: 2, " the Gospel by which ye are saved," Eph. 1: 13, " tho Gospel of salvation." Heb. 2: 3. 4: 2. 2 John 15: 10, 12, 14. Matt. 5: 22. 7. 23: 1 John 2: 3-5. 3 Rom. 2: 12-15. 1: 19-32. Phil. 4: 8. 4 Matt. 5: 17-19. Luke 10: 25-28. Gal. 5: 13-22. 1 Tim. 1: 8-11. 5 See 6 109 113 Compare Reuss' Elementa Theologiae moralis, p. 190 etc. fi m.m *;• 19 7- 24 Luke 10: 28. John 14: 21,23. 15: 10, 14. 8:51. Gal. 6: 3. 1 John "' 5 2 3-6 3:6-10, 22. 5:2. Heb. 10: 36. James 2: 22-25. 2: 8 etc. 74 586 FAITH. [BK. V. order that those who reject the doctrines of Christ,1 and habitually refuse to obey his precepts,2 may forfeit the offered salvation, and receive the punishment due to their iniquity ; and that even those who obey the doctrines of Jesus, should partake of the salvation graciously bestowed on them, in a degree proportionate to the meas ure of their faithfulness and obedience. That the degree of their future happiness might be commensurate with the measure of their exertions to conform their lives to the standard of holiness proposed in the Gospel, a standard which indeed no Christian, not even the most exalted, can ever perfectly attain. The law itself therefore, the requisition that we should never cease conscientiously to learn from our meek and lowly Teacher (Matt. 11: 29 etc,) who well knew our infirmities,3 that we should unceasingly follow after holi ness (Matt. 5: 6,) and gradually press forward toward the mark of christian perfection set before us,4 cannot be regarded as unjust, or as being not suited to the infirmities of human nature. But in a very different point of view is the law considered, when it is said that Christ is the end of the law (or put an end to it, Rom. 10: 4. $ 114. 111. 9,) and that Christians " are not under the law," " are freed from the law." Rom. 6: 14. 7: 1—6. Gal. 2: 19. 5: 18. We do, indeed, freely concede that in these passages the term " law" does not signify merely the ceremonial laws of Moses, which of course are not obligatory on Christians (John 4: 21. § 93,) nor the civil code of the Jewish legislator, which was neither applicable to other na tions nor enjoined on them.5 It is evident from the context (Rom. 7: 7 etc.) that the moral part of the law, which Christianity incul cates no less than the Mosaic system does,6 is meant in these passa ges (§ 73. 111. 3.) But it must be remembered that, in the texts referred to, the law is not spoken ofas a rule of life for persons who rely on the grace of God, and who are authorized to expect a sal vation not to be purchased by their works ; but is regarded as a law according to which rewards and punishments should be adjudged in so rigid and inexorable a manner, as to exclude all grace (Gal. 2: 31. 3: 10,) and all reliance on grace. Gal. 3: 12. Rom. 4: 14. 1 John 3: 18, 36. 2 Thess. 1: 8. Acts 13: 46. Mark 16: 16. Heb. 2: 1—3. 10: 26 —31, 38. 2 Matt. 7: 21. 13:41. Rom. 8: 13,6, 7. Gal. 5: 19— 21. I Cor. 6: 9 etc. 1 Pet. 1:14—17. Heb. 12: 14. 3 Matt. 17: 17. 26: 41. Comp. § 85. * Phil. 3: 12—15, " I count not myself to have apprehended— this one thing I do — I press toward the mark, for the prize of the hiph calling of God in Christ Jesus." 2 Cor. 7: 1, " Let us follow after holiness in the fear of the Lord." 1 Cor. 15: 58. t Thess. 4: 1, 12. Col. 1: 9. Eph. 4: 15. 1 Pet. 2: 2. 2 Pet. 3: 18, " Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ — increase in the knowledge of God" etc. 5 Michaelis' Dogmatik, § 165. 6 Gal. 5: 13, 14, 16, 19-23: 6. 2. § 12l-J FAITH. 587 That the law, when viewed in this light, is not applicable to us, and that, in opposition to this view of the Jaw (j[toglg vopov 3: 21,) we are, notwithstanding our guilt, liberated from punishment, and taught to expect, niattvtiv an unmerited salvation through grace (v. 23. 4: 8. 3: 22, 26, 28, 30. 4: 5. 