ff?s»gsas*ft^!^^fa»s;»*a&*s:ss"?t^r* LATELY PUBLISHED BY THE SAME ATJTHOE. In demy 8vo (624 pages), price 10s. 6d., THE KEFORMEES AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMATION. Ohap. 1. LBADEBS OP THE BEFOEMATION. 2. LUTHBK. 3. THE EEFOEMEES AND THE DOOTEINE OP ASSURANCE. i MELANOTHON AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHDECH OF ENGLAND. 5. ZWINGLE AND THE DOCTRINE OP THE SACRAMENTS. 6. JOHN CALVIN. 7. CALVIN AND BEZA. 8. CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM. 9. CALVINISM AND THE DOOTEINE OP PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY. 10. CALVINISM AND ITS PEAOTICAL APPLICATION. 11. THE EEFOEMEES AND THE LESSONS FEOM THEIE HISTORY. " This volume is a most magnificent vindication of the Eeformation, in both its men and its doctrines, suited to the present time and to the present state of the Controversy." — Witness. In one vol. demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., DISCUSSIONS ON CHURCH PRINCIPLES: POPISH, EEASTIAN, AOT) PEESBYTEEIAN. Chap. 1. THE BEEOES OF EOMANISM. 2. ROMANIST THEORY OP DEVELOPMENT. 3. THE TBMPOEAL SOVBEBIGNTY OP THE POPE. 4. THE TEMPOEAL SUPEEMACY OP THE POPE. 5. THE LIBEETIES OF THE GALLICAN CHUECH. 6. EOYAL SUPEEMACY IN CHUECH OP ENGLAND. 7. RELATION BETWEEN CHUECH AND STATE. 8. THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION ON RELATION BETWEEN CHXTBCH AND STATE. 9. CHUECH POWEE. 10. PEINCIPLES OF THE PEEE CHURCH. 11. THE EIGHTS OF THE GHEISTIAN PEOPLE. 12. THE PEINCIPLE OF NON-INTEUSION. 13. PATRONAGE AND POPULAR ELECTION. THE WORKS WILLIAM CWNIMHAI, D.D,, PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. EDITED BY HIS LITERARY EXECUTORS. VOL. III. HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. VOL. II. SECOND EDITION. EDINBURGH: T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. MDCCCLXIV. HISTORICAL THEOLOGY A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINAL DISCUSSIONS IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH SINCE THE APOSTOLIC AGE. , BY THE LATE WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D., PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. EDITED BY HIS LITERARY EXECUTORS. VOL. II. SECOND EDITION. EDINBUEGH: T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. , LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. MDCCCLXIV. MURRAY AND GIBB, PRINITSRS, EDINBURGH. CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXL— JusTmCATioN, . Sec. 1. Popish and Protestant Views, 2. Nature of Justification, 3. Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, 4. Justification by Faith alone, . 5. Office of Faith in Justifying, 6. Objections to the Scriptural Doctrine, 7. The Forgiveness of Post-baptismal Sins 8. The Merit of Good Works, . Pago 1 10 81 45 5668 7990 101 9. Practical Tendency of the Popish Doctrine of Justification, 111 CHAPTER XXII.— The Sacramental Principle, Sec. 1. Sacramental Grace, „ 2. Baptismal Regeneration, ,, 3. Popish View of the Lord's Supper, „ 4. Infant Baptism, . '. . . CHAPTER XXIIL— The Sociotan Controveest, Sec. 1. Origin of Socinianism, . 2. Socinian Views as to Scripture, 3. Socinian System of Theology, .' 4. Original and Recent Socinianism, 6. Distinction of Persons in the Godhead, 6. Trinity and Unity, 7. Evidence for the Divinity of Christ, CHAPTER XXIV. — Doctrine of the Atonement, gEC. 1. Connection between the Person and Work of Chtist, 2. Necessity of the Atonement, .... 3. The Necessity and Nature of the Atonement, 121121133142144 155156 160 168 188192 203 213 237237 249261 Vlll CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXIY.— Continued. Sec 4. Objections to the Doctrine of Atonement, „ 5. Scriptural Evidence for the Atonement, ,, 6. Socinian View of the Atonement, . „ 7. Arminian View of the Atonement, „ 8. Extent of the Atonement, „ 9. Evidence as to the Extent of the Atonement, „ 10. Extent of Atonement and Gospel Offer, ,, 11. Extent of Atonement, and its Object, . „ 12. Extent of the Atonement, and Calvinistic Principles, Page 270280 294 301 323336343348360 CHAPTER XXV.— The Arminian Controversy, Sec 1. 2.3. 4. 5. 6.7. 10.11. 12. 13.14.15. Arminius and the Arminians, Synod of Dort, The Five Points, .... Original Sin, .... Universal and Effectual Calling, . Efficacious and Irresistible Grace, The Decrees of God, Predestination — State of the Question, Predestination, and the Doctrine of the Fall, Predestination, and the Omniscience of God, Predestination, and the Sovereignty of God, Scripture Evidence for Predestination, . Objections against Predestination, Perseverance of Saints, .... Socinianism — Arminianism — Calvinism, 371871379384386 394405416430439 441449459 472490 501 CHAPTER XXVL— Church Government, .... Sec 1. Presbyterianism, ,, 2. Testimony of the Reformers as to Presbyterianism, „ 3. Popular Election of Office-bearers, ,, 4. CongregationaUsm, or Independency, . CHAPTER XXVII.— Tee Erastian Controversy, . Sec 1. The CivU Magistrate and Religion, „ 2. Erastus and the Erastians, „ 3. Brastianism during the Seventeenth Century, „ 4. The Free Church of Scotland, . . . . 514 514525534645657657669576683 INDEX, 589 CHAPTER XXI. JUSTIFICATION. We now proceed to the consideration of the important subject of Justification ; and it will be proper to enter somewhat more fully into the investigation of this topic than those which we have hitherto examined. This was the great fundamental distinguish ing doctrine of the Eeformation, and was regarded by all the Reformers as of primary and paramount importance. The leading charge which they adduced against the Church of Rome was, that she had corrupted and perverted the doctrine of Scripture upon this subject in a way that was dangerous to the souls of men ; and it was mainly by the exposition, enforcement, and application of the true doctrine of God's word in regard to it, that they assailed and overturned the leading doctrines and practices of the Papal system. There is no subject which possesses more of intrinsic im portance than attaches to this one, and there is none with respect to which the Reformers were more thoroughly harmonious in their sentiments. All who believe that the truth on this subject had been greatly corrupted in the Church of Rome, and that the doctrine taught by the Reformers respecting it' was scriptural and true, must necessarily regard the restoration of sound doctrine upon this point as the most important service which the Reformers were made instrumental by God in rendering to the church. It is above all things important, that men, if fhey have broken the law of God, and become liable to the punishment which the law denounces against transgression, — and that this is, indeed, the 3 — VOL. II. A 2 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. state of men by nature is of course now assumed, — should know whether there be any way in which they may obtain the pardon and deliverance they need ; and if so, what that way is. And it is the doctrine of justification as taught in Scripture which alone affords a satisfactory answer to the question. The subject thus bears most directly and immediately upon men's relation to God and their everlasting destiny, and is fraught with unspeakable practical importance to every human being. It is assumed now that the condition of men by nature is such in point of fact, — that some change or changes must be effected regarding them in order to their escaping fearful evil and enjoying permanent happiness ; and it is in this way that the doctrine of justification is connected with that of original sin, as the nature and constituent elements of the disease must determine the nature and qualities of the remedy that may be fitted to cure or remove it. There is, indeed, as must be evident even upon the most cur sory survey of what Scripture teaches concerning the recovery and salvation of lost men, a great subject or class of subjects, that is intermediate between the general state of mankind as fallen and lost, and the deliverance and restoration of men individually. And this is the work of Christ as mediator, and the general place or function assigned to the Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners. The Scripture represents the whole human race as involved by the fall in a state of sin and misery. It represents God as looking with compassion and love -upon the lost race of man, and as devising a method of effecting and securing their salvation. It describes this divine method of saving sinners as founded on, or rather as consisting substantially in, this — that God sent His Son into the world to assume human nature, and to suffer and die in order to procure or purchase for them salvation, and everything which salvation might involve or require. And hence, in turning our attention from men's actual condition of sin and misery to the remedy which has been provided, the first great subject which naturally presents itself to our contemplation and study is the person and the work of the Mediator, or the investigation of these three questions, — viz., first. Who and what was this Saviour of sinners whom the Scriptures set before us ? secondly. What is it that He has done in order to save men from ruin, and to restore them to happiness ? and, thirdly. In what way is it that His work or what He did and suffered, bears upon the accomplishment of Chap. XXL] JUSTIFICATION. 3 the great object which it was designed to effect ? Now, the first two .of these subjects, — i.e., the person and the work of Christ, or His divinity and atonement, — did not form subjects of controver sial discussion between the Reformers and the Romanists. The Church of Rome has always held the proper divinity and the vicarious atonement of Christ; and though these great doctrines have been so corrupted and perverted by her as to be in a great measure practically neutralized, and though it is very important , to point out this, yet these subjects cannot be said to constitute a point of the proper controversy between the Church of Rome and the Protestants, and they were not in point of fact discussed between the Romanists and the Reformers. In all the controver sies between them, the divinity and the vicarious atonement of Christ were assumed as topics in which there was no material difference of opinion in formal profession, — doctrines which each party was entitled to take for granted in arguing with the other. The subject, indeed, of the divinity and atonement of our Saviour did not occupy much of the attention of any portion of the church, as subjects of controversial discussion, during the sixteenth cen tury ; for the works of Socinus, who first gave to anti-Trinitarian views, and to the denial of a vicarious atonement, a plausible and imposing aspect, did not excite much attention till about the end of this century, and the^ controversies which they occasioned took place chiefly in the succeeding one. I propose, therefore, following the chronological order, to postpone for the present any account of the discussions which have taken place concerning the divinity and atonement of Christ. The sum and substance of the great charge which the Re formers adduced against the Church of Rome was, that while she proclaimed to men with a considerable measure of accuracy who Christ was, and what it was that He had done for the salvation of sinners, she yet perverted the gospel of the grace of God, and endangered the salvation of men's souls, by setting before them erroneous and unscriptural views of the grounds on which, and the process through which, the blessings that Christ had procured for mankind at large were actually bestowed upon men indivi dually, and of the way and manner in which men individually became possessed of them, and attained ultimately to the full and permanent enjoyment of them. This was the subject that may be said to have been discussed between the Reformers and the JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. Romanists under the head of justification, and I need say nothing more to show its paramount practical importance. There can be no difference of opinion as to the importance of the general sub ject which has been indicated ; but there have been occasionally discussions in more modern times upon the question whether the errors of the Church of Rome upon this subject are so important and dangerous as they are often represented to be, and whether they were of sufficient magnitude to warrant the views entertained by the Refdrmers upon this subject, and the course of practical procedure which they based upon these views. When more lax and unsound views of doctrine began to prevail in the Protestant churches, some of their divines lost their sense of the magnitude of the Romish errors upon the subject of justification, and began to make admissions, that the differences between them and the Romanists upon this point were not so vital as the Reformers had supposed them to be ; and the Romanists, ever on the watch to take advantage of anything that seems fitted to promote the interests of their church, were not slow to avail therhselves of these concessions.* There are two different and opposite lines of pohcy which Romish controversialists have pursued upon this subject, according as seemed to be most expedient for their interests at the time. Sometimes they have represented the doctrine of the Reformers upon the subject of justification as something hideous and mon strous, — as overturning the foundations of all morality, and fitted only to produce universal wickedness and profligacy ; and at other times they have affected a willingness to listen to the grounds on which Protestants defend themselves from this charge, to admit that these grounds are not altogether destitute of weight, and that, consequently, there is not so great a difference between their doctrine in substance and that of the Church of Rome. They then enlarge upon the important influence which the alleged errors of the Church of Rome on the subject of justification had * Archbishop Wake, in his Exposi tion of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in reply to Bossuet's Expo sition of the Catholic Church, gives up our whole controversy with the Church of Rome on this subject ; and to give a specimen of modern High- churchmen, Perceval, in his "Roman Schism Illustrated" (p. 865), says, that " ground for condemnation of the Church of Rome, as touching the main positions of this doctrine, is not to be found in the decrees of the Council of Trent." Chap. XXL] JUSTIFICATION. in producing the Reformation, — quote some of the passages which show the paramount importance which the first Reformers attached to this subject, — and proceed to draw the inference that the Re formation was founded upon misrepresentation and calumny, since it appears, and has been admitted even by learned Protestants, that the errors of the Church of Rome, even if they were to admit for the sake of argument that she had erred, are not nearly so important as the Reformers had represented them to be.* It is only to this second line of policy, which represents the difference on the subject of justification as comparatively insigni ficant, and makes use, for this purpose, of some concessions of Protestant writers, that we mean at present to advert. In follow ing out this line of policy. Popish controversialists usually employ an artifice which I had formerly occasion to expose, — viz., taking the statements of the Reformers made in the earlier period of their labours, and directed against the general strain of the public teaching, oral and written, that then generally obtained in the Church of Rome, and comparing them with the cunning and cautious decrees of the Council of Trent upon the subject of justification. We are willing to confine our charge against the Church of Rome, as such, at least so far as the sixteenth century is concerned, to what we can prove to be sanctioned by the Council of Trent ; and, indeed, there was not in existence, at the com mencement of the Reformation, anything that could be said to be a formal deliverance upon the subject of justification to which the Church of Rome could be proved to be officially committed. But we must expose the injustice done to the Reformers, when their statements, expressly and avowedly directed against the teaching then generally prevalent in the Church of Rome, are re presented, as they often are, by modern Popish controversialists, — and Moehler, in his Symbolism, with all his pretensions to candour and fairness, lays himself open to this charge, — as directed against the decrees of the Council of Trent, which were prepared with much care and caution after the subject had been fully discussed, and in the preparation of which no small skill and ingenuity were * Jurieu, in his "Prejugez Legitimes centre le Papisme," Part ii., c. xxv., pp. 307-10, points out the inconsist ency between the course taken by Nicole, and that taken by Arnauld, upon this subject. 6 JUSTIFICATION. , [Chap. XXI. employed to evade the force of the arguments of the Reformers, and to conceal or gloss over what they had most, successfully exposed. I had occasion formerly to quote or refer to an extract from Melancthon, written in 1536, when he was invited by Francis I. into France, in which he states the great improvement which had taken place, and the much nearer approach which had been exhibited to Protestant principles, in the statements then commonly made by Romanists upon justification and other sub jects, as compared with those which prevailed when Luther began his work ; and though the application which Melancthon made of this consideration was far from being creditable to his firmness or his sagacity, yet it was undoubtedly true, to a large extent, as a statement of a fact. I may mention one striking and important instance in which the Council of Trent may be said to have modified and softened the erroneous doctrine which was previously prevalent in the Church of Rome upon this subject. It was the general doctrine of the schoolmen, — it was universally taught in the Church of Rome at the commencement of the Reformation, — it was explicitly maintained by most of the Popish controversialists who, previously to the Council of Trent, came forward to oppose the Reformers, that men in their natural state, before they were justified and re generated, could, and must, do certain good things by which they merited or deserved the grace of forgiveness and regeneration, — not indeed with the merit of condignity, — for that true and pro per merit, in the strictest sense, was reserved for the good deeds of men already justified, — but with what was called the merit of congruity, — a distinction too subtle to be generally and popularly apprehended. Now, of this merit of congruity, — so prominent and important a feature of the Romish theology before and at the commencement of the Reformation, and so strenuously assailed by Luther,— the Council of Trent has taken no direct notice whatever. The substance, indeed, of the error may be said to be virtually retained in the decisions of the council upon the subject of what it calls dispositives or preparatives for justification ; but the error cannot be said to be very clearly or directly sanctioned ; and the council has made a general declaration, that * " none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, * Sess. vi., C. viii. Chap. XXL] JUSTIFICATION. 7 merit the grace of justification itself," — a declaration, however, it should be observed, which has not prevented most subsequent Romish writers from reviving the old doctrine of meritum de con- gruo before justification. If it be fair on the one hand that the Church of Rome, as such, should be judged by the decisions of the Council of Trent, — at least until it be shown that some other decision has been given by which the church, as such, was bound, as by the bull Unigenitus, — it is equally fair that the Reformers, who wrote before the council, should be judged, as to the cor rectness of their representations, by the doctrine which generally obtained in the Church of Rome at the time when these repre sentations were made. But while this consideration should be remembered, in order that we may do justice to the Reformers, and guard against the influence of an artiflce which Popish con troversialists in modern times often employ in order to excite a prejudice against them, yet it is admitted that the question as to what is the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject of justification must be determined chiefly by an examination of the decisions of the Council of Trent ; and we hope to be able to show, that notwithstanding all the caution and skill employed in framing its decrees, they contain a large amount of anti-scriptural error, and that they misrepresent and pervert the method of sal vation in a way which, when viewed in connection with the natural tendencies of men, is fitted to exert a most injurious influence upon the salvation of men's souls. Turretine,* in asserting the importance of the differences between Protestants and the Church of Rome on the subject of justification, and adverting also to the attempts which have been made by some Protestant writers to represent these differences as unimportant, has the .following statement : " Licet ver6 nonnulli ex Pontificiis cordatioribus vi veritatis victi sanius casteris de hoc articulo senserint fit locuti sint. Nee desint etiam ex Nostris, qui studio minuendarum Con- troversiarum ducti, censeant circa ilium non tantam esse dissidii materiam, et non paucas hie esse logomachias. Certum tamen est non verbales, sed reales multas, et magni momenti controversias nobis cum Pontificiis adhuc intercedere in hoc argumento, ut ex sequentibus fiet manifestum." Perhaps the fullest and most elaborate attempt made by any * Loc. xvi., Qusest. i., sec. ii. 8 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. Protestant writer of eminence to show that the difference between Protestants and Romanists on the subject of justification is not of very great importance, is to be found in the " Theses Theo- logicse" of Le Blanc, often called the Theses Sedanenses, because their author was Professor of Theology in the French Protestant University of Sedan, at a period, however, shortly before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, when the French Protestant Church in general had very considerably declined from the doc trinal orthodoxy of the Reformation, though it still contained some very able opponents of Popery, men qualified to contend with Bossuet, Arnauld, and Nicole. Le Blanc's Theses is a work of much ingenuity and erudition ; and it contains much matter that is fitted to be useful in the history of theology, though it should be read with much caution, as it exhibits a strong tendency on the part of its author to explain away, and to make light of, differences in doctrinal matters, which are of no small importance in the scheme of divine truth. The course of argument adopted by Le Blanc, in order to prove that there is no very material difference between Protestants and Romanists on this point, is not of a very fair or satisfactory kind, and gives us much more the impression of a man who had laid it down as a sort of task to him self just to exert all his ingenuity, and to employ all his erudition, in explaining away the apparent differences among contending parties, than of one who was candidly and impartially seeking after the truth. It consists not so much in comparing the declara tions of the Reformed confessions with those of the Council of Trent, as in collecting together all the best or most Protestant passages he could find in any Popish authors, and all the worst or most Popish passages he could find in any Protestant authors ; and then in showing that there was really no very great difference between them. The unfairness of this mode of argument is too obvious to need to be dwelt upon. It is easy to show that there have been Popish writers whose views upon religious subjects were sounder than those of their church, and Protestant writers whose views were less sound than those of the Reformers and their genuine followers. But the only important questions are : What is the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this subject? in what respects does it differ from that taught by the Reformers and embodied in the confessions of Protestant churches ? in what way does the word of God decide upon these differences ? what is Chap. XXL] JUSTIFICATION. their real value or importance ? and how does it bear upon the general scheme of Christian truth, and upon the spiritual welfare of men?"* The more general considerations on which Le Blanc, and Grotius, and other men who have laboured to show that there is no very material difference between Protestants and the Church of Rome on the subject of justification, have mainly proceeded, are these, — that the Church of Rome ascribes the justification of sinners to the grace of God and to the merits of Christ, and denies merit to men themselves in the matter. Now, it is true that the Council of Trent has made general statements to this effect ; but, notwithstanding all this, it is quite possible to show that their general declarations upon these points are virtually con tradicted or neutralized, — practically at least, and sometimes even theoretically, — ^by their more specific statements upon some of the topics involved in the detailed exposition of the subject ; and that thus it can be proved, that they do not really ascribe the justifi cation of sinners wholly to the grace of God and to the work of Christ, — that they do not wholly exclude human merit, but ascribe to men themselves, and to their own powers, a real share in the work of their own salvation ; and that while this can be proved to be true of their doctrine as it stands theoretically, their scheme, as a whole, is also, moreover, so constructed as to be fitted, when viewed in connection with the natural tendencies of the human heart, to foster presumption and self-confidence, to throw obstacles in the way of men's submitting themselves to the divine method of justification, and to frustrate the great end which the gospel scheme of salvation was, in all its parts, expressly designed and intended to accomplish, — viz., that, as our Confession of Faith says,t "both the exact justice and the rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners." * It is amusing and instructive to observe the use to which Nicole turns the labours of Le Blanc in this matter, in his " Prejuges Legitimes contre les Calvinistes," tome i., pp. 269, 274-6. Animadversions on Le Blanc in this matter are to be found in Witsius De CEcon. Feed.,, Lib. iii., c. viii., sees. xlis.-lv., and De Moor Comment, in Marck. Compend., torn, iv., pp. 732-3, 753; Owen, vol. xi., pp. 84-5, 161 (or, in original edition, pp. 87, 179). For an exposure of other attempts to represent the differences between Protestants and Romanists on the sub ject of justification as unimportant, see the controversy between Grotius and Andrew Rivet. — Rivet's "Vin- dicise Evangelicse," and Heidegger's " Dissertationes," torn, i., Dissertatio xi., p. 290. t West. Con., c. xi., sec. 3. 10 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. Sec. I. — Popish and Protestant Views. In dealing with the subject of justification, we must, first of all, attempt to form a clear and correct apprehension of what is the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this topic, as opposed to that which the Reformers deduce from the word of God. Justification, it is admitted on both sides, is descriptive generally of the change or changes, in whole or in part, that must take place in respect of men individually, in order to their escaping from the evils of their natural condition, and attaining to happi ness and heaven. The nature of the change or changes necessary must depend upon the actual features of men's natural condition, the evils from which they must be delivered. And the way and manner in which they are brought about must be somewhat regu lated by the natural powers or capacities of men themselves to procure or effect them, or to assist in procuring or effecting them. It is admitted, also, that the two leading features of men's natural condition, which render salvation necessary, and must in some measure determine its character, are guilt and depravity, — or liability to punishment because of transgression of God's law, and a tendency or inclination, more or less powerful and pervading, to violate its requirements and prohibitions. The corresponding changes, called graces, because admitted to be in some sense God's gifts, and called the blessings or benefits of redemption, because admitted to be in some sense procured for men by what Christ has done for them, are an alteration upon men's state or condition in relation to God and His law, whereby their guilt is cancelled, their sins are pardoned, and they are brought into a state of acceptance and favour ; and . a change upon their actual moral character, whereby the tendency to sin is mortified and subdued, and a state of heart and motive more accordant with what God's law requires is produced. Thus far, and when these general terms are employed, there is no material difference of opinion; though the second change,— that upon men's moral character,— is usually called by Protestants the regeneration or renovation of man's moral nature, and by Papists the infusion of righteousness or justice,— righteousness or justice denoting, in their sense of it, actual conformity to what God requires, either in point of internal character (justitia habitualis) or of outward actions (justitia actualis). Sec L] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 11 It is admitted, further, that these changes upon men's state and character, necessary to their salvation and ultimate happiness, are to be traced, in general, to the grace or kindness of God, who confers or produces them, and to the work of Christ, who in some way has procured or purchased them for men. And the sum and substance of all that the Reformers demanded, as necessary to the pure preaching of the gospel, — the scriptural exposition of the leading principles of the method of salvation, — was, that the conceded ascriptiqn of these changes to the grace of God and the work of Christ, should be literally and honestly maintained, according to the proper import of the words, and should be fully carried out, in the more detailed exposition of the subject, without any other principles or elements being introduced into it which might virtually and practically, if not formally and theoretically, involve a denial or modification of them ; while the great charge which they adduced against the Church of Rome was, that, in their fuller and more minute exposition of the way and manner in which these changes were effected upon men individually, they did introduce principles or elements which, more or less directly, deprived the grace of God and the work of Christ of the place and influence which the sacred Scriptures assigned to them. As the change upon men's state and condition from guilt and condemnation to pardon and acceptance is, substantially, a change in the aspect in which God regards them, or rather in the way in which He resolves thenceforth to deal with them, and to treat them, it must, from the nature of the case, be an act of God, and it must be wholly God's act, — an act in producing or effecting which men themselves cannot be directly parties ; and the only way in which they can in any measure contribute to bring it about, is by their meriting it, or doing something to deserve it, at God's hand, and thereby inducing Him to effect the change or to perform the act. It was as precluding the possibility of this, that the Reformers attached so much importance to the doctrine which we formerly had occasion to explain and illustrate,— viz., that all the actions of men previous to regeneration are only and wholly sinful ; and it was, of course, in order to leave room for men in some sense meriting gifts from God, or deserving for themselves the blessings which Christ procured for mankind, that the Council of Trent anathematized it. The other great change is an actual effect wrought upon men 12 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. themselves, of which they are directly the subjects, and in produc ing or effecting which there is nothing, in the nature of the case, though there may be in the actual character and capacities of men, to prevent them from taking a part. The Protestant doctrine of men's natural inability to will anything spiritually good, which has been illustrated in connection with the doctrine of original sin, of course precludes them from doing anything that can really improve their moral character in God's sight, until this inability be taken away by an external and superior power ; while the doctrine of the Council of Trent about man's freedom or power to will and do good remaining to some extent notwithstanding the fall, which forms part of their decree on the subject of justification, paves the way, and was no doubt so intended, for ascribing to men them selves some real efiiciency in the renovation of their moral natures. From the view taken by the Church of Rome of the nature and import of justification, the whole subject of the way and man ner in which both these changes are effected, in or upon men in dividually, was often discussed in the sixteenth century under this one head ; though one of the first objects to which the Reformers usually addressed themselves in discussing it, was to ascertain and to bring out what, according to Scripture usage, justification really is, and what it comprehends. The decree of the fathers of Trent upon this important subject (session vi.), comprehended in sixteen chapters and thirty-three canons, is characterized by vagueness and verbiage, confusion, obscurity, and unfairness. It is not very easy on several points to make out clearly and distinctly what were the precise doctrines which they wished to maintain and condemn. Some months were spent by the Council in consulta tions and intrigues about the formation of their decree upon this subject. And yet, notwithstanding all their pains, — perhaps we should rather say, because of them, — they have not brought out a very distinct and intelligible view of what they meant to teach upon some of its departments. The vagueness, obscurity, and confusion of the decree of the Council of Trent upon this subject, contrast strikingly with the clearness and simplicity that obtain in the writings of the Refor mers and the confessions of the Reformed churches regarding it. There were not wanting two or three rash and incautious expressions of Luther's upon this as upon other subjects, of which, by a policy I formerly had occasion to expose, the Sec I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 13 Council did not scruple to take an unfair advantage, by intro ducing some of them into their canons, in a way fitted to excite an unwarrantable prejudice against the doctrine of the Reformers. And it is true that Luther and Melancthon, in some of their earlier works, did seem to confine their state ments, when treating of this subject, somewhat too exclusively to the act of faith by which men are justified, without giving sufficient prominence to the object of faith, or that which faith apprehends or lays hold of, and which is the ground or basis of God's act in justifying, — viz., the righteousness of Christ. But though their views upon this subject became more clear and en larged, yet they held in substance from the beginning, and brought out at length, and long before the Council of Trent, most fully and clearly the great doctrine of the Reformation, — viz., that justi fication in Scripture is properly descriptive only of a change upon men's legal state and condition, and not on their moral character, though a radical change of character invariably accompanies it ; that it is a change from a state of guilt and condemnation to a state of forgiveness and acceptance ; and that sinners are justified, or become the objects of this change, solely by a gratuitous act of God, but founded only upon the righteousness of Christ (not on any righteousness of their own), — a righteousness imputed to them, and thus made theirs, not on account of anything they do or can do to merit or procure it, but through the instrumentality of faith alone, by which they apprehend or lay hold of what has been pro vided for them, and is freely offered to them. Let us now attempt to bring out plainly and distinctly the doctrine which the Council of Trent laid down in opposition to these scriptural doctrines of the Reformers. The first important question is what justification is, or what the word justification means ; and upon this point it must be admitted that the doctrine of the Council of Trent is sufficiently explicit. It defines* justi fication to be " translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adse, in statum gratise et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Jesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum," — words which, in their fair and natural import, may be held to include under justification the whole of the change that is needful to be effected in men in order to their salvation, as comprehending their vi., C. iv. 14 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. deliverance both from guilt and depravity. But that this is the meaning which they attached to the word justification, — that they regarded all this as comprehended under it,— is put beyond all doubt, by what they say in the seventh chapter, where they ex pressly define justification to be, " non sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratise et donorum." Justification, then, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, includes or comprehends not only the remission of sin, or deliverance from guilt, but also the sanctification or renovation of man's moral nature, or deliver ance from depravity. In short, they comprehend under the one name or head of justification, what Protestants — following, as they believe, the guidance of Scripture^have always divided into the two heads of justification and regeneration, or justification and sanctification, when the word sanctification is used in its widest sense, as descriptive of the whole process, originating in regenera tion, by which depraved men are restored to a conformity to God's moral image. Now, the discussion upon this point turns wholly upon this question. What is the sense in which the word justifica tion and its cognates are used in Scripture ? And this is manifestly a question of fundamental importance, in the investigation of this whole subject, inasmuch as, from the nature of the case, its de cision must exert a most important influence upon the whole of men's views regarding it. At present, however, I confine myself to a mere statement of opinions without entering into any exami nation of their truth, as I think it better, in the first instance, to bring out fully at once what the whole doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this subject, as contrasted with that of the Reformers, really isi It may be proper, however, before leaving this topic, to advert to a misrepresentation that has been often given of the views of the Reformers, and especially of Calvin, upon this particular point. When Protestant divines began, in the seventeenth century, to corrupt the scriptural doctrine of justification, and to deviate from the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Reformation, they thought it of importance to show that justification meant merely the remission or foi-giveness of sin, or guilt, to the exclusion of, or without comprehending, what is usually called the acceptance of men's persons, or their positive admission into God's favour or their receiving from God, not only the pardon of their sins, or im- Sec I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 15 munity from punishment, but also a right or title to heaven and eternal life. And in support of this view, these men appealed to the authority of the Reformers, and especially of Calvin. Now it is quite true, that Calvin has asserted again and again that justification comprehends only, or consists in, the remission or for giveness of sin or guilt. But I have no doubt that a careful and deliberate examination of all that Calvin has written upon this point,* will fully establish these two positions, — first, that when Calvin asserted that justification consisted only in the remission of sin, he meant this simply as a denial of the Popish doctrine, that it is not only the remission of sin, but also the sanctification or renovation of the inner man, — this being the main and, indeed, the only error upon the point which he was called upon formally to oppose ; and, secondly, that Calvin has at least as frequently and as explicitly described justification as comprehend ing, not only remission of sin in the strict and literal sense, but also positive acceptance or admission into the enjoyment of God's favour, — " gratuita Dei acceptio," as he often calls it, — including the whole of the change effected upon men's state or legal condition in God's' sight, as distinguished from the change effected upon their character. This is one of the numerous instances, con stantly occurring, that illustrate how unfair it is to adduce the authority of eminent writers on disputed questions which had never really been presented to them, — which they had never entertained or decided ; and how necessary it often is, in order to forming a correct estimate of some particular statements of an author, to examine with care and deliberation all that he has written upon the subject to which they refer, and also to be intelligently ac quainted with the way and manner in which the whole subject was discussed at the time on both sides. When the Council of Trent defined regeneration to be a component part or a constituent element of Justification, along with pardon or forgiveness, they were probably induced to do so partly because they could appeal to some of the fathers, and even to Augustine, in support of this use of the word, but also because their real object or intention was to make this sanctification, or * Bishop O'Brien's Attempt to Ex plain and Establish the Doctrine of Justification by Faith only, in Ten Sermons ; London, 1833 ; Note 12, pp. 346-7 ; (NoteM., 2d ed., 1862 (Eds.). Bellarmine, " De Justificatione," Lib. ii., c. i., admits this in regard to Cal vin. 16 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. infused or inherent righteousness, as Romanists commonly call itj the cause or ground of the forgiveness of sin. A change of legal state, and a change of moral character, are things so mani festly different in their own nature, that they could scarcely avoid attempting some separate explanation of them, and of the way in which they were conferred or effected, even though they might regard them as both comprehended under the name justifica tion. The question. Upon what ground or consideration does God forgive men's sins ? or, in other words. To what is it that He has regard, when, with respect to any individual. He passes an act of forgiveness ? — this question, viewed by itself as a distinct independent topic, is obviously one which requires and demands an answer, whether the answer to it may exhaust the exposition of the subject of justification with reference to its cause or not. The Reformers, after proving from the word of God that justi fication, according to Scripture usage, described only a change of state, and not a change of character, strenuously demanded that this question, as to the cause or ground of forgiveness, or as to what it was to which God had respect, when, in the case of any individual. He cancelled his guilt, and admitted him into the enjoyment of His favour and friendship, should be distinctly and explicitly answered ; and, accordingly, Protestant divines in gene ral, when they are discussing the subject of justification, under stood in the limited scriptural sense of the word, and explaining the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject, make it their object to extract^from the decree of the Council of Trent any materials that bear directly upon this point. The Council, indeed, have not presented this subject nakedly and distinctly, as in fairness they ought to have done, but have made tise of their general definition of justification, as compre hending also regeneration, for involving the whole subject in a considerable measure of obscurity. What may be fairly deduced from their statements as to the cause or ground of forgiveness or pardon, viewed as a distinct topic by itself, is this : After de fining justification to be not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the inner man, they proceed to explain the causes of this justification ; and in doing so, they make a very liberal use of scholastic phrases and distinctions. The final cause, they say, is the glory of God and Christ, and eternal life ; the efficient cause is God (Deus misericors) exercis- Sec I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 17 ing compassion ; the meritorious cause is Jesus Christ, who by His sufferings and death merited justification for us, and satisfied the Father in our room ; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism ; and " the only formal cause is the righteousness (justitia) of God, not that by which He Himself is righteous, but that by which He makes us righteous, by which we, receiving it from Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are not only reckoned or reputed, but are called and are truly righteous." In this last statement of the Council about the formal cause of justi fication being only an actual righteousness which God gives us or infuses into us, and which thereby comes to be inherent in us, it would seem as if they had tacitly intended to describe, as they ought to have done openly and plainly, rather the formal cause or ground of forgiveness, or of the change of state, than of justifica tion in their own wide sense of it; for it is evident that the righteousness, or actual personal conformity of character to God's law, which He bestows upon men by His Spirit, cannot be, as they assert it is, the formal cause of that sanctification or renova tion of the inner man which they make a part of justification, and to which, therefore, everything that is set forth as a cause of jus tification must be causally applicable. This inherent righteous ness, which God bestows upon men or infuses into them, might be said to be identical with the sanctification of the inner man, or, with more strict exactness, might be said to be an effect, or result, or con sequence of it, but it cannot in any proper sense be a cause of it. This personal righteousness bestowed by God might, indeed, be said to be the formal cause of forgiveness, if it were intended to convey the idea that it is the ground or basis on which God's act in forgiving rests, or that to which He has a regard or respect when He cancels a man's guilt, and admits him to the enjoyment of His favour. And this is indeed the meaning which accords best with the general strain of the council's statements. It is not necessarily inconsistent, in every sense, with their making Christ and His work the meritorious cause of justification. In making Christ and His work the meritorious cause of justification, they, of course, in accordance with their definition of justification, make this the meritorious cause, equally and alike of forgiveness and of reno vation, the two parts of which justification consists, or, as Bellar mine expresses it, "mortem Christi, quse pretium fuit redemp- tionis, non soliim causam fuisse remissionis peccatorum, sed etiam 3 — VOL. II. B 18 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. interna! renovationis." * And this Protestants regard as in itself a great general scriptural truth, though they believe that it errs both by excess and defect, when it is put forth as apart of the teaching of Scripture on the subject of justification. It errs by excess, in comprehending renovation as well as ' forgiveness under the head of justification ; and it errs by defect, in representing the work or righteousness of Christ as standing in no other or closer relation to forgiveness or acceptance than as being merely its meritorious cause. It is only with this second error that we have at present to do. The council not only makes the work or righteousness of Christ equally and alike the meritorious cause of forgiveness and renovation, but it expressly denies (can. x.) that men are formally justified by Christ's righteousness, or, in other words,' that Christ's righteousness is the formal cause of our jus tification ; and it expressly asserts, as we have seen, that the only formal cause of our justification is the personal righteousness which God bestows or infuses into men. Bellarmine carefully guards against the inference that, because the eleventh canon con demns the doctrine that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ alone, it admitted by implication that we are justified formally by it at all.f Now, it is plainly impossible to make one consistent and har monious doctrine out of these various positions, affirmative and negative, which .the council has laid down, except upon the assump tion that the council really meant to teach that there is no direct and immediate connection between the work or righteousness of Christ and the forgiveness of the sins of men individually ; and to represent Christ as merely meriting the communication to men of personal righteousness, and thereby, or through the medium of this personal righteousness which He merited for them, indirectly or remotely meriting the forgiveness of sin, of which this personal righteousness, infused and inherent, as they describe it, is the direct and immediate cause. That the Council of Trent really intended to teach this doctrine, though it is brought out somewhat obscurelv and though we are obliged to infer it from a careful comparison of its different statements upon the subject, is cleai-ly shown bv Chemnitius in his valuable work, " Examen Concilii Tridentini" not only from an examination of the decrees themselves, but from * De Justificatione, Lib. ii., cap. vi. t Ibid., Lib. ii., cap. ii. Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 19 the statements of Andradius, an eminent Popish divine, who was present at the council, and afterwards published a work in defence of its decisions.* That this is the doctrine which the council intended to teach, and that it is in consequence the ordinary recognised doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the, subject, is confirmed, or rather established, by the consideration that the generality of Romish writers are accustomed, without any doubt or hesitation, to give this as the state of the question between them and Protestants upon this topic, — ^viz.. Whether the cause of our justification be a righteousness inherent in us or not? or this, Whether the cause of our justification be a righteousness infused into and inherent in us ; or an external righteousness, — that is, the righteousness of Christ, — imputed to us ? And that in discussing this question, so stated, they just labour to produce evidence from Scripture that that to which God has an immediate respect or regard in forgiving any man's sins, and admitting him to the enjoyment of His favour, is, not the righteousness of Christ, but an infused and inherent personal righteousness. As this is a point of some importance in order to a right apprehension of the doc trine of the Church of Rome upon the subject, it may be proper to produce some evidence of this position. Bellarmine says,-!" "Status totius controversiaB revocari potest ad banc simpHcem qusestionem, sitne formalis causa absolutse justificationis, justitia in nobis inhserens, an non?" and then he proceeds to show that the determination of this question in the affirmative at once overturns all the leading errors of the Refor mers upon the whole subject of the causes and grounds of justifi cation : " Omnes ref utantur, si probetur justitia inhserens, quse ab solute et simpliciter justificet;" and more particularly, "Si justitia inhserens est formalis causa absolutse justificationis, non igitur re- quiritur imputatio justitise Christi." In like manner. Dens, in his " Theologia Moralis," says,:j: "Probo contra hsereticos : quod justificatio formaliter fiat per in- fusionem gratise habitualis inhserentis animse, non vero per justi- tiam Christi nobis extrinsec^ imputatam." Perrone also, in his " Prselectiones Theologicse," § lays down this proposition, as taught * Chemnitii Exam. Con. Trid., p. 144, Ed. 1609 ; see also Bp. Dave- nant, Prselectiones de Justitia Habitu- ali et Actuali, c. xxvii. ¦f De Justificatione, Lib. ii., cap. ii. % Dens' Theol. Mor., torn, ii., p. 448. § Perrone, Prselec. Theol., torn, i., col. 1398. 20 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. by the Council of Trent, and as being, therefore, de fide, or an essential binding article of faith: "Impii formaliter non justifi- cantur velsola imputatione justitise Christi vel sola peccatorum re- missione ; sed justificantur per gratiam et caritatem, quse in cordi- bus ^orum per Spiritum Sanctum diffunditur, atque illis inhseret." And, in answer to the Scripture statements adduced to prove that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, he admits that we are justified by it' as the meritorious cause; but denies that we are justified by it as the formal cause. The most eminent Protestant divines have been quite willing to admit that these statements of Popish writers give a fair account of the state of the question, and have had no hesitation in under taking the defence of the positions which this view of the state of the question assigned to them. They have not, indeed, usually attached much weight in this matter to the scholastic distinctions about the different kinds of causes ; because, as Turretine says,* " in the matter of justification before God, the formal cause cannot be distinguished from the meritorious cause, since the formal cause, in this respect, is nothing else than that, at the sight of which, or from a regard to which, God frees us from condemnation, and accepts us to eternal life." On these grounds Protestant writers have held themselves fully warranted in imputing to the Church of Rome the maintenance of this position, — viz., that i,hat to which God has directly and immediately a respect or regard, in pardoning a man's sins, and admitting him into the enjoyment of His favour, is a personal righteousness infused into that man, and inherent in him ; while they have undertaken for themselves to establish from Scripture the negative of this position, and to show that that which is the proper ground or basis of God's act in for giving or accepting any man,^ — that to which alone He has a re spect or regard when He justifies him, — is the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. It may be proper to mention, that among orthodox Protestant divines who have agreed harmoniously in the whole substance of the doctrine of justification, there may be noticed some differ ences in point of phraseology on some of the topics to which we have referred, and especially with respect to the causes of justi fication. These differences of phraseology are not of much im- * Loc. xvi., Quaest. ii., sec. v. Sec. L] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 21 portance, and do not give much trouble in an investigation of this subject, Calvin sometimes spoke of justification as consisting in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteous ness.* But, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness in this con nection, he seems to have meant nothing more than acceptance or positive admission into the enjoyment of God's favour, — the be stowal of a right or title to eternal life, as distinguished from, and going beyond, mere pardon. In any other sense, — and, indeed, in the strict and proper sense of the expression, — the statement is inaccurate ; for the imputation of Christ's righteousness does not stand on the same level or platform as the remission of sins, and of course cannot go to constitute, along with it, one thing desig nated by the one term, — justification, — as is the case with accept ance or admission into God's favour. The imputation of Christ's righteousness, correctly understood, is to be regarded as in the order of nature preceding both remission and acceptance, and as being the ground or basis, or the meritorious impulsive or formal cause, of them ; or that to which God has respect when in any instance He pardons and accepts.-)- Again, some orthodox divines have thought that the most accurate mode of speaking upon the subject, is to say that the formal cause of our justification is Christ's righteousness im puted ; others, that it is the imputation of Christ's righteousness ; and a third party, among whom is Dr Owen, in his great work on justification,! think that there is no formal cause of justifi cation, according to the strict scholastic meaning of the expres sion ; while all orthodox divines concur in maintaining against the Church of Rome, that, to adopt Dr Owen's words, the right eousness of Christ " is that whereby, and wherewith, a believing sinner is justified before God; or whereon he is accepted with God, hath his sins pardoned, is received into grace and favour, and hath a title given him unto the heavenly inheritance." § Having thus brought out the doctrine of the Church of Rome on the subject of the meaning, nature, and ground of justification. * A similar mode of speaking was adopted by some Lutheran divines. Vide Buddseus, Instit. Theol. Dogm., Lib. iv., c. iv., sec. vi. t Turret., Loc. xvi., Quaest. iv. X Orme's edition of Owen, vol xi., pp. 257-292. § For a full exposition of the dif ferences of opinion and statement on the causes of justification, vide de Moor, tom. iv., pp. 682-90, and John Goodwin's Imputatio Fidei, P. ii., c. iv. ; Davenant, De Just. ; Appendix to Newman on Justification. 22 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. we proceed now to explain her doctrine as to its means and re sults. And first with respect to the means of justification. The Reformers were unanimous and decided in maintaining the doc trine that faith alone justified ; that men were justified by faith only; and this gave rise to a great deal of discussion between them and the Romanists,— discussions bearing not only upon the import and evidence of this general position, but likewise upon the meaning and nature of justifying faith, and upon the way and manner in which faith justifies, or in which it acts or operates in the matter of justification. By the position that faith alone justifies, the Reformers meant in general that faith was the only thing in a man himself, to the exclusion of all personal righteous ness, habitual or actual, of all other Christian graces, and of all good works, to which his forgiveness and acceptance with God are attributed or ascribed in Scripture, — the only thing in himself which is represented in God's word as exerting anything like causality or efficiency in his obtaining justification. They did not hold that faith was the only thing which invariably accompanies justification, or even that it was the only thing required of men in order to their being justified; for they admitted that repentance was necessary to forgiveness, in accordance with the doctrine of our standards, that, " to escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us repentance unto life," as well as " faith in Jesus Christ." * But as repentance is never said in Scripture to justify, as men are never said to be justified by or through repent ance, or by or through anything existing in themselves, except faith, the Reformers maintained that faith stood in a certain rela tion to justification, such as was held by no other quality or feature in men's character or conduct, — that it justified them, — ^nothing else about them did ; that men were justified by faith, and could not be said to be justified by anything else existing in themselves, whatever might ,be its nature or its source. They did not teach that this faith which alone justified was ever alone, or unaccompanied with other graces ; but, on the con trary, they maintain that, to adopt the words of our Confession f " it is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love." Calvin, in explaining this * In the Larger Catechism, Ques. I f C. xi. sec. ii. 153, repentance is placed before faith. | Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 23 matter, says,* " Hoc semper lectoribus testatum esse volo, quoties in hac qusestione nominamus solam fidem, non mortuam a nobis fingi, et quse per caritatem non operatur : sed ipsam statui unicam justificationis causam. Fides ergo sola est quse justificet: fides tamen quse justificat, non est sola." It is a curious fact, that while many Romish writers, and others who have corrupted the doctrine of Scripture upon this subject, have misrepresented the great doctrine of the Reformation, that faith alone justifies, as meaning or implying that nothing but faith is in any sense required of men in order to their being forgiven, or does in fact invariably exist in justified men, Bellarmine accurately and fairly lays it down as one of the leading differences between the Reformers and the Church of Rome on the subject of justifying faith, that the Reformers held, " fidem solam justificare, nunquam tamen posse esse solam," whereas the Romanists taught, in full and exact contrast with this, " fidem non justificare solam, sed tamen posse esse solam."f Again, the Reformers did not ascribe to faith, in the matter of .justification, any meritorious or inherent efficacy in producing the result, but regarded it simply as the instrument or hand by which a man apprehended or laid hold of, and appropriated to himself, the righteousness of Christ ; and it was only in that very general and, strictly speaking, loose and improper sense, which was consistent with this view of its function and operation in the matter, that they called it, as Calvin does in the extract above quoted from him, the cause of justification. Such were the clear and explicit doctrines of the Reformers on the subject of the means of justification, its relation to faith, and the place and function of faith in the matter. On all these topics the Council of Trent has spoken with some degree of obscurity and unfairness, insinuating misrepre sentations of the real doctrines of the Reformers, and bring ing out somewhat vaguely and imperfectly what they meant to teach in opposition to them. In accordance with their princi ples, they could not admit that there was any sense in which faith alone justified, or in which men were justified by faith only; for, as we have seen, they held that inherent personal righteousness was the only formal cause, and that baptism was * Calvini Antid. in Sextam Ses- I f Bellarm., De Justificat., Lib. i.,c. sionem ; in Canon, xi. 1 iii. 24 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. the instrumental cause of justification. Accordingly, they denied* that a sinner is justified by faith alone, in such wise as to mean that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the ob taining the grace of justification. Now, this is quite equivalent to denying that in any sense faith alone justifies : for anything which acts or operates in order to obtaining justification, may be said to justify; and as the canon clearly implies that there is always something else conjoined with faith in the matter of justi fication, different from faith itself, and equally with it operating in order to obtain justification, it follows that in no sense does faith alone justify. And, in accordance with this view, they explain the sense in which they understand the apostle's ascrip tion of justification to faith,-]- — in which alone they admit that faith justifies at all, — in this way, " We are therefore, or for this reason, said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all justifica tion." By this they mean that faith justifies, or is said to justify, because, or inasmuch as, it is the chief means of producing that personal righteousness which is the true cause or ground of justi fication ; or, as it is thus rather oddly and awkwardly explained by Bellarmine : " Fidem non tam justificare, quam justificare, ut initium, et radicem primam justificationis ; hinc enim sequetur non ipsam solam justificare, sed sic eam agere in hoc negotio, quod suum est, ut etiam ceteris virtutibus locum relinquat." The title of the chapter from which this curious extract is taken:j; is, "Fidem justificare, sed non solam, idem enim facere timorem, spem, et di- lectionem," etc. And he had previously laid down this as one of the leading differences between Protestants and Romanists on the subject of justifying faith : " Quod ipsi (the Protestants) solam fidem justificare contendunt, nos ei comites adjungimus in hoc ipso officio justificandi, sive ad justitiam disponendi."§ Indeed, the function or place which the Council of Trent assigns to faith in this matter, is rather that of preparing or dis posing men to receive justification, than of justifying ; and even in this subordinate work of preparing or disposing men to receive justification, they give to faith only a co-ordinate place along with half a dozen of other virtues. For the sake of clearness, I * De Justificat., can. ix. t Sess. vi., C. viii. t Bellarm., De Justificat., Lib. i., cap. xiii. § Ibid., cap. iii. Sec I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 25 shall explain this important point in the words of Bellarmine, rather than in the vague and obscure verbiage which the Council of Trent has thought proper to employ upon this subject. He says, " Adversarii .... sola fide justificationem acquiri, sive apprehendi decent : Catholici contra, ac prsesertim Synodus ipsa Tridentina (quam omnes Catholici, ut magistram sequuntur) sess. vi., cap. vi. Septem actus enumerat, quibus impii ad justitiam disponuntur, videlicet fidei, timoris, spei, dilectionisj pcenitentise, propositi suscipiendi sacramenti, et propositi novse vitse, atque observationis mandatorum Dei." * So that men, before they can obtain the forgiveness of their sins and the renovation of their natures — the two things in which, according to the Church of Rome, justification consists, — must exercise faith, fear, hope, love, penitence, and have a purpose of receiving the sacrament, and of leading a new and obedient life ; and, even after they have done all this, they are not justified, for none of these things justifies, but only prepares or disposes to justification. This subject, of men disposing or preparing themselves to receive justification, is an important feature in the theology of the Church of Rome, and may require a few words of explanation. First of all, it is needed only in adults : all baptized infants receive in baptism, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, for giveness and regeneration, without any previous disposition or pre paration, — God in baptism first renewing, and then forgiving them, ,and thus completely removing from them all the effects of original sin, — a doctrine, the falsehood and injurious influence of . which has been already exposed ; but all adults must be disposed or prepared, by exercising the seven virtues, as Romanists commonly call, them, above enumerated, before they receive either forgive ness or renovation. We are not called upon at present to advert to the absurdity of the alleged antecedency of all these virtues or graces to the sanctification of the inner man, in which partly justification consists ; but when we find faith placed in the very same relation to justification, as the other virtues with which it is here classed, and even then not allowed to justify, or to be that by which men are justified, but merely to prepare or dispose men for receiving justification, we are irresistibly constrained to ask, if this is anything like the place assigned to it, in the matter of * Bellarm., De Justificat., Lib. i., cap. xii. 26 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. justification, by the Apostle Paul when he was expounding the way of a sinner's salvation to the Christians at Rome ? But we must at present consider what the modern Church of Rome teaches about this matter of disposing or preparing men for justification,— a subject on which the apostle certainly left the Roman Christians- of his day in profound ignorance, though he seems to have intended to open up to them the whole doctrine of justification, so far as he knew it. The Council of Trent gives us scarcely any direct or explicit information as to what they mean by these seven virtues disposing or preparing men for justification, except that it is necessary that they should all exist, and be exer cised, before men are forgiven and renewed, and that they exert some influence in bringing about the result. It tells us, however, that none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit or deserve the grace of justification itself ; and this had so far an appearance of deference to plain scriptural princi ples. It is not, however, by any means certain, — nay, it is very improbable, — that the council, by this declaration, meant to take away from these preliminary and preparatory virtues anything but the strict and proper merit of condignity, which they reserved for the good works of justified men. The council does not, indeed, formally sanction, as I have already mentioned, the dis tinction which prevailed universally in the Church of Rome at the time when the Reformation commenced, between merit of congruity and merit of condignity. But neither has it formally nor by implication condemned it; and it is certain that most Romish writers since the council have continued to retain and to ¦ apply this distinction,— have regarded the decision which we are considering, merely as denying to these dispositive or preparatory works merit of condignity, and have not scrupled, notwithstand ing this decision, to ascribe to them merit of congruity ; or, in other words, to represent them as exerting some meritorious effi cacy, though in a subordinate sense, and of an imperfect kind, in procuring for men justification. Bellarmine fully and explicitly asserts all this. He maintains that the decision of the council, that these dispositive and preparatory works do not- merit justifi cation, means merely that they do not merit it ex condigno,— con tends that they do merit it ex congruo,—and asserts that this is the view taken by most, though not by all, Romish writers, both as to the truth of the case and the real import of the decision of Sec. L] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 27 the council ; from all which we are warranted in concluding, that the decision of the council, denying merit to those things which precede justification, is equivocal, and was intended to be equivo cal and deceptive. Bellarmine for one, — and this is true also of the generality of Romish writers, — goes so far as to assert explicitly that these virtues are meritorious causes of justification ; and he was fully warranted in doing so, if it be true that the Council of Trent did not deny, or intend to deny, to them merit of con gruity ; and if it be also the general doctrine of the Church of Rome, as he asserts it is, " Potius fundari meritum de con gruo in aliqua dignitate operis, quam in promissione." * There was also a great deal of controversy between the Re formers and the Romanists on the definition and nature of justi fying faith, and the way and manner in which it acted or operated in the matter of justification. The Reformers generally con tended that justifying faith was fiducia, and had its seat in the will ; and the Romanists that it was merely assensus, and had its seat in the understanding. This is a subject, however, on which it must be admitted that there has been a considerable difference of opinion, or, at least, of statement, among orthodox Protestant divines in more modern times ; and which, at least in the only sense in which it has been controverted among Protestants who were in the main orthodox, does not seem to me to be determined in the standards of our church. While the Reformers unanimously and explicitly taught that faith which alone justified did not justify by any meritorious or inherent efficacy of its own, but only as the instrument of receiving or laying hold of what God had provided, I — had freely offered and regarded as the alone ground or basis on which He passed an act of forgiveness with respect to any indivi dual, viz., the righteousness of Christ, — the Council of Trent can scarcely be said to have determined anything positive or explicit as to the office or function of faith in justification, or as to the way and manner in which it can be said to justify, beyond what is contained in the statement formerly quoted, viz., that we are said to be justified by faith for this reason, because faith is the begin ning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all justi fication. There is little information given us here except this, * Bellarm., De Justificat., Lib. i., c. xxi. See also Lib. i., c. xvii.; Lib. v., c. xxi. 28 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. that the reason why Scripture assigns so much prominence to faith, in the matter of justification, is, because faith is the chief means of originating and producing Christian graces and good works; while, at the same time, it should be remembered that Romanists teach, as we have seen, that it does not necessarily and invariably produce them, as Protestants hold, but that it may exist alone or unaccompanied by them. But while the Council of Trent does not formally and expli citly teach more than this upon this point, there is nothing in the decree to preclude, and much in the general scope and spirit of its statements to countenance, the doctrine which has unquestionably been held by the great body of the most eminent Romish writers, viz., that faith has in itself some real and even meritorious efficacy, — i.e., meritum de congruo, as already explained, — in disposing to, and in procuring or obtaining, justification. This doctrine is thus expressed by Bellarmine, who lays it down as the doctrine of the Church of Rome, "Fidem etiam a caritate disjunctam, alicujus esse pretii, et vim habere justificandi per modum dispositionis, et impe- trationis;"* and again, "Fidem impetrare justificationem, . . . ac per hoc justificare per modum dispositionis ac meriti ;" and again, after stating fairly enough the doctrine of the Reformers in this way, " Fidem non justificare per modum causse, aut dignitatis, aut meriti, sed