10: 4,) that the love" of God to his obedient Son Jesus is transferred to the friends of the Redeemer, and makes their imperfect obedience acceptable to God,1 all this we owe to the Lord Jesus, to that blessed Redeemer who has done so much for us. Rom. 3: 24 etc. 10: 4. <§> 117 etc. This, instead of diminishing, strengthens our obligation to strive with all our might to be conformed to the will of our Benefactor, who does not exact a perfect obedience from us, but requires only a persevering and sin cere zeal to improve by his instructions (Rom. 6: 15, 14. 7: 4, 6. <§> 119—121.) But the Mosaic law2 itself, as well as the law of Christ, was not given in order that men should or could by perfect obedi ence to it, merit that eternal salvation promised in the Gospel.3 Its object was to prevent the commission of crimes at least of the grosser kind (1 Tim. 1: 9,) and thereby to preserve the external character and security of the Jews, and thus, as long at least as the general aspects of their law were preserved and publicly obeyed, to make them the actual possessors of the earthly advantages promised them ; and at the same time, to lead the more reflecting Israelites to a knowledge of their sinfulness (Rom. 3: 20,) to excite in their breasts a stronger desire for the grace of God, and to serve as a standard at which their exertions for the attainment of moral excellence should aim. The necessity of divine grace must certainly have appeared more evident to the reflecting Israelite, as the promise and threats of the Mosaic laws taught him, that if God suspended even the tem poral prosperity of his people on obedience to his commands, much more would their eternal salvation, depend on a still more rigid ob servance of all his precepts, and as he was convinced of the truth that the ceremonial sacrifices were insufficient to prepare him for the future world.4 § 120.111. 3. But as the Jews in general, regardless of their depravity (Luke 18: 11,) and relying on the observance of the ceremonial laws, vainly hoped to be able, by obedience to the laws of Moses, both to escape punishment and to obtain future sal vation;5 and as they were induced by this false belief, to reject the instructions of God relative to the salvation offered through Christ, 1 1 Pet. 2: 5. See § 95. 111. 4. Compare Melancthon's Loci theol. p. 300. 2 Gal. 3: 21, The law could not succeed in effecting the salvation of any per son ovx iSvvaro LwonoiijOai." comp. Heb. 7: 19, ovdiv WO.iimtstv 6 vopog. Com ment, in loc. note c. 3 On the Design of Christ's death, p. 444 — 448. * Ibid. pp. 446 — 448. 5 Gal. 4: 5. Rom. 3. 27, 19 etc. Matt. 19: 16—20. Comment, on Hebrews, p. 150. Storr on the Design of the death of Christ, p. 448—452. 588 REFORMATION REQUISITE TO SALVATION. [bK. and to the divine command that we should rely on his merits (Rom. 10: 3. § 120. 111. 3 ;) the apostle Paul deemed it necessary to de clare that it is impossible for fallen man, by observance of the law, to merit exemption from punishment, or future salvation. Hence, he informs them, that Christ has opened another and a better way to salvation, a way of justification, not by our own merits, but by [faith] reliance on the merits of another ; and that he had annulled the former way, which, in itself considered, is indeed good, but is im practicable for sinful man. Rom. 10: 4 etc. Whatever be the way in which we become acquainted with the moral law, whether it be through the instrumentality of the Mosaic institution, or of reason, or of the christian doctrines, if we consider the observance of that law as the only condition and the meritorious cause of the Christian's exemption from punishment and the attainment of happiness, thus considered, the moral law has nothing to do with the Christian (<§> 24.) But in another aspect of the moral law, it does of course refer to the Christian. It is through the aid of this law, that we are to learn to see our depravity, our imperfection, and our need of divine grace. We are, moreover to make it the rule of our life, the stan dard by which all our efforts for the attainment of moral perfection are to be regulated. For, upon this depends, not only our attain ment of salvation in general, but also the particular degree in wliich it shall be bestowed upon us ; although the salvation itself is a gra cious one, and far transcends our deserts. $ 73. 111. 1. SECTION CXX1I. Melation between our reformation and the attainment of salvation. From the preceding discussions, it is evident, that that faith which, to all those who have heard the Gospel, is the condition on which an unmerited salvation is bestowed on them, cannot even ex ist except in connexion with a true reformation of life (<§> 119 — 121.) Henee,lt is not an objectionable phraseology, to say that our salvation depends on our change of heart and reformation of life, (1) or(2) that salvation is bestowed on man in consequence of his change of mind and reformation of life, (3) or, that it is the reward of his reformation. (4) § 73. But faith, and the reformation of life necessarily connected with it, which is certainly the condition on y 122.] FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 589 which an undeserved salvation is graciously bestowed on man, must by no means be regarded as the meritorious cause of this salvation. Such a view of the subject would be no less unfounded(5) than in jurious. § 73. 111. 3. Illu STRATIONS. I. The phraseology above referred to, is found in the following passages: Luke 24: 47. Acts 3: 19. 26: 18. Is. 55: 7. Ezek. 18: 20 etc. Matt. 7: 21. John 5: 29. Gal. 6:7—9. Heb. 12: 14. See the work on the Design of the death of Christ, p. 378 etc, 677 etc. II. So certainly may our salvation be said to depend on our re pentance and reformation, that no sooner does any' individual devi ate from the condition which he had begun to fulfil, or begin again to polute his heart by sin, than he forfeits that hope of salvation which he had previously enjoyed1 (1 Tim. 1: 19. Gal. 3: 3, 4. 4: 11. 5: 4, 7. 1 Cor. 10: 12. 15: 2. Luke 22: 32. Heb. 10: 26. 2 Pet. 2: 20 etc. 1: 92,) unless he repents of his relapse, which is indeed difficult, but not impossible. In Heb. 6: 4, 6, Paul says, aSuvatov, tovg ana!; qwtia&ivrig — naganiadvtag ndXiv dvaxaiviCtiv, i. e. " It is extremely difficult, if one who has been instructed in Christianity falls away, to bring him again to a change of mind." III. By the phrase, " that salvation depends on a change of heart," is meant, that a man is saved because he fulfils the condi tion on which salvation is graciously bestowed on him without any consideration of his own merit. St. James says (ch. 2: 24,) " A man is justified by works, and not by faith only." In the Dissert. de Epistol. cathol. occasione etc. (Note 38,) we have made the ob servation, that this passage refers to a righteousness which proceeds from faith, to works, t'gyotg, vvhich are connected with faith, and that a justifying or saving power is denied only to that faith which has no influence on the heart and life [fidei solitariae rjrig i'gya ovx t'xtt v. 14, 17, 20, 26,] to a cold inefficient assent, which Paul also pronounces not to be a genuine justifying faith (Rom. 3: 22 — 5: 1, 6. See § 119, 129.) It follows, therefore, that the declarations of James are in perfect accordance with the doctrines of Paul. IV. In the phrase " salvation is the reward of the Christian" an unmerited, a gracious reward is intended. For, it is an act of the free grace of God (Rom. 6: 23,) that an unmerited salvation is promised to guilty and imperfect man, as the reward of his endeav ours to yield obedience to the divine laws. <§> 73. 