soliim relative, quia videlicet credendo accipit, quod Deus promittendo offert," he thus states in contrast the doctrine of the Church of Rome, " Fidem justificare impetrando, ac pro- merendo . . . justificationem ;" and again, " Fidem .... impetrare, atque aliquo mode mereri justificationem ;"f while he applies similar statements to the other virtues, which, equally with faith, precede and dispose to justification, describing them expressly as meritorious causes of justification. We have now only to advert briefly to the differences between the Romanists and the Reformers on some points which may be comprehended under the general head of the results or consequences of justification ; and, first, we may explain the views respectively entertained by them, as to the way in which sins committed sub sequently to justification are pardoned. The Reformers taught that these sins were pardoned upon the same ground, and through the same means, as those committed before justification viz. * Bellarm., De Justificat., Lib. i., cap. iii. -f Lib. i., cap. xvii. Sec I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 29 upon the ground of Christ's righteousness, and through the exer cise of faith apprehending, or laying hold of, and appropriating it. As the Church of Rome teaches that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, so she has invented another sacrament, and established it as the only channel through which post-baptismal sins, as she commonly calls them, can be forgiven; for the Council of Trent anathematizes all who say * that " a man who has fallen after baptism is able to receive the justice which he has lost, by faith alone, without the sacrament of penance." They do not, however, regard the forgiveness, which the sacrament of penance conveys in regard to post-baptismal sins, as so perfect and complete as that which baptism conveys in regard to the sins which preceded it : for they teach that the sacrament of penance, while it takes away all the guilt of mortal sins, in so far as this would otherwise have exposed men to eternal punishment, leaves men still exposed to temporal punishment, properly so called, for their mortal sins, and to the guilt, such as it is, of their venial sins ; and thus needs to be supplemented by satisfactions, rendered either by sinners themselves, or by others in their room, and either in this life or in purgatory. These doctrines are plainly taught in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth canons ; and as there is no room for doubt as to what the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this point is, we need not at present further dwell upon it. The same observation applies to the second topic, which might be comprehended under the general head of the results or con sequences of justification, — viz., this, that the Church of Rome teaches that it is possible for men, when once justified, to keep in this life wholly and perfectly the law of God ; nay, even to go beyond this, and to supererogate, and that they can truly and pro perly merit or deserve, with proper merit of condignity, increase of grace and eternal life. These doctrines, with the exception of that of works of supererogation, — which can be shown to be the doctrine of the church otherwise, though not so directly, ^are taught clearly and unequivocally in the eighteenth, twenty-fourth, and thirty-second canons. The last topic which it is needful to advert to, in order to complete the view of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this important subject, is the certainty or assurance which believers * Canon xxix. 30 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. havCj or may have, or should have, of their being in a justified state, and of their persevering in it. This topic is explained in canons thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth. The Council of Trent taught that no man can have any certainty or assurance that he will persevere and attain to eternal life, without a special revelation ; but this topic was not much discussed at the time of the Reformation, and it belongs more properly to the controversy between the Calvinists and the Arrninians. The dispute between the Reformers and the Romanists in connection with this matter turned mainly upon this question, whether men could or should have any certainty or assurance that they were at present in a justified state, and would, of 'course, be saved if they persevered in it. And upon this point many of the most eminent orthodox Protestant divines have been of opinion that both the Reformers and the Council of Trent carried their respective views to an extreme, and that the truth lay somewhere between them. The Romanists, in their anxiety to deprive men of all means of attaining to anything like certainty or assurance that they were in a justified and safe condition, and thus to keep them entirely dependent upon the church, and wholly subject to her control, denied the possibility of certainty or assur ance ; while the Reformers, in general, maintained its necessity, and, in order, as it were, to secure it in the speediest and most effec tual way, usually represented it as necessarily involved in the very nature of the first completed act of saving faith. The generality of orthodox Protestant divines in more modern times have main tained, in opposition to the Church of Rome, the possibility of attaining to a certainty or assurance of being in a justified and re generated condition, and the duty of seeking and of having this certainty and assurance, as a privilege which God has provided for His people, and a privilege the possession of which is fitted to contribute greatly not only to their happiness, but to their holiness ; while they have commonly so far deviated from the views enter tained by many of the Reformers, as to deny its necessity, except in the sense of obligation, and more especially to represent it as not necessarily involved in the exercise of saving faith : and this is the view given of the matter in the standards of our church. But this is a topic of comparatively subordinate importance, as it does not essentially affect men's actual condition in God's sight, their relation to Him, or their everlasting destiny, but rather their present peace and comfort, and the advancement of the divine life in their souls. Sec IL] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 31 There have thus been brought out many most important differ ences between the doctrines of the Church of Rome and those generally held by orthodox Protestants, on the meaning and na ture, the ground and cause, the means and instrument, the results and consequences, of justification ; and we must now proceed to give some explanation of the way in which the Reformers estab lished their doctrines upon these subjects, and proved that those of the Church of Rome were inconsistent with the word of God, and, dangerous to the souls of men. Sec. II. — Nature of Justification. We shall advert briefly to the grounds on which we main tain that justification is properly descriptive only of a change of state in men's judicial relation to God, and to His law, as in cluding forgiveness ~and acceptance or admission to God's favour, in opposition to the Romish doctrine that it comprehends a change of character, the renovation of men's moral nature, or, as Papists commonly call it, the infusion of an inherent righteousness. Justification is God's act — it is He who justifies ; and we must be guided wholly by the statements of His word in determining what the real nature of this act of His is. We must regard justification as just being what the word of God represents it to be ; we must understand the word in the sense in which it is employed in the sacred Scriptures. The question then is. In what sense are the word's justification and its cognates used in Scripture ; and more especially, should any variety in its meaning and application be discovered there, in what sense is it employed in those passages in which it is manifest that the subject ordinarily expressed by it is most fully and formally explained ? Now, the truth upon this point is so clear and certain in itself, and has been so generally admitted by all but Romanists, that it is unnecessary to occupy much time with the illustration of it. It has been proved innumerable times, by evidence against which it is impossible to produce anything that has even plausi bility, that the word justification is generally used in Scripture in what is called a forensic or judicial sense, as opposed to condem nation ; that it means to reckon, or declare, or pronounce just or righteous, as if by passing a sentence to that effect ; and that it does not include in its signification, as the Council of Trent asserts 32 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. the making just or righteous, by effecting an actual change on the moral character and principles of men. The Council of Trent says that justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the inner man. But the inspired writers plainly do not ordinarily employ it to describe an actual change effected upon men's character, but only a change effected upon their legal state or condition by a forensic or judicial .act of the Justifier. It implies the pronouncing, more or less for mally, of a sentence, — a sentence, not of condemnation, but of acquittal or acceptance. It has been alleged that the original and radical idea of the word Bikmoio is to punish ; and there are some considerations which favour this notion, though it cannot be said to be established by satisfactory evidence. But even if this were admitted to be the primary or radical idea expressed by the word, there would be no great difficulty in tracing the process by which it came to acquire what seems to be the nearly opposite meaning it bears in the New Testament. When a man has had a sentence of condemnation passed upon him for an offence, and has, in consequence, endured the punishment imposed, he is free from all further charge or liability, and might be said to be now justified in the derived sense of the word, or to have now virtually a sentence of acquittal pronounced upon him. A punished person in this way virtually becomes a justified one, and the two notions are thus not so alien or contradictory as they might at first sight appear to be. And it should not be forgotten that, in the matter of the justification of a sinner before God, there has been a punish ment inflicted and endured, which is in every instance the ground or basis of the sinner's justification. When the apostle says, as he is represented in our translation,* " He that is dead is free from sin," the literal, real meaning of his statement is, " He that has died has been justified from sin," SeBiKaicorai, ; and the import of this declaration (which furnishes, I think, the key to the interpretation of the chapter), is, that a man by dying, and thereby enduring the punishment due to his sin (which sinners of course do in their Surety, whose death is imputed to them), has escaped from all further liability, and has a sentence virtually pronounced upon him, whereby he is justified from sin. But whatever might be the primary meaning of the word * Rom. vi. 7. Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 33 justify, and whatever the process of thought by which its meaning may have been afterward modified, it can be very easily and con clusively proved, that both in the Old and in the New Testament it is ordinarily employed in a forensic or judicial sense, and means not to make or render righteous by changing the character, but to reckon, declare, or pronounce righteous by a sentence formal or virtual, changing the state or condition in relation to a judge and a law. The Socinian system of justification is, in its general scope and tendency, very much akin to the Popish one ; for both tend to assign to men themselves an influential and meritorious share in securing their own ultimate happiness ; and yet even the Socinians admit that the word justify is used in the New Testa ment in a forensic sense, to denote the declaring or pronouncing men righteous. It is true that something else than a love of truth might lead them to concur with Protestants in the interpretation of this word; for the idea of God's making men righteous by effecting some change upon their character, or what the Romanists call the infusion of righteousness, — which they allege to be in cluded in justification, — does not harmonize with the Socinian system, according to which men do not need to be made righteous, since they have always been so, — do not need to have righteous ness infused into them, since they have never existed without it. Almost the only man of eminence in modern times, beyond the pale of the Church of Rome, who has contended that the pro per meaning of the word justify in Scripture is to make righteous, — i.e., to sanctify, — is Grotius, whose inadequate sense of the im portance of sound doctrine, and unscriptural and spurious love of peace, made him ever ready to sacrifice or compromise truth, whether it was to please Papists or Socinians.* The course adopted upon this subject in Newman's Lectures on Justification is rather curious and instructive. Newman's general scheme of doctrine upon this subject, though it was published some years before he left the Church of England, and though Dr Pusey issued a pamphlet for the purpose of showing that there was nothing Popish about it, is beyond all reasonable doubt identical, in its fundamental principles and general tendencies, with that of the Council of Trent and the Church of Rome, to which its author has since formally submit ted himself. The fact, however, that the articles of the church * Grotius, Prsef . ad Eom. 3 — VOL. II. 34 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI. to which he then belonged (and which, at the time, he does not seem to have had any intention of leaving), had fixed the mean ing of the word justify to be, to " account righteous before God," as well as perhaps some sense of the scriptural evidence in support of this view of its meaning, prevented him from openly adopting the definition which the Council of Trent gave of justification ; and obliged him to admit that the proper meaning of the word in Scripture is to declare or pronounce, and not to make or render, righteous.. He feels, however, that this admission exposes him to some disadvantage and difficulty in the exposition and defence of his Popish system ; and he is, besides, greatly distressed at finding himself in the awkward position, to use his own words,* of ventur ing " to prefer Luther in any matter even of detail to St Austin," the former of whom, he says, was merely the founder of a .school, or sect, while the latter was a father in the Holy Apostolic Church ; f and on these accounts he is obliged to devise some ex pedient for practically and in substapce withdrawing the conces sion he had been compelled to make ; and it is this : J "To justify, means in itself ' counting righteous,' but includes under its mean ing ' making righteous : ' in other words, the sense of the term is 'counting righteous ;' and the sense of the PP- 334-336. Vide also Mori Epitome, p. 193. 3 — VOL. II. Q 242 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. gians of the present day. The leading point which the opponents of this division labour to estabhsh is, that in Scripture the func tions of these different offices, are not always exactly discriminated from each other. But this position, even though proved, is very little to the purpose : for It can scarcely be disputed that Scrip ture does afford us sufficient materials for forming pretty definite conceptions of the respective natures and functions of these three offices, as distinct from each other ; and that, in point of fact, the leading departments of Christ's work admit easily and naturally of being classed under the heads of the appropriate functions of these three offices, as the Scripture ordinarily discriminates them. This is quite sufficient to sanction the distinction as unobjection able, useful, and convenient ; while, of course, as it proves nothing of itself, all must admit the obligation lying upon those who make use of it to produce distinct and satisfactory scriptural proof of every position they maintain, as to the nature, object, and effects of anything that Christ Is alleged to have done in the execution of these different offices. It may be described In general, as the characteristic of the Socinian system of theology upon this subject, that it regards Christ merely as a Prophet, — that is, merely as revealing and establishing truths or doctrines concerning God and divine things, — while it denies that He executed the office of a Priest or of a King. But while this is true in substance, there are one or two explanar tions that may assist us In understanding the discussions which occur upon this subject among the older theologians. The original Socinians, as I have already had occasion to mention, usuaUy ad mitted that Christ executed the office of a King, and they did not altogether, and In every sense, deny that He executed the office of a Priest ; while they conjoined or confounded the priestly and the kingly offices. I then explained, that though very far from bemg deficient either in ingenuity or in courage, they were unable to evade the evidence that Christ, after His resurrection, was raised to a station of exalted power, which in some way or other He employed for promoting the spiritual and eternal welfare of men. Their leading position, in regard to Christ's priestly office, was, that He did not execute it at all upon earth, but only after His ascen sion to heaven ; and that, of course. His sufferings and death formed no part of it, — these being intended merely to afford us an example of virtue, and to confirm and establish the doctrine of the im- Sec L] THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST. 243 mortaUty of the soul. The execution of His priestly office did not commence till after His ascension, and was only an aspect or modification of the kingly office, or of the exercise of the powers with which He had been invested ; while everything connected with the objects to which this power was directed, or the way and manner in which it was exercised, was left wholly unexplained. Modern Socinians, having discovered that Scripture gives us no definite Information as to the place which Christ now occupies, and the manner In which He Is now engaged ; and being satisfied that aU that is said In Scripture about His priesthood is wholly figura tive, — and, moreover, that the figure means nothing, real or true, being taken from mere Jewish notions, — ^have altogether discarded both the priestly and the kingly offices, and have thus brought out somewhat more plainly and openly, what the old Socinians held In substance, though they conveyed It in a more scriptural phraseology. It is under the head of the priestly office of Christ that the great and infinitely important subject of His satisfaction or atone ment Is discussed ; and this may be regarded as the most peculiar and essential feature of the work which He wrought, as Mediator, for the salvation of sinners, — ^that which stands in most Immediate and necessary connection with the divinity of His person. We can conceive It possible that God might have given us a very full revelation of His wUl, and abundantly confirmed the certainty of the information which He communicated, as well as have set before us a complete pattern of every virtue for our Imitation, through the instrumentality of a creature, or even of a mere man. We can con ceive a creature exalted by God to a very high pitch of power and dignity, and made the Instrument, in the exercise of this power, of accomplishing very important results bearing upon the spiritual and eternal welfare of men. But when the ideas of satisfying the divine justice and the diving law, in the room and stead of sinners, — and thereby reconciling men to God, whose law they had broken, — are presented to our minds, and In some measure realized, here we cannot, but be impressed with the conviction, that If these ideas describe actual realities, we have got into a region In which there Is no scope for the agency or operation of a mere creature, and in which infinite power and perfection are called for. We are not, indeed, to Imagine that we fully and rightly understand the pro phetical office of the Mediator, unless we regard the great Revealer of God as one who was the brightness of His glory and the express 244 DOCTRINE OP THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. Image of His person, — as having been from eternity in the bosom of the Father. And it is proper also to remember, that we can scarcely conceive It to be possible that the actual power and do minion wh'ch the Scriptures ascribe to Christ as Mediator, and which He is ever exercising in the execution of His kingly office, — including, as it does, the entire government of the universe, and the absolute disposal of the everlasting destinies of all men, — could be delegated to, and exercised by, any creature, however exalted. We only wish to remark, that the general ideas of revealing God's will, and exercising power or dominion,— which may be said to constitute the essence of the doctrine concerning the prophetical and kmgly offices of Christ, — are more within the range of our ordinary conceptions ; and that though, in point of fact, applicable to Christ in a way in which they could not apply to any creature, yet they do not of themselves suggest so readily the idea of the necessity of a divine Mediator as those which are commonly associated -mth the priestly office. The priestly office, accordingly, has been the principal subject of controversial discussion, both from Its more immediate connection with the proper divinity of Christ's person, and from its more extensive and Influential bearing upon all the provisions and arrangements of the scheme of salvation. It is very manifest, on the most cursory survey of the sacred Scriptures, that the salvation of sinners Is ascribed to the sufferings and death of Christ, — that His sufferings and death are represented as intimately connected with, and Influentially bearing upon, this infinitely important result. Indeed, the whole subject which is now under consideration may be regarded. In one aspect of it, as virtually resolving into the investigation of this question, — ^What is the relation subsisting between the sufferings and death of Christ and the salvation of sinners ? In what precise way do they bear upon men's obtaining or receiring the forgiveness of their sins and the enjoyment of God's favour ? And in further con sidering this subject, it will be convenient, for the sake both of distinctness and brevity, to advert only to the death of Christ ; for though most of the advocates of the generally received doctrine of the atonement regard the whole of Christ's humiUatlon and sufferings, from His Incarnation to His crucifixion, as invested with a priestly, sacrificial, and piacular character, — as constituting His once offering up of Himself a sacrifice, — as all propitiatory of God, and expiatory of men's sins, — yet, in accordance with the general Sec L] THE PERSON AND WORK OP CHRIST. 245 representations of Scripture, they regard His oblation or sacrifice of Himself, as a piacular victim, as principally manifested, and as con centrated In His pouring out His soul unto death, — His bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. And we may also, for the same reasons, — and because we do not Intend at present to discuss the whole subject of justification, and the bearing of Christ's work upon all that Is implied In that word, — speak generally, and in the first instance, in adverting to the object to be effected, of the pardon or forgiveness of men's sins, — an expression sometimes used In Scrip ture as virtually including or Implying the whole of our salvation, because It is a fundamental part of It, and because it may be justly regarded as, in some respects, the primary thing to be attended to in considering our relation to God and our everlasting destinies. We have already stated generally the different doctrines or theories which have been propounded, — all professing to rest upon scriptural authority, — in regard to the connection between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of men's sins, taking these two ex pressions in the sense now explained. The Socinian doctrine* is, that the death of Christ bears upon this r^ult merely by confirm ing and illustrating truths, and by setting an example of virtue ; and thus affording motives and encouragements to the exercise of repentance and the performance of good actions, by which we ourselves procure or obtain for ourselves the forgiveness of sin and the enjoyment of God's favour, — Its whole power and efficacy being thus placed in the confirmation of truth and in the exhibition of exemplary virtue. The doctrine commonly held by Arians Is, that Christ, by submitting to suffering and to death, on men's account, and with a view to their benefit, has done what was very accept able to God, and has thus obtained a position of influence with God, which He exercises by interceding in some way or other for the purpose of procuring for men forgiveness and favour. Now, it may be said to be true, that the Scripture does ascribe these effects to the death of Christ, and that, of course, that event Is fitted, and was Intended, to produce them. The death of Christ was a testimony to truths, and is well adapted to establish and illustrate them, though what these truths are must depend essen- tiaUy upon what that event was in its whole character and bearing. ¦* See summary of the Socinian doc- I c. viii., p. 168, and c. x., p. 206 ; c. i., trinegiveninGrotius,De Satisfactione, 1 pp. 40-44. Ed. 1661. 246 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. It is fitted, and of course was intended, to afford us motives and encouragements to repentance and holiness. This is true, but it is very far from being the whole of the truth upon the subject. It Is likewise true that Scripture sanctions the general idea of Christ— by suffering and dying for the sake of men— domg what was pleasing and acceptable to God,— of His being in consequence rewarded, and raised to a position of high power and dignity,- and of His interceding with God, or using influence vrith Him, to procure for men spiritual blessings. All this is true, and It is held by those who maintain the commonly received doctrine of the atonement. But neither is this the whole of the truth which Scripture teaches upon the subject. And what in it is true, as thus generally expressed, is not brought out so fully and explicitly, as the Scripture affords us ample materials for doing, by connect ing it with the doctrine of the atonement. Some men would fain persuade us that the substance of all that Scripture teaches us concerning the way of salvation is this, — that an exalted and glorious Being interposed on behalf of sin ners, — mediated between them and an offended God ; and by this interposition and influence procured for them the forgiveness of their sins, and the enjoyment of God's favour. Now, all this Is true. There is nothing in this general statement which contradicts or opposes anything that is taught us In Scripture. But, just as the Scripture affords us, as we have seen, abundant materials for defining *much more fully and explicitly the real nature, dignity, and position of this exalted Being, and leaves us not to mere vague generalities upon this point, but warrants and requires us to believe and maintain that He was of the same nature and sub stance with the Father, and equal in power and glory ; so. In like manner, in regard to what He did for men's salvation, the Scrip ture does not leave us to the vague generalities of His mediating or interposing, interceding or using influence, on our behalf, but affords us abundant materials for explaining much more precisely and definitely the nature or kind of His mediation or interposition, — the foundation of His intercession, — the ground or source of His influence. The commonly received doctrine of the satisfaction or atonement of Christ just professes to bring out this more fuU and specific Information ; and the substance of it is this, — ^that the way and manner in which He mediated or interposed In behalf of sinners, and in order to effect their deliverance or salvation, was Sec L] THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST. 247 by putting Himself in their place, — by substituting Himself In their room and stead, — suffering, as their substitute or surety, the penalty of the law which they had broken, the punishment which they had deserved by their sins, — and thereby satisfying the claims of divine justice, and thus reconcihng them to God. This great scriptural doctrine is thus expressed In our Confes sion of Faith :* " The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father ; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inherit ance In the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him;" or. In the words of the Shorter Cate chism, " Christ executeth the office of a Priest, in His once offer ing up of Himself a sacrifice to satisfy: divine justice, and reconcile us to God ; and in making continual Intercession for us." Here I may remark, as Illustrating some preceding observa tions, — though this Is not a topic which I mean to dwell upon, — that His Intercession succeeds, and Is based upon. His sacrifice and satisfaction ; and that thus distinctness and definiteness are given to the Idea which it expresses. When men's deliverance, or their possession of spiritual blessings. Is ascribed. In general, to the intercession of Christ, without being accompanied with an expo sition of His vicarious sacrifice and satisfaction, as the ground or basis on which it rests, no more definite meaning can be attached to it than merely that of using some influence, in order to procure for men what they need from God. But when His vicarious sacrifice and satisfaction are first asserted as the great leading department of the work which He wrought for the salvation of sinners, and His Intercession is then introduced as following this, and based upon it, we escape from this vague generality, and are warranted and enabled to represent His Intercession as implying that He pleads with God, in behalf of men, and in order to obtain for them the forgiveness of their sins, this most relevant and weighty consideration, — viz., that He has suffered In their room, that He has endured in their stead the whole penalty which their sins had deserved. The great doctrine, that Christ offered Himself as a vicarious sacrifice, — that Is, a sacrifice In the room and stead of sinners, as * C. viii., s. 6. 248 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. their surety and substitute ; that He did so. In order to satisfy divine justice and reconcile them to God ; and that, of course, by doing so. He has satisfied divine justice and reconcUed them to God,— has been always held and maintained by the great body of the Christian church. It was not, indeed, like the doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ, subjected, at an early period in the history, of the church, to a thorough and searching con troversial discussion ; and, in consequence of this, men's views in regard to it continued always to partake somewhat of the character of vagueness and indistinctness. It can scarcely be said to have been fully expounded and discussed, in such a way as to bring out thoroughly its true nature and its scriptural grounds, until after the pubUcation of the works of Socinus ; for Anselm's contributions to the right exposition of this doctrine, important as they are, scarcely come up to this description. It formed no part of the controversy between the Reformers and the Romanists; for the Church of Rome has always continued to profess the substance of scriptural truth on this subject, as well as on that of the Trinity, though, according to her usual practice, she has grievously corrupted, and almost wholly neutralized, the truth which she professedly holds. Socinus was the first who made a full and elaborate effort to overturn the doctrine which the church had always held upon this subject, and which, though not very fully or explicitly developed as a topic of speculation, had constituted the source at once of the hopes and the motives of God's people from the beginning. This he did chiefly In his Treatise, " De Jesu Christo Servatore," and In his " Prselectiones Theologicse;" and it certainly required no ordinary ingenuity for one man, and without the benefit of much previous discussion upon the point, to devise a whole system of plausible evasions and perversions, for the purpose of showing that the doctrine which the whole church had hitherto believed upon the subject was not taught in Scripture. Ever since that period the doctrine of the atonement or satisfaction of Christ has been very fully dis cussed in all its bearings and aspects, affecting as it does, and must do, the whole scheme of Christian truth ; and the result has been, that the Socinian evasions and perversions of Scripture have been triumphantly exposed, and that the generally received doctrine of the church has been conclusively established, and placed upon an immovable basis, by the most exact and searching Sec. IL] NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT: 249 investigation, conducted upon the soundest and strictest critical principles. Into the meaning of the numerous and varied scriptural statements that bear upon this subject. In considering this subject, I propose to advert, in the first place, to the doctrine of the atonement or satisfaction of Christ In general, as held by the universal church, — by Papists, Lutherans, Calrinists, and Arminians, — In opposition to the Socinians and other denlers of our Lord's divinity; in the second place, to the peculiarities of the Arminian doctrine upon this subject, as affected and determined by its relation to the general system of Ai-mlnlan theology ; and in the third place, to the doctrine which has been propounded, upon this subject, by those who profess Calvinistic principles upon other points, but who, upon this, hold ¦riews identical with, or closely resembling those of, the Armi nians, especially In regard to the extent of the atonement. Sec. II. — Necessity of the Atonement. In considering the subject of the atonement, it may be proper to advert. In the first place, to a topic which has given rise to a good deal of discussion, — namely, the necessity of an atonement or satisfaction. In order to the forgiveness of men's sins. The Soci nians allege that a ricarious atonement or satisfaction for sin Is altogether unnecessary, and adduce this consideration as a proof, or at least a presumption, against Its truth or reality ; while the advocates of an atonement have not been contented with showing that its non-necessity could not be proved, but have, in general, further averred positively that It was necessary, — have undertaken to prove this, — and have made the evidence of Its necessity at once an argument in favour of its truth and reality, and a means of illustrating Its real nature and operation. The assertion, as well as the denial, of the necessity of an atonement, must, from the nature of the case, be based upon certain Ideas of the attributes and moral government of God, viewed in connection with the actual state and condition of man as a transgressor of His law ; and the subject thus leads to discussions in which there Is a great danger of Indulging in presumptuous speculations on points of which we can know nothing, except in so far as God has been pleased to convey to us information in His word. It can scarcely be said that the Scripture gives us any direct or explicit Informa- 250 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. tion upon the precise question, whether or not the salvation of sinners could possibly have been effected In any other way than through an atonement or satisfaction ; and It is not indispensable for any important purpose that this question should be determined. The only point of vital Importance Is that of the truth or reality of an atonement, and then the consideration of its true nature and bearing. We have just to ascertain from Scripture what was the true character and object of Christ's death, and the way and manner in which, in point of fact. It bears upon the forgiveness of men's sins, and their relation to God and to His law ; and when we have ascertained this. It cannot be of fundamental Importance that we should investigate and determine the question, whether or not It was possible for God to have forgiven men without satisfaction. Had the materials for determining the question of the truth and reality of an atonement been scanty or obscure, then the pre sumption arising from anything we might be able to know or ascertain as to its necessity or non-necessity, might be of some avail in turning the scale upon the question of its truth or reality. But when we have in Scripture such explicit and abundant materials for establishing the great doctrine that, in point of fact, Christ did offer up Himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, we are entitled to feel, and we ought to feel, that. In stating and arguing this question, we are wholly independent of the alleged necessity or non-necessity of an atonement ; and having ascer tained what God has done, — what provision He has made, — what scheme He has adopted, — we need not be very anxious about settling the question, whether or not He could have accomplished the result in any other way or by any other means. But while it is proper that we should understand that this question about the necessity of an atonement is not one of vital Importance in defend ing our cause against the Socinians, as we have full and abundant evidence of its truth and reality; yet, since the subject has been largely discussed among theologians, — since almost all who have held the truth and reality of an atonement have also maintained its necessity, — and since the consideration of the subject brings out some views which, though not indispensable to the proof of its truth or reality, are yet true and Important In themselves, and very useful in illustrating its nature and bearing^, — It may be proper to give a brief notice of the points that are usually introduced into the discussion of this question. Sec II.] NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 251 Let us first advert to the ground taken by the Socinians upon this department of the subject. They deny the necessity of an atonement or satisfaction for sin, upon the ground that the essen tial benevolence and compassion of God must have prompted, and that His supreme dominion must have enabled. Him to forgive men's sins without any atonement or satisfaction ; and that there was nothing in His nature, government, or law, which threw any obstacle in the way of His at once exercising His sovereign dominion In accordance with the promptings of His compassion, and extending forgiveness to all upon the condition of repentance and reformation. Now, in the' first place, an allegation of this sort Is sufficiently met by the scriptural proof, that, in point of fact, an atonement was offered, — that satisfaction was made, and that forgiveness and salvation are held out to men, and bestowed upon them, only on the footing of this atonement. And then, in the second place, if we should, ex abundanti, examine the Socinian position more directly, it is no difficult matter to show that they have not proved, and cannot prove, any one of the positions on which they rest the alleged non-necessity of an atonement. As they commonly allege that the doctrine of the Trinity Is a denial of the divine unity, so they usually maintain that the doctrine of the atonement Involves a denial of the divine placability.