111. 7. l Ezek. 3: 20. 18: 24. Heb. 10: 26—31. 2 See § 119 III. 7. 590 conclusion. [bk. v. V. The proof, that justification by works, is a doctrine unfound ed in Scripture, may be seen in $ 118, and particularly in 111. 7 ; and § 73, especially 111. 3. CONCLUSION. SECTION CXXIII. Connexion between Doctrinal and Practical Theology. Such is the intimate connexion which subsists between a change of mind and reformation of life, and the attainment of salvation. — The discussion of the means by which this necessary and salutary change is to be effected, as well as of the specific prescriptions of the christian law, with which our thoughts and actions ought daily to be brought into greater harmony, properly falls within the limits of Prac tical Theology. Hence, these subjects, as well as some others which were formerly discussed in Doctrinal Theology, are not com prehended within the limits of this Elementary Work. INDEX OF TEXTS. MORE OR LESS FULLY EXPLAINED IN THIS WORK. Chap. Verse. ¦page. Chap. I •^erse. page. Genesis. it 28 etc. . . 329 i. 233, 236 IX. 6 . Ill a 236, 337 X. 19, 20 . 127, 129 ti 26—28 ' . 340 tt 23 . 497 ii. 1—4 . . 237 ii 29 . 255 in. 1,-14 . . 343 XI. 2—5 . . 117 it 7, 11 . . . 345 it 20 . Ill IV. 7, . . . 348 ii 27 . 266 v. 1, etc. . . 341 XII. 26 . 329 ii 27 . 120 Exodus. tt 28 . 329 HI. 14, etc. . 221 ti 38—42 112 XX. 11 . 363 XIII. tt 8, 23 . 38, 41, 43 . . 375 . 566 Deuteronomy XVI. 1,4 . . . 112 VI. 4 . 229 it 19 . 132 ii 28 . 438 Psalms. XIX. 4 . 341 II. 7 . 422 XX. 28 . 457 LI. 7 . 347 XXII. 14 . 400 CIV. 4 . 324 XXIV. 30 . 386 ex. 1 . 425, 497, note XXVI. 537, 26, 28, 543 457, 535, ISAIAH. it 41 . 351 XLIV. 8 . 226 it 64 . 386 XLV. 5, 6, 18 . 226 XXVIII. I . 427 tt 19 . 292, 527 Ezekiel. tt 20 . 489 XII. 10 . 537 Mark. Matthew. I. 15 . 580 I. 1 etc, . 415 III. 23 . 21 tt 18, 20 . 417 IV. 28 . 493, 495 III. 15 . 449 VIII. 11, 12. . 112, 114 ti 17 . 524 IX. 38, 39 . . 57 v. 17—19 159, 507 X. 14, 15 . . 395 it 22 361 note XIII. 11 . 127, 131 VII. 22,23 . . Ill ti 32 . 428, 535 viii. 17 123, 122 XIV. 22, 24 . . 542 >»2 INDEX OP TEXTS. Luke, X. 18 . 343 I. 1,2 . 96 it 28—30 266 tt 32 . 165 " 34—36 160 II. 30 . 414 it 38 280 it 40, 47, 52 . . 428 XI. 15 113 tt 49 . 431, 432 tt 41,42 113 III. 23 etc . 415 tt 51,52 474 IV. 1,14 . 432 XII. 26 441 XI. 29,30 . 112 ii 32 377 XVI. 22 . 325 ii 40,41 290 XVIII. 7 . 497 XIII. 19 282 ii 14 . 343 ii 20 132 XX 38 . 129 XIV. 11 110 XXI 14,15 . 465, 470 ti 12 112 ii 16, 26 . 126, 129 Jo UN. 'i 28 . 279, 438 I. 1—3 . 265, 287 XV. 24 . 113 " 3,10 233, 241, 276 ii 26,27 123, 128, 132 It 15,30 . 262 XVI. 8, 10 . 464, 568 '¦ 14 . 414 it 11 . 329 ti 29 . 459 tt 13—15 . 129, 130 " 52 . 429 XVII. 3 . 225, 279 II. 11 . 434 it 4 . 441 III. 5 . 136 tt 5, 24 . 264 a 7,8 . 557 ti 11 . 485 «i 16 . 428 tt 20 . 559 Cf 19 21 . 181, 182 tt 26 . 445 it 34 . 432 XVIII. 37 . 441 IV. 23,24 . 219 XIX. 11 . 432 t( 48 . 112 tt 36 . 156, 157 V. 19,-21 . 279 XX. 23 . 502 << ii 21,-29 2326 . 373 . 269 . 418 It 28 . 284, 286 (C 27 . 386 Ac TS. 1 09, 434 — of the doctrines of the apostles . . 125, 134 — of the books of the New Testament . . 142,146 — of the books of the Old Testament . . . 151 — of the Christian religion, confirmed by personal expe rience ..... 180 Earth, is to be renovated and become the abode of glorified men ..... 369 Ecclesiastical rights and privileges . . 503 Effects of grace. See Grace. Elect (exXixtoi} — various meanings of the term . 408 Election ..... 403 End of the world ..... 369 Jigya Jesu — are Christ's miracles . . . 109 Eschatology (novissima) . . 353, 383, 481 Eternity oi God, ..... 227 Eucharist. See Lord's Supper. Evil — Permission of moral evil . . . . 254 — and of physical . . . . 212, 214 — Evil exists only in the present life . . 369 Eusebius testifies to the authenticity of the homologoumena of the New Testament . . . .24 — his classification of the books of the New Testament and his New Testament canon . . . 24 — his testimony concerning the Apocalypse . . .61 Exaltation — Christ's state of . . 421,434,477 Faith — constituent parts of (knowledge, assent, trust) . 564 — its connexion with a reformation . . 576 — Faith, general (in the doctrines of Christ in general,) and particular (in the doctrines of grace) 582 — It is not the meritorious ground of salvation 570 Fall of man. See Apostasy. Felicity of men in the coming world . . 366, 383, 481 — greatness of it . . . . 43, 366 — proof that it commences immediately after death 338 — has no mixture of pain . . . 336 — Degrees ofit . . . . .380 — its eternal duration ..... 380 — a participation in the blessedness of Christ . . 382 — Our felicity consummated at the resurrection . 383 — The conditions ofit . 390,395,442,508,588 Flesh (aag'i) frequently denotes the native depravity of man 350 Forgiveness of sin. See Remission. Freedom of man ..... 350 Genealogy of Jesus .... . 412 Genuineness of the homologoumena of the New Testament 24 God — his existence ..... 188 — 205 INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS. 599 — biblical idea of God ..... 206 — his attributes ..... 206 — 228 Goodness of God ...... 212 The writers of the Old Testament well acquainted with the goodness of God . . . 260 Gospel, in the broad sense (the doctrines of Christ in gener al,) and in the limited sense (the doctrines of the for giveness of sins through the death of Christ) 582 — Genuineness of the Four Gospels . 25 — 60 Government of the world .... . . 239 by the immediate agency of God . . 240 — 253 by the laws of nature .... 254 Grace — salvation, the gift of God's grace . . . 403 — Influences of grace . 553 — 563 — ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost 553 — cannot be proved from experience . . 558 — possibility of them .... 558 — ¦consistent with human liberty . . . 558, 562 Happiness. See Felicity. Heathen — how they may attain to the knowledge of God 202 — may be saved through Christ . . 398 — 407 Heavens — approachingchange of them . . 369 Hebrews — Paul the author of the Epist. to the Heb. . 61 — The Gospel of the Hebrews contained the original text of Matthew's Gospel ... 25 Hell — descent of Christ into .... 434 Heretics, value of their testimony respecting the genuine ness of the homologoumena of the N. Test. 54 — 60 High Priest — Priestly office of Christ, explained . 443, 450 Holiness of God . . . 214,228 Homologoumena of the N. Test. — what books belong to . 25 Import of this term . . . 25 — 27 Humiliation of Christ . . . 427, 430 Its object . . 427,479 Illumination . ... 558 Image of God . • 389 Immortality — of God . ... 227 of man, originally, iu regard to his body . . 339 Evidence of the immortality of the human soul . 353 Immutability of God .... 219,227 Imputation of righteousness (uprightness) . . . 564 of Christ's righteousness .... 569 Incomparable excellence of God (dyioirig w^.p) . , . 228 Independence of God ... . 223, 228 Infinity of God (infinitas, immensitas) . . 228 Influence of divine grace. See Grace. Inspiration — import of the word dtonvtvaiog . . lot __ 0f the New Testament . . . 142—150 how consistent with the exercise of their own fac- 600 INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS. ulties by the writers . . . 142 — 146 does it extend to the historical parts of the New Testament? .... 146 of the Old Testament . 151 Integrity of the books of the New Testament . 87 ' and of the Old Testament . . . .165 Intercession of Christ with God, denotes his efficiency in heaven for our good .... 476 Interpretation of scripture — moral .... 176 Israelites — why God gave a revelation to them only . 396,398 Transfer of their designations to Christians . 