* That placability is an attri bute or quality of God, is unquestionable. This general position can be fully established from revelation, however doubtful or un certain may be the proof of it derived from reason or nature. Independently altogether of general scriptural declarations, it is estabUshed by the facts, that, as all admit, God desired and de termined to forgive and to save sinners who had broken His law, and made provision for carrying this gracious purpose Into effect. But there is no particular statement in Scripture, and no general principle clearly sanctioned by it, which warrants us to assert that God's placability required of Him that He should forgive men's sins without an atonement, and upon the mere condition of repent ance. Placability Is not the only attribute or quality of God. There are other features of His character, established both by His works and His word, which, viewed by themselves, are manifestly * Priestley's History of the Corruptions of Christianity, P. ii., Introd., vol. i., p. 146. 252 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. fitted to lead us to draw an opposite conclusion as to the way In which He would. In point of fact, deal with sin and sinners,— well fitted to excite the apprehension that He wUl inflict upon them the punishment which, by their sins, they have merited. In these circumstances. It Is utterly unwarrantable for us, without clear authority from Scripture, to indulge in dogmatic assertions as to what God certainly wiU, or wiU not, do in certain circum stances. Neither Scripture nor reason warrant the position that repent ance Is, in its own nature, an adequate reason or ground, ordinarUy and in general, and still less in all cases, for pardoning those who have transgressed a law to which they were subject. It is in entire accordance with the dictates of reason, and with the ordi nary practice of men, to inflict the full penalty of the law upon repentant criminals ; and there is no ground on which we are warranted to assert that God cannot, or certainly wiU not, foUow a similar course in regard to those who have transgressed His law. The Socinians are accustomed, in discussing this point, to dwell upon the scriptural statements with respect to repentance, its necessity and importance, and the connection subsisting between it and forgiveness. But there is nothing In these statements which establishes the position they undertake to maintain upon this sub ject. Those statements prove, indeed, that sinners are under an imperative obligation to repent ; and they prove further, that, ac cording to the arrangements which God has actually made, an Invariable connection subsists between forgiveness and repentance, so that it is true that without repentance there is no forgiveness, and that wherever there Is real repentance, forgiveness is bestowed ; and that thus men are commanded and bound to repent in order to their being forgiven, and are warranted to infer their forgive ness from their repentance. The scriptural statements prove aU this, but they prove nothing more ; and this is not enough to give support to the Socinian argument. All this may be true, while it may still be false that repentance is the sole cause or condition of the forgiveness, — the sole, or even the principal, reason on account of which It is bestowed ; and if so, then there is abundant room left for the admission of the principle, that a vicarious atonement or satisfaction was also necessary in order to the forgiveness of sin, and was indeed the true ground on which the forgiveness was conferred. Sec il.] NECESSITY OP THE ATONEMENT. 253 But while it is thus shown that this may be true. In entire consistency with all that Scripture says about forgiveness, and the connection between It and repentance, and whUe this is amply sufficient to refute the Socinian argument ; we undertake further to prove from Scripture, that the atonement or satisfaction of Christ is indeed the ground on which forgiveness rests, and that this principle must be taken in, and must have Its proper place assigned to it. If we would receive and maintain the whole doctrine which the word of God plainly teaches us in regard to this most momentous subject. But, more than this, the advocates of the generally received doctrine of the atonement not only deny and disprove the Socinian allegation of Its non-necessity, — not only show that Socinians cannot prove that It was not necessary, — they themselves, in general, positively aver that it was necessary, and think they can produce satisfactory evidence of the truth of this position. There Is, at first view, something repulsive — as having the appearance of unwarranted presumption — in asserting the necessity of an atonement or satisfaction, as It really amounts in substance to this, that God could not have pardoned men unless an atone ment had been made, — unless a satisfaction had been rendered for their sins; and It may appear more suited to the modesty and reverence with which we ought to speak on such a subject, to say, that, for aught we know, God might have saved men in other ways, or through other means, but that He has adopted that method or scheme which was the wisest and the best, — best fitted to promote His own glory, and secure the great ends of His moral govern ment. We find, however, upon further consideration, that the case is altogether so peculiar, and that the grounds of the assertion are so clear and strong, as to warrant It, even though an explicit deli verance upon this precise point is not given us in Scripture. As to the general position, that an atonement or satisfaction was necessary, — or rather, that God could not have made provision for pardoning and saving sinners in any other way than that which He has actually adopted, — this seems fully warranted, indepen dently of any other consideration, by the Scripture doctrine of the proper divinity of the Saviour. The Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, — the assumption of human nature by One who was at the same time possessor of the divine, — the fact that this Being, who is God and man In one person, spent a life on earth of obscurity and humiliation, — that He endured many sufferings and indigni- 254 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. ties, and was at last subjected to a cruel and ignominious death ; — all this. If it be true, — if It be an actual reality, — as Scripture requires us to believe, is so peculiar and extraordinary in its whole character and aspects, that whenever we are led to realize it, we feel ourselves at once irresistibly constrained to say, that this would not have taken place if It had been possible that the result to which it was directed, — namely, the forgiveness and salvation of sinners, — could have been effected in any other way, or by any other means. We feel, and we cannot but feel, that there is no unwarranted presumption in saying, that if it had been possible that the salvation of guilty men could have been otherwise accom plished, the only-begotten Son of God would not have left the glory which He had with His Father from eternity, assumed human nature, and suffered and died on earth. This ground, were there nothing more revealed regarding it, would warrant us to make the general assertion, that the incarnation, suffering, and death of Christ were necessary to the salvation of sinners, — that this result could not have been effected without them. This con sideration. Indeed, has no weight with Socinians, as they do not admit the grand peculiarity on which It is based, — namely, the divinity and the incarnation of Him who came to save sinners. Still it Is an ample warrant for our general assertion, as being clearly implied in, and certainly deducible from, a doctrine which we undertake to prove to be plainly revealed In Scripture. It ought, however, to-be noticed, that the precise position which this general consideration warrants us to assert, is not directly and Immediately the necessity of an atonement or satis faction, but only the necessity of the sufferings and death of Christ, whatever may have been the character attaching to them, or the precise effect Immediately resulting from them, in connection with the salvation of sinners ; and that, accordingly, it was only the warrantableness of Introducing the idea, and the expression of necessity, as applicable to the subject In general, that we had in view In bringing It forward ; and we have now to advert to the indications supposed to be given us In Scripture, of the grounds or reasons of this necessity. Scripture fully warrants us in say ing that there are things which God cannot do. It says expressly that He cannot deny Himself ; that . He cannot lie ; that He cannot repent (though there is an improper sense in which re pentance is ascribed to Him) ; and He cannot do these things, Sec II.J NECESSITY OP THE ATONEMENT. 255 just because He is God, and not man, — because He is possessed of divine and Infinite perfection. And if It be in any sense true that an atonement or satisfaction was necessary, — or, what Is in substance the same thing, that God could not have pardoned sinners without It, — this must be because the attributes of His nature, or the principles of His government, — in other words. His exceUence or perfection, — prevented or opposed It, or threw ob stacles in the way, which could not otherwise be removed. Ac cordingly, this Is the general position which the advocates of the necessity of an atonement maintain. The most obvious and palpable consideration usually adduced in support of the necessity of an atonement. Is that derived from the law of God, especially the tlireatenings which, In the law. He has denounced against transgressors. The law which God has promulgated is this, " The soul which sinneth shall die." If God has indeed said this, — if He has uttered this threatening, — this would seem to render It certain and necessary, that wherever sin has been committed, death, with all that It Includes or implies, should be Inflicted, unless God were to repent, or to deny Him self, or to lie, — all which the Scripture assures us He cannot do, because of the perfection of His nature. And It is a remarkable coincidence, that the only cases in which Scripture says explicitly that God cannot do certain things, all bear upon and confirm the position, that He cannot pardon sin without an atonement ; Inas much as to say, that He could pardon sin without an atonement, would, in the circumstances, amount to a virtual declaration that He could lie, that He could repent, that He could deny Himself. Upon this ground, the possibility of men who had sinned escaping death, — that Is, everlasting misery, — would seem to be precluded. If such a being as God Is has threatened sin with the punishment of death, there must be a serious difficulty in the way of sinners escaping. His veracity seems to prevent this, and to present an insuperable obstacle. In pardoning sinners, or In exempting them from the death which they have Incurredj It would seem that He must trample upon His own law, and disregard His own threaten ing; and this the very perfection of His nature manifestly forbids, Socinians, Indeed, have been accustomed to allege, that though God Is obliged by His veracity to perform His promises, — because by promising He has conferred upon His creatures a right to the 256 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. fulfilment of the promise, — yet that His veracity does not oblige Him to fulfil His threatenings, because the party to whose case they apply has no right, and puts forth no claim, to their inflic tion. But this is a mere evasion of the difficulty. God is a law unto Himself. His own inherent perfection obliges Him always to do what is right and just, and that irrespective of any rights which His creatures may have acquired, or any claims which they may prefer. On this ground. His veracity seems equally to re quire that He should execute threatenings, as that He should fulfil promises. If He does not owe this to sinners. He owes it to Himself. When He threatened sin with the punishment of death. He was not merely giving an abstract declaration as to what sin merited, and might justly bring upon those who com mitted it ; He was declaring the way and manner In which He would, in fact, treat it when It occurred. The law denouncing death as the punishment of sin was thus a virtual prediction of what God would do in certain circumstances; and when these circumstances occurred. His veracity required that He should act as He had foretold. We can conceive of no way in which it Is possible that the honour and integrity of the divine law could be maintained, or the divine veracity be preserved pure and unstained, if sinners were not subjected to death, except by an adequate atonement or satisfaction being rendered in their room and stead. No depth of reflection, no extent of experience, could suggest anything but this, which could render the sinner's exemption from death possible. There Is much in the history of the world to suggest this, but nothing whatever to suggest anything else. We are not entitled, indeed, apart from the discoveries of revelation, to assert that even this would render the pardon of the sinner possible, consist ently with the full exercise of the divine veracity, and full main tenance of the honour of the divine law; and stUl less are we entitled to assert that, even if an adequate atonement or satisfac tion might render the escape of the sinner possible, it was further possible that such an atonement or satisfaction could in fact be rendered. We are not warranted to assert these things inde pendently of revelation ; but we have strong grounds for assert ing that. If God did threaten death as the punishment of sin, no thing could have prevented the infliction of the threatening, and rendered the escape of the sinner possible, except an adequate Sec. II.] NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 257 atonement or satisfaction, — that this at least was indispensable, if even this could have been of any avail. But those who hold the necessity of an atonement or satis faction In order to the pardon of the sin, and the escape of the sinner, usually rest it, not merely upon the law of God as revealed, and upon His veracity as concerned In the execution of the threatenings which He has publicly denounced, but also upon the inherent perfection of His nature. Independently of any declara tion He may have made, or any prediction He may have uttered, — and more especially upon His justice. The discussion of this point leads us into some more abstruse and difficult inquiries than the former ; and it must be confessed that here we have not such clear and certain materials for our conclusions, and that we should feel deeply the necessity of following closely the 'guidance and direction of Scripture. The representations given us in Scripture of the justice of God, are fltted to Impress upon us the conviction that it requires Him to give to every one his due, — what he has merited by his conduct, — and, of course, to give to the sinner the punishment which he has deserved. What God has threatened. His veracity requires Him to inflict, because He has threatened It. But the threatening itself must have originated in the inherent perfection of His own nature prompting Him to punish sin as it deserves ; and to threaten to punish, because it is already and ante cedently right to do so. God's law, or His revealed will, declaring what His creatures should do, and what He Himself will do. Is the transcript or expression of the inherent perfections of His own nature. The acts of the divine government, and the obligations of intelligent creatures, result from, and are determined by, the dirine law, as their immediate or approximate cause and standard ; but they all, as well as the dirine law itself, are traceable to the dirine nature, — to the essential perfections of God, — as their ulti mate source or foundation. When, then, God issued the law de nouncing death as the punishment of transgression, and thereby became pledged to inflict death on account of sin, because He had threatened to do so. He was merely Indicating or expressing a principle or purpose which was founded on, and resulted from, that Inherent perfection which, in a sense, makes it necessary for Him, — although, at the same time, He acts most freely, — to give to all their due, and of course to Inflict merited punishment upon sin. 3 — VOL. IT. K 258 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. This is the substance of what is taught by orthodox divines when they lay down the position that punitive justice — or, as they usually call It, justitia vindicatrix — is essential to God. It is a real perfec tion of His nature, of which He cannot denude Himself, and which must necessarily regulate or determine the free acts of His wIU. All this is In accordance with the statements of Scripture and the dictates of right reason ; and these various considerations combined, fully warrant the general conclusion, that, since death has been denounced as the punishment of sin, there must be forrpidable obstacles in the way of sinners being pardoned and escaping from death, — that. If God should pardon sinners, some provision would be necessary for vindicating His justice and veracity, and maintaining the honour of His law ; — and that the only conceivable way in which these objects could be secured, is by an adequate atonement or satisfaction rendered in the room and stead of those who had incurred the penalty of the law. Socinians have very inadequate and erroneous views of the guilt or demerit of sin, and are thus led to look upon the pardon or remission of It as a light or easy matter. But it is our duty to form our conceptions of this subject from what God has made known to us, and especially from what He has revealed to us as to the way and manner in which He must and will treat It, or deal with it. And all that God's word tells us upon this point, viewed by Itself, and apart from the revelation made of an actual provi sion for pardoning sin and saving sinners. Is fitted to Impress upon us the conviction that sin fully merits, and will certainly receive, everlasting destruction from God's presence and from the glory of His power. Another topic intimately connected with this one of the neces sity of an atonement or satisfaction, — or rather, forming a p^t of it, — has been largely discussed in the course of this controversy, — that, namely, of the character or aspect in which God is to be regarded in dealing with sinners, with the view either of punishing them for their sins, or saving them from the punishment they have merited. Socinians, In order to show that there Is no difficulty m the way of God's pardoning sin, and no necessity for an atonement or satisfaction for sin, usually represent God as acting, in this matter, either as a creditor to whom men have become debtors by sinning, or as a party who has been injured and offended by their transgressions ; and then infer that, as a creditor may remit a Sec II.] NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 259 debt If he chooses, without exacting payment, and as an Injured party may forgive an injury If he chooses, without requiring any satisfaction, so. In like manner, there Is no reason why God may not forgive men's sins by a mere act of His good pleasure, with out any payment or compensation, either personal or vicarious. There certainly is a foundation in scriptural statements for repre senting sins as debts Incurred to God and to His law, and also as injuries inflicted upon Him. These representations, though figura tive, are, of course, intended to convey to us some Ideas concerning the true state of the case ; and they suggest considerations which, in some other departments of the controversy In regard to the great doctrine of the atonement, afford strong arguments against the Socinian views. But the application they make of them to disprove the necessity of an atonement, is utterly unwarranted. It Is manifestly absurd to press far the resemblance or analogy between sins on the one hand, and debts or Injuries on the other ; or to draw inferences merely from this resemblance. These are not the only or the principal aspects In which sins are represented in Scripture. The primary or fundamental idea of sin Is, that It is a trans gresslon of God's law, — a violation of a rule which He has com manded us to observe ; and this, therefore, should be the leading aspect in which it should be contemplated, when we are con sidering how God will deal with it. We exclude none of the scriptural representations of sin, and none of the scriptural repre sentations of God in His dealing with it ; but, while we take them aU in, we must give prominence in our conceptions to the most important and fundamental. And as the essential idea of sin is not, that It is merely a debt or an Injury, but that It is a violation of God's law, the leading character or aspect in which God ought to be contemplated when we regard Him as dealing with It, is not that of a creditor, or an injured party, who may remit the debt, or forgive the injury, as he chooses, but that of a lawgiver and a judge who has promulgated a just and righteous law, pro hibiting sin under pain of death, and who is bound, by a regard to His own perfections, and the interests of holiness throughoiit the universe, to take care that His own character be fully vindi cated, that the honour of His law be maintained, and that His moral government be firmly estabUshed; and who, therefore, cannot pardon sin, unless, in some way or other, full and adequate 260 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. provision be made for securing all these objects. The pardon of sin, the forgiveness of men who have broken the law and incurred its penalty, who have done that against which God has denounced death, seems to have a strong and manifest tendency to frustrate or counteract all these objects, to stain the glory of the divine perfections, to bring dishonour upon the divine law, to shake the stability of God's moral government, and to endanger the interests of righteousness and holiness throughout the universe. And when, therefore, we contemplate God not merely as a creditor or as an injured party, but as the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge, dealing with the deliberate violation, by His intelligent and responsible creatures, of a just, and holy, and good law which He had pre scribed to them, and which He had sanctioned with the threatened penalty of death, we cannot conceive it to be possible that He should pardon them without an adequate atonement or satisfac tion ; and we are constrained to conclude, that, if forgiveness be possible at all, it can be only on the footing of the threatened penalty being endured by another party acting in their room and stead, and of this vicarious atonement being accepted by God as satisfying His justice, and answering the claims of His law.* Whatever evidence there is for the necessity of an atonement or satisfaction, in order to the pardon of sin, of course confirms the proof of Its truth or reaUty. It is admitted on all hands, that God does pardon sinners, — that He exempts them from punish ment, receives them Into His favour, and admits them to the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, notwithstanding that they have sinned and broken His law. If all that we know concerning God, His government, and law, would lead us to conclude that He could not do this without an adequate atonement or satisfac tion, then we may confidently expect to find that such an atone ment has been made, — that such a satisfaction has been rendered. And, on the other hand, if we have sufficient evidence of the truth and reality of an atonement as a matter of fact, — and find, moreover, that this atonement consisted of a provision so very pecuUar and extraordinary as the sufferings and death, in human nature, of One who was God over aU, blessed for evermore, — we are fully warranted in arguing back from such a fact to its indispens- * On the necessity of the Atone- I Grotius, De Satisfactione, c. xxviii. ment, see G. J. Vossius' Defence of xxix., xxx. ' Sec III.] NECESSITY AND NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT. 261 able and absolute necessity, in order to the production of the in tended result ; and then, from an examination of the grounds and reasons of this established necessity, we may learn much as to the true nature of this wonderful provision, and the way and manner in which it Is fitted, and was designed, to accomplish its intended object. Sec. III. — The Necessity and Nature of the Atonement. The subject of the necessity of an atonement, in order to the pardon of sin, needs to be stated and discussed with considerable care and caution, as it is one on which there is danger of men being tempted to indulge in presumptuous speculations, and of their landing, when they follow out their speculations, in conclu sions of too absolute and unqualified a kind. Some of Its advo cates have adopted a line of argument of which the natural result would seem to be, absolutely and universally, that sin cannot be forgiven, and, of course, that sinners cannot be saved. A mode of representation and argument about the divine justice, the prin ciples of the divine moral government, and the divine law and veracity, which fairly leads to this conclusion, must, of course, be erroneous, since It is admitted on all hands, as a matter of fact, that sin is forgiven, that sinners are pardoned and saved. This, therefore, is an extreme to be avoided, — this is a danger to be guarded against. The considerations on which the advocates of the necessity of an atonement usually found, derived from the scriptural representations of the divine justice, law, and veracity, manifestly, and beyond all question, warrant this position, that there are very serious and formidable obstacles to the pardon of men who have broken the law, and Incurred its penalty ; and thus, likevrise, point out what is the nature and ground of these obstacles. The difficulty lies here, that God's justice and veracity seem to impose upon Him an obhgation to punish sin, and to execute His threatenings ; and If this position can really be established, — and it Is the foundation of the alleged necessity of an atonement or satisfaction, — the practical result would seem to be, that the law must take its course, and that the penalty must be Inflicted. The argument would thus seem to prove too much, and, of course, prove nothing ; a consideration well fitted to impress upon us the necessity of care and caution In stating and arguing the question. 262 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. though certainly not sufficient to warrant the conclusion which some* have deduced from it,— namely, that the whole argument commonly brought forward in support of the necessity of an atone ment Is unsatisfactory. I have no doubt that there is truth and soundness in the argu ment, when rightly stated and applied. The law which God has promulgated, threatening death as the punishment of sin, mani festly throws a very serious obstacle in the way of sin being pardoned, both because it seems to Indicate that God's perfections require that it be punished, and because the non-infliction of the penalty threatened seems plainly fltted to lead men to regard the law and its threatenings with indifference and contempt,— or at least to foster the conviction, that some imperfection attached to it as originally promulgated, since it had been found necessary, in the long run, to change or abrogate it, or at least to abstain from following It out, and thereby virtually to set It aside. Had God made no further revelation to men than that of the original moral law, demanding perfect obedience, with the threatened penalty of death In the event of transgression ; and were the only conjecture they could form about their future destiny derived from the knowledge that they had been placed under this law, and had exposed themselves to its penalty by sinning, the conclusion which alone it would be reasonable for them to adopt, would be, that they must and would suffer the full penalty they had incurred by transgression. This Is an Important position, and runs directly counter to the whole substance and spirit of the Socinian riews upon this subject. If, In these circumstances, — and with this position Impressed upon their minds, as the only practical result of all that they then knew upon the subject, — they were further Informed, upon unquestionable authority, that many sinners, — many men who had incurred the penalty of the law, — would, in point of fact, be pardoned and saved ; then the conclusion which, in right reason, must be deducible from this information would be, not that the law had been abrogated or thrown aside, as imper fect or defective, but that some very pecuUar and extraordinary provision had been found out and carried into effect, by which the law might be satisfied and Its honour maintained, while yet those who had incurred its penalty were forgiven. And if, assuming * Vide Gilbert on the Christian Atonement, Lecture v. Sec. III.] NECESSITY AND NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 263 this to be true or probable, the question were asked. What this pro vision could be ? it would either appear to be an Insoluble problem ; or tile only thing that could commend itself to men's reason, although reason might not Itself suggest it, would be something of the nature of an atonement or satisfaction, by the substitution of another party in the room of those who had transgressed. The prmciples of human jurisprudence, and various incidents In the history of the world, might justify this as not unreasonable in itself, and fitted to serve some such purposes as the exigencies of the case seemed to require. In this way, a certain train of thought. If once suggested, might be followed out, and shown to be reasonable, — to be In vested, at least, with a high degree of probability ; and this is just, in substance, what is commonly advocated by theologians under the head of the necessity of an atonement. There is, first, the necessity of maintaining the honour of the law, by the execution of Its threatenings against transgressors ; then there Is the necessity of some provision for maintaining the honour of the law, if these threatenings are not. In fact, to be executed upon those who have incurred them ; and then, lastly, there is the investigation of the question, — of what nature should this provision be ; and what are the principles by which It must be regulated ? And it Is here that the investigation of the subject of the necessity of an atonement comes In, to throw some light upon its true nature and bearings. The examination of the topics usually discussed under the head of the necessity of an atonement, viewed in connection with the undoubted truth, that many sinners are. In point of fact, pardoned and saved, leads us to expect to find some extraordinary provision made for effecting this result, and thereby gives a certain measure of antecedent probability to the allegation that such a provision has been made, and thus tends to confirm somewhat the actual evidence we may have of its truth and reality ; while the same considerations which lead us to the conclusion that some such pro vision was necessary, guide us also to some Inferences as to what it must consist in, and what immediate purposes It must be fitted to serve. The general substance of what is thus indicated as ne cessary, or as to be expected, in the nature and bearings of the provision, is this, — it must consist with, and must fully manifest all the perfections of God, and especially His justice and His hatred of sin ; and it must be fitted to impress right conceptions 264 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. of the perfection and unchangeableness of the divine law, and of the danger of transgressing it. God, of course, cannot do, or even permit, anything which is fitted, in its own nature, or has an in herent tendency, to convey erroneous conceptions of His character or law, of His moral government, or of the principles which regu late His deahngs with His intelligent creatures ; and assuredly no sinner will ever be saved, except in a way, and through a provi sion, in which God's justice. His hatred of sin, and His determi nation to maintain the honour of His law, are as fully exercised and manifested, as they would have been by the actual Inffiction of the full penalty which He had threatened. These perfections and quahtles of God must be exercised as well as manifested, and they must be manifested as well as exercised. God must always act or regulate His volitions and procedure in accordance with the perfections and attributes of His nature, independently of any regard to His creatures, or to the impressions which they may, in point of fact, entertain with respect to Him ; while It Is also true that He must ever act in a way which accurately manifests His perfections, or is fitted. In its own nature, to convey to His crea tures correct conceptions of what He is, and of what are the prin ciples which regulate His dealings with them. In accordance with these principles. He must. In any provision for pardoning and saving sinners, both exercise and manifest His justice and His hatred of sin, — -that is. He must act in the way which these qualities naturally and necessarily lead Him to adopt ; and He must follow a course which is fitted to manifest Him to His creatures as really doing all this. The practical result of these considerations Is this, that if a provision is to be made for removing the obstacles to the pardon of sinners, — for accomplishing the objects just described, while yet sinners are saved, — there Is no way in which we can conceive this to be done, except by some other suitable party taking their place, and suffering In their room and stead, the penalty they had merited. Could any such party be found, were he able and will ing to do this, and were he actually to do it, then we can conceive that In this way God's justice might be satisfied, and the honour of His law maintained, because in this way the same views of the dirine character, law, and government, and of the danger and demerit of sin, would be presented, as if sinners themselves had suffered the penalty in their own persons. All this, of course. Sec III.] NECESSITY AND NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 265 Implies, that the party interposing in behalf of sinners should occupy their place, and act in their room and stead, and that he should bear the penalty which they had Incurred ; because in this way, but in no other, so far as we can form any conception upon the subject, could the obstacles be removed, and the necessary objects be effected. And thus the general considerations on which the necessity of an atonement is maintained, are fitted to impress upon us the conviction, that there must be a true and real substi tution of the party interposing to save sinners, in the room and stead of those whom he purposes to save, and the actual endur ance by him of the penalty which they had incurred, and which they must, but for this interposition, have suffered. A party qualified to interpose in behalf of sinners, in order to obtain or effect their forgiveness, by suffering in their room and stead the penalty they had deserved, must possess very peculiar qualifications indeedj The sinners to be saved were an innume rable company ; the penalty which each of them had incurred was fearful and infinite, even everlasting misery ; and men, of course, without revelation, are utterly Incompetent to form a conception of any being who might be qualified for this. . But the word of God brings before us One so peculiarly constituted and qualified, as at once to suggest the Idea, that He might be able to accom plish this, — One who was God and man In one person ; One who, being from eternity God, did In time assume human nature into personal union with the divine, — who assumed human nature for the purpose of saving sinners, — who was thus qualified to act as the substitute of sinners, and to endure suffering in their room ; while at the same time He was qualified, by His possession of the divine nature, to give to all that He did and suffered a value and efficacy truly infinite, and fully adequate to impart to all He did a power or virtue fitted to accomplish anything, or everything, which He might Intend to effect. We formerly had occasion to show, that in regard to a subject so peculiar and extraordinary as the incarnation, sufferings, and death of the Son of God, — of One who was a possessor of the divine nature, — we are warranted in saying that, if these things really took place, they were, strictly speaking, necessary; that is. In other words, that they could not have taken place. If the object to which they were directed could possibly have been effected in any other way, or by any other means. And the 266 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. mere contemplation of the fact of the sufferings and death of such a Being, independent of the full and specific information given us in Scripture as to the causes, objects, and consequences of His death, goes far to establish the truth and reality of His vicarious atoning sacrifice. When we view Him merely as a man, — but as a man, of course, perfectly free from sin, immacu lately pure and holy, — we find it to be impossible to account for His sufferings upon the Socinian theory, or upon any theory but that of His suffering in the room and stead of others, and endur ing the penalty which they had merited. It is not disputed that sin Is, in the case of intelligent and rational beings, the cause of suffering ; and we cannot conceive that, under the government of a God of Infinite power, and wisdom, and justice, and goodness, any such Being should be subjected to suffering except for sin. The suffering, — the severe and protracted suffering, — and, finally, the cruel and ignominious death of Christ, viewing Him merely as a perfectly holy and just man, are facts, the reality of which is universally admitted, and of which, therefore, all equally are called upon to give some explana tion. The Socinians have no explanation to give of them. It is repugnant to all right conceptions of the principles of God's moral government, that He should inflict upon an intelligent and responsible being suffering which is not warranted or sanctioned by sin as the cause or ground of it, as that which truly justifies and explains it, — that He should inflict suffering upon a holy and innocent Being, merely in order that others may be, in some way or other, benefited by His sufferings. It is, indeed, very common, in the administration of God's moral government, that the sin of one being should be the means or occasion of bringing suffering upon others ; but then It holds true, either that these others are also themselves sinners, or that they are legally liable to all the suffering that has ever been inflicted upon them, or permitted to befall them. The peculiarity in Christ's case is, that while perfectly free from sin, original as weU as actual. He was yet subjected to severe suffering and to a cruel death ; and this not merely by the permission, but by the special agency and appointment of God. And this was done, according to the Socinian hj'pothesis, merely In order that others might, in some way or other, derive benefit from the suffering and death inflicted upon Him. There Is here no explanation of the admitted Sec. III.] NECESSITY AND NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 267 facts of the case, that is at all consistent with the principles of God's moral government. The doctrine of a vicarious atonement alone affords anything like an explanation of these facts ; because, by means of It, we can account for them in consistency with the principle, that sin, — that Is, either personal or Imputed, — Is the cause, the warrant, and the explanation of suffering. The Scrip ture assures us that Christ suffered for sin, — that He died for sin. And even viewing this statement apart from the fuller and more specific Information given us in other parts of Scripture, with respect to the connection between the sin of men and the suffer ings of the Saviour, and regarding it only in its relation to the general principles of God's moral government, we are warranted in concluding that sin was the Impulsive and meritorious cause of His suffering ; and from this we are entitled to draw the inference, that, as He had no sin of His own. He must in some way have become involved In, and responsible for, the sin of others, and that this was the cause or reason why He was subjected to death. On all these various grounds we have a great deal of general argument upon the subject of the atonement, independent of a minute and exact examination of particular scriptural statements, which tends to confirm Its truth, and to illustrate Its general nature and bearing. We have seen that some of the attributes of God, and some things we know as to His moral government and law, plainly suggest to us the convictions, that there are serious obstacles to the forgiveness of sin, — that if sin Is to be forgiven, some extra ordinary provision must be made for the exercise and manifesta tion of the divine justice and holiness, so that He shall still be, and appear to be, just and holy, even while pardoning sin and admitting sinners into the enjoyment of His favour ; for making His creatures see and feel, that, though they are delivered from the curse of the law which they had broken, that law is, notwith standing, of absolute perfection, of unchangeable obligation, and entitled to all honour and respect. The only thing that has ever been conceived or suggested at all fitted to accomplish this. Is, that atonement or satisfaction should be made by the endurance of the penalty of the law in the room and stead of those who should be pardoned. This seems adapted to effect the object, and thereby to remove the obstacles, while in no other way can we conceive it possible that this end can be attained. 268 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. And whUe the holiness, justice, and veracity of God seem to require this, there is nothing in His benevolence or placability that precludes It. The benevolence or placabUity of God could produce merely a readiness to forgive and to save sinners, pro vided this could be effected in full consistency with all the other attributes of His nature, all the principles of His moral govern ment, and all the objects He was bound to aim at, as the Law giver and Governor of the universe ; and these, as we have seen, throw obstacles in the way of the result being effected. The actings of God, — His actual dealings with His creatures, — must be the result of the combined exercise of all His perfections ; and He cannot, in any instance, act Inconsistently with any one of them. His benevolence cannot be a mere Indiscriminate deter mination to confer happiness, and His placability cannot be a mere indiscriminate determination to forgive those who have transgressed against Him. The Scriptures reveal to us a fact of the deepest Interest, and one that ought never to be forgotten or lost sight of when we are contemplating the principles that regulate God's deaUngs with His creatures — namely, that some of the angels kept not their first estate, but fell by transgression ; and that no prorislon has been made for pardoning and saving them, — no atonement or satisfaction provided for their sin, — ^no opportunity of escape or recovery afforded them. They sinned, or broke God's law ; and their doom, in consequence, was unchangeably and eternally fixed. This is a fact, — this was the way In which God dealt with a por tion of His Intelligent creatures. Of course. He acted in this case In full accordance with the perfections of His nature and the principles of His government. We are bound to employ this fact, which God has revealed to us, as one of the materials which He has given us for enabling us to know Him. We are bound to believe, in regard to Him, whatever this fact implies or estab lishes, and to refuse to believe whatever It contradicts or pre cludes. And It manifestly requires us to believe this at least, that there is nothing in the essential perfections of God which affords any sufficient ground for the conclusion that he wiU cer tainly pardon transgressors of His laws, or make any provision for saving them from the just and legitimate consequences of their sins. This is abundantly manifest. And this considera tion affords good ground to suspect that It was the flat contra- Sec III.] NECESSITY AND NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 269 diction which the scriptural history of the fall and fate of angels presents to the views of the Socinians, with regard to the prin ciples of God's moral government, that has generally led them, like the Sadducees of old, to maintain that there is neither angel nor spirit, though there is evidently not the slightest appearance of unreasonableness in the general doctrine of the existence of superior spiritual beings, employed by God In accomplishing His purposes. As, then, there Is nothing in God's benevolence or placability which affords any certain ground for the conclusion that He must and will pardon sinners, so there can be nothing in these qualities Inconsistent with His requiring atonement or satisfaction in order to their forgiveness, while other attributes of His nature seem plainly to demand this. God's benevolence and placability are fully manifested In a readiness to bless and to forgive, in so far as this can be done. In consistency with the other attributes of His nature, and the whole principles of His moral government. And while there is nothing In His benevolence or placability inconsistent with His requiring an atonement or satisfaction in order to for giveness, It is further erident, that if He Himself should provide this atonement or satisfaction to His own justice and law, and be the real author and deviser of all the plans and arrangements con nected with the attainment of the blessed result of forgiveness and salvation to sinners, a scheme would be presented to us which would most fully and strikingly manifest the combined glory of all the dirine perfections, — in which He would show Himself to be the just God, and the justifler of the ungodly, — in which righteousness and peace should meet together, mercy and truth should embrace each other. And this Is the scheme which is plainly and fully revealed to us in the word of God. Provision is made for pardoning men's sins and saving their souls, through the vicarious sufferings and death of One who was God and man in one person, and who voluntarily agreed to take their place, and to suffer in their room and stead ; thus satisfying divine justice, complying with the demands of the law by enduring Its penalty, and manifesting most fully the sinfulness and the danger of sin. But this was done by God Himself, who desired the salvation of sinners, and determined to effect it; and who, In consequence, sent His Son into the world to die In man's room and stead, — who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. So 270 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. that here we have a scheme for pardoning and saving sinners which, from its very nature, must be effectual, and which not only is in full accordance with the perfections of God, but most glori ously illustrates them all. The apostle says expressly, " that God set forth His Son to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness," or with a view to the demonstration of His righteousness ;* and it is true that the shedding of Christ's blood as a propitiation, viewed with reference to its necessity and proper nature, does declare God's righteousness, or justice and holiness ; while, viewed in Its originating motives and glorious results, it most fully declares God's marvellous love to the children of men, and His determination to save sinners with an everlasting salvation. Sec. IV. — Objections to the Doctrine of Atonement. The proper order to be followed in the Investigation of this subject, or indeed of any great scriptural doctrine, is the same as that which I stated and explained in considering the doctrine of the Trinity, — namely, that we should first ascertain, by a full and minute examination of all the scriptural statements bearing upon the subject, what the Bible teaches regarding It ; and then consider the general objections that may be adduced against it, taking care to keep them in their proper place, as objections, and to be satisfied with showing that they cannot be proved to have any weight ; and If they should appear to be really relevant and well-founded, and not mere sophisms or difficulties, applying them, as sound reason dictates, not in the way of reversing the judgment already formed upon the appropriate evidence as to what it is that the Bible really teaches, but in the way of rejecting a professed revelation that teaches doctrines which can, ex hypothesi, he conclusively dis proved. But as the objections made by Socinians to the doctrine of the atonement are chiefly connected with some of those general and abstract topics to which we have already had occasion to advert, it may be most useful and convenient to notice them now, especially as the consideration of them is fitted, like that of the necessity of an atonement, already considered, to throw some hght upon the general nature and import of the doctrine itself. Rom. iii. 26, 26, tt; or Tpo; luhi^i)/ rrig hxaioaim; xiroii. Sec IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT. 271 Many of the objections commonly adduced against the doc trine of atonement are mere cavils, — mere exhibitions of unwar ranted presumption, — and are sufficiently disposed of by the gene ral considerations of the exalted and incomprehensible nature of the subject itself, and of the great mystery of godliness, God made manifest in the flesh, on which It is based. These it is unneces sary to dwell upon, after the exposition of the general principles applicable to the Investigation of these subjects which we have already given. Some are founded upon misrepresentations of the real bearing, objects, and effects of the atonement, especially In its relation to the character and moral government of God. Nothing, for instance, is more common than for Socinians to represent the generally received doctrine of atonement as Imply ing that God the Father is an inexorable tyrant, who insisted upon the rigorous execution of the threatenings of the law until Christ interposed, and by His offering up of Himself satisfied God's demands, and thereby Introduced Into the divine mind a totally different state of feeling in regard to sinners, — the result of which was, that He pardoned In place of punishing them. This, of course, is not the doctrine of the atonement, but a mere caricature of It. Scripture plainly teaches, — and the advocates of an atonement maintain, not only as being perfectly consistent with their doctrine, but as a constituent part of It, — that love to men, and a desire to save them from ruin, existed eternally in the divine mind, — resulting from the inherent perfections of God's nature, — that this love and compassion led Him to devise and execute a plan of salvation, and to send His Son to save sinners by offering an atonement for their sins. The atonement, then, was the consequence, and not the cause, of God's love to men, and of His desire to save them. It introduced no feeling into the divine mind which did not exist there before ; though It cer tainly removed obstacles which other principles of His nature and government Interposed to the full outflowing of the love and compassion which existed, and opened up a channel by which God, In full accordance with, and in glorious illustration of, all His perfections, might bestow upon men pardon and all other spiritual blessings, and finally eternal life. This is all that can be meant by the scriptural statements about the turning away of God's anger and His reconciliation to men, when these are ascribed to the interposition and atonement of Christ. This is all 272 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. that the defenders of an atonement understand by these state ments. There is nothing In their riews upon this, or upon any other subject, that requires them to understand these statements in any other sense ; and thus understood, they are fully accordant both with the generally received doctrine of the atonement, and with everything else that Scripture teaches concerning God, and concerning the principles that regulate His dealings with men. This objection, then, though it has been repeated constantly from the time of Socinus till the present day. Is founded wholly upon a misrepresentation of the doctrine objected to, — a misrepresentation for which there is no warrant or excuse whatever, except, perhaps, the declamations of some ignorant and injudicious preachers of the doctrine, who have striven to represent It in the way they thought best fitted to impress the popular mind. The only objections of a general kind to the doctrine of an atonement that are entitled to any notice are these : First, that it Involves Injustice, by representing the Innocent as punished in the room of the guilty, and the guilty thereby escaping; secondly, that it Is Inconsistent with the free grace, or gratuitous favour, which the Scriptures ascribe to God in the remission of men's sins ; and, thirdly, that it Is fltted to injure the interests of holiness, or morality. We shall very briefly advert to these In succession, but without attempting anything like a full discussion of them. First, It is alleged to be unjust to punish the innocent in the room of the guilty, and on this ground to allow the transgressors to escape. Now, the defenders of the doctrine of atonement admit that it does assume or imply the state of matters which is here described, and represented as unjust, — namely, the punish ment of the innocent in the room of the guilty. Some of them, indeed, scruple about the application of the terms punishment and penal to the sufferings and death of Christ. But this scrupulosity appears to me to be frivolous and vexatious, resting upon no sufficient ground, and serving no good purpose. If men. Indeed, begin with defining punishment to mean the infliction of suffering upon an offender on account of his offence, — thus including the actual personal demerit of the sufferer in the idea which the word conveys, — they settle the question of the penality, or penal charac ter, of Christ's suffering by the mere definition. In this sense, of course, Christ's sufferings were not penal. But the definition Is purely arbitrary, and is not required by general usage, which Sec IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT. 273 warrants us in regarding and describing as penal any suffering inflicted judicially, or In the execution of the provisions of law, on account of sin. And this arbitrary restriction of the meaning of the terms punishment and penal is of no use, although some of those who have recourse to It seem to think so. In warding off Socinian objections ; — because, in the first place, there is really nothing In the doctrine of the atonement worth contending for, if It be not true that Christ endured. In the room and stead of sinners, the suffering which the law demanded of theni on account of their sins, and which, but for His enduring it, as their substitute, they must themselves have endured, — and because. In the second place, the allegation of injustice applies, with all the force It has, to the position just stated, whether Christ's sufferings be called penal or not. With regard to the objection Itself, the following are the chief considerations to be attended to, by the exposition and application of which it Is fully disposed of : First, that, as we have already had occasion to state and explain In a different connection, the sufferings and death of an Innocent person in this matter are realities which all admit, and which all equally are bound to ex plain. Christ's sufferings were as great upon the Socinian, as upon the orthodox, theory with regard to their cause and object ; while our doctrine of His being subjected to suffering because of the sin of others being imputed to Him, or laid upon Him, brings the facts of the case into accordance vrith some generally recognised principles of God's moral government, which, upon the Socinian scheme, is impossible. The injustice, of course, is not alleged to be In the fact that Christ, an innocent person, was subjected to so much suffering, — for there remains the same fact upon any hypo thesis, — ^but In His suffering In the room and stead of sinners, with the view, and to the effect, of their escaping punishment. Now, we observe, secondly, that this additional circumstance of His suffering being vicarious and expiatory, — which may be said to constitute our theory as to the grounds, causes, or objects of His suffering, — In place of Introducing an additional difficulty into the matter. Is the only thing which contributes In any measure to explain it. And it does contribute In some measure to explain It, because It can be shown to accord with the ordinary principles of enlightened reason to maintain, — first, that It is not of the essence of the idea of punishment, that it must necessarily, and in every 3 — VOL. II. s 274 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. instance, be Inflicted upon the very person who has committed the sin that caUs for it; or, as It is expressed by Grotius, who has ap pUed the recognised principles of jurisprudence and law to this subject with great ability : " Notandum est, esse quidem essentiale pcense, ut infligatur ob peccatum, sed non item essentiale ei esse ut Infligatur ipsi qui peccavit :"* — and, secondly, that substitution and satisfaction, in the matter of Inflicting punishment, are to some extent recognised in the principles of human jurisprudence, and in the arrangements of human governments ; while there is much also, in the analogies of God's providential government of the world, to sanction them, or to afford answers to the allegations of their injustice. Thirdly, the transference of penal suffering, or suffering ju dicially Inflicted in accordance with the prorisions of law, from one party to another, cannot be proved to be universally and in all cases unjust. No doubt, an act of so peculiar a kind, — involv ing, as it certainly does, a plain deviation from the ordinary regular course of procedure, — requires. In each case, a distinct and specific ground or cause to warrant it. But there are, at least, two cases in which this transference of penal suffering on account of sin from one party to another is generally recognised as just, and in which, at least, it can be easily proved, that aU ground is re moved for charging it with Injustice. These are, — first, when the party who is appointed to suffer on account of the sin of another, has himself become legally liable to a charge of guilt, adequate to account for all the suffering Inflicted ; and, secondly, when he voluntarily consents to occupy the place of the offender, and to bear, in his room, the punishment which he had merited. In these cases, there is manifestly no injustice in the transference of penal suffering, so far as the parties more Immediately affected are concerned ; and If the general and public ends of punishment are at the same time fully provided for by the transference, or not withstanding the transference, then there Is, in these cases, no in justice of any kind committed. The second of these cases is that which applies to the suffer ings and death of Christ. He wiUingly agreed to stand in the room and stead of sinners, and to bear the punishment which they ? De Satisfact., c. iv., p. 85. See also Turrettin. De Satisfact., Pars ii., sec. xxxvi. Sec IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 275 had merited. And if there be no Injustice generaUy in Christ — though perfectly innocent — suffering so much as He endured, and no injustice In this suffering being penally inflicted upon Him on account of the sins of others, — His own free consent to occupy their place and to bear the punishment due to their sins being interposed, — there can be no Injustice In the only other additional Idea Involved in our doctrine, — namely, that this suffering. In flicted upon Him, is appointed and proclaimed as the ground or means of exempting the offenders from the punishment they had deserved ; or, as it is put by Grotius, " Cum per hos modes " (the cases previously mentioned, the consent of the substitute being one of them), " actus factus est licltus, quo minus delude ordinetur ad pcenam peccati alleni, nihil Intercedit, modo Inter eum qui peccavit et puniendum aliqua sit conjunctio," * The only parties who would be Injured or treated unjustly by this last feature in the case, are the lawgiver and the community (to apply the principle to the case of human jurisprudence) ; and if the honour and authority of the law, and the general interests of the community, are fully provided for by means of, or notwithstand ing, the transference of the penal Infliction, — as we undertake to prove Is the case with respect to the vicarious and expiatory suffer ing of Christ, — then the whole ground for the charge of injustice is taken away. The second objection is, that the doctrine of atonement or satisfaction Is Inconsistent with the scriptural representations of the gratuitousness of forgiveness, — of the freeness of the grace of God In pardoning sinners. It is said that God exercises no grace or free favour In pardoning sin, if He has received full satisfaction for the offences of those whom He pardons. This objection is not conflned to Socinians. They adduce it against the doctrine of atonement or satisfaction altogether ; while Arminians,-f- and others who hold the doctrine of universal or Indefinite atonement, adduce It against those higher, stricter, and more accurate views of substitution and satisfaction with which the doctrine of a defi nite or limited atonement stands necessarily connected. When they are called to deal with this Socinian objection, they usually admit that the objection is unanswerable, as adduced against * Grotius, de Satisfactione, p. 86. I fT^i'^'eLimborch, Theol. Christ., Lib. iii., c. xxi. 276 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. the stricter views of substitution and satisfaction held by most Calvinists ; while they contend that It Is of no force In opposition to their modified and more rational views upon this subject, — an admission by which, as it seems to me, they -rirtually, in effect though not in intention, betray the whole cause of the atonement into the hands of the Socinians. As this objection has been stated and answered in our Confession of Faith, we shall follow its guidance in making a few observations upon it. It is there said,* " Christ, by His obedience and death, did fuUy discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father's justice In their behalf," Here the doctrine of substitution and satisfac tion is fully and explicitly declared In its highest and strictest sense. But the authors of the Confession were not afraid of being able to defend. In perfect consistency with this, the free grace, the gratuitous mercy of God, in justifying, — that is, in pardoning and accepting sinners. And, accordingly, they go on to say, " Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them, and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything In them, their justification is only of free grace ; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners." Now, the grounds here laid for maintaining the free grace of God in the forgiveness of sinners, notwithstanding that a full atonement or satisfaction was made for their transgressions, are two : first, that Christ, the atoner or satisfier, was given by the Father for them, — that is, that the Father Himself devised and prorided the atonement or satis faction, — provided It, so to speak, at His own cost, — ^by not spar ing His ovra Son, but delivering Him up for us aU. If this be true, — if men had no right whatever to such a provision, — if they had done, and could do, nothing whatever to merit or procure it, — then this consideration must necessarily render the whole of the subsequent process based upon It, in its bearing upon men, purely gratuitous, — altogether of free grace, — unless, indeed, at some sub sequent stage, men should be able to do something meritorious and efficacious for themselves in the matter. But then, secondly, God not only freely prorided the satisfaction,— He likewise, when it was rendered by Christ, accepted it in the room of all those who * C. xi., s. 3. Sec. IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OP ATONEMENT. 277 are pardoned, and this, too, freely, or without anything In them, — that is, without their having done, or being able to do, anything to merit or procure it, or anything which it Involves. Pardon, therefore, and acceptance are freely or gratuitously given to men, though they were purchased by Christ, who paid the price of His precious blood. The scriptural statements about the free grace of God in pardoning and accepting men, on which the objection is founded, assert or imply only the gratuitousness of the blessings in so far as the individuals who ultimately receive them are concerned, and contain nothing whatever that, either directly or by implica tion, denies that they were purchased by Christ, by the full satis faction which He rendered in the room and stead of those who finally partake of them ; while the gratuitousness of God's grace in the matter, viewed as an attribute or quality of His, is fully secured and manifested by His providing and accepting the satisfaction. These considerations are amply sufficient to answer the So cinian objection about free grace and gratuitous remission, even on the concession of the strictest riews of the substitution and satisfaction of Christ ; and without dwelling longer on this sub ject, I would merely remark in general, that it holds true equally of the grounds of this Socinian objection, and of the conces sion made to it by Arminians and other defenders of universal atonement, — ^the concession, namely, that it is unanswerable upon the footing of the stricter views of substitution and satisfaction ; and indeed, I may say, it holds true generally of the grounds of the opposition made to the doctrine of definite or limited atone ment, — that they are chiefly based upon the unwarrantable prac tice of taking up the different parts or branches of the scheme of redemption, as unfolded in Scripture, separately, and viewing them in isolation from each other. In place of considering them together, as parts of one great whole, and in their relation to each other and to the entire scheme. The third and last objection to which we proposed to advert is, that the doctrine of the atonement is fitted to injure the interests of holiness or morality. The general ground on which this aUe gation Is commonly made is, — that the introduction of an atone ment or satisfaction by another party is held to release men from the obUgations of the moral law ; and that the general tendency of the doctrine is to lead men to be careless and Indifferent about the regulation of their conduct and their growth in hoUness. This 278 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. is just the common objection usually made to the whole scheme of the doctrines of grace ; and in this, as well as in other applications of it, it can be easily shown that the objection proceeds upon an erro neous and defective view of the state of the case, and upon a low and grovelling sense of the motives by which men are, or should be, animated. The whole extent to which the atonement or satis faction of Christ affects men's relation to the law is this, that men are exempted from paying, in their own persons, the penalty they had incurred, and are saved from Its infliction by Its being borne by another in their room and stead. Now, there Is certainly no thing in this which has any appearance of relaxing the obligation of the law as a rule or standard which they are bound to follow. There is nothing in this which has any tendency to convey the impression that God is unconcerned about the honour of His law, or that we may trifle with its requirements with Impunity. The whole object and tendency of the doctrine of atonement is to con vey the very opposite views and impressions vrith regard to the law, — the obligation which It imposes, and the respect and reverence which are due to it. In order to form a right conception of the moral tendency of a doctrine, we must conceive of the case of a man who under stands and beUeves it, — who is practically applying it according to its true nature and tendency, and living under Its influence, — and then consider how it is fitted to operate upon his character, motives, and actions. And to suppose that the doctrine of the atonement, understood, believed, and applied, can lead men to be careless about regulating their conduct according to God's law, is to regard them as incapable of being Influenced by any other motive than a concern about their own safety, — to Imagine that, having attained to a position of safety, they must thenceforth be utterly uninfluenced by anything they have ever learned or heard about God, and sin, and His law, and eternity, and totally un moved by any benefits that have been conferred upon them. When men adduce this objection against the doctrine of the atonement, they unconsciously make a manifestation of their own character and motives. In bringing forward the objection, they are virtually saying, " If we believed the doctrine of the atone ment, we would certainly lead very careless and immoral lives." And here I have no doubt they are speaking the truth, according to their present views and motives. But this of course implies a Sec IV.] OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 279 virtual confession, — first, that any outward decency which their conduct may at present exhibit. Is to be traced solely to the fear of punishment; and, secondly, that If they were only secured against punishment, they would find much greater pleasure in sin than in holiness, much greater satisfaction in serving the devil than in serving God ; and that they would never thhik of showing any gratitude to Him who had conferred the safety and deliver ance on which they place so much reliance. Socinians virtuaUy confess all this, with respect to their own present character and motives, when they charge the doctrine of the atonement with a tendency unfavourable to the Interests of morality. But If men's character and motives are, as they should be. Influenced by the views they have been led to form concerning God and His law ; if they are capable of being affected by the contemplation of noble and exalted objects, by admiration of excellence, and by a sense of thankfulness for benefits, — instead of being animated solely by a mere desire to secure their own safety and comfort, — they must find in the doctrine of the atonement, — and in the con ceptions upon all important subjects which it Is fitted to form, — motives amply sufficient to lead them to hate sin, to fear and love God, to cherish affection and gratitude towards Him who came in God's name to seek and to save them, and to set their affec tions on things above, where He sitteth at the right hand of God. These are the elements from which alone — as Is proved both by the nature of the case and the experience of the world — anything like high and pure morality wUl ever proceed ; and no position of this nature can be more certain, than that the believers In the doctrine of the atonement have done much more in every way to adorn the doctrine of our God and Saviour, than those who have denied it. There is, then, no real weight in the objections commonly adduced against the doctrine of the atonement. Not that there are not difficulties connected with the subject, which we are unable fully to solve ; but there is nothing