484 James the younger, an apostle, wrote the Epist. of James 61 Jerome — his testimony for the Apocalypse . . 72 and for the Epistle to the Hebrews . . 75 John — why the Alogians rejected his Gospel . . 60 — its doctrinal and controversial object . 146, 419 — he had the other three Gospels before him when he wrote his .... 146 — Genuineness of the 2d and 3d Epistles of John . 83 Josephus — his testimony concerning Christ . . 17 Jude, the apostle genuineness of his Epistles . . 85 Judas, the traitor, a witness for Christ's miracles . . 109 Judgment, the final, at the resurrection . . . 383 . described . . 380,481 Justice of God ... . 214 Justification ..... 565, 570 Justin the Martyr his Gospel . 36 — his testimony for the Apocalypse . 66 King — Kingly office of Christ (officium regium) 421, 477, 494 its eternal duration .... 434 Kingdom of heaven — the residence of the blessed . 369 Law — Import of the term in various passages of the N. T. 403 — The Mosaic law abrogated by the death of Christ 472 — Objects of this law .... 582 — The law of Christ . . .585 — Freedom of Christians from law . 587 Life eternal. See Felicity. Long-suffering of God . . . . 214 Lord — in what sense Christ is said to be Lord (xvgiog) . . . 237,260,280 — See King. Love of God . . ... . 212,228 Luke — Origin of the report, that Paul had a hand in Luke's Gospel ... .57 — Luke's Gospel corrupted by Marcion — Credibility of both Luke's histories . 94 — and their authority . . . 146 Man — Origin and state of the first men 338 and their fall . . 343 INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS. 601 Marcion — whether he corrupted the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke . . . 57—64,88 Mark — indications in his Gospel, that he was a follower of Peter . . ... . 49 — he wrote it under the inspection of Peter . 94, 146 — and before the other Gospels . . 96 — authority of this Gospel . . .146 Matthew — internal evidence of the genuineness of his Gospel 49 — It was originally written in Hebrew . . 91 — genuineness of its two first chapters . 90,415 Mediator. See High Priest. — Christ is a mediator (piauijg) 465 Merit — salvation not merited by good works . 403, 564, 570 — the merit of Christ . * . 445,449—465,570 Messiah — proof that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament .... 420 Mttavoia — import of the word . . . 575 — 576 Ministers of the Gospel .... 491,503 Miracles — idea of the biblical miracles . . . 243 of Christ— their historical credibility . 33 proceeded from divine power, and prove the divinity of Christ's mission and doctrine . 109, 245, 533 Jesus himself appealed to his miracles as proof of his divine mission .... 101 why he sometimes forbade their publication . 110 The possibility of miracles 105, 240 Miracles of the apostles . . . 142, 492 The miracles of Jesus and his apostles confirm our belief of the being of a God . . .202 Miracles are proofs of divine power . 208 whether a preformation in nature is the cause of miracles ¦ 243 Absolute and relative miracles . • 245 Miraculous Faith ..... 252 Moses — authority of Moses' writings . 154 The Mosaic dispensation, or economy . 473 Nature. See Physical Theology. — Natures of Christ. See Christ, and Personal Necessity of the being of God . . • 227 Obedience of Christ . . . 428,439,445 — active and passive distinguished _ its effects . • 445,448,450,569 new obedience results from repentance and faith 575, 582 Office— offices of Christ (officia. ) See King, High Priest and Prophet. Old Testament. See Testament. Omnipotence of God ' ooa Omnipresence of God • zfx Omniscience of God . • •. • *«» <«» Order or method of salvation. See Salvation. Origen his testimony of the authenticity of the homologou- 602 INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS. mena . . . . .25,27 and of the Apocalypse . . . .61 his testimony concerning the Epistle to the He brews ..... 