so formidable as to tempt us to make a very violent effort — and that, certainly, is necessary — in the way of distorting and perverting Scripture, in order to get rid of it; and nothing to warrant us in rejecting the divine authority of the Bible, because it establishes this doc trine with such full and abundant evidence. We have already seen a srood deal, in considerations derived from what we know 280 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. concerning the divine character and moral government, fitted to lead us to believe, by affording at least the strongest probabiUtles and presumptions, that the method of an atonement or satisfaction might be that which would be adopted for pardoning and saving sinners ; and that this method really involves the substitution of the Son of God In the room and stead of those who are saved by Him, and His endurance, as their surety and substitute, of the punishment which they had deserved by their sin. But the full proof of this great doctrine is to be found only in a minute and careful examination of the meaning of scriptural statements ; and in the prosecution of this subject. It has been conclusively proved that the generally received doctrine of the atonement is so thoroughly estabUshed by Scripture, and so Interwoven with its whole texture, that they must stand or fall together ; and that any man who denies the substance of the common doctrine upon this subject, would really act a much more honest and rational part than Socinians generally do, if he would openly deny that the Bible is to be regarded as the rule of faith, or as entitled to reverence or respect as a communication from God. Sec. V. — Scriptural Evidence for the Atonement. We cannot enter Into anything like an exposition of the Scrip ture evidence In support of the commonly received doctrine of the atonement, the general nature and Import of which we have endeavoured to explain. This evidence is collected from the whole field of Scripture, and comprehends a great extent and variety of materials, every branch of which has, upon both sides, been subjected to a thorough critical investigation. The eridence bearing upon this great doctrine may be said to comprehend all that Is contained in Scripture upon the subject of sacrifices, from the commencement of the history of our fallen race ; aU that is said about the nature, causes, and consequences of the sufferings and death of Christ ; and all that is revealed as to the way and manner in which men do, In point of fact, obtain or receive the forgiveness of their sins, or exemption from the penal conse quences to which their sins have exposed them. The general ob servations which we have already made about the Socinian mode of dealing with and interpreting Scripture, and the illustrations we gave of these general observations in their application to the Sec v.] scriptural EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 281 doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Christ,— the substance of all that we have stated in the way of explaining both how scriptural statements should and should not be dealt with, and what are the principles which. In right reason, though in opposi tion to self-styled ratlonaUsm, ought to regulate this matter, — are equally appUcable to the subject of the atonement — are equally illustrative of the way in which the scriptural statements bearing upon this point should, and should not, be treated and applied. I shall therefore say nothing more on these general topics. The few observations which I have to make on the scriptural evidence in support of the doctrine of the atonement, must be restricted to the object of giving some hints or suggestions as to the way In which this subject ought to be investigated, pointing out some of the leading dirislons under which the evidences may be classed, and the leading points that must be attended to and kept in view in examining it. That Christ suffered and died for our good, and in order to benefit us, — In order that thereby sinners might be pardoned and saved, — and that by suffering and dying He has done something or other Intended and fitted to contribute to the accomplishment of this object, — Is, of course, admitted by all who profess to believe, in any sense, in the divine origin of the Christian revelation. And the main question discussed In the investigation of the sub ject of the atonement really resolves, as I formerly explained. Into this : What Is the relation actually subsisting between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of men's sins ? In what way does the one bear upon and affect the other ? Now, the doctrine which has been generally received in the Christian church upon this all- Important question is this : That Christ, in order to save men from sin and its consequences, voluntarily took their place, and suffered and died In their room and stead ; that He offered up Himself a sacrifice for them ; that His death was a punishment Inflicted upon Him because they had deserved death ; that it was in a fair and reasonable sense the penalty which they had In curred ; that by suffering death as a penal Infliction in their room and stead. He has satisfied the claims or demands of the divine justice and the divine law ; and by making satisfaction in their room, has expiated or atoned for their sins, and has thus procured for them redemption and reconciliation with God. The scriptural proof of this position overturns at once both 282 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. the Socinian theory, — which restricts the efficacy of Christ's suffer ings and death to their fitness for confirming and estabUshing truths, and supplying motives and encouragements to repentance and holiness, which are with them the true grounds or causes of the forgiveness of sinners, — and also the theory commonly held by the Arians, which, without including the ideas of substitution and satisfaction, represents Christ as, in some way or other, ac quiring by His suffering and death a certain influence with God, which He employs in obtaining for men the forgiveness of their sins. The proof of the generally received doctrine overturns at once both these theories, not by establishing directly and positively that they are false, — for, as I formerly explained in the general statement of this subject, they are true ^o far as they go, — but by showing that they do not contain the/ whole truth ; that they embody only the smallest and least Important part of what Scrip ture teaches ; and that there are other ideas fully warranted by Scripture, and absolutely necessary in order to anything Uke a complete and correct representation of the whole Scripture doc trine upon the subject. One of the first and most obvious considerations that occurs in directing our attention to the testimony of Scripture upon the subject is, that neither the Socinian nor the Arian doctrine is re concilable with the peculiarity and the immediateness of the con nection which the general strain of scriptural language indicates as subsisting between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sinners ; while all this is in fullest harmony with the orthodox doctrine. If the death of Christ bears upon the forgiveness of sin only indirectly and remotely through the medium or interven tion of the way in which It bears upon men's conrictions, motives, and conduct, and if it bears upon this result only In a way In which other causes or influences, and even other things contained in the history of Christ Himself, do or might equally, bear upon it, — and all this is implied in the denial of the doctrine of the atone ment, — then it seems impossible to explain why in Scripture such special and peculiar importance Is ascribed to Christ's death in this matter ; why the forgiveness of sin is never ascribed to any other cause or source of right views or good motives, — such, for instance, as Christ's teaching, or His resurrection ; and why the death of Christ and the remission of men's sins are so constantly represented as most closely and immediately connected with each Sec v.] SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 283 other. This constitutes a very strong presumption in favour of the generally received doctrine upon the subject ; but in order to establish it thoroughly, it is necessary to examine carefuUy and minutely the meaning of the specific statements of Scripture which make known to us the nature, objects, and consequences of Christ's death, and the actual connection between it and the forgiveness of sin. And we would now briefly Indicate the chief heads under which they may be classed, and some of the prin cipal points to be attended to in the investigation of them. First, we would notice that there are some important words, on the true and proper meaning of which the settlement of this controversy essentially depends, and of which, therefore, the mean ing must be carefully Investigated, and. If possible, fully ascer tained. The words to which I refer are such as these : atonement, — used frequently In the Old Testament in connection with the sacrifices, and once (i.e.. In our version) in the New Testament ; bearing and carrying, as applied to sin ; propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, etc. The words which express these ideas in the original Hebrew or Greek, — such as, hattath, asham, kopher, nasa, sabal, in Hebrew ; and in Greek, 'iKdco or lXda-Ko/u,ai, and its de rivatives, tXacTfiO'i and tkatrrrjpiov, KaraXKdcra-ui and KaraXXayi], aryopd^w, Xurpoo), Xvrpov, dvTiKvrpov, (pipa, and dva^epa, — have all been subjected to a thorough critical investigation in the course of this controversy ; and no one can be regarded as well versant In Its merits, and able to defend the views which he has been led to adopt, unless he has examined the meaning of these words, and can give some account of the philological grounds on which his conclusions, as to their Import, are founded. Under this head may be also comprehended the different Greek preposi tions which are commonly translated in our version by the word for. In those statements in which Christ is represented as dying for sins, and dying for sinners, — viz., Sia, irepi, virep, and avTi, — for much manifestly depends upon their true import. The object to be aimed at in the investigation of these words is, of course, to ascertain, by a diligent and careful application of the right rules and materials, what is their natural, obvious, or dinary import, as used by the sacred writers, — what sense they were fitted, and must therefore have been intended, to convey to those to whom they were originally addressed. It can scarcely be disputed that these words, in their obvious and ordinary meaning. 284 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. being appUed to the death of Christ, decidedly support the generally received doctrine of the atonement ; and the substance of what Socinians, and other opponents of the doctrine, usually labour to estabUsh in regard to them Is, that there are some grounds for maintaining that they may bear, because they sometimes must bear, a different sense, — a sense in which they could not sanction the doctrine of the atonement ; so that the points to be attended to in this department of the discussion are these : First, to scrutmize the evidence adduced, that the particular word under considera tion must sometimes be taken in a different sense from that which it ordinarily bears ; secondly, to see whether, in the passages m which, if taken in Its ordinary sense, it would sanction the doctrine of the atonement, there be any necessity, or even warrant, for departing from this ordinary meaning. The proof of a negative upon either of these two points Is quite sufficient to overturn the Socinian argument, and to leave the passages standing in fuU force as proofs of the orthodox doctrine ; whUe, in regard to many of the most important passages, the defenders of that doctrine have not only proved a negative upon these two questions, — that is, upon one or other of them, — but have further established, thirdly, that, upon strictly critical grounds, the ordinary meaning of the word Is that which ought to be there adopted. But we must proceed to consider and classify statements, as distinguished from mere words, though these words enter Into most of the important statements upon the subject ; and here I would be disposed to place first those passages in which Christ is represented as executing the office of a Priest, and as offering up Himself as a sacrifice. That He is so represented cannot be disputed. The ques tion is. What Ideas with respect to the nature, objects, and effects of His death, was this representation Intended to convey to us ? The New Testament statements concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ are manifestly connected with, are In some sense taken from, and must be in some measure interpreted by, the accounts given of the priesthood and sacrifices under the law, and of the origin and objects of sacrifices generally, — in so far as they can be regarded as affording any indication of the principles which regulate the divine procedure with respect to the forgiveness of sin. This opens up a wide and interesting field of discussion, — historical and critical, — comprehending not only all that we learn from Scripture upon the subject, but likewise anything to be gathered Sec v.] scriptural EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 285 from the universal prevalence of sacrifices among heathen nations, and the notions which mankind have generally associated with them. The substance of what Is usually contended for upon this topic by Socinians and other opponents of the doctrine of the atonement is this, — that animal sacrifices were not originally appointed and required by God, but were devised and invented by men, — ^that they were natural and appropriate expressions of men's sense of their dependence upon God, their unworthlness of His mercies, their penitence for their sins, and their obUgations to Him for His goodness ; but that they were not generally understood to involve or Imply any idea of substitution or satisfaction, — of propitiating God, and of expiating or atoning for sin : that they were intro duced by God into the Mosaic economy, because of their general prevalence, and their capacity of being applied to some useful purposes of Instruction ; but that no additional Ideas were then connected with them beyond what had obtained In substance in heathen nations : that the Le-ritlcal sacrifices were not regarded as vicarious and propitiating ; and that their Influence or effect, such as it was, was confined to ceremonial, and did not extend to moral offences : that the statements in the New Testament in which Christ is represented as officiating as a Priest, and as offer ing a sacrifice, are mere allusions of a figurative or metaphorical kind to the Le-ritlcal sacrifices, employed in accommodation to Jewish notions and habits ; and that, more especially, the minute and specific statements .upon this subject, contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are, as the Improved or Socinian version, pub lished about forty years ago, says, characterized by " far-fetched analogies and inaccurate reasonings."* In opposition to all this, the defenders of the doctrine of the atonement generally contend that animal sacrifices were of dirine appointment, and were in tended by God to symbolize, to represent, and to teach the great principles which regulate His conduct in regard to sin and sinners, — ^that they expressed a confession of sin on the part of the person by, or for, whom they were offered, — that they Indicated the trans ference of his sin, and the punishment it merited, to the victim offered, the endurance of the punishment by the victim in the room of the offerer, — and, as the result, the exemption of the offerer " The Improved Version," p. 544. Ed. 1817. 286 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. from the punishment he deserved ; in other words, that they were vicarious, as Implying the substitution of one for the other, and expiatory or propitiatory, as Implying the oblation and the accept ance of a satisfaction, or compensation, or equivalent for the offence, and, as a consequence. Its remission, — that these Ideas, though Intermingled with much error, are plainly enough exhibited in the notions which prevailed on the subject among heathen nations, and are fully sanctioned by the statements made with respect to the nature, objects, and consequences of the divinely appointed sacrifices of the Mosaic economy; — that these were evidently vicarious and expiatory, — that they were appointed to be offered chiefly for ceremonial, but also for some moral offences, considered as violations of the ceremonial law, though, of course, they could not of themselves really expiate or atone for the moral, but only the ceremonial, guilt of this latter class, — that they reaUy expiated or removed ceremonial offences, or were accepted as a ground or reason for exempting men from the punishment in curred by the violation or neglect of the provisions of the Jewish theocracy, while their bearing upon moral offences could be only symbolical or typical ; — that, in place of the New Testament state ments about the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ being merely figurative allusions to the Levitical sacrifices, the whole institution of sacrifices, and the place which they occupied In the Mosaic economy, were regulated and determined by a regard to the one sacrifice of Christ, — that they were Intended to direct men's faith to it, — that they embodied and represented the principles on which its efficacy depended, and should therefore be employed in illus trating Its true nature and bearings ; while evervthing to be learned from them, in regard to It, Is fitted to impress upon us the con viction, that It was vicarious and expiatory, — that is, presented and accepted in the room and stead of others, and thus effecting or procuring their reconcUiation to God, and their exemption from the penal consequences of their sins. All this has been maintained, and aU this has been established, by the defenders of the doctrine of the atonement ; and with the principal grounds on which these various positions rest, and on which they can be defended from the objections of adversaries, and from the opposite views taken by them upon these points, all students of Scripture ought to possess some acquaintance. The most important and fundamental of the various topics comprehended in this wide field of discussion, Sec v.] SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 287 are involved in the settlement of these two questions, — namely, first. What was the character, object, and immediate effect of the Levitical sacrifices ? were they vicarious and expiatory, or not ? and, secondly. What is the true relation between the scriptural statements concerning the Levitical sacrifices, and those concern ing the sacrifice of Christ ? and what light does anything we know concerning the former throw upon the statements concerning the latter? These are questions presenting materials for much In teresting discussion ; and It is our duty to seek to possess some knowledge of the facts and arguments by which they are to be decided. Secondly, another important class of passages consists of those which bear directly and Immediately upon the true nature and the immediate object of Christ's death. There are some general con siderations derived from Scripture, to which we have already had occasion to refer, which afford good ground for certain Inferences upon this subject. If it was the death, in human nature, of One who was also a possessor of the divine nature, as Scripture plainly teaches, then It must possess a nature, character, and tendency altogether peculiar and extraordinary; and must be fitted, and have been intended, to effect results altogether beyond the range of what could have been accomplished by anything that is com petent to any creature, — results directly related to infinity and eternity. If it was the death of One who had no sin of His own, who was perfectly innocent and holy, we are constrained to con clude that It must have been inflicted upon account of the sins of others, whose punishment He agreed to bear. A similar con clusion has been deduced from some of the actual features of Christ's sufferings as described in Scripture, especially from His agony In the garden, and His desertion upon the cross ; circum stances which it is not easy to explain. If His sufferings were merely those of a martyr and an exemplar, — and which naturally suggest the propriety of ascribing to them a very different cha racter and object, and are obviously fitted to lead us to conceive of Him as enduring the punishment of sin, inflicted by God, in the execution of the provisions of His holy law. But the class of passages to which we now refer, are those which contain distinct and specific information as to the real nature, character, and immediate object of His sufferings and death ; such as those which assure us that He suffered and died 288 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. for sin and for sinners ; that He bore our sins, and took them away ; that He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our Iniquities ; that He suffered for sin, the just for the un just ; that He was made sin for us ; that He was made a curse for us, etc. Such statements as these abound in Scripture ; and the question is. What ideas are they fitted — and therefore, as we must believe, intended — to convey to us concerning the true nature and character of Christ's death, and its relation to, and bearing upon, our sin, and the forgiveness of it ? Now, if we attend to these statements, and, instead of being satisfied with vague and indefinite conceptions of their Import, seek to realize their mean ing, and to understand distinctly what is their true sense and sig nification, we must be constrained to conclude that. If they have any meaning, they were intended to impress upon us the convic tions — that our sin was the procuring cause of Christ's death, that which rendered His death necessary, and actually brought it about, — that He consented to occupy the place of sinners, and to bear the punishment which they had deserved and incurred, — that. In consequence, their guilt, in the sense of legal answerable- ness or liability to punishment (reatus), was transferred to, and laid on. Him ; so that He suffered. In their room and stead, the punishment which they had deserved and incurred, and which, but for His enduring it, they must have suffered in their own persons. And as this is the natural and obrious meaning of the scriptural statements, — that which, as a matter of course, they would convey to any one who would attend to them, and seek to realize clearly and definitely the ideas which they are fitted to express, — so it is just the meaning which, after all the learning, ingenuity, and skill of adversaries have been exerted In obscuring and perverting them, comes out more palpably and certainly than before, as the result of the most searching critical investigation. Suffering and dying for us means, according to the Socinians, merely suffering and dying on our account, for our good, with a view to our being benefited by it. It is true that Christ died for us in this sense ; but this is not the whole of what the scriptural statements upon the subject are fitted to convey. It can be shown that they naturally and properly express the idea that He died in our room and stead, and thus constrain us to admit the concep tion of His substitution for us, or of His being put in our place, and being made answerable for us. The prepositions translated Sec v.] scriptural EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 289 for, — when persons, we or sinners, are the objects of the relation indicated, — are Sta, vivkp, and outL Now, it Is admitted that Bta naturally and properly means, on our account, or for our benefit, and does not of Itself suggest anything else. It is admitted, further, that xmkp may mean, on our account, as well as in our room, though the latter Is its more ordinary signification, — that which it most readily suggests, — and that which. In many cases, the connection shows to be the only one that is admissible. But it Is contended that avri, which is also employed for this purpose, means, and can mean only. In this connection. Instead of, or In the room of, as denoting the substitution of one party in place of another. This does not warrant us In holding that, wherever Sta and vTvkp are employed, they, too, must imply sub stitution of one for another, since it Is also true that Christ died for our benefit, or on our account ; but It does warrant us to assert that the ordinary meaning of Bba, and the meaning which may sometimes be assigned to vivkp, — namely, on account of, — does not bring out the whole of what the Scripture teaches with respect to the relation subsisting between the death of Christ and those for whose benefit it was intended. The prepositions employed when sins, and not persons, are re presented as the causes or objects of Christ's suffering or dying, are Bia, inrkp, and irepi; and it Is contended and proved, that, according to Scripture, what the proper ordinary meaning of dying for or on account of sin, — Sia, virkp, irepi, d/jbapnav, or dfiapTia<;, — is this, — that the sin spoken of was that which procured and merited the death, so that the death was a penal Infliction on account of the sin which caused it, or for which it was endured.* Bearing or carrying sin, it can be proved, has, for its ordinary meaning in Scripture, being made, or becoming legally answerable for sin, and, in consequence, enduring its punishment. There are, indeed, some other words used In Scripture In regard to this matter, which are somewhat more indeterminate In their meaning, and cannot be proved of themselves to import more than the Socinian sense of bearing sin, — namely, taking it away, or generally remov ing It and Its consequences, such as nasa In the Old Testament, and alpa in the New ; but sabal in the Old Testament, and (^e/aw or * The impulsive or meritorious and I c. i. ; StlUingfleet on Christ's Satisfac- final cause. See Grotius, De Satisfact., | tion. 3 — VOL. II. T 290 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. dva(f>epo} in the New, have no such indefiniteness of meaning. They include, indeed, the idea of taking away or remoring, which the Socinians regard as the whole of their import ; but it can be proved that their proper meaning is to bear or carry, and thus by bearing or carrying, to remove or take away. As to the statements, that Christ was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our Iniquities, that He was made sin and made a curse for us, and others of similar import, there is really nothing adduced, possessed even of plausibility, against their having the meaning which they naturally and properly convey, — namely, that our liabiUty to punishment for sin was transferred to Him, and that He, in consequence, endured in our room and stead what we had de served and Incurred. Thirdly, The third and last class of passages consists of those which describe the effects or results of Christ's death, — the conse quences which have flowed from It to men in their relation to God, and to His law, which they had broken. These may be said to be, chiefly, so far as our present subject Is concerned, reconciliation to God, — the expiation of sin, — and the redemption of sinners, — KaraWar/i], iKaafio^, XvTpocxTi'i. These are all ascribed in Scripture to the death of Christ ; and there are two questions that naturally arise to be discussed in regard to them, though, in the very brief remarks we can make upon them, the two questions may be answered together : First, What do they mean ? or what is the nature of the changes effected upon men's condition which they express? Secondly, What light is cast by the nature of these changes or effects, when once ascertained, upon the true character of the death of Christ, — and more especially upon the great ques tion, whether or not it was endured in our room and stead, and thus made satisfaction for our sins ? Eeconciliation naturally and ordinarily Implies that two parties, who were formerly at variance and enmity with each other, have been brought Into a state of harmony and friendship ; and if this reconciliation between God and man was effected, as Scripture assures us it was, by the death of Christ, then the fair inference would seem to be, that His death had removed obstacles which previously stood in the way of the existence or the manifestation of friendship between them,— had made It, in some way or other, fully accordant with the principles, the Interests, or the incUnations of both parties to return to a state of friendlv Intercourse, We Sec v.] scriptural EVIDENCE FOR THE ATONEMENT. 291 need not repeat. In order to guard against misconstruction, what was formerly explained, — in considering objections to the doctrine of the atonement founded on misrepresentations about the eternal and unchangeable love of God to men, — about the atonement being the consequence and not the cause of God's love, and about its introducing no feeling into the divine mind which did not exist there before. If this be true, as it certainly is, and If It be also true that the death of Christ is represented as propitiating God to men, — as turning away His wrath from them, — and as effecting their restoration to His favour, — then it follows plainly that It must have removed obstacles to the manifestation of His love, and opened up a channel for His actual bestowing upon them tokens of His kindness ; and if these obstacles consisted in the necessity of exercising and manifesting His justice, and maintaining unim paired the honour of His law, which men had broken, then the way or manner in which the death of Christ operated In effecting a reconciliation between God and man, must have been by its satisfying God's justice, and answering the demands of His law. Socinians, indeed, allege that It Is not said In Scripture that God was reconciled to men by the death of Christ, but only that men were reconciled to God, or that God in this way reconciled men to Himself ; and that the only way in which the death of Christ operated in effecting this reconciliation, was by its affording motives and encouragements to men to repent and turn to Him. It Is admitted that it Is not expressly said In Scripture that the death of Christ reconciled God to men ; but then It Is contended, and can be easily proved, that statements of equivalent import to this occur; and more especially, that It Is In accordance with Scripture usage. In the application of the word reconcile, that those who are said to be reconciled, are represented, not as laying aside their enmity against the other party, but as aiming at and succeeding in gettting Him to lay aside His righteous enmity against them ; and this general use of the word, applied to the case under consideration, leaves the argument for a real atonement, deduced from the asserted effect of Christ's death upon the reconciliation of God and man untouched. In all its stregnth and cogency. The next leading effect ascribed to the death of Christ is that it expiates sin, as expressed by the word IXdaKOfiai, and Its deriva tives. The statements In which these words occur, bring out somewhat more explicitly the effect of Christ's sufferings and 292 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. [Chap. XXIV. death upon men's relation to God and to His law, and thus at once confirm and iUustrate what Is said about its bearing upon recon- cihation. It can be fully established, that the true and proper meaning of these words is, to propitiate, or to make propitious one who had been righteously offended by transgression, so that the transgression Is no longer regarded as a reason for manifesting displeasure or inflicting punishment. Christ Is repeatedly* de scribed in Scripture as being a propitiation for sins, tXatr/td? "Trepl d/jLaprtaiv ; and we are also told that His humiliation and His execution of the priestly office were directed to the object of making propitiation for, or expiating the sins of, the people, — ew TO iXd Statement by, as to trust to be placed in good works, ii. 109. Belsham, ii. 167, 184, 190, 196. Beman, Dr, ii. 358. Beza, i. 236 ; ii. 543, 544, 564, 573. Bingham, i. 273. Blondel, i. 97, 110, 191, 251, 252. BOBHMER Opinion of, as to Council of Jerusalem, i. 61. Bossuet — Positions maintained by, and other Papists, as to Waldenses and Albi genses, i. 453, etc. Explanations by, as to the decree of Council of Florence, i. 470. Accusations by, against the Synod of Dort, ii. 382. Bradwardine, i. 476. Bro-wn, Dr John, i. 92. BuDD.aius, i. 435. Bull, Bishop — Opinion of, as to authority of church in interpretation of Scripture, i. 173, etc. Views of, as to testimony of the early church as to Trinity, i. 269, etc. Explanations by, as to the opinions 3 — VOL. II. Bull, Bishop — of the early church on Trinity, i. 277_, etc. Definition by, of the word o/miivrios, or consubstantial, i. 283. Calderwood, i. 405. Calling — Universal and effectual, ii. 394, etc. Arminian views as to universal, ii. 396, etc. Difficulties of the Arminian views as to universal, ii. 397, etc. Calvinistic view of effectual, ii. 403, 411. Statement by the Shorter Catechism as to effectual, ii. 411. Renovation of the will, an important step in the process of effectual, ii. 411, etc. Calvin — Admission by, as to apostolic origin of Apostles' Creed, i. 81. Doctrinal system of, not matter of discussion in the early church, i. 179, etc. No presumption from primitive 3.n- tiquity against the peculiar ¦ doc trines of, i. 180. Statement by, as to Trinity, i. 397. Views of, as to the doctrine of the Council of Trent on the fall, i. 499, 500, 538. Doctrine of, as to sinfulness of works done before regeneration, i. 550, etc. Views of, as to freedom of the will, i. 574. Views of, as to the will in regenera tion, i. 616. Statement by, as to God's permission of sin, i. 632-3. Misrepresentation of views of, on nature of justification, ii. 14, 15. Views of, as to faith, or the means of justification, ii. 23. Statement by, as to Popish doctrine of justification, ii. 114. Statement by, as to infant baptism, ii. 153. Correspondence of, with Lselius So cinus, ii. 158. Fundamental principles of the doc trinal system of, held by all the Reformers, ii. 371. Early departure from the doctrines of, in the Lutheran Church and the Reformed Church of the Nether lands, ii. 372. System of, in relation to Arminianism and Socinianism, ii. 501. 2 P 594 INDEX. Calvin — Remarks suggested by a review of the system of, and of Arminianism and Socinianism, ii. 502. Views of, as to church government, ii. 518, etc. Views of, as to power of civil magis trate about religion, ii. 568. Cameron, ii. 324, 329, 364. Campbell, Dr — View of, as to Scripture views of the word church, i. 19. Canon Law — Enactments of the, as to rights of church members, i. 192. Notice of the, i. 426, etc. The " Decree of Gratian," the founda tion of the, i. 426. Origin and history of the, i. 427-9. Contents and substance of the Decree of Gratian on the, i. 429. Character of the, i. 430, etc. Testimonies in the, in favour of Pro testant and Presbyterian principles, i. 432, etc. Statement by Luther as to character of the, i. 434. Carpenter, Dr Lant, ii. 295. Castellio, ii. 371. Catechism — Statement by the Larger, on distinc tion of persons in Godhead, i. 294, 295. Doctrine of the Shorter, as to person of Christ, i. 310, 311. Meaning of the phrase. Original Sin, in the Larger and Shorter, i. 497. Doctrine of the Shorter, as to the fall, i. 501, etc. Doctrine of the Shorter, as to the want of original righteousness, i. 5 1 6. Statement by the Larger, as to the place of faith in justification, ii. 74. Statement by the Shorter, as to the nature of the sacraments, ii. 128. Statement by the Shorter, as to atonement of Christ, ii. 246. Statement by the Shorter, as to effec tual calling, ii, 411. Cbkinthus — Opinions of, as to Christ, i. 125, 127. Reference in Gospel by John, to opin ions of, i. 125, 127, etc. Chalcbdon — Doctrine of the Council of, on the person of Christ, i. 311, 314. Clemens Alexandrinus — Notice of, i. 146. Injurious influence of, on the inter pretation of Scripture, and the sys tem of divine truth, i. 148, etc. Clemens Alexandrinus — Character of the works of, i. 149, etc. Erroneous views and tendencies of, i. 150, etc. Chalmers, Dr — Views and statements by, as to sin fulness of works done before re generation, i, 553, etc. Chemnitius, ii. 18. Chillingwoeth — Fallacy of reasoning by, founded on the early prevalence of Prelacy in the church, i. 261, etc. Christ — Doctrine of the person of, i. 307, etc. What is implied in the union of the divine and human natures in, i. 308, etc. Statement of the Shorter Catechism as to the constitution of the person of, i. 310. Eutychian controversy as to the per son of, i. 311, etc. Doctrine of Westminster Confession of Faith as to person of, i. 311. Scriptural considerations bearing on the question of the person of, i. 312, etc. Union without change of the two natures in the person of, i. 314, etc. No more than one person belonged to, i. 316. Doctrine of hypostatical union in the person of, i. 317. Usage of Scripture language in attri buting what is proper to the one nature of, to the person denomi nated by the other, i. 318, etc. Evidence for the divinity of, ii. 213, etc. Classification of Scripture proof for the divinity of, ii. 217, etc. Socinian mode of dealing with evi dence for the divinity of, ii. 219, etc. General considerations fitted to meet the Socinian mode of dealing with the evidence for the di-rinity of, ii. 222, etc. Interest and importance of the study of the evidence for the divinity of, ii. 225, etc. Considerations to be kept in view in the study of the evidences for the divinity of, ii. 227, etc. The Socinian and Arian -views of the evidence for divinity of, partial and defective, ii. 229, etc. The demand for other and greater evidence for divinity of, unreason able, ii. 232, etc. INDEX. 595 Christ — Responsibility connected with the admission or denial of the divinity of, ii. 234, etc. Connection between the person and the work of, ii. 237, etc. Socinian, Arian, and orthodox views of the connection between the per son and work of, ii. 238, etc. Work of, represented under the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King, ii. 238, 241. Socinian view of, as merely a Prophet, ii. 242. The priestly office of, the most pecu liar and important, ii. 243, etc. Connection between the death of, and the forgiveness of sin, ii. 244, etc. Doctrine of the atonement of, U. 246, etc. Sufferings of, inexplicable except on the idea of atonement, ii. 266. The priestly and sacrificial character ascribed in Scripture to the office and work of, an evidence of atone ment, ii. 283-6. Scripture passages bearing on the nature and object of the death of, an evidence of atonement, ii. 286- 9. Scripture passages describing the effect of the death of, an evidence of atonement, ii. 289-93. Three leading -views entertained as to whether or not, suffered the penalty of sin, ii. 305, etc. Opinion of Dr Owen that, suffered the very same penalty as sinners had deserved, ii. 306, etc. The idem and the tantundem as to the sufferings of, ii. 307, etc. The doctrine of the sufferings of, being a substitute, and not an equi valent, ii. 309. The doctrine of the satisfaction of, involving a relaxation of the divine law, ii. 311. The doctrine of the atonement of, as the foundation of a new covenant with man, ii. 314. Church — History of, i. 1. Divisions under which history of, has commonly been treated, i. 2. Chief objects to be aimed at, in study ing history of, i. 4, 7. Superior importance of history of the Christian, i. 5. Divisions under which history of Christian, usually considered, i. 6. Comparative importance of the study Church — of the history of, before and after the Reformation, i. 7, 8. Nature of, i. 9, etc. Popish and Protestant definitions of, i. 10, etc. Scripture view of, i. 12, etc. Invisible and visible, i. 13, etc., 17. Catholic or general, i. 14, etc. Visibility not an essential property of, i. 16. Indefectibility of, i. 16-18. Infallibility of, i. 17. Senses of the word church in Scrip ture, i. 18, etc. Notes of the, i. 20, etc. Unity, sanctity, apostolicity, and catholicity of, i. 22, etc. Promises to the, i. 27, etc., 33. Relation of ministry and the, i. 28, etc. Essential note of a true, i. 29. Popish and Protestant theories of the history of the, i. 35, etc. Importance to Popery of the theory adopted as to the history of, i. 38. Rule for administration of the power of the, i. 47, etc. Scripture a sufficient rule for the, i. 49, etc. Authority of the officers of the, i. 50, etc. Authority of councils or courts of the, i. 53, etc. Standing of the ordinary members of the, i. 54, etc. Subordination of courts of the, i. 59, etc. Obligation of apostolic example in the matter of the government and wor ship of the, i. 64, etc., 65, 68, etc. Temporal maintenance of the ministry of the, i. 71. Jus divinum of a form of government for the, i. 73, etc. Mode of proving Presbyterianism to be the scriptural scheme of govern ment for the, i. 75, etc. Views of those who deny s.jus divinum in the polity of the, i. 77, etc. Views of Cyprian on the unity and catholicity of the, i. 169, etc. Opinions of Cyprian as to government of the, i. 170, etc. Condition for the first two centuries of the, i. 172, etc. Authority of the, in the interpretation of Scripture, i. 172, etc. Silent and extensive declension of the, from the scriptural model during the flrst two centuries, i. 177, etc., 184. 596 INDEX. Church — Views of the early, as to the doctrines of grace, i. 179, etc., 183, etc. Testimony of the early, as to suffi ciency of Scripture, i. 184, etc. Views of the early, as to tradition, i. 186. Teaching of the early, as to the duty of reading the Scripture, i. 188, etc. Rights of the Christian people in the opinion of the early, i. 189, etc. Attempts to evade the testimony of the early, as to rights of the Chris tian people, i. 193, etc. Opinions and practice of the, during the first two centuries, as to idola try, i. 199, etc. Doctrine and practice of the early, as to the sacraments, i. 201, etc. First steps in the progress of error in the early, i. 202-3. Opinions and practice of early, as to baptism, i. 203, etc. Views of early, as to Lord's Supper, i. 205, etc. Opinions of early, as to transubstan tiation, i. 205-6. Supremacy of the Pope not sanctioned by the opinions and history of the early, i. 207, etc., 221, etc., 225, etc. The great mass of the tenets and practices of Popery has no war rant from the early, i. 207, etc. The constitution and government of the, i. 227, etc. State of the question, and onus pro bandi, in the controversy as to government of the, i. 232, 234, 237, 239. Examination of the leading arguments in favour of Prelacy in the, i. 240, etc. Historical facts as to early existence of Prelacy in the, i. 256, etc. Explanation of the origin and pro gress of Prelacy in the early, i. 258, etc. Testimony of the early, as to Trinity, i. 267, etc. Sabellian opinions never professed ex cept by individuals in the early, i. 272, etc. Socinianism never sanctioned by opinion of the early, i. 274, etc. Testimony of the early, as to Arian- ism, i. 276, etc. Testimony of the early, as to idolatry, i. 359, etc. Perpetuity and visibility of the, i. 446, etc. Church — . Allegations by Papists as to perpetuity and visibility of the, i. 446. Historical questions connected with the'assertion of the perpetuity and visibility of the, i. 447. Claims of the Greek and Romish com munions in connection with the per petual visibility of the, i. 447, etc. Views of some Protestants as to un interrupted existence of a visible, i. 451, etc. Opposite views of Papists and Pro testants as to a visible, in applica tion to Waldenses and Albigenses, i. 452, etc. The, at the era of the Reformation, i. 459, etc. State of doctrine in the, at the time of the Reformation, i. 463, etc. Doctrinal errors formally sanctioned by the, before the Reformation, i. 464, etc. Doctrinal errors not formally sanc tioned, but generally taught, by the, before the Reformation, i. 473, etc. Government of the, ii. 514. Questions discussed in connection with the subject of the government of the, ii. 514. Views of the Reformers as to the go vernment of the, ii. 514, etc. Views of Romanists as to government of the, ii. 515, etc. Historical notices as to discussion of the question of government of, ii. 516. Views of Luther as to government of the, ii. 517, etc. Views of Calvin as to government of the, ii. 518, etc. Views of Romanists and the Council of Trent as to government of the, ii. 519, etc. Testimony of the Reformers as to the question of the government of the, ii. 525, etc. Unfounded allegation of Prelatists as to the opinions of the Reformers on the government of the, ii. 529, etc. Doctrine of the Lutheran churches on the government of the, ii. 532. Popular election of office-bearers in the, ii. 534, etc., 538. The ministry instituted for the, and not the church for the ministry, ii. 536. Views of the Reformers as to popular election of office-bearers in the, ii. 538. Statement of Beza as to popular INDEX. 59f Church — election of office-bearers in the, ii. 543, etc. The Free, of Scotland, ii. 583. Principles on which the Free, of Scot land is based, ii. 583, etc. Explanation of questions put to mini sters at their ordination in the Free, of Scotland, ii. 584, etc. Church History — Nature of, i. 1. Divisions under which it has been treated, i. 2. Chief objects to be aimed at in study of, i. 4-7. Comparative importance of study of, before and after the Reformation, i. 7, 8. Popish and Protestant theories of, i. 35, etc. Importance to Popery of the theory adopted as to, i. 38. Church history to a large extent the history of Popery, i. 41. Church op England — Definition of the church in the Articles of, i. 30. Power of the church to decree rites and ceremonies, asserted in the Articles of the, i. 72. Declaration by the, as to Prelacy, i. 230-1. Doctrine of the, as to sinfulness of works done before regeneration, i. 546. Views of the, as to church govern ment, ii. 524. Church Members — Rights of, according to the opinion of the early church, 1. 189, etc. Testimony of Clemens Romanus as to rights of, i. 190. Testimony of Cyprian as to rights of, i. 191. Enactments of the Canon Law as to rights of, i. 192, 432-3. Concessions by opponents as to the testimony of early church in favour of the rights of, i. 193. Attempts to evade the testimony of the early church in favour of the rights of, i. 193, etc. Eights of, in the election of office bearers, ii. 534, 535. Opinion of the Eeformers as to right of, in the election of office-bearers, ii. 538, etc. Statement of Beza as to rights of, in election of office-bearers, ii. 543. Claude, i. 27. Clemens Romanus — Notice of, i. 97, etc. Epistles ascribed to, i. 97-8. Integrity of epistle to Corinthians by, i. 98, etc. Alleged references to the disparity of bishops and presbyters in epistle of, i. 100, etc., 244, etc. Character of, and of his writings, i. 103. The only important information given by, i. 104. Testimony of, as to rights of church members, i. 190. Concupiscence — Doctrine of, i. 531, etc. View of Westminster Confession as to, i. 532. Decree of Council of Trent as to, i. 532-3. Sinfulness of, i. 534, etc. Doctrine of Romanists as to the non- sinfulness of, i. 536, etc. Constance, Council op — Authority of the, i. 471. Principle of the lawfulness of break ing faith with heretics, asserted by, i. 472. Communion in one kind taught by, i. 472. CONSCBSTANTIALITY Doctrine of, i. 279, etc. Meaning of, i. 281, etc., 283. The Nicene Creed an accurate ex pression of the scriptural doctrine of, i. 284, etc. The propriety of embodying the doc trine of, in a test of orthodoxy, i. 286, etc. CONYBEAKE, i. 113. Corruption — Doctrine of, of man's nature, i. 528, etc. Views of Eomanists and Protestants as to the, of man's nature, i. 529. Creed, Apostles', i. 79, etc. Antiquity and authority of Apostles', i. 80, etc. Principle involved in the question as to the apostolic origin of Apostles', i. 81. Historical evidence as to origin of the Apostles', i. 82, etc. Views of Eomanists as to Apostles', i. 85, etc. Additions successively made to the Apostles', i. 87. The different interpretations put on the Apostles', i. 89. Defects of the Apostles', i. 90, etc. CuECELLiBUS, 11. 303, 367, 375, 446. 598 INDEX. CtJEBTON — Edition of Epistles of Ignatius by, i. 117, etc. Cyprian — Notice of, i. 163, etc. Character and theological opinions of, i. 164, etc. Part taken in the Novatian contro versy by, i. 165, etc. Part taken in the controversy about the rebaptizing of heretics by, i. 167, etc. Views of, as to unity of church, i. 169, etc. Statements of, as to the government of the church, i. 170, etc. Testimony of, as to rights of church members, i. 191. Statement by, as to supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, i. 223. Testimony and writings of, in relation to Prelacy, i. 252, etc. Daille — Opinions of, as to Epistles of Ignatius, i. Ill, etc., 114, etc. Davenant, i. 563. Decrees op God — The doctrine of the, ii. 416, etc. Topics involved in the discussion of the question as to the, ii. 419. Explanation of terms employed in the controversy as to the, ii. 420. Remarks on the phraseology of the Westminster Confession on the sub ject of the, ii. 421, etc. Calvinistic and Arminian views as to the, ii. 423, etc. Two main questions to be "discussed in connection with the, ii. 424. Order in which the doctrine of elec tion and that of reprobation ought to be discussed, under the general head of the, ii. 427, etc. Tendency among some Calvinists to omit all mention of the, in connec tion with those who perish, ii. 429. Two acts involved in the, with refer ence to those who perish, ii. 429-30. Dens, ii. 19. Depravity — The doctrine of, i, 333. Representations of Scripture and ex perience as to the fact of universal, i. 334, 339. The fact and the explanation of the fact of universal, to be carefully dis tinguished, i. 335, etc., 338. Bearing of Adam's sin on the fact of universal, i. 337, etc., 341, 502, etc, 515, 527. Depravity — Scriptural explanation of the fact of universal, i. 340, etc. Difficulties of the scriptural explana tion of the fact of universal, of small account, i. 342. Principal question in connection with the doctrine of universal, i. 343. Statement by Westminster Confession as to the extent of human, i. 343. Connection between doctrine of, and those of divine grace and free-will, i. 344. Development — Theory of, in connection with the his tory of the church, i. 39, etc. Theory of, had recourse to by Papists in defence of their doctrines, i. 208-9. Causes leading to the promulgation of the theory of, in recent times, i. 210. Diognetus — Epistle to, i. 106, etc. DoCET.a) — Opinions of, as to Christ's person, i. 124. Dort, S-ynod op — Account of the, ii. 373, 379, etc. Charges alleged against the, ii. 380-1. Accusations by Bossuet against the, ii. 382, etc. Do Moulin, ii. 380. DuPDSf, i. 86. Ddrandus, i. 414. Easter — Controversy about the time of the celebration of, i. 142, etc. Bearing of controversy about, on the claim of the Bishop of Rome, i. 144, etc. Edwards, Jonathan — Statement by, as to universal depra vity, i. 339. Countenance given by, to the doctrine of a physical identity between Adam and- his posterity, i. 513. Ephesus, Council of — Condemnation by the, of the Pelagian heresy, i. 328-9. Episcopius, ii. 446. Erasmus^ Statement of, as to Apostles' Creed, i. 86. Erastian — The, controversy, ii. 557, etc Manner in which the, controversy was discussed at the Reformation, ii. 558, etc. Views of the Reformers in connection INDEX. 599 Erastian — with the, principle, ii. 559, 561, etc., 573, etc. , History of the, controversy in Hol land, ii. 577. History of the, controversy in Great Britain, ii. 581. The, controversy, in its results the cause of the formation of the Free Church of Scotland, ii. 583. Erastianism — Doctrine of, 1. 396, etc. Historical account of, i. 397, etc. Use and meaning of the word, i. 399, etc. Usual positions taken up by the ad vocates of, i. 400, 401. Main question to be determined in the discussion of the system of, i. 400. Notice of, during the seventeenth century, ii. 576, etc. Erastus — Notice of, ii. 569, etc. Views held by, ii. 570, etc. Ernesti, ii. 240. EuSEBiDS, i. 105, 144, 255, 275. Eutychian — Notice of the, controversy, i. 311, etc. Scriptural considerations bearing on the, controversy, i. 312, etc. Practical use to be made of a study of the, heresy, i. 319. Faber — Prineiples of, as to visible church in connection with Waldenses and Al bigenses, i. 453, etc. Failure by, to establish an unbroken succession through Waldenses and Albigenses, i. 457, etc. Faith — The work of divine grace and, i. 350. Views of Romanists and Reformers as to, as the means of justification, ii. 22, etc. Definition of, by Romanists and Pro testants, ii. 27, etc. Views of Romanists as to the merit of, ii. 28. Views of Arminians as to imputation of, instead of righteousness, ii. 49, etc. Justification by, ii. 56, etc., Questions involved in the controversy about justiflcation by, alone, ii. 56-7. Nature of justifying, ii. 57, etc. The question whether, alone justifies, ii. 61, etc. Exclusion of works in the matter of justification from any co-operation with, ii. 64, etc. Faith — Eeconciliation of Paul and James in the question of justification by, ii. 66, etc. Office of, in justifying, ii. 68, etc. Doctrine that, is the instrument of re ceiving the righteousness of Christ, ii. 70, etc. Different views entertained as to the place and use of, in justification, ii. 72, etc. In what sense, is a condition of justi fication, ii. 74, etc. Objections to the scriptural doctrine of justification by, ii. 79, etc. Connection between justification by, and sanctification, ii. 82, etc. The doctrine of justification by, fur nishes the strongest motives to holi ness, ii. 86, etc. Influence of the doctrine of justifica tion by, upon obedience, ii. 87, etc. J)ispute as to, in the five points of the Arminian system, ii. 385, etc. Fall — The doctrine of the, i. 496, etc. Popish and Protestant views of the, i. 496, etc. Teaching of the Popish Church at the time of the Reformation on the sub ject of the, i. 497. Decree of the Council of Trent on the subject of the, i. 498, etc. Positions laid down by Bellarmine as to the, i. 505, etc. Different opinions held by those who acknowledge the Scriptures as to the effects of the, i. 507, etc. Different opinions held by those who acknowledge the total depravity of man as to effects of the, i. 510, etc. The doctrine of imputation as an ex planation of the effects of the, i. 512, etc., 515. General view suggested to answer ob jections to doctrine of the, i. 527. Fathers — Account of the apostolical, i. 94, etc. General lessons taught by the history of the apostolical, i. 95, 120. Persons usually comprehended under the name of the apostolical, i. 95. Notice of the, of the second and third centuries, i. 134. Authority of the, in relation to the interpretation of Scripture, i. 172, etc. Value to be attached to the opinions and writings of the, i. 174, etc. No valuable or certain information 600 INDEX. Fathers — given by the, beyond what is con tained in Scripture, i. 176. Views of the early, as to doctrines of grace, i. 179, etc., 183, etc. Testimony of, to the sufficiency of Scripture, i. 185. Views of early, as to free-will, i. 181, etc. Professed deference of Romanists to the, i. 196. Unfair methods employed by Roman ists in dealing with the testimony of the, i. 197, etc. Objects to be aimed at in estimating the testimony of the, i. 197-8. Field — Statement by, as to late introduction of the corruptions of Popery, i. 444, 463. Flaccus Illtricus, i. 451. Florence, Council op — Authority of, i. 468. Doctrine of purgatory taught by the, i. 468-9. Supremacy of the Pope decreed by the, i. 469. Explanations by Bossuet as to the decree of the, i. 471. Forbes, i. 333, 366. GlESBLBE, i. 171, 206. Gill, Dr, ii. 344. Gillespie — Opinion of, as to standing of members of the church, i. 58. Statement by, as to Presbyterian views of relations of civil and eccle siastical authorities, i. 409. Gnostics — Opinions of the, as to the resurrec tion, i. 124, etc. Opinions of the, as to Christ, i. 125, etc. Influence of the system of the, on the views of the early church as to the Trinity and the Ascetic institute, i. 129, etc. The practice of the, as to authority of Scripture, i. 131, etc. Gomarus, ii. 389, 435. GooDB, i. 81, 185, 270. Grace — Views of the early church as to the doctrines of, i. 179, etc., 183, etc. Point at which corruption in the doc trines of, first began, i. 181. Connection between doctrine of de pravity and that of divine, i. 344. Doctrine of sovereign and efficacious, i. 346, etc. Grace — Views of the early Pelagians as to the nature of divine, i. 346-7. Fundamental positions as to nature and necessity of divine, i. 348. Views and tendencies of those who corrupt the Scripture doctrine of divine, i. 349, etc. Faith and the work of divine, i. 350. Doctrine of Augustine as to irresisti bility of divine, i. 351-2. Main questions to be considered in connection with doctrine of sove reign and efficacious, 1. 353, etc. The doctrine of sacramental, ii. 121, etc. Efficacious and irresistible, ii. 405, etc. Objections to the application of the word irresistible to divine, ii. 408, etc. Arminian and Calvinistic views of the irresistibility of divine, ii. 410, etc. The renovation of the will the special operation of divine, not to be frus trated, ii. 413, etc. Gratian — The "Decree'' of, the foundation of the Canon Law, i. 428. Origin and history of the Decree of, i. 427-9. Substance and character of the Decree of, i. 429. Testimonies in the Decree of, to Pro testant and Presbyterian principles, i. 432, etc. ; ii. 521. Aim of, to exalt the Papacy, i. 434. Grotius, i. 33 ; ii. 306, 565, 578. Hallam, i. 489, 499. Hampden, i. 424. Henderson — Opinion of, as to standing of members of the church, i. 58. Heresies — The, of the apostolic age, i. 121, etc. Meaning of, in the language of the fathers, i. 121, etc. Use of a knowledge of the, of the early church in the elucidation of Scrip ture, i. 124, etc., 129. The, of the Docetse and Cerinthns, i. 12.5, etc. Hermas — Notice of, i. 96, etc. The " Shepherd of," i. 96-7. Quotation from the Shepherd of, on government of church, i. 97. Hooker, i. 401. Idolatry — Opinion and practice of the church of INDEX. 601 Idolatry — the first two centuries as to, i. 199, etc., 359. Doctrine and practice of, as charged against the Popish Church, 1. 359, etc. Historical statement as to the, charged against Popish Church, 1. 361, etc. Doctrinal exposition of the subject of, i. 370, etc. Leading features of heathen, appli cable to that of the Church of Eome, i. 371, etc. Scriptural condemnation of, i. 373-4. Sin and danger of the, of the Eomish Church, i. 887, etc. Formal sanction of, in the Romish Church before the Reformation, i, 465. Ignatius — Notice of, i. 108. Genuineness and integrity of the epis tles of, i. 109, etc. History of the controversy as to the epistles of, 1. 109, etc. Evidence, external and internal, as to the epistles of, i. Ill, etc., 114, etc. Arguments of Daille and Pearson as to epistles of, i. 111-2, 114-6. View of Neander as to epistles of, i. 112, etc., 116. Opinion of Neander as to epistles of, i. 112-3. Opinion of Conybeare as to the senti ments of, i. 113-4. Distinction between bishop and pres byter found in no writer of the first two centuries except in, i. 115, etc. Edition of the epistles of, by Cureton, i. 117, etc. Bearing of the epistles of, on the Pre latic controversy, i. 248, etc. Images — Worship of, i. 359. Worship of, established by the Second Council of Nice, i. 360, 362-3, 369. Doctrine of Council of Trent on the worship of, i. 361, etc. Miracles wrought by, i. 364, etc. i Alleged misrepresentations by Protes tants of the Romish worship of, i. 367-8. Alleged distinction between heathen idolatry and the Popish worship of, 1. 371, etc. Scriptural principles as to worship of God opposed to worship of, i. 375, etc. Attempts by Eomanists to evade the Images — scriptural arguments against the worship of, i. 377, etc. Fallacy of the arguments of Papists in support of the worship of, as practi cally useful in religious service, i. 383. Facts to be kept in view in order to understand the doctrine and prac tice of Church of Rome in connec tion with the worship of saints and, i. 385. Imputation — Doctrine of the, of Christ's righteous ness, ii. 45, etc. Views of the Reformers and Roman ists as to, of Christ's righteousness, ii. 45, etc. Independency — ¦, System of, ii. 545, etc. Leading points in which, differs from Prelacy and Presbyterianism, ii. 546, etc. The system of, of modern origin, ii. 548. Concessions by modern theological authorities in favour of, ii. 549, etc. Positions maintained by Presbyte rians against, ii. 550, etc. Independents — Views of, as to Scripture sense of the word church, i. 19. Opinion of, as to Council of Jerusa lem, i. 44, etc. Difference as to the government of the church between Presbyterians and, i. 53, etc. Arguments of, as to subordination of church courts, i. 60, etc. Indulgences — Popish doctrine of, ii. 94, etc. IREN.EUS — Notice of, i. 139, etc. Erroneous opinions and statements of, i. 140, etc. Share of, in the controversy as to the observance of Easter, i. 144, etc. Statement by, as to supremacy of the Roman Church, 1. 224. Statement by, as to appointment of Polycarp as Bishop of Smyrna, i. 255. Jameson, i. 165, 252, 260. Jansenius, i. 505, 521 ; ii. 375. Jenkyn, Dr, ii. 358. Jerusalem — Council of, i. 43, etc. Views of Presbyterians and Indepen dents as to Council of, i. 44, etc. 602 INDEX. Jerusalem — Decision of Council of, not dictated by inspiration, i. 45, etc. Lesson as to rule of church power taught by Council of, i. 47. Authority of church officers as illus trated by Council of, i. 50. Place of church members as illus trated by the Council of, i. 54. Subordination of church courts as taught by Council of, i. 59. Obligation of apostolic practice as illustrated by Council of, i. 64, etc. Divine right of a form of church go vernment as illustrated by Council of, i. 73, etc. Jurieu, i. 271 ; ii. 5. Justification — The doctrine of, ii. 1, etc. Importance of the subject of, ii. 1-2. Question between the Reformers and Romanists under the head of, ii. 3-4, 19-20. Opposite lines of policy pursued by Romanists as to the views of Re formers on, ii. 4, 5. Example of the Council of Trent modifying the erroneous doctrine previously held by Church of Rome on, ii. 6, etc. Attempt by Le Blanc to extenuate the difference between Romanists and Protestants on subject of, ii. 8, etc. Popish and Protestant views of nature of, ii. 10, etc. Doctrine of the Reformers on nature of, ii. 12, etc. Doctrine of the Council of Trent on nature of, ii. 13, 90, etc. Misrepresentation of views of Calvin on nature of, ii. 14-5. Doctrine of Council of Trent as to regeneration being included in, ii. 14-16, etc. Doctrine of Council of Trent as to the ground or cause of, ii. 16, etc. Statements by Bellarmine and other Romanists as to ground or cause of, ii. 19. Verbal differences among Protestants in speaking of ground and cause of, ii. 20, etc. Doctrine of Reformers as to means of, ii. 22, etc. Views of Council of Trent as to means of, ii. 23, etc. Views of Romanists and Eeformers as to results of, ii. 28, etc. Views of Romanists and Reformers as to assurance of, ii. 30. Justification — Nature of, ii, 31, etc. Scripture meaning of the word, ii. 31, etc., 40. Eomanist positions as to Scripture meaning of the word, ii. 34, etc., 40. Scripture passages usually selected by Romanists in support of their mean ing of the word, ii. 36, etc. Imperfect views of Augustine as to nature of, ii. 41. Importance of right views as to nature of, ii. 42, etc. Views of Romanists and Reformers as to the righteousness which is the ground of, ii. 45, etc. Main reasons for asserting that the righteousness of Christ is the ground of, ii. 46, etc. Both forgiveness and favour of God included in, ii. 47, etc. A perfect righteousness the only pos sible ground of, ii. 48. Scripture evidence as to the righteous ness of Christ being the ground of, ii. 51, etc. The doctrine of, by faith alone, ii. 56, etc. Questions involved in the controversy about, by faith alone, IL 56-7. Nature of the faith which is the instru ment of, ii. 57, etc. The question whether, is by faith alone, ii. 61, etc. Exclusion of works from any co-ope ration with faith in, ii. 64, etc. Reconciliation of Paul and James in the question of, ii. 66, etc. Office of faith in the matter of, ii. 68, etc. Different views entertained as to the place and use of faith in, ii. 72, etc. In what sense faith is a condition of, ii. 74, etc. Free grace in, ii. 77, ete. Objections to the scriptural doctrine of, ii. 79, etc. Objection to the doctrine of, from its alleged immoral tendency, ii. 80, etc. Connection between, and sanctifica tion of a believer, ii. 82, etc. The doctrine of, by faith furnishes the strongest motives to holiness, ii. 86, etc. Influence of the doctrine of, by faith upon obedience, ii. 87, etc. Doctrine of Papists as to a flrst and second, ii. 103. Practical tendency of the Popish doc trine of, ii. Ill, etc. INDEX. 603 Justification — Principal charges brought against the Popish doctrine of, 11. 113, etc. The Popish system of, in connection with the tendencies of human na ture, ii. 115, etc. Justin Martyr — Notice of, i. 134. Importance of the works of, i. 134, etc. The genuineness and the character of the works of, i. 135, etc. Erroneous views of, i. 136-7. Account by, of the worship of the Christian church, i. 138. Quotation from, on the Lord's Supper, i. 139. King, Archbishop, ii. 447. Knapp, ii. 240. Knox, ii. 574. Lanfsanc, i. 414. Larroqub, i. Ill, 114, 249. Lateran — Fourth Council of, regarded by Eomanists as cecumenical, i. 467. Transubstantiation and confession formally sanctioned by the Fourth Council of, i. 467-8. Le Blanc, ii. 8, 9, 36, 39. Limborch, ii. 302, 308, 309, 361, 400, 469. Lombard — The Four Books of Sentences by, i. 413, 416. Character and objects of the writings of, i. 421-2. Testimony by, to Presbyterian prin ciples, i. 422-3, 432 y ii. 521. Luthee — Statement by, as to character of the Canon Law, i. 434. Distinctive work done by, at the time of the Eeformation, i. 542, etc. Views of, as to sinfulness of works done before regeneration, i. 545. 550, etc. Eash statements, and subsequent modifications of them, by, as to bondage of the will, i. 575. Views of, as to church government, ii. 518, etc. Views of, as to authority of civil magistrates about religion, ii. 567 M'Chie, Dr, i. 411. Magdeburgh Cbnturiatoes — Work on Church history by, i. 37. Views of, as to apostolic origin of Apostles' Creed, i. 81. Mastricht, ii. 76, 306, Melancthon — Statement by, as to improvement of Popish Church since commence ment of Eeformation, i. 478. Eash statements, and subsequent modification of them, by, as to bondage of the will, i. 573. Countenance given by, to the error of the Synergists, i. 618. Eash statement by, as to the connec tion between God's agency and man's sin, i. 628. Apprehensions entertained by, as to the power of the civil magistrate in connection with the church, ii. 567. Milner, i. 164. Ministry — Popish and Protestant views as to the church and the, i. 27, etc. Distinction between a regular and a valid, i. 31, etc. Apostolical succession in the, i. 32. Moehler — Mistake by, as to the doctrines for mally held to be binding by Romish Church, i. 485. MONTANISTS — Opinions and practice of the, i. 161, etc. Reproduction of the leading features of the system of the, in recent times, i. 162. Morellius, ii. 543, 544, 548, 570. MOENAEUS, i. 441. Mosheim — Assertion of, as to Scripture sense of word church, i. 20. Opinion of, as to Scripture sanction of church government, i. 77. Statement of, as to origin of Apostles' Creed, i. 80. Views of, as to integrity of Epistle of Clemens, i. 99. Description by, of the treatment of Scripture hy Manichseans and Gnostics, i. 131, etc., 143, 161, 224. Neander — Opinion of, as to integrity of Epistle of Clemens, i. 100. Opinion of, as to Epistles of Ignatius, i. 112-3, 116. Nestorian — Notice of the, controversy, i. 315, etc. Practical use to be made of a study of the, heresy, i. 319. Newman, Dr — Development theory of, i. 40, etc. Views of, as to Apostles' Creed, i. 80, 86, 88. Statement of, as to meaning of justi fication, ii. 34. 604 INDEX. Nice — Creed of the Council of, i. 279, etc. Image-worship established by the Second Council of, i. 360, 362-3, 369, 465. History and character of the Second Council of, i. 362, etc. Difficulties of Romanists arising out of the controversies connected with the Second Council of, i. 365-6. Condemnation of decisions of Second Council of, by Council of Frank fort, i. 366. Nicene Creed — Notice of the, i. 279. Arian positions condemned in the, i. 280, etc. Meaning of consubstantiality as pre dicated of the Father and Son in the, i. 281, 283. The language of the, an accurate ex pression of the scriptural doctrine, i. 284, etc. The propriety of making the doctrines of the, a test of orthodoxy, i. 286, etc., 290. Dislike of Arius and his followers to the language of the, i. 287, etc. Difference between the language of the, and that of Arians, i. 289, etc. Doctrine of the Eternal Sonship in the, i. 293, etc., 296. Doctrine of the procession of the Spirit in the, i. 305, etc. Novatian — Schism and opinions of, i. 165, etc. Owen, Dr — Statement by, as to the place and use of faith in justiflcation, ii. 72, etc. Origbn — Notice of, i. 154, etc. Erroneous opinions taught by, i. 154, etc. The theology of, akin to Pelagianism, i. 156, etc. Statement by, as to supremacy of Bishop of Rome, i. 223. Paley, ii. 151. Pallavicino, i. 490. Papists — Definition of church given by, i. 10, etc. Views of indefectibility and infalli bility of church as held by, i. 16-18. Doctrine of, as to notes of the church, i. 21, etc. Views of, as to the ministry and the church, i. 27, etc. "P A TTHTfl Views of, as to a regular ministry, i. 32. Views of, as to history of the church, i. 35, etc. Views of, as to Apostles' Creed, i. 85, etc. Professed deference of, to authority of the fathers, i. 196. Unfair methods employed by, in deal ing with the testimony of the fathers, i. 197, etc. Theory of development had recourse to by, in defence of their doctrines, i. 208-9. Complaints by, as to Protestant mis representation of Romish worship of saints and images, i. 367, etc. Attempts by, to evade the scriptural argument against image and saint worship, i. 377, etc. Fallacy of the arguments of, in sup port of the worship of saints, i. 379, etc. Fallacy of the arguments of, as to practical utility of images in reli gious service, i. 383. Allegation by, as to the unlikelihood of tlie church falling into idolatry, i. 386. Views of, as to relations of the civil and ecclesiastical powers, i. 402, etc., 407, etc. Claim put forth by, as to the unbroken maintenance of apostolical doctrine and practice in the Church of Rome, i. 439^1. Allegations of, as to perpetuity and visibility of the church, i. 446. Claims of, in opposition to those of the Greek Church, i. 447, etc. Leading positions held by, as to Wal denses and Albigenses, i. 453, etc. Views of, and Protestants as to the fall, i. 496. Views of, as to original righteousness, i. 518. Views of, as to corruption of man's nature, i. 529, etc. Doctrine of, as to non-sinfulness of concupiscence, i. 536, etc. Practical danger of the views of, as to fall, i. 540, etc. Views of, as to sinfulness of works done before regeneration, i. 549, etc. Charges by, against the Reformers, that they made God the author of sin, 1. 628, etc. Question between, and Reformers, under the head of justification, ii. 3, 4, 19-28. INDEX. 