75 Original Sin ..... 345 — 353 Paul clothed with divine authority . . . 134 — his call to the apostleship . . . 139 Pedobaptism — proper, and doubtless derived from the apostles, 525 Objections answered . . . 527 People oi God — a designation of Jews and Christians . 486 Permission of evil ..... 255, 408 Persons in the Trinity — import of the phrase . 297 — 312 Personal distinctions in the Godhead . . . 295 Personal union of two natures in Christ, and the attri bution of the properties and acts of either to the other ..... 419 Peter — his second Epistle . ... 100 Physical Theology . . . . . 193 Plan pursued by Jesus, proves the divinity of his mission . 105 Porphyry was acquainted with the books of the N. Test. . 20 Practical Theology . ' . . . . 187—201 Prayer . ..... 250 Predestination . ...... 408 Prescience or foreknowledge of God . . . 208 Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacred sup per .... . 534-552 Preservation of the world by God . . . 237 Prophecies in the Old Testament . . . . 156 are proof of the divine prescience . . . 209 Prophecies uttered by Christ . . 211, 594 Prophecies in the O. T. concerning the Messiah 421 Propitious — in what sense the death of Christ rendered God propitious to men .... 462 Prophet — proper idea of a prophet . . 157 Prophetic office of Christ . . . 440 Protestantism . . . . . . . 503 Providence of God . . . . . 337,259 particular or special ' . . . 239 most particular (specialissima) . . 487 in regard to the evil of the world . . 255 Punishment does not always denote suffering for personal demerit .... 353,459 positive ..... 360 future . . . .360 degrees of it . . . . . 360 commences immediately after death . . 360 and will be eternal .... 361 Christ has freed us from it . . 449 — 467 Vicarious punishments explained . . 460 — ¦ was suitsshle and just in the case of Christ . 464 Purpose. See D'ecree of God. INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS. 603 Reason — revelation consistent with . . . 179 the doctrine of the Trinity also . . 306 312 Reconciliation of«God with men . . . 456 462 Redeemer (awirjg) or Saviour a title given to God . 413 and to Christ . . . . 413 How far Christ's higher nature was concerned in man's redemption . 431 Reformation was not the immediate object of Christ's death 453 but a remote object .... 454 it is not the efficient or meritorious cause of the pardon of sin . . . . 403, 454 how it is promoted by the doctrine of Christ's dying for our salvation . . 407, 456, 466, 575 Reformation is the consequence of faith 575, 582 it is necessary to salvation, but not the merito rious ground of it . . . 398 Regeneration ...... 575 Relation of the doctrine of the Trinity to reason . 306 etc. Religion — etymology of the word, and the origin of the thing 189 natural religion, or religion of reason . 187 — 201 revealed religion. See Revelation. Remission of punishment, not inconsistent' with divine justice 464 remission or forgiveness of sins, the primary object of Christ's death . . . . 449 what it is . . . . . 450 how designated in the scriptures . . 449 forgiveness of sins through Christ's death, not lim ited to the sins committed by Jews and Pagans before their conversion to Christianity . 266 forgiveness of sins and justification, synonymous 569 Renovation [avaxuivwatg) .... 576 Repentance of God, an anthropopathic expression 221 of men for their sins . . 579 Reprobation ...... 408 Resurrection — of Jesus — was real . . . 116 distinctly foretold by him . . . 105 ascribed both to the Father and to the Logos 430 is a vindication and confirmation of his doctrines and particularly of his promise of eternal life 435 of the dead — of the wicked . . 358 of all men ..... 