605 Papists— Views of, and Protestants as to doc trine of justification, ii. 10, etc. Views of, as to nature of justification, ii. 13, etc. Views of, as to ground or cause of justification, ii. 16, etc., 50, etc. Views of, as to means of justiflcation, ii. 23, etc. Views of, as to faith, ii. 27, etc. Views of, as to results of justification, ii. 28, etc. Views of, as to Scripture meaning of justification, ii. 34, etc., 40. Scripture passages adduced by, in sup port of their view as to meaning of justiflcation, ii. 36, etc. Doctrine of, as to sacrament of pen ance, ii. 92, etc. Controversial policy of, in arguing in support of their system, ii. 96. Doctrine of, as to penal inflictions on justified men, ii. 97, etc. Views of, as to temporal punishment of sin, ii. 99, etc. Doctrine of, as to good works, ii. 101, etc. Practical tendency and effect of the doctrine of, as to the sacraments, ii. 139, etc. Views of, as to church government, ii. 519. Paul, Father, i. 481, 489, 490, 492, 499, 533 ; ii. 519. Paul, of Samosata — Socinian doctrine as to nature of Christ promulgated by, about the middle of the third century, i. 275. Payne, Dr, i. 521, 522, 523, 524, 526. Pearson, Bishop — Defence of Epistles of Ignatius by, i. 110, etc., 114. Argument by, as to early church at Philippi in the Prelatic contro versy, i. 248. Pelagian — The church of first two centuries did not hold, views, i. 180, 325. Notice of the, controversy, i. 321, etc. Character and subjects of the, contro versy, i. 321, etc. Use and application of the word, i. 323. Historical statement as to the, con troversy, i. 324, etc. Founders and early history of the, heresy, i. 327, etc. Doctrines of the, system, i. 329, 333. Semi - Pelagianism an intermediate scheme between Augustinianism and the, system, i. 330. Pelagian — Views of the early advocates of the, system as to divine grace, i. 346-7. Irresistibility of divine grace denied by all advocates of the, system, i. 351, etc. Errors of the, system formally con demned, but practically prevalent, before the Reformation, i. 474-.5-9. Tendency of the scholastic theology to, error, i. 475-6. Prevalence of, errors before the Re formation, i. 476-9. Canons of the Council of Trent against, errors, i. 568, etc. Penance — Forgiveness of post - baptismal sin through sacrament of, ii. 91, etc. Doctrine of Eomanists as to absolu tion through sacrament of, ii. 92, etc. Persecution in Eeligion — Erroneous views of the Reformers on the question of, ii. 561, etc. Beza's defence of, ii. 564. Views of Grotius in favour of, ii. 565. Perseverance op Saints — Doctrine of the, i. 355, etc.; ii. 490, etc. Views of Augustine on the doctrine of the, i. 356, etc. ; ii. 490. Views of Arminius and the early Arminians on the doctrine of the, i. 358 ; ii. 384, etc., 490, etc. Doctrine of the Westminster Confes sion as to the, ii. 491, 501. Views of some Lutheran divines as to the, ii. 492. Arminian objections to Calvinism in connection with the doctrine of the, ii. 494, etc. Scripture evidence for the, ii. 497, etc. Pbtavius — Opinion of, as to testimony of the early church on Trinity, i. 269. PiGHius, i. 572. Polycarp — Notice of, i. 105. Epistle to the church at Philippi by, i. 105, etc. Part taken by, in the controversy about the celebration of Easter, i. 143, etc. Epistle by, in its bearing upon the Prelatic controversy, i. 247, etc. Statement by Irenseus in relation to appointment of Bishop of Smyrna, i. 255. Pope — Supremacy of the, not sanctioned by 606 INDEX. Pope — opinions of the early church, i. 207, etc. Differences in opinion among Ro manists as to supremacy of the, i. 211, etc. The Council of Florence on the su premacy of the, i. 212, 469. Statement by Bellarmine as to the supremacy of the, i. 212-3. Grounds on which the claim to supre macy by the, is based, i. 213, etc. No foundation in Scripture for the doctrine of the supremacy of the, i. 214, etc. Argument of Bellarmine in favour of supremacy of the, and defects in it, i. 216, etc., 221, etc. Testimony of the early church in the question of the supremacy of the, i. 221, etc., 225. Difficulties of the defenders of the in- falUbility of the, in connection with early history of the Pelagian con troversy, i. 328. Explanations by Bossuet as to supre macy of the, asserted by Council of Florence, i. 470. POPBEY — Importance to, of the theory adopted as to church history, i. 38. Church history to a large extent the history of, i. 41. The great mass of the doctrines and practice of, has no warrant from early church, i. 207, etc. What is, and what is not, to be re garded as, i. 228, etc. Claims on behalf of, to an unbroken apostolical succession, i. 439-41. Leading positions held by Protestants in opposition to the claims of, to an unbroken apostolical succession, i. 442, etc. Statement by Field as to the late intro duction of the corruptions of, i. 444. Predestination — State of the question in the contro versy as to, ii. 430, etc. No more than two alternatives, the Calvinistic or the Arminian, in the controversy as to, ii. 431. Difference between the Arminian and the Socinian -views as to, ii. 43-4. Difference between the supralapsa rlans and the sublapsarlans as to, ii. 435. Real points in dispute in the contro versy as to, ii. 436-8. Connection between the doctrine of, and that of the fall, ii. 439, etc. Predestination — Connection between doctrine of, and that of the omniscience of God, ii. 441, etc. Arminian distinction between fore knowledge and fore-ordination in the controversy as to, ii. 444. Arminip,n tendency to deny or explain away the omniscience of God in connection with the controversy as to, ii. 446, etc. Arminian attempt to answer the argu ments for, by alleging that our knowledge of God is analogical, ii. 447, etc. Connectibn between the doctrine of,- and the sovereignty of God, ii. 449. Distinctions as to the will of God in the question of, ii. 451, etc. Arminian view of the will of God in the question of, ii. 454, etc. Scripture evidence for, ii. 459, etc. Scripture language proving, ii. 462, etc. Positions necessary to be established in discussing the Scripture evidence for, ii. 463-4, etc. Nintli chapter of Romans in connec tion -with Scripture evidence for, ii. 467, etc. Objections against, ii. 472, etc. Arminian objections against, derived from Scripture, not more than in ferential, ii. 473, etc. Irrelevant objections against, ii. 476, etc. Objections against, founded on mis statements of Calvinistic principles, ii. 477-8. Objections against, because of its alleged inconsistency with charac ter of God and responsibility of man, ii. 478, etc. Arminian objections against, not suf ficient to disprove it, ii. 479, etc. Arminian objections against, directed equally against the doings as the decrees of God, ii. 482, etc. Arminian objections against, cannot prove it to be inconsistent with per fections of God or responsibilities of man, ii. 484, etc. Arminian objections against, involve no difficulties peculiar to the Cal vinistic system, ii. 487, etc. Prelacy — Origin and character of, i. 227, etc., 230, etc. State of the question in the contro versy as to, i. 232, etc., 234, etc., 239. The onus probandi in the controversy as to, i. 237, 244. INDEX. 607 Prelacy — Views of Usher and others on, i. 238. Admission made by Episcopalians of the absence of scriptural evidence for, i. 239. Irrelevancy of some of the arguments urged in favour of, i. 240. Examination of the leading arguments in favour of, i. 240, etc. Argument from antiquity in favour of, i. 244. Case of the early church of Corinth in its bearing on the argument as to, i. 245, etc. Case of the early church of Philippi in its bearing on the controversy as to, i. 247, etc. The bearing of the Letters of Ignatius on the argument as to, i. 248, etc. The distinction between bishops and presbyters in the system of, had no existence before the- middle of se cond century, i. 250-1. Misrepresentation by advocates of, as to its early existence in chnrch, i. 251-2. Testimony of Cyprian in relation to, i. 252, etc. Argument in support of, from the early mention and catalogues of in dividuals as local bishops, i. 254, etc. Substance of the historical facts as to early existence of, i. 256, etc. Explanation of the origin and pro gress of, in the church, i. 258, etc., 262, etc. Unfair practice of Episcopalians in arguing as to early prevalence of, i. 259, etc. Fallacy of reasoning by Chillingworth founded on early growth of, i. 261, etc. Attempts by defenders of, to account for the scriptural identity of bishop and presbyter, i. 263, etc. Charges to be brought against the system of, i. 264, etc. Presbyterianism — Scriptural form of church government was substantially, i. 74, etc. Testimony in writings of Peter Lom bard to, i. 422-3, 432. Testimonies in the Canon Law to, i. 432, etc. Doctrine of, as to church government, ii. 514. Testimony of the Eeformers as to, ii. 525, etc. Differences between Independency and, ii. 546, etc. Presbyterianism — Positions maintained by the adherents of, against Independency, ii. 550, etc. Presbyterians — Views of, as to Council of Jerusalem, i. 44, etc. Difference as to government of the church between Independents and, i. 53. Views of, as to standing of church officers and members in the govern ment of church, i. 56, etc. Views of, as to subordination of church courts, i. 59, etc. Views of, as to relations of civil and ecclesiastical authorities, i. 395,406. Views of, as to church government, ii. 514, etc. Priestley, ii. 189. Protestants — Definition of church given by, i. 10, etc. Indefectibilitv of church as held by, i. 16-18. Notes of the church as explained by, i. 23, etc. Views of, as to the church and the ministry, i. 27, etc. Views of, as to history of the church, i. 35, etc. Leading positions held by, in opposi tion to the claims of Popery to an unbroken apostolical succession, i. 442, etc., 446, 450. Views of some, as to uninterrupted existence of a visible church, i. 451, etc. Opinions of, as to original righteous ness, i. 519, etc. Views of, as to corruption of man's nature, i. 529, etc. Views of, as to good works, ii. 104, etc. Quakers, ii. 129. QUBSNEL, i. 577. Racovian Catechism, ii. 177-8, 180, 184. Repormation — The church at the era of the, i. 459, etc. State of doctrine at the time of the, i. 463, etc. Doctrinal errors formally sanctioned by the church before the, i. 464, etc. Doctrinal errors not formally sanc tioned, but generally taught, by the church before the, i. 473, etc. Prevalence of Pelagian error at the time of the, i. 476-9. Reformers — Views of, as to the church and the ministry, i. 27, etc. 608 INDEX. Reformp.rs — Distinction between a regular and a valid ministry as held by, i. 31, etc. Views of, as to an apostolical succes sion in ministry, i. 32. Positions maintained by, as to original sin, i. 543-4. Doctrine taught by, as to sinfulness of works done after regeneration, i. 558. Views of the, on the will, i. 570, etc., 577, etc. Doctrine of the, as to the passivity of the will in regeneration, i. .616. Doctrine of the, as to the will after regeneration, i. 623. Defence by the, against the charge of making God the author of sin, i. 630, etc. Question between the, and the Ro manists under the head of justifica tion, ii. 3^, 10-20. Doctrine of the, on the nature of j us- tification, ii. 12, etc. Doctrine of, on the means of justifica tion, ii. 22, etc. Doctrine of, as to results of justifi cation, ii. 28, etc. Testimony of, as to the question of church government, ii. 525, etc. Unfounded allegations of Prelatists as to opinion of, on the subject of church government, ii. 529. Views of, as to popular election of office-bearers in the church, ii. 538, etc. Views of the, in connection with the Erastian system, ii. 558, etc. Regeneration — Popish doctrine as to, by baptism, i. 540. Sinfulness of works done before, i. 542, etc. Council of Trent on sinfulness of works done before, i. 545. Statement by Luther as to sinfulness of works done before, i. 545, etc. Doctrine taught by Church of England as to sinfulness of works done before, i. 546. Doctrine of Westminster Confession as to sinfulness of works done before, i. 547. Scripture doctrine as to sinfulness of works done before, i. 548, etc. Views of Romanists, as to sinfulness of works done before, i. 549, etc. Views of Calvin and Luther as to sin fulness of works done before, i. 550, etc. Statements by Dr Chalmers as to Regeneration — sinfulness of works done before, i. 553. Sinfulness of works done after, i. 554, etc. The Council of Trent on sinfulness of works done after, i. 555. Romish misrepresentations of the Pro testant doctrine of sinfulness of works done after, i. 556, etc. Positions maintained by Reformers as to sinfulness of works done after, i. 558. Scripture teaching as to sinfulness of works done after, i. 559. Arguments of Bellarmine on Scripture statements as to sinfulness of works done after, i. 560, etc. Scripture evidence as to sinfulness of works done after, i. 561, etc. The will in, i. 613, etc., 620, etc., 621 ; ii. 411. The doctrine of baptismal, ii. 133, etc. Scripture evidence as to baptismal, ii. 135. Divine grace in, not inconsistent with the nature of the human wiU, ii. 414, etc. Righteousness — Doctrine of original, i. 516, etc. Views of Eomanists as to original, i. 517, etc. Decree of Council of Trent as to original, i. 518. Views of Protestants as to original, i. 519, etc. Infused or imputed, the question be tween Romanists and Protestants, ii. 19, etc., 46. Imputation of the, of Christ, ii. 45, etc. Views of Reformers and Romanists as to imputation of, as a ground of justification, ii. 45, etc., 50, etc. Passive and active, ii. 45-6, 54, etc. Main reasons for asserting that the ground of justification is the, of Christ imputed, ii. 46, etc. A perfect, the only possible ground of justification, ii. 47-8. Scripture evidence as to the, of Christ being the ground of justification, ii. 51, etc. The, of Christ not fictitious, but a reality, ii. 55. Faith the instrument of receiving the, of Christ, ii. 70, etc. Rivet, ii. 380. RUPPINUS — Statement of, as to Apostles' Creed, i. 82. Rule, i. 165. INDEX. 609 Sabbelianism — Doctrine of, i. 272, etc. Principles of, never professed except by individuals, either in the early or later church, i. 272, etc. Sacramental — The, prinpiple, ii. 121, etc. The, doctrine of, grace, ii. 121, etc. The contrast between the Jewish and Christian dispensation in its bearing upon the doctrine of, grace, ii, 129. Sacraments — Doctrine and practice of the early church as to the, i. 201, etc. First step in the progress of error in the early church as to the, i. 203. Doctrine of the, as corrupted by the Council of Trent, i. 482 ; ii. 122, etc. Doctrine of the Tractarians as to the, ii. 123, etc., 131, etc. Views of Papists and Protestants as to the, ii. 124, etc., 131, etc., 134. Adult participation in the, the case usually contemplated in speaking of them, ii. 125, etc., 144. Description by Westminster Confes sion of the, ii. 127, 135. Information given in Scripture as to the, ii. 130, etc. The necessity of the, ii. 131-2. Doctrine of the opus operatum in the, ii. 134, 138. Practical tendency and effect of the Eomish doctrine of the, ii. 139, etc. Sage, i. 165. Saints — Worship of, i. 359, etc. Doctrine of the Council of Trent on worship of, i. 361, etc. Alleged misrepresentations by Pro testants of the Eomish worship of, i. 367. Alleged distinctions between heathen idolatry and the Popish worship of, i. 371, etc. Scriptural principles as to religious worship opposed to worship of, i. 375, etc. Attempts by Eomanists to evade the scriptural argument against the worship of, i. 377, etc. Fallacy of the arguments of Eomanists in support of the worship of, i. 379, etc. Facts necessary to the full under standing of the doctrine and practice of Popery in connection with the worship of images and, i. 385. Salmasius, i. 249, 251, 252. Satisfaction — Human, for sin, ii. 93, etc. 3 — VOL. II. Scholastic Theology— Account of the, i. 413, etc. Origin and history of the, i. 13-4. Leading defects of the, i. 414, etc. Uses of the study of the, 1. 417, etc. Authors of the, adduced as witnesses against Popery, i. 419-21. Lombard's Book of Sentences the foun dation and text-book of the, i. 421. Influence of Thomas Aquinas on, i. 423. Bampton Lectures of Dr Hampden on the, i. 424-5. Tendency of the, to Pelagian errors, i. 475, etc. ScoTus, i. 414. Scripture — Rule for church power is the, i. 47, etc. Use of a knowledge of the heresies of the early church in the elucidation of, i. 124, etc. Methods used both in ancient and modern times for setting aside the authority of the, i. 131. Authority of the fathers in relation to the interpretation of the, i. 172, etc. Views of the early church as to suffi ciency of, i. 184, etc. Socinian views as to, ii. 160, etc. Socinian principles of interpretation for, ii. 163, etc. Socinian method of dealing with, ii. 164, etc. Sherlock, ii. 202. Sin— God's providence and man's, i. 625, etc. The question of the cause or origin of, i. 625, etc. God's agency in connection with, i. 626, etc., 630, etc. Charges brought by Eomanists against the Reformers that they made God the author of, i. 628, etc. Defence by the Reformers against the charge of making God the author of, i. 630. Permission of, not the whole of the connection of God with it, i. 632, etc. Calvin's statement as to God's per mission of, i. 632-3. Statement by the Westminster Con fession as to the agency of God in connection with, i. 633. Scripture statements as to agency of God in connection with, i. 635. Forgiveness of post- baptismal, ii. 90, etc. ' Forgiveness of post-baptismal, through sacrament of penance, ii. 91, etc. 2 Q 610 INDEX. Sin— Human satisfaction for, ii. 93, etc.. 100, etc. Sufferings of justified men not penal inflictions for, ii. 97, etc. Views of Papists as to temporal pun ishment of, ii. 99, 102. ^ Connection between death of Christ and forgiveness of, ii. 244, etc., 281 Necessity of an atonement in order to the forgiveness of, ii. 249, etc. Aspect in which, is to be regarded in the question of the possibility of pardoning it, ii. 259. Indispensable condition of any provi sion made for the pardon of, ii. 264, etc. Perfections of God do not necessarily lead to the pardon of, ii. 268. The fall of angels an evidence that God does not indiscriminately par don, ii. 268. Full provision made in the atonement for the glory of God when pardon ing, ii. 269. Three leading views as to whether or not Christ suffered the penalty of, ii. 305, etc. Sin, Original — Doctrine of, i. 333, etc. Error as to, formally sanctioned by Council of Trent, i. 480, 519. Meaning of the phrase, i. 496. Popish and Protestant views of the doctrine of, i. 496, etc. Views of Dr Payne as to, i. 521, etc. Similarity between Dr Payne's views and those of Romanists as to, i. 523, etc., 526. Insufficiency of Dr Payne's views as an explanation of, i. 525. General view suggested to answer ob jections to doctrine of, i. 527. Positions maintained by the Reformers as to, i. 543-4. The question of, in connection with the flve points of the Arminian system, ii. 386, etc. Views of Arminians as to, ii. 388, etc. Common Arminian method of dis cussing the subject of, and divine grace, ii. 390. Smith, Dr Pye, ii. 216, 291. Socinian — The doctrine not professed by the early church, i. 274. Individuals who first avowed, princi ples, i. 273. The, controversy, ii. 155, etc. Origin of the, system, ii. 156, etc. The, views as to Scripture, ii. 160, etc. Socinian — The, principles of Scripture interpre tation, ii. 163, etc. The, method of dealing with Scripture, ii. 164, etc. The, system of theology, ii. 168, etc. The, theology not negative but posi tive, ii. 169. The comprehensive nature of the, system, ii. 170, etc. The, view of the divine goodness, ii. 172. The, view of the divine omniscience, ii. 173. The, view of the fall and man's moral character, ii. 175, etc. The, view of Christ and His work, ii. 176, etc. The, view of moral duty, ii. 179, etc. The, view as to eschatology, ii. 181. The, view as to the church, ii. 182. Reflection suggested by the, system of theology, ii. 183, etc. The, system natural to fallen man, ii. 185, etc. The original and more recent, systems, ii. 188, etc. Character of the modern, theology, ii. 191, etc. Usual, method of dealing with the evidence for the divinity of Christ, ii. 219, etc. Considerations fitted to meet the, method of dealing with the evidence for divinity of Christ, ii. 222, etc. The, view of Christ as merely a pro phet, ii. 242. The, denial of the necessity of atone ment, ii. 251, etc. The, view of the atonement, ii. 293, etc. The, system in relation to Arminianism and Calvinism, ii. 501. Remarks suggested by a review of the Calvinistic, Arminian, and, systems, ii. 502, etc. Socinus, Faustus, ii. 157, 188, 248. Socinus, L.a;Lius, ii. 157, 158. Sonship, Eternal — Doctrine of the, i. 293, etc., 296. Assertion of the doctrine of the, in Nicene Creed, i. 295. Motives that have led some to reject the doctrine of the, i. 297. The objections to the doctrine of the, and the fallacy of them, i. 299, etc. Idea of filiation derived from the truth of the, i. 301. Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of, i. 302, etc. INDEX. 611 Spirit — Doctrine of the procession of the, i. 305, etc. Staffer, ii. 377. Stuaet, Moses, i. 298, 302. SuMNBE, ii. 466. SUPPEE — Doctrine of the early church as to the Lord's, i. 205. Popfsh view of the Lord's, ii. 142, etc. Tayloe, Isaac, i. 41, 130, 359. ' Tektullian — Notice of, i. 158, etc. General character of the system of doctrine taught by, i. 1 59. Erroneous views held by, i. 160. Adherence of, to the sect of the Mon- tanists, i. 161. Theodotds — Socinian views of the nature of Christ, first taught by, i. 275. Tholuck, ii. 201. Tillotson — Character given by, of the Second Council of Nice, i. 362. Teadition — Views of the early church as to, i. 186, etc. Authority of, put on a level with Scrip ture by Council of Trent, i. 480. Transubstantiation — Opinions of the early church as to, i. 205, etc. Fourth Council of Lateran formally sanctioned the doctrine of, i. 467. Trbffry, i. 302, 303. Trent, Council op — Canons of the, on the subject of Pre lacy, i. 231. Decision of, on the worship of saints and images, i. 361, etc., 368, 380, 465. Confession sanctioned by, i. 467-8. Transubstantiation confirmed by, i. 468. Supremacy of the Pope as taught by, i. 469. Objects aimed at in the, i. 478. Doctrinal errors previously prevalent but not formally sanctioned by the church, officially affirmed by, i. 479, etc. Tradition and ecclesiastical authority sanctioned by decision of, i. 480. Error as to original sin formally as serted by, i. 480. Doctrine of justification, as misrepre sented by, i. 480-1. Doctrine of the sacraments as cor rupted by, i. 482 ; ii. 122. Notice of the, i. 483, etc. Trent, Council op — Authority of the, in the Romish Church, i. 484, etc. Other authorities than the, binding in Romish Church, i. 485, etc. ¦ Title assumed to itself by the, i. 486. Number of members attending, 1. 487. Character of the, i. 488, etc. Statements by Hallam as to the, i. 489. Position generally taken up by Pro testants as to the character and- authority of, i. 491. Account by Father Paul of the dis cussions in, i. 492. General objects aimed at by the, 1. 493. Character of the decrees and canons of the, i. 494. Decree of the, as to the fall, i. 498, etc., 503, 505, 531. Decree of the, as to original right eousness, i. 518. Decree of the, as to concupiscence, i. 532. Doctrine of the, as to sinfulness of works done before regeneration, i. 545. Doctrine of the, as to sinfulness of works done after regeneration, i. 555. Canons of the, against the Pelagians, i. 568, etc. Doctrine of the, as to the freedom of the will, i. 571, etc. Doctrine of the, as to the will in re generation, i. 615. Modification by, of the erroneous doc trine previously held by Church of Rome on justification, ii. 6, etc. Doctrine of, on subject of justifica tion, ii. 13, etc. Doctrine of, as to regeneration being included in justification, ii. 14-16, etc. Doctrine of, as to ground or cause of justification, ii. 16, etc. Views of, as to means of justification, ii. 23, etc. Views of, as to results of justification, ii. 29. Views of, as to assurance of justifica tion, ii. 30. Views of, as to church government, ii. 519, etc. Trinity — Influence of Gnosticism on the views of the early church as to the, i. 129. The doctrine of the, i. 267, etc. Testimony of the early church on the, i. 267, etc. Importance of the views of the early church on the, i. 260, etc. Influences affecting the beliefs of par- 612 INDEX. Trinity — ties as to doctrine of the early church on the, i. 269, etc. Views of different parties as to the opinions of the early church con cerning the, i. 269. Position taken by opponents of the, as to the testimony of the early church on the subject of the, i. 272, etc. Sabellianism not the view of the early church on the subject of the, i. 273, etc. The Socinian heresy as to the, has no support in the opinions of the early church, i. 274, etc. Bishop Bull's attempts to explain the opinions of the early church on, i. 277, etc. Assertion of the doctrine of the, in the Nicene Creed, i. 280, etc. The language of the Nicene Creed an accurate expression of the doctrine of the, i. 284, etc. The propriety of making the doctrine of the, as embodied in the Nicene Creed, a test of orthodoxy, i. 286, etc. Distinction of persons asserted in the doctrine of the, i. 293, etc. ; ii. 192. Status qucestionis, in the controversy as to the, ii. 194. Meaning of the word person as ap plied to the distinctions asserted in the doctrine of the, ii. 195-198, etc., 206, 210. Scriptural positions as to the, to be alike and equally held and ex pressed, ii. 197, etc. Nature of distinctions asserted in the doctrine of the, not to be defined, but not to be rejected, ii. 199. Statement of Westminster Confession as to, ii. 200. Doctrine of, does not legitimately lead to Tritheism or Sabellianism, ii. 200, ' etc. The doctrine of a, and Unity, ii. 203. Alleged contradiction in the doctrine of the, ii. 204, etc. Principles of reasoning to be applied to the discussion of the doctrine of the, ii. 205. The doctrine of, not self-contradictory, and not inconsistent with unity in the Godhead, ii. 206, etc., 210, etc. Danger of unwarranted explanations as to doctrine of the', ii. 207, etc. Scripture evidence bearing on the doctrine of the, in general, ii. 215, etc. Turretine, i. 419, 519, 573, 591, 605, 610 ; ii. 7, 20, 55, 71, 74, 306, 341, 363, 435, 500, 537. Twisse, Dr, i. 510 ; ii. 435. UsHEE, Archbishop — Views of, on Prelacy, i. 238. Valla, Laueentius — View of, as to Apostles' Creed, i. 85. •Victor (Bishop of Rome) — Part taken by, in the controversy about the celebration of Easter, i. 144, etc. VOLUNTAEYISM — The system of, i. 390, etc. Insufficiency of the arguments used in support of the theory of, i. 392-3. Inaccurate use of the word, ii. 560. Vossius, i. 110, 118. Waddington, i. 193, 245. Wake, i. 116, 245; ii. 4. Waldenses— Notice of the, i. 450, etc. Opposite views of Papists and Protes tants as to a visible church in their application to the Albigenses and, i. 451, etc. Positions maintained by Papists as to Albigenses and, i. 453, etc. Waldo, i. 453, 456. Wallis, Dr, ii. 202. Waedlaw, Dr, ii, 358, 364, 365. Wegscheidee, i. 506 ; ii. 463. Wesley, i. 358 ; ii. 375, 388, 478. Westminstee Confession of Faith — Definition of church given by, i. 12. Definition of visible chvuch given by, i. 18. Doctrine of, as to the gift of the ministry, etc., to the visible chnrch, i. 27. Doctrine of, as to authority of coun cils, i. 53 ; ii. 383. Doctrine of, as to what in the worship and government of the church is to be ordered by light of nature, i. 68, 72. Statement by, as to Trinity, i. 294, 295; ii. 200. Statement by, as to the person of Christ, i. 311, 313, 314, 317. Statement by, as to liberty of will, i. 325, 572, 578. Doctrine of, as to extent of human depravity, i. 343. View of, as to bondage of the wUl, i. 344-5, 586, 608. Statement by, as to civil magistrate and religion, i. 410, 411, 436. Doctrine of, as to concupiscence, i 532 INDEX. 613 Westminster Confession of Faith — Doctrine of, as to sinfulness of works done before regeneration, i. 547. •Doctrine of the, as to the will in re generation, i. 617. Doctrine of the, as to the will after regeneration, i. 623-4. Statement by, as to agency of God in connection with sin, i. 633. Statements by, on subject of justifica tion, ii. 9, 22, 360. Statement by, as to faith as the instru ment of justification, ii. 74. Statement by, as to the free grace manifested in justification, ii. 78. Statement by, as to the obligation of the law on helievers, ii. 88. Doctrine of, as to good works, ii. 105. Description by, of the sacraments, ii. 127, 135. Description by, of baptism, ii. 128, 135. Doctrine of, as to infant baptism, ii. 147. Statement by, as to atonement of Christ, ii. 247, 276, 335. Doctrine of, as to the connection be tween the purchase and the appli cation of redemption, ii. 318. Doctrine of, as to the connection between reconciliation and all the blessings of salvation, ii. 321. View of the, as to the extent of the atonement, ii. 326-7, 329. Doctrine of, as to the law of God, ii. 360. Statement by, as to the operations of the Spirit on the non-elect, ii. 409. Statement by, as to the divine grace in effectual calling, ii. 409. Statements by, as to the decrees of God, ii. 421, etc., 449. * Views of, as to perseverance of the saints, ii. 491, 501. Statement by, as to the government established by Christ in the church, ii. 585. Whately, ii. 447, 448, 449, 465, 466, 485. WhitbP, ii. 478. Will— Erroneous views of the doctrines of grace first originated in connection with the quesuon of the freedom of the human, i. 181. Statement by Westminster Confession as to liberty of the, i. 324. Connection between doctrine of de pravity and that of free, i. 344. View of Westminster Confession on the bondage of the, i. 344-5. Will— Teaching of Scripture as to bondage of the, i. 345. The doctrine of the, i. 568, etc. Views of the Reformers on the subject of the, i. 570, etc., 575. Doctrine of the Council of Trent as to the freedom of the, i. 571, etc., 575, etc. Doctrine of the Westminster Confes sion as to the freedom of the, i. 572, 576; ii. 414. Views of Calvin on the freedom of the, i. 574. Statement by Bellarmine as to the freedom of the,'i. 577. The, before and after the fall, i. 577, etc., 582, etc. Fore-ordination and the, i. 579, etc. Philosophical necessity and the, i. 583, etc. The bondage of the, i. 586, etc. Scriptural view of the bondage of the, i. 587, etc. Objections to the doctrine of the bon dage of the, i. 588, etc. Argument against the doctrine of the bondage of the, from the commands and exhortations addressed to men, i. 590, etc. Argument against the doctrine of the bondage of the, from man's respon sibility, i. 596, etc. State of the question in the argument against the bondage of the, drawn from man's responsibility, i. 599, etc. Distinction between natural and moral inability in connection with the doc trine of the bondage of the, i. 600, etc. Insufficiency of the distinction between natural and moral inability to ex plain the whole difficulty connected with the doctrine of the bondage of the, i. 602, ete. General considerations bearing on the explanation of the difficulty con nected with the doctrine of the bon dage of the, i. 606, etc. Special considerations tending to ex plain the difficulty connected with the doctrine of the bondage of the, i. 608, etc. Man's responsibility for his inability of, i. 610, etc. The, in regeneration, i. 613, etc. Doctrine of the Council of Trent as to the co-operation of the, in regener ation, i. 615. Doctrine of the Reformers as to the 614 INDEX. Will— passivity of the, in regeneration, i. 616, etc., 620. Synergistic controversy as to the, in regeneration, i. 618, etc. Renovation of the, the great work in regeneration, i. 621 ; ii. 411. . Doctrine of the Reformers as to the, after regeneration, i. 623, etc. Divine grace in effectual calling and regeneration not inconsistent with the nature of the human, ii. 414, etc., 458. Distinctions as to the, of God in con nection with the question of pre destination, ii. 451, etc. Arminian views as to the, of God in connection with the question of pre destination, ii, 454, etc. Witnesses for the Truth — Notice of, during the middle ages, i. 439, etc., 449, 450, etc. Witnesses for the Truth-^ Views as some Protestants as to a succession of, i. 452, etc. Witsius, ii. 352. Works — Merit of good, ii. 101, etc. Doctrines of Papists and Protestants as to good, ii. 101, etc. Doctrine of the merit of good, in vented by schoolmen, ii. 103, etc. Nature of good, ii. 104, etc. Scripture statements as to good, ii. 107, etc. Statement by Bellarmine as to the trust to be placed in good, ii. 109. Views of Papists as to, of supereroga tion, ii. 110. Zanchius, ii. 159. j:nd of vol. II. MUKEAY AND GIBB, PKlN'rEKS, EDINBURGH. Now Complete, in Six Volumes, Demy Octavo (Subscription Price), 35s. THE LIFE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST: A COMPLETE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OP THE ORIGIN, CONTENTS, AND CONNECTION OF THE GOSPELS. Translated from the German of J. P. Lange, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Bonn. And Edited, with Additional Notes, by the Rev. Maecus Does, A.M. The object of this comprehensive and masterly work is at once to refute the views of the Life of our Lord which have been propagated by negative criti cism, and to substitute that consistent history, -which a truly scientific, en lightened, and incontrovertible criticism educes from the Gospels. The work is divided into three Books. The First Book is introductory. In this the Author explodes the philosophical fallacies on which the negative criticism rests, and exposes its unsound and inconsistent principles of criti cism, establishing, in opposition, the fundamental ideas of the Gospel History (especially that of an individual incarnation), and delivering the principles and method of a trustworthy criticism. The sources of the Life of Jesus are then also discussed, and the authenticity and credibility of the Gospels are vindicated, their origin unfolded, their unity exhibited, and their peculiarities illustrated with greater detail, and in a more interesting manner, than has elsewhere been done. The Second Book, which is the bulk of the work, presents a detailed his tory of the Life of Jesus, drawn from the Gospels by a minute critical exa mination. This is given in what is technically called a pragmatical narra tive ; that is to say, it is so narrated that it is explained ; every character introduced is rendered distinct and intelligible ; every word and action ap pears in connection with its motive and meaning, and the whole is set in a framework of careful, historical, chronological, and topographical research. It thus forms virtually a pregnant commentary on the Gospels, while the reader is not interrupted by discussions of controverted points, nor by verbal criticism. All this is relegated to the notes which accompany each section, and which further confirm, or show the grounds of those views which are stated in the text. EDINBUKGH: T. & T. CLAEK. LONDON: HAMILTON & CO. LANGE'S LIFE OF OUR LORD JESUS, l ,«-i WhUe the Second Book presents the Life of Jesus in that unity which is formed by the four accounts taken together, the Third Book gives us that same life in its four different aspects, according to the four different Evan gelists. In the Second Book one representation is given, formed from the four narratives : in the Third, these four representations are separately given in their individual integrity.^ This is not the least instructive portion of the work, bringing out, as it does very distinctly, the fine arrangement of each Gospel, and the propriety and harmony of its various material. " An eloquent and thoughtful work." — Bishop Ellicott. . " So few clergymen can afford, in any sense, a large library of books on the New Testament, that we are thankful that such a work as this has been given to them ; a work which says nearly everything sayable, as yet, on the great features of the evan geUcal story. Take Lange with Bengel, and the student is fairly equipped for his pulpit work, on this part of the New Testament." — Literary Churchman. " The publication of this able and learned work, at the present time, is opportune ; for it supplies an effective antidote to the negative theology of our day, and especially to the insidious performance of Eenan. We commend it to our readers as worthy of their serious and earnest attention." — Watchman. " We hail the appearance of this most valuable work in an English dress, and -without hesitation present it to our readers as the most useful contribution which this or any other publishing firm has made to the orthodox side of the great religious controversy which is now agitating the world. We say useful, for there have appeared lately the translations of works as learned, and much more severely and formally critical ; but in this there is such a happy blending of the erudite and practical — of criticism, argument, and narrative, as -will secure for it, we think, a popularity which others have not yet attained. Possessing the requisite learning, a fine critical faculty, an imagination , lively, but under control, a supreme reverence for and a firm grasp of evangelical truth, and the true philosophical spirit, few writers have been more competent to deal with the life of our Lord than Dr Lange, while none have produced a work upon it so com pletely answerable to the special wants of our day. Those who make his acquaintance for the flrst time through these volumes, cannot fail to be struck with the new, and, in some cases, beautiful light which' he throws upon incidents, and espressions, and characters, and which indicates, not only thoughtful study and accurate learning, but genius of no common order. These are not the pages of a learned Dry-as-dust, or antiquarian SmeUf ungus, but of one whose soul is in sympathy with the high matters that occupy his pen, and especially with Him whose life and mission he portrays, and whose character he vindicates ; nor are they the work of one whose object is to educe from the Gospel narratives such a picture or history as enlightened criticism approves and demands. *We cannot now dwell upon the peculiarities of Dr Lange.'s esteemed work : it is enough that our opinion of it is in the highest degree favourable, and that we should deem it a happy thing if these remarks should secure for it a place on the shelves of our intelligent readers." — English Presbyterian Magazine "We rejoice, therefore, in this admirable and handsomely printed English translation, and commend it, with peculiar pleasure, to all who desire to make thorough mvestiga- tion of the most momentous subjects in the whole realm of theology. It is no mere commonplace to say, that the six volumes ought at once to be added to every English theological library." — Freeman. " Dr Lange's prelections will please and interest the general reader by their freshness and ability. To the clergy and others who are looked to as the guide of thought and opinion on the most solemn and important of all questions, this work will be especially a help, even when they feel bound to differ fi-om some of the conclusions to which he has come." — Scottish Guardian. " Sufiioe for the present to say that, apart from its elaborate and rather transcendental preliminary matter, it is a thorough introduction to the Gospels, and commentary upon them. The value of the work will be found in its rich, flowing, original, and sugges tive exposition." — London Quarterly Review. " It has no companion or rival, as we said in its own peculiar walk. It is a feast of fat things. It is a glass in which to see the glory and beauty of the King Emmanuel ; and every other gloryaud beauty is minor to this as the stars are to the sun."— i)at7y Review. EDINBUKiGH: T. & T. CLAEK. LONDON: HAMILTON & CO. '•4 i:*riS! J.' i«»l