370 Reply to Kant's objections to the resurrection of the body ..... 371 The language of Christ concerning the resurrec tion, is not to be taken figuratively . . 373 Christ will raise the dead . . . 383 Revelation. — The Old and New Testaments contain a reve lation in the strict sense . . 102 — 145 Possibility of a revelation . . . 245 History of various divine revelations . 202, 396 604 INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS. Condition of those not favoured with divine rev elation ..... 398 The revelation which God gave by Jesus Christ is the most perfect . . . . 432 Reward — How far the future felicity of man is a reward of his repentance . . . 403, 588 Rights of churches, and of the civil power . 503 Sacraments — of the New Testament . 510 — 550 of the Old Testament . . .529 Salvation. See Felicity. The way in which it is attained . 565 — 582 Pious men, who lived before Christ came, are, for his sake, and since his removal to heaven, par takers of it . . 383,389,-401,481 Sanctification — by faith . . . 575 — 587 Imperfection ofit . . . . 350 Satan. See Devil. Satisfaction — vicarious (satisfaetio vicaria) . 443 — 470 explanation of the terms . 459 Scripture. See Canon, and Testament. Separation or secession from a church . 498 Sin-offering — Christ compared to one . . 459 Sitting at the right hand of God . . . 425 Son of God. — Christ is so, (1) in respect to his divine na ture, or as the Logos . . . 295 (2) on account of his supernatural conception 413 (3) as a man most intimately united with the Logos 417 in the fullest sense, he is the Son of God by his exaltation . . . 422 Son of Man — import of the term . . 483 Spirit. — The Holy Spirit guided the apostles . . 125 Extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, possessed by the apostles ..... 134 were given by Christ . . . 489 Divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit v v?§'. 299 Operations of the Holy Spirit. See Grace, influences of. Spirituality of God . ... 218 States of Christ ..... 427—438 Supper, Holy — is a means of cementing union among Christians 510 Doctrine of the Holy Supper and App. 531, 534,~345 Whether appointed by Christ for a perpetual or dinance ..... 532 Symbolic — Books, — the church has a right to limit her teach ers by them . . . 503 Symbolic knowledge of God . . . 216 TertuUian — his testimony to the genuineness of the homo logoumena . . . . .36 and of the Apocalypse . . . .67 Testament — origin of the term, and comparison of the new INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS. 605 covenant with a testament . . . 473 The New Testament . . 18—86, 142, 146 The Old Testament . . . 150—175 Utility of the Old Testament . . . 160 — - — Various designations of it . . 160, 165 etc. Integrity ofit .... 165—175 Division into books . . . 171 — 175 Testimony — internal, of the Holy Spirit, to the divinity of the Scriptures . . > . . 180 Theocracy ...... 487 Theodicea. See Evil. Toleration of various opinions among the members of a church . . . . 501, 503 etc. Tradition testifies to the authenticity of the homologoumena 25 What Eusebius intends by tradition . . 29 Trinity— doctrine of .... 260—305 not contrary to reason . . . 306 Trust or confidence in Christ, or in God through Christ 565, 570 Truth of God. See Veracity. Unity oi God . . . . . 223 Universality of divine grace . . 389,^292, 408 of the Christian religion , . . 396 Veracity of God ...... 219 Vision of God (visio Dei) .... 377 Wisdom of God . . . .191,208 Works of Christ. See Egya. — Works of the law (egya vo pov,) what? .... 403 — do not merit salvation . . 403, 570, 585, 588 — Good works' are necessary to salvation . 582, 588 World — end of the world ... 369 Government of the world. See Government. Wrat h of God (ogyrj)— import of the phrase 214,358